Southern California -- this just in

« Previous Post | L.A. NOW Home | Next Post »

Prop. 8: Schwarzenegger says he'll carry out court's ruling; San Francisco crowd disappointed [Updated]

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said this morning that he would carry out the Supreme Court's ruling backing Proposition 8 but that he believes gay couples should have the right to marry and would obtain it someday through an initiative or the courts.

"He voted no on Prop. 8. He supports the idea of giving same-sex couples the right to marry. I think he was hoping it would go the other way," said spokesman Aaron McLear.

Updated at 2:11 p.m.: In a statement, the governor added: “While I believe that one day either the people or courts will recognize gay marriage, as governor of California I will uphold the decision of the California Supreme Court. Regarding the 18,000 marriages that took place prior to Proposition 8’s passage, the court made the right decision in keeping them intact.” Schwarzenegger also encouraged those protesting the decision to do so peacefully.

Meanwhile, reaction in San Francisco was marked by disappointment. Shortly after 10 a.m., a chorus of boos went up from the crowd outside the California Supreme Court, as news of the decision spread. Whistles blew and the crowd chanted "Shame on you! Shame on you!"

Jeanne Rizzo, one of the plaintiffs, was in the crowd with her partner Pali Cooper.

"It's unconscionable," Rizzo said. "They had the opportunity to be courageous and stand up behind their original ruling. They failed to do that. There's no joy at being one of the 18,000."

Rizzo is "62 and tired" and Cooper is 54. They live in Marin County.

-- Michael Rothfeld in Sacramento and Maria La Ganga in San Francisco

Interact140 Interactive map of milestones in the gay marriage battle and how state laws have changed since 2000.

Comments () | Archives (105)

The people voted and as a result, there is no Gay Marriage in California. The court ruled for the people of California. The only way Gay Marriage can pass anywhere is by a court ruling. The longer Gay groups demand this right, the longer it will be before people take their side in a vote. At this rate, it will never happen.

When did marriage become a constitutional right? It isn't. Marriage is a social contract. A man and a woman come together and have children. That relationship is a benefit to society and an increasing number of studies show that. Children raised by a man and a woman do better financially, educationally, socially, and in other ways. Marriage is the way society perpetuates itself. Were it not for children, there would be no need for the state to involve itself in marriage. Marriage is not a right nor an affirmation of love. It is a social contract.

Homosexuals have the right to enter into personal contracts, they can marry if they can find someone to perform the marriage. They can have a big reception. The state just doesn't recognize it because same-sex marriage is not capable of fulfilling its part of the social contract: begetting children.

For those of you who keep talking about "stripping away rights," please - you are being disingenuous and you know it. Marriage has been a union between a man and a woman for as long as America has been a country and far longer. Marriage is not a right, it is a definition. If you want a homosexual relationship, this nation does nothing to stop you. In fact, it has granted you the legal rights of partnership as if you were married. The people of California were not hateful when they voted for Prop 8 - they just wanted a wonderful tradition to continue to mean what it has always meant.

Boy, that democracy thing's a bitch, isn't it? By the logic of the gays and lesbians, Obama's not my president then I guess.

Grow up.

Providing state protection and support for a relationship that produces and fully nurtures the next generation of Americans is, and always has been, a main priority of the state in Western societies. The ancient Greeks, who were very amenable to and accepting of homosexual relationships, never even considered redefining marriage - they protected that institution as critical to producing and raising children. The wisdom of 5000 years of civilization and scientific research in abundance verifies that Mom + Dad in a committed lifelong marriage is by far the best way for kids to grow up across a wide swathe of metrics.

The idea that human sexuality has nothing to do with reproduction (patently ludicrous) and an abandonment of the commitment to marriage and parenthood for the long haul is literally wiping out societies across the world. The birth rates among Russians, Italians, Spaniards, and others are at 'collapse' rates from which no society has ever recovered.

Are there any gays out there that recognize how critical it is for those of us who are using sexuality to REPRODUCE are to the future of the world? Raising kids makes our lives highly complex and challenging and we need the support of the government and society (provided society still actually thinks that having humans around in the next generation is a social good, which I certainly do).

To say that there is no difference between a homosexual relationship and a heterosexual is to deny the fundamental nature of humanity as the offspring of a man and a woman who are mammals that nurture their young for 18+ years - ideally their own offspring (and I say this as an adoptive parent who would rather see a child adopted by gays than stay in an orphanage).

If I'm willing to allow you to have a wide variety of rights for a relationship of your choosing, can't you allow to remain distinct a relationship that MUST exist in order to have a stable society and that requires special support specifically because it is the ground underneath our children's feet?

Thank goodness, it's about time that the California Supreme Court ruled. It's over, let's move on to other real and substantive issues. A marriage is between a man and a woman, period.

I am shocked that the majority would rule. We all must learn to live with the tyranny of the minority or be called names.

Babalu, you do know that this Prop 8 was started and funded by OPPONENTS of gay marriage, not "the gay and lesbian community," right? Of course they participated in the process to defeat it, that's how the system works! That same system also allows an appeal to the courts, who should defeat tyranny by majority through a little thing called "checks and balances." They failed, so the fight goes on, just like it always does where equality is involved. Democracy is a struggle, educate yourself and get used to it.

Finally some good news.
Marriage is NOT a right.
The homos were not redefining marriage, they were trying to undermine it.

The CA Supreme Court had the opportunity to leave a legacy of leading the country in EQUAL RIGHTS like they did 60 years ago when they struck down the inter-racial marriage ban. Shame on them. Now they can leave a legacy of DISCRIMINATION.

If you want to know the real reason Obama doesn't seem to be on board with gay rights, it's because he's really a Muslim.

The signs are all there: his so called birth certificate from Hawaii, his Kenyan family background, his school paperwork from Indonesia, his close relationship with Reverend Wright...I could go on and on.

If you're a homosexual, this guy is NOT your friend.


Hip, Hip ... HOORAY!
Hip, Hip ... HOORAY!
Hip, Hip ... HOORAY!

To the people who say marriage is for producing children and therefore same-sex couples do not need to be married: What about infertile male/female couples? They cannot have children via sexual intercourse. Should they be banned from marriage?

To the people who try to use examples of marrying a dog or a child or a second spouse: Being homosexual is NOT A CHOICE. If you think it is a conscious choice and you are straight, see if you can decide to find people of your own gender sexually and emotionally attractive. Go ahead and try it. If you're unable to legitimately do this, it's clearly not a choice. When two ADULT, CONSENTING people want to get married this is a completely different situation than bringing in a CHILD who cannot consent, or an animal who cannot consent. Therefore, "Gay marriage will lead to marrying dogs/children!" is a ridiculous strawman argument that cannot hold water in this debate. As for polygamy, that IS a conscious choice and therefore not applicable as an argument in this, either.

Finally, for anyone who says that a domestic partnership grants the same rights as marriage, and therefore Prop 8 is "protecting the term marriage but not alienating anyone's rights" you are misinformed. A domestic partnership grants some rights to one's partner but it is in no way equal to the protections and rights granted to a legal spouse.

I fully uphold your right to say you believe homosexuality is wrong. But since the primary reasoning for this seems to be a religious one, it has no place in governmental law. There is freedom of religion but there is also separation of church and state. A law that is supported solely by the teachings of a handful of religious sects is not one that should be in a constitution that purports to protect ALL citizens regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation or religious beliefs.

I read the complete decision. It is a bit of doubletalk. Part of it essentially says that "revisions" restrictions to the Constitution only apply to procedures of the government, and that "amendments" can take away minority rights. Regardless of one's stand on gay marriages, that is a very dangerous idea, and a new one. One of the concurring justices wrote a separate opinion disagreeing with that proposition.

This opinion was obviously "result oriented," written to justify a decision to prevent a nasty recall effort. (The excuse the justices write at the beginning that their "personal" views have nothing to do with their decision makes that obvious, and is really not true.) Already groups say they are targeting J. Moreno, the lone dissenter who had the guts to stand up to the majority. They did the same thing years ago in not confirming justices on the Rose Bird Calif. court because of allegations of "soft" on the death penalty. And what did that get them? Not a safer Calif., but a new pro business court which stripped away many of consumer's rights and protections.

Where's the Terminator? All of the previous 'gay marriages' by Newsom should have been annulled. This is ridiculous. All of my gay friends in CA are not monogamous. What definition do they have of 'marriage'? It certainly doesn't include a life-long sexual relationship with 'one' person. One of my friends was 'killed' by this lifestyle..he died of AIDS and his cremated remains where FEDexed to his parents. Where's the outrage about this? Certainly not from a certain 'minority' in California. Arnold should have the 'guts' he is known for in his movies and stop making pandering statements toward a defeated position.

This is a minor, albeit disappointing, setback.

Civil rights movements have never been stopped before they were successful. The right to equal marriage for gays and lesbians will not be stopped either. It's just a matter of time.

So all you moral dictators and neocons just need to realize that, maybe in five years, maybe in twenty, gays and lesbians WILL have the right to marry in the United States of America. And it WILL be called Marriage. The movement cannot be stopped. Even the California Supreme Court acknowledged as much in their opinion today.

The times they are a changin'.

Congrats to the Supreme Court for respecting the voters rights.

About time they got it right.

RE-" I like how Obama preempts the coverage on the Prop 8 decision by announcing his Supreme Court Appointee today instead of the originally planned date of this Thursday."

Are you so self centered as to think the world revolves around you. Listen- I'm gay, saddened by CA Supreme Court and thrilled by Obamas appointment. Those who are for Marriage Rights
should attempt to work to change hearts and minds and reach out instead of thinking the world owes them something. Run a good inclusive and loving campaign and evntually you will win.

Alex C. says, "When two ADULT, CONSENTING people want to get married this is a completely different situation than bringing in a CHILD who cannot consent, or an animal who cannot consent. "

Using your logic, I should be able to marry my CONSENTING ADULT brother (or sister) then, right?

I should be able to marry my mom (or dad), right?


I think that it's a good thing that the court supported the voters. In fact, I think that banning gay marriage is always a good thing. I hope that all states ammend their constitutions to assure us that our country is not a place that allows homosexuals to ever marry. They are rightfully viewed by the state of California as a separate class of citizen and do not have the right to marry one another. Homosexual activity is inherently evil and morally corrupt. Thank goodness for judges like this who uphold the rule of law.

Got to find it funny, you live in a state that is completely bankrupted no job growth unmanaged healthcare, poor schooling and with all of this going on the focus in on gay marriage? I was born in California live there for 30 years but would never move back due to the stupidity of the state and peaple. The state of California needs to grow up and make some very tough choices

Gays do have equal rights under the law. Women are allowed to marry men, and vice versa. Today's ruling was a victory for truth.

Gay marriage is the civil rights issue of our times. Separate but equal did not survive the scrutiny of the courts in 1954 and ultimately, neither will denying this right claiming there is a separate but equal right conferred by civil unions. Only a matter of time and enlightenment......

The Bible says "God gave them over to their own lusts,...men doing with men what is unnatural..."
People, all you have to do is repent from this abomination - God is so willing to forgive you.
Oops, sorry, I forgot, -- if you selfishly want your own way, who cares what God thinks, right?

Can someone please tell me what rights gays are not afforded because they can't get a mariage license ?

« | 1 2 3 4 5 | »


Recommended on Facebook


In Case You Missed It...


About L.A. Now
L.A. Now is the Los Angeles Times’ breaking news section for Southern California. It is produced by more than 80 reporters and editors in The Times’ Metro section, reporting from the paper’s downtown Los Angeles headquarters as well as bureaus in Costa Mesa, Long Beach, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, Ventura and West Los Angeles.
Have a story tip for L.A. Now?
Please send to newstips@latimes.com
Can I call someone with news?
Yes. The city desk number is (213) 237-7847.


Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: