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)

I hope that there will be a day in my lifetime that I can legally marry my partner in any state I choose to live. I also hope that someday people will treat everyone with respect. It's so upsetting and troubling to see comments cheering for the fact that the CA constitution has been amended to include discrimination.

Ha ha ha yes, yes yes. Down with the gay mafia already and lets move on to the next issue like the state budget. The whole notion of gay marriage is so absurd to begin with. Why we should be wasting a second of time in our courts is beyond me. You know our tax payer money went to pay the judges who heard this idiotic case and they were paid with money we don't have.

YAHOO! says: '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?'

If this is what you really want, and all parties are consenting adults, then go for it. I disagree with it, but my OPINION should not prevent you from doing this, as long as your brother, sister, mom or dad are consenting adults.

Please work harder on putting together your strawmen.

Equal "Rights" as defined:

The Equal Rights Amendment, first proposed in 1923, is still not part of the U.S. Constitution.

So that blows away your whole argument of a Constitutional basis.

As for the commenter who made the statement about infertile couples, those couples are man and woman, born with the necessary biological tools to procreate yet physiologically unable due a medical problem of one, the other or both. It is still a proven positive that a Mother and Father whether natural parents or adopted is still the best make up for a child to be raised with love which is demonstrably different between the two sexes and most important for emotional and spiritual enrichment.

Gays are either overly sufficient or extremely deficient as couples, there is no Yin or Yang.

As for the commenter stating it was the Blacks, HIspanics, and Asians who voted overwhelmingly to Yes on 8. Doesn't it make sense that those 3 cultures are the oldest on the earth? America as a culture is slightly less than 250 years old, while the 3 you mention are thousands of years old and have survived this childishness.

The most important thing is the triumph of democracy and that the government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth, and not be replaced by the government of the elite, by the elite, for the elite. (Replace elite with judges, attorneys general, administrators, minorities,etc).

This posting does not judge the merits of the proposition but the way elites and minorities try to thwart democracy when they don't agree with the outcome of the popular vote.

There is only one way to change a resolution approved by a mayority if you belive in democracy: promote your ideas and wait for the next vote. Instant gratification is not a democratic value.

Gay marriage should never have been considered. In fact, gay lifestyle should be banned in this state just as a matter of public health concerns.

The amount of ignorance and hatred pouring from these pages are making me wish I didn't live in CA and at this point, this world.

People should open their hearts and minds up, at least even a little, and stop spreading such negativity.

Equal rights for everyone will happen one day. It is just sad to know there is a lot of people out there that will be unhappy once that day comes.

Think about that and what that means.

A small setback. The opponents of equality know that their forces are growing smaller and more obsolete by the day; that's why they're so noisy and foul-tempered.

In response to the comments by Alex C....Marriage is based in principle, and that principle is reproduction, infertile couples are still able to reproduce in principle and this is what matters. A man and a man would never, by any stretch of the imagination, be able to produce a child. There have been many a couple that have been declared infertile only to discover at a later date that they do in fact retain reproductive capability.

In response to your belief that homosexuality is not a choice I would ask you to provide proof of this statement. There have been countless studies and experiments conducted attempting to ascertain the origin of homosexuality, the best of these has only shown only loose correlations that have been unable to be replicated in similar studies. This lack of proof leaves only one option.

This is not a law that is supported by religion, but rather by science, your seeming attack on religion seems ironic when your own unscientific viewpoint is taken into consideration.

California Gubernator/Democrat believes gay couples should imitate Maria and himself and have the right to marry; and would obtain it someday through ANOTHER initiative, the courts, or a decree by a Kenyan-born, socialist U.S. president.

Vote or no vote; decision or no decision - it's all about natural selection. Nature selectively restricts propagation when defects are present. Even if gays did marry, they'd die out because they won't reproduce. Good for the rest of us.

Let's let the gays have NoCal - without hetero influx - and the problem will self-correct.

Are gay people really that retarded? They have an aversion to the opposite sex, yet in the relationship, one is still in the masculine role and one is still feminine. Perfect example, Ellen DeGeneres and her partner, Portia DeRossi. Ellen's obviously the male in the relationship, (short hair, dresses like a guy), and Portia is feminine, (dresses, long hair). You can spot the male ones a mile away. The males in the female role are so overly effeminate it's not funny. (Think the gay guy on will and Grace that said he wasn't gay, but was), or the character Marc on Ugly Betty. Too effeminate for me. I love my husband and my kids and are raising them to be normal in an obviously abnormal society that thinks that gays/ queers/ fags/ homos/ dikes/ or whatever they're called, are accepted as the norm, and normalcy is outdated, weird and old-fashioned.

To Bradstreet,
First, I congratulate Proposition 8 being uphold by California Supreme Court. Since you allow discrimination at work and do not enforce California labor laws, your marriage will not be allowed and enforced by Californian Voters and High Court. Don't feel bad now, because of what goes around come around. What a shame when you allowed Padres altered and withheld my evidence, etc. in order to protect a powerful politicians connecting employer and disregarded my basic right under State and Federal Constitution. So you and your partner don't blame the people and a High Court of California violating your basic right. To find out for yourself go to nolaborstandard.com or type in no labor standard on yahoo's search. Should DLSE be abolished for the sake of Californian Taxpayers? Amen!

In re: "yay! Finally some good news. Marriage is NOT a right. The homos were not redefining marriage, they were trying to undermine it."

Good. Then we'll take it away from you, too. If it's not a right, then you won't miss it.

Snide remarks aside, however, when the contract of marriage (as the state defines it):
1. permits the orderly transmission of property upon death;
2. allows particular tax benefits, and
3. recognizes the rights of the marriage partners to make decisions (financial and medical, to name two) for each other,

then it has nothing to do with the religious opinions of any person in this state. These are contractual rights that are the essence of marriage -- in the eyes of the state.

Until lesbian and gay couples are permitted the same right (yes, I'm using that word) as heterosexual couples to enter into that contract, the California Constitution will be compromised.

It guarantees equal rights for all people, regardless of sexual orientation, and yet eliminates that very access to a contract recognized by the state, based upon that very distinction.

I'm terribly sad to see how many people are confusing civil marriage and religious marriage. The state doesn't care if you were married in a Baptist Church or a Hindu temple or a courthouse. The civil rights afforded to each couple, however, are the same.

My religious beliefs require equal rights, including marriage rights, for gays and lesbians. Why is there no freedom for MY faith in California?

For SHAME to ALL of the hateful, malicious, flat out WRONG postings above, written from a place of ignorance, religious (Bible) "quoters" who are in such denial and ignorance of the world around them. Shame on you all! And SHAME again,
To all of you hateful, stupid people.....just keep on breathing because whether you like it or not, WE ARE GOING TO WIN in the end. Oh, WE shall gain our 'equal rights' over all of this great country, and eventually, world wide.

Dr. Peter

Ha Ha gays are idiots. Every gay person I know has not even the accomplishment of a basic high school education. What is it with gays and their lack of intellect? They thought they could get married? Ridiculous.

> If you want a homosexual relationship, this nation does nothing to stop you. IIn fact, it has granted you the legal rights of partnership as if you were married.

Not really. Read the Defense Of Marriage Act. There are hundreds of perks given to married people by the federal government, and DOMA prohibits them from applying to same-sex partners.

Maybe the thing to do is stop having the government give special treatment to civil unions or marriages. Have marriage and civil unions be a personal or religious matter. No more things like tax discounts for filing jointly, or tax-free estate transfers, but the government can rejigger the definition of a dependent to keep it fair.

Now that we have stopped the gay marriage, can we finally get rid of the Mormon marriage, the black marriage, the Hispanic marriage, and any other marriage that isn't normal "opposite" marriage?

Nature has always intended for the attraction of a man and woman to procreate. Men and women have specific sexual traits meant to attract a mate for the purpose of sexuality and procreation. Marriage was established as a mechanism to recognize this natural attraction. Gay/lesbian for whatever reason are attracted solely for the purpose of sexuality and not procreation. A union between a man and woman is not the same and can never be equal to that of a gay/lesbian relationship. Sure both groups can both deeply be in love with their partner, but only one a man/woman partnership can be mates. Therefore, marriage should always be the defining word for a couple committed to mutual sexual attraction and potential procreation between within the partnership.

I believe in democracy. Democracy requires the debate of ideas, not forcing issues on others. The courts should never make decisions about long standing issues like marriage at all. I will go further: GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE IN THE MARRIAGE BUSINESS! In many places around the world, civil unions are governed by the state. Marriage is usually the area of religious groups. The government sanctions the union of two people and the religious bodies solemnizes it. In France, two people must go before a government official first to sanction the union before going to their respective religious body to have it solemnize it. Even if the two don't go to a religious body, the union is still legal and recognized. In the US we should adopt the same mechanism.

Government recognition of a union is important for many reasons, but in particular for contracts and other legal reasons. In many countries like Finland, Sweden, etc civil unions are for gays and straights. "Marriage" is seen as a religious institution to be decided by the religious groups. This is ironically results in a separation of Church and State when it comes to unions between two people, even though these countries have state churches (In Sweden and Finland it is the Lutheran Church). The state does its thing and the church does its.

As a gay, I believe in democracy. If a group wants to advance an agenda it should rationally and logically convince its fellow citizens and not to do an end run. It only creates resentment.

Ha Ha gays are idiots. Every gay person I know has not even the accomplishment of a basic high school education. What is it with gays and their lack of intellect? They thought they could get married? Ridiculous.

Posted by: kevin | May 26, 2009 at 03:51 PM

Well Kevin.....lack of intelect....do a search on "Alan Turing"...just because you are using a computer to show your lack of education and ignorance....

Please tell what rights are denied to gays?

What is the definition of homosexuality? What is the defining characteristic of homosexuality?

As a heterosexual man, I can clearly say what homosexuality is not:

1. It's not the love of one man for another, for there are many men that I love and would die for.

2. It's not that two men live together, for I lived with three guys as roommates while I was in college.

3. It's not spending time with another guy, I greatly enjoy spending time with my buddies.

4. It's not a life long commitment to another guy, for I have committed to a number of guys to be there for them for life.

So what is it? What is the distinction between a homosexual and a heterosexual?

Answer: Sodomy. That's it. There is no other distinction. It is, pure and simple, a matter of one guy wanting to have sodomy with another guy.

Accordingly, what each supporter of the legal recognition of "homosexual rights" is saying, is that the state should recognize the sexual act of male to male sodomy as a protected class. Why not do the same for pedophiles? Why not do the same for those into bestiality?

Let's not be intellectually dishonest. Let's at least admit what we're dealing with here. Sodomy is the only thing that distinguishes a homosexual from a heterosexual.


Reading this venom reminds me of the stupid blogs during the presidential election. I did not think there were enough rocks in CA for these type of ignorant homophobic people to live under.

Get an education. The light of day will do you good.

I still am amazed that people think I am discrimintating because I voted for marriage to mean what the definition of the word is; the union of a man and a woman. Gay people can marry another man or woman if they choose, but they choose not too. So why should we change the definition of marriage to suit 1-2% (at most) of the population. I have a few gay friends and they all do not want to get married and think it is ridiculous. But you watch, at some point the juduciary will over rule us, justy look at Obama's appointment to the Supreme court today. This woman does not rule based on law, but on how she feels. That is not upholding the Constituion in any way, shape or form!!

« | 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: