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)

Zach, you'd like to know the difference between "romantic" love and "brotherly" love? That's actually a very good question with a very clear and definitive answer.

So called, "romantic" love is known, in the Greek as eros, from which we get our word "erotic". It speaks of a physical and sexual lust.

"Brotherly" love, on the other hand, has it's origins in the Greek word "Philo" and it refers to a non-erotic, non-sexual love where one person is committed to another, hence, "brotherly" (non-sexual) love.

What you have done by raising this question is to acknowledge my point, i.e., homosexual "romantic" love (as you call it) is eros, i.e., the desire to become sexual or erotic with another man.

And, again, you have proven my point, to wit, the defining characteristic of homosexuality is, da da da dahhhhhhh: SODOMY (a very dirty, unnatural, unhealthy (look at the aids stats my friend), deviant practice).

Here's a solution: Create a derivative contract that effectively ties two guy/girl marriages together and swaps a guy for a girl to form two gay couples. Call it a homosexual backed security and sell it on wall street. Or am i missing the point. :)

John, that's some fine spin, but nothing more. Thank you for conceding my point, that romantic love is romantic love no matter who harbors it, and just because you can stick a "naughty" or "dirty" word on it doesn't diminish what it is for either homo- or heterosexuals. Love is love, with a physical component for all, and I hope you can take your mind off sodomy (not the only way HIV is transmitted, I hope you know) long enough to consider that.

I believe marriage is between a man and woman according to my religious beliefs but politically we need to redifine it to include all our citizens. Yes Gays have the same right as all of us. These people disgust me for their personal choices but they are not harming me by it. Therefore our government should do its job and protect their right and leave morality to the churches to fix. Let's not mix church and state. I do not want a religion to govern me because it may not be the right one ruling but I am comfortable with what it saids in our constitution.

Touche, John Alexander. The symmetry jumped out at me when I read your post. Some might call my post parody rather than plagiarism, but your characterization was not totally off the mark.

Procreation may result from heterosexual relations and will not result from homosexual relations. Can't argue with that. But is this the moral difference? Agreed, procreation is a beautiful thing. But if that is the only difference, how would you characterize the moral distinction between a loving heteresexual couple that is unable to have children and a loving homosexual couple?

« | 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: