Advertising

The Seattle Times Company

NWjobs | NWautos | NWhomes | NWsource | Free Classifieds | seattletimes.com

The Seattle Times

Politics & Government


Our network sites seattletimes.com | Advanced

Originally published Friday, November 7, 2008 at 12:00 AM

Comments (37)     E-mail article     Print view

Hundreds protest California gay-marriage ban

Legal experts said it is unclear whether an attempt by gay-rights activists to overturn the prohibition has any chance of success and whether the 18,000 same-sex marriages performed in California in the past four months are in any danger.

The Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO — Hundreds of protesters took to the streets Thursday over California's new ban on gay marriage, amid deepening political turmoil and legal confusion over who should have the right to wed.

Legal experts said it is unclear whether an attempt by gay-rights activists to overturn the prohibition has any chance of success and whether the 18,000 same-sex marriages performed in California in the past four months are in any danger.

California voters Tuesday approved a constitutional amendment disallowing gay marriage. The measure, which won 52 percent approval, overrides a California Supreme Court ruling last May that briefly gave same-sex couples the right to wed.

On Thursday, about 1,000 gay-marriage supporters demonstrated outside a Mormon temple in the Westwood section of Los Angeles. Sign-waving demonstrators spilled onto Santa Monica Boulevard, bringing afternoon traffic to a halt. The temple was targeted because the Mormon church strongly supported the ban on gay marriage.

"I'm disappointed in the Californians who voted for this," said F. Damion Barela, 43, a Studio City resident who married his husband nearly five months ago. He noted that nearly 70 percent of black voters and a slight majority of Hispanics voted for the ban.

"To them I say, 'Shame on you because you should know what this feels like,' " he said.

Some spectators cheered from apartment balconies; one person threw eggs at the marchers. Two people were arrested after a confrontation between the crowd and an occupant of a pickup that showed a banner supporting the amendment.

On Wednesday night, police in Los Angeles arrested seven people as more than 1,000 protesters blocked traffic in West Hollywood. One man was wrestled to the ground by police after he jumped up and down on the roof of a squad car. Another man was clubbed by police. Hundreds of protesters also gathered on the steps of San Francisco's City Hall.

Gay-marriage backers filed three court challenges Wednesday against the new ban. The lawsuits raise a rare legal argument: that the ballot measure was a dramatic revision of the California Constitution rather than a simple amendment. A constitutional revision must first pass the Legislature before going to voters.

Andrew Pugno, attorney for the coalition of religious and social-conservative groups that sponsored the amendment, called the lawsuits "frivolous and regrettable."

"It is time that the opponents of traditional marriage respect the voters' decision," he said.

The high court has not said when it will act. State officials said the ban on gay marriage took effect the morning after the election.

advertising

With many gay newlyweds worried about what the amendment does to their vows, California Attorney General Jerry Brown said he believes those marriages are still valid. But he is also preparing to defend that position in court.

"I wish I could be comforted by Attorney General Brown's statement that it has no retroactivity," said Loyola Law School professor Bill Araiza, who married his husband Oct. 29. "But it's in flux and I just don't know."

The amendment does not explicitly say whether it applies to those already married. Legal experts said unless there is explicit language, laws are not normally applied retroactively.

Supporters of the ban said they will not seek to invalidate the marriages already performed and will leave any legal challenges to others.

A 2003 California law already gives gays registered as domestic partners nearly all the state rights and responsibilities of married couples when it comes to such things as taxes, estate planning and medical decisions. That law remains in effect.

Copyright © 2008 The Seattle Times Company

More Other National Election Stories headlines...

E-mail article Print view      Share:    Digg     Newsvine

Comments
this obscene interference with other peoples life and personal freedom is unconscionable. as long as marriage is a civil contract, forbidding a...  Posted on November 7, 2008 at 6:44 AM by garyhere. Jump to comment
The rights of a minority should never, ever be put to a popular vote. One of the main purposes of our government is to protect the minority from...  Posted on November 7, 2008 at 2:22 PM by erpskaderp. Jump to comment
There appears to be a fundamental confusion over the definition of marriage. Those putting forth damaging constitutional amendments such as...  Posted on November 7, 2008 at 11:29 AM by jmsailer2. Jump to comment


Get home delivery today!

Advertising

Video

Ken Auletta talks about "Googled"
Ken Auletta talks about Google with Brier Dudley at the Seattle Central Library.

Medal of Honor
Pelosi answers questions at Swedish Medical Center
Pelosi speaks at Swedish Medical Center
"Pistol" Pete Ryan
Mourners gather at KeyArena for slain officer's memorial
Procession for slain SPD officer
Election Night: Approve R-71
Election Night: Reject R-71
Election Night: Joe Mallahan

Marketplace

nwautos

2009's most fuel-efficient sedansnew
Choosing a new sedan? Weigh the impact of your choice on your wallet and on the planet.
Post a comment

Open Houses

Find this weekend's open house listings.
Or search by location:

 
Most read
Most commented
Most e-mailed
 
 
Advertising