Thousands in Los
Angeles
protest gay-marriage
ban
By SHAYA TAYEFE
MOHAJER, AP from the Web, November 8, 2008
LOS ANGELES -- Outside the
gates of a Mormon temple, Kai Cross joined more than 2,000 gay-rights advocates
in a chorus of criticism of the church's role in a new statewide ban on same-sex
marriage.
Once a devout Mormon who graduated from Brigham Young University, the
41-year-old Cross was disowned by his family and his church after he was outed
as a gay man in 2001.
"They are on the losing side of history," Cross said Thursday of the church's
opposition to gay marriage. Cross and other protesters blame leaders of
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for encouraging Mormons to
funnel millions of dollars into television ads and mailings in favor of
Proposition 8.
The ballot measure passed Tuesday, which was sponsored by a coalition of
religious and social conservative groups, amends the California Constitution to
define marriage as a heterosexual act. It overrides a state Supreme Court
ruling that briefly gave same-sex couples the right to wed.
The protest came amid questions about whether attempts to overturn the
prohibition can succeed and whether the 18,000 same-sex marriages performed in
California over the past four months are in any danger.
For Cody Krebs, 27, four months was not enough time to fulfill his "intense
hope" to marry one day; he and his boyfriend have been together for little more
than a year, so they aren't ready to wed.
On Thursday, Krebs dodged eggs hurled at protesters from an apartment building.
He said he'd seen worse growing up in Salt Lake City.
"It's important to come out like this because it gets the gay community into the
public eye," Krebs said. "I feel like this has started a lot of
conversations that had to get started."
The demonstration began outside the temple in the Westwood section of Los
Angeles and noisily spilled through the western side of the city, with chants of
"Separate church and state" and "What do we want? Equal rights."
Some protesters waved signs saying "No on H8" or "I didn't vote against your
marriage," and many equated the issue with the civil rights struggle.
Two people were arrested after a confrontation between the crowd and an occupant
of a pickup truck that had a banner supporting Proposition 8. One
demonstrator ended up with a bloody nose in the fracas. Seven arrests
occurred during Los Angeles-area street marches late Wednesday.
The temple protest was organized by the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center. Its
chief executive, Lorri Jean, announced a Web-based effort dubbed
InvalidateProp8.org to raise money to fight the constitutional amendment.
Gay-marriage proponents filed three court challenges Wednesday against the ban.
The lawsuits raise a rare legal argument: that the ballot measure was
actually a dramatic revision of the California Constitution rather than a simple
amendment. A constitutional revision must first pass the Legislature
before going to the voters.
Andrew Pugno, attorney for the 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.
"We don't consider it a `Hail Mary' at all," said Kate Kendell, executive
director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. "You simply can't so
something like this — take away a fundamental right at the ballot."
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.
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.
"Otherwise a Pandora's Box of chaos is opened," said Stanford University law
school professor Jane Schacter. Still, Schacter cautioned that the
question of retroactivity "is not a slam dunk."
An employer, for instance, could deny medical benefits to an employee's same-sex
spouse. The worker could then sue the employer, giving rise to a case that
could determine the validity of the 18,000 marriages.
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 is still
in effect.
Associated Press writer Paul Elias in San Francisco
contributed to this report.
|
