NOVEMBER 22, 2009
   Login or create a new account  ?
Join Washington Blade on FacebookJoin Washingtonblade on MyspaceJoin Washington Blade on Twitter!
Mara McWilliams and Renee Mangrum, whose 2004 union was voided by the California Supreme Court, rally for marriage rights in San Francisco last summer. (File photo by Noah Berger/AP)
 
 
MOST VIEWED
 
Calif. judge nixes ban on gay marriage
Bush renews call for federal constitutional amendment

HOME > NEWS > NATIONAL NEWS

Mar 18, 2005  |  By: EARTHA MELZE  | COMMENTS      Printer Friendly Version



continued...

activists, Equality California sees the gain within the context of a broad struggle for gay and lesbian rights, said Gutierrez.

“We are working to ban bias in the court room, to change the gay panic defense rule, to promote insurance equality based on gender … this will be a landmark year for LGBT rights.”

In an interview on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews on Monday, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said that if the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage he would not support a constitutional amendment to ban it.


National implications
While marriage equality proponents celebrated the California decision, conservatives heaped criticism on the ruling and renewed commitments to stop same-sex marriage.

“For the second time in the last month, an aberrant judge has launched a judicial assault on the bedrock of our society,” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said in a statement. “We now look to the California Supreme Court to restore some sanity to the judicial process and overturn [Monday’s] court decision, which if upheld will wreak havoc on our society, redefining the institution of marriage and denying children a mother or a father.”

In an online statement, Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, founder of the Traditional Values Coalition, an inter-denominational public policy organization speaking on behalf of over 43,000 churches, called Judge Kramer’s decision an example of “judicial tyranny” and said it proved the necessity of passing a constitutional amendment in California to restrict marriage to opposite sex couples.

According to Human Rights Watch, 13 states passed marriage amendments in 2004 and 21 more states are expected to vote on marriage amendments in 2005 and 2006.

Kansas residents are scheduled to vote on the issue of a constitutional ban of gay marriage when they go to the polls on April 5.

“There is no question that the clergy who are supporting the marriage amendment here want to use what happened in California to mobilize their base here,” said Cyd Slayton, media spokesperson for Kansans for Fairness, a group organizing efforts across Kansas to oppose the proposed marriage amendment, which would prohibit same-sex marriage.

Slayten said the coalition is working to build bridges in a tough political climate with little time and even less money.

According to Caroline McKnight of the Mainstream Coalition, a group opposing the amendment, there is no financial data available on the groups organizing around the marriage amendment in Kansas yet because they are not required to file

Previous Page 1 Page 2


email       password


Please review and follow Washington Blade’s current Comment and Discussion Policy. Guidelines updated as of August 22nd, 2009. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

Spacer
Spacer
Spacer

Washington Blade Window Media CONTACT US: E-mail | Masthead | Location and Directions
© 2009 | A Window Media LLC Publication | Privacy Policy
Advertise with us!