Gay Marriage Supporters in Weho Cheer Ruling on Prop. 8
Hundreds of gay couples and community leaders march from the new Weho library, welcoming the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision.
Photos
Hundreds gathered for a rally in West Hollywood on Tuesday night in support of the appeals court decision that affirmed the unconstitutionality of California's ban on same-sex marriage.
Mayor John Duran was all smiles as city officials and community members converged in the auto court of the new West Hollywood Library on San Vicente Boulevard. The triumphant crowd cheered and waved rainbow flags.
"I think what's important for the community to think about is that [while] this is an important day, this is a lifetime struggle. It's a marathon," Duran told Patch. "It's a big step forward, but not the end of the race."
John Lincoln, who braved traffic from San Fernando Valley to make it to the rally, was one of more than 300 proudly raising "It's Time For Marriage Equality" signs made by Love Honor Cherish—an organization dedicated solely to the repeal of Prop. 8 that organized the Weho event.
"When I heard the news this morning, I thought this could be a unifying moment for us," Lincoln said. "When Prop. 8 passed, it splintered our community. We should be working as a single unit, exploring every option available to us."
NoH8 founder Adam Bouska, longtime LGBT rights activist Diane Abbit, gay rights lawyer Jon Davidson, and Rev. Dr. Neil Thomas spoke to the attendees before the march.
Thomas, the senior pastor at the Metropolitan Community Church in Los Angeles, riled up the crowd with an enthusiastic speech.
"You are just as loved as anyone in this country," he yelled out. "We need to remember that today's victory means there is still work to do."
Around 6:30 p.m., West Hollywood Sheriff's deputies guided the group across San Vicente Boulevard and up to Santa Monica Boulevard. People driving by honked in support as the troupe braced a bit of drizzle and walked eastbound to Westbourne Drive and back toward the library.
After the rally dispersed about 7:30 p.m., the crowd spilled out onto the West Hollywood streets to celebrate.
Follow West Hollywood Patch on Twitter and Facebook for more updates, tips and news.
David
7:19 am on Wednesday, February 8, 2012
This is good news indeed,but the only thing that could ruin this good news is if the Pope's court,a.k.a.The Supreme Court rules in favor of Prop.8.If that happens we might as well throw the Constitution in the garbage.
joninla
7:53 am on Wednesday, February 8, 2012
I am far left of being a good liberal, and even I can say our Supreme Court of The United States is not as right wing religious puppets as you and many people think.
Don't get me wrong, there are some names justices who could be fairly characterized as far worse than your overall judgment, but I am not going to point fingers at Scalia - not because I am afraid or too polite ... His open hatred for the belief gay people have any right to any kind of equality is well and often repeated in his written formal opinions that it's fact.
But don't give up faith. Surprising things have come from an even more conservative court than our relatively unique diversity (for the first time in U.S. History.)
If you want to direct hate - direct it at the true people who deserve it for their betraying both their own gay community, and their own basic civil rights, and even the possible reversion to criminalizing being gay - by sticking with the poker up the tight ones and voting for any Republican (ever) for President for stupid to just irrational reasons that is in essence or a kin to a very ethnic Jew Rallying for Hitler during WWII (since they had come for them ... yet). (I crossed the line in the comparison to Hitler - but in reality, the president chooses replacement to our aging court, and with the radical right being the only true Republicans, a Log Cabin Republican is hurting themselves even more than the basic rights of all gay people, and i can not get past that opinion.
Wendy
11:10 am on Wednesday, February 8, 2012
WeHo is going up against the Supreme Court that just Ruled in Favor of the Westboro Chuch. That's a steep mountain to climb.
Paul
11:20 am on Wednesday, February 8, 2012
I personally don't understand the excitement about this? I meet unhappily married straight men all the time. Being gay for me is being free and not bound down by the same pressures to marry like my straight brothers. This gay me doesn't care if marriage is legal or not. It's a non issue.
Brian Hamilton
11:31 am on Wednesday, February 8, 2012
@David: That won't likely happen if the system works as it should. Judge Walker's well crafted opinion is based on many findings of fact, citing numerous US Supreme Court decisions-- most notably Loving v. Virginia.
Too many whining theocrats and religious fanatics failed to understand that the USA is NOT a democracy. It's a constitutional republic. A democracy is: 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner... The Constitution was designed to prevent tyranny of the majority. If civil rights were to be determined by a vote of the majority--slavery would still exist, women couldn't vote, blacks couldn't marry whites, and Prop 8 would be law in California. It matters not what anyone's religious cult dictates. No citizen's civil rights, guaranteed under the equal protection clause of the US Constitution, may be abrogated by popular vote.
joninla
11:22 am on Thursday, February 9, 2012
Let's hope there isn't a catastrophic disaster that leaves us with a Republican President and a court with the potential of losing up to 3-4 Justices from age/illness and a new court is formed that does not believe or understand what you so clearly explained the reality of what is to come.
Wendy
1:39 pm on Wednesday, February 8, 2012
I think the issue that the voters cannot undo a law that was previously enjoyed is a weak argument. The problem is it was not enjoyed very long. Before that it was against the law. Am I missing something?
If CA anti 8 takes this argument to the supreme court they are going to get body slammed.
I am all for the right to marry anyone you want but I wish they would find a better argument for a case to make.
Brian Hamilton
1:58 pm on Wednesday, February 8, 2012
@Wendy: since you seem to take an interest in this subject, I would strongly suggest you avail yourself of all the facts concerning the trial, it's evidence, and current standing. It's all available here: http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/
In response to your statement above: "CA anti 8" is not taking this "argument to the Supreme Court." The proponents of Prop 8 may appeal the case to the Supreme Court, which historically decides to hear only one percent of the cases brought to its attention.
joninla
6:35 pm on Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Brian - I am not getting involved, but would like to point out that often here on Patch, comments in general are misconstrued. When there is a back and fourth among 2 people, the ability that it can be correctly followed by either the 2 people doing the back and forth as well as everyone else passing by, through, across or often a posting gets associated with a totally unrelated person.
I do actually appreciate another person who has an understanding and vernacular used in the legal profession.
Again (from countless mistakes to make a generally understandable "Legal Issue" also understandable to a person (not less smart, not inferior, not stupid, not 'lower than me') who just was not trained in the language and meaning of legal terms as well as words that are (for lawyers) 'words of art' - the actually mean something very specific and that association is just not made by anyone who didn't suffer through a legal education.
I know SQUAT about a lot of other topics, and have appreciated the input by someone who actually knows something about the field. (for example, a 30 year cab driver corrected a post I made about Taxi Licensing and I thanked him and asked if he would explain a taxi industry process (just for example).
Personally, I would love to skip whatever I missed, and hear what your thoughts and opinions are. I may have to ask for clarification, but I generally have a full legal vernacular and understanding. :)
Wendy
2:18 pm on Wednesday, February 8, 2012
I think this will go to the Supreme Court. Lets not play word games and stick to the issue here. If this goes to the Supreme Court they better come up with some better arguments.
Your argument is completely offensive to Black Americans. To Equate the black struggle of 400 years of slavery with an argument that the word Civil Union Vs. Marriage is the same as 400 years of beat downs and torture is absurd. Is the Gay Community going to pitch this to Clarance Thomas?
A better argument is straight and narrow. We deserve the right to marry and call it marriage just like a woman and a man does. This is hard to argue with.
When you start going into Slavery and losing prior enjoyment of enjoyment you only had for 18 months this is where you lose your case.
I am all for Gay Marriage. I just see the anti 8 people totally losing this case if they go before Clarance with somehow trying to compare this to slavery which you do. It's borderline racist and offensive.
I am on your side. When you go to a Lawyer they will also tell you the truth. They will tell you if your position sucks or not and try to find a better approach.
joninla
11:27 am on Thursday, February 9, 2012
I am only addressing one point. To think Justice Clarence Thomas would have any expected reaction to perceived offensive words, think again. He is black, he is on the Surpreme Court and he was put there BY THE REPUBLICANS who found 'thier kind of black man' (don't chastise me for that paraphrased quote. It was said just recently by one of the Republican Candidates and shows how the Republicans feel about race and why Clarnence was 'their kind of black guy' - i.e. he sold out his race).
Brian Hamilton
2:36 pm on Wednesday, February 8, 2012
MY argument is offensive? Excuse me? To whom are you addressing that response, Wendy? I made no such argument.
Don't play word games with ME. And get your facts straight if you'd like to continue a conversation about the issues.
Brian Hamilton
2:40 pm on Wednesday, February 8, 2012
@Wendy: your previous long-winded,schizophrenic diatribe is clear evidence that you don't have a modicum of understanding of the decision of Judge Vaughn Walker. In short, you have no idea what you're talking about. So, either read up on the factual information surrounding this case or put a plug in your pie hole. I am not willing to continue to encourage such idiotic banter .
joninla
6:47 pm on Wednesday, February 8, 2012
I saw somewhere a reference that less than 1% of cases ever are heard by the US Supreme court.
In case someone may have seen it, I can confirm that way less than 1% of cases ever go.
But if anyone saw and thought that the Gay Rights Issue would be part of a game of chance or luck, and the odds (statistically are low) should not even apply that figure to this issue.
The Supreme Court Chooses which cases it will hear. The likelihood of a case being chosen depends on many factors.
However a Super Hot Topic Issue and Pending Confligration of a total change in social structure and thinking is not only ususally a guarantee to be chosen, but it will be chosen immediately, if the court see it as a country wide issue dominating the lives of the collective american consciousness.
We are on that ledge of fundemental social change for the better in ending discrimination against gay people, so within a couple years I think there will be some kind of decision coming from the US Supreme Court (it may or may not be derived from this "Prop 8" and California's Supreme Court Initial Ruling .... but 'odds' are we are looking at what will probably become the definitive case one day.
This may be the "roe v wade" that will define or redefine the rights of gay people to equality under the US Constitution.