Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

A Friend Stopped By | 03/11/2009 10:30 am

Prop 8 Is About More Than Gay Marriage

By Karen Ocamb
Famed lawyer Gloria Allred looks on as Robin and

Diane renew their vows

Editor’s Note: Karen Ocamb is the news editor for Frontiers in LA, a major LGBT publication in Southern California. Prior to working in the LGBT press, Karen was a producer at CBS Network News and a freelance writer and producer. She lives in West Hollywood with her two rescued dogs. 

The august San Francisco courthouse, perked up by thousands of noisy, sign-carrying demonstrators playing to scores of national reporters and camera crews March 5, did not intimidate Robin Tyler and her wife, Diane Olson, who were the first California plaintiffs to file a same-sex marriage suit in 2004 and were represented by Gloria Allred. 

Shouting matches over Proposition 8 – the constitutional amendment that eliminated the right for same-sex couples to marry in California – were mere white noise compared to the drama about to happen as the California Supreme Court last week heard oral arguments on whether to uphold or invalidate the initiative that passed by a slim majority last November.

Tyler and Olson had been here before, almost a year to the day on March 4, 2008, for oral arguments in the marriage-equality case, which can be heard here. Their lawyer, famed attorney Gloria Allred, filed the first marriage lawsuit on February 24, 2004, 12 days after Tyler and Olson, and their friends Rev. Troy Perry and his partner Phillip Ray de Bliek, were denied marriage licenses at the Beverly Hills Courthouse. Asking for — and being denied — marriage licenses was part of the nationwide Freedom to Marry Day demonstration held every Valentine’s Day for years.

But this time was different. This time Tyler was angry because her labor union — the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) — had refused to give Olson medical insurance after Tyler retired because, as an AFTRA person told Tyler, the two were “just domestic partners … That’s just the way it is, hon.”

Tyler and Olson announced their lawsuit on the same day in 2004 that San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom defied state law and permitted same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses.

Four years and many tears later, on May 15, 2008, the high court ruled 4 - 3 in favor of marriage equality. Chief Justice Ronald George, a Republican, wrote the majority opinion establishing that lesbian and gay couples had been denied the “fundamental” right to marry. Additionally, for the first time in U.S. history, gays were now recognized as a “suspect class” — a historically disadvantaged group that merited the “strict scrutiny” standard under the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution.

San Francisco-based lesbian pioneers Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, as well as Tyler and Olson, were given special dispensation to marry on June 16, a day before the ruling went into effect. (Martin, a longtime lesbian activist, died two months later.)

For their marriage, Tyler and Olson, who had been together 15 years, went back to the Beverly Hills Courthouse and staged a public Jewish wedding, carried “live” by several local television stations.

Thousands of same-sex couples followed suit last summer, though many others decided to wait until after the November elections, fearing that Prop 8 would pass, and their marriages — though now legal — would be invalidated.

The battle over the ballot initiative was watched nationwide and became the most expensive in U.S. history — with each side spending roughly $40 million. The Utah-based Church of Latter-day Saints alone poured in $25 million, with some members reportedly mortgaging their homes to contribute after the First Presidency sent out a letter calling on all parishioners to “do all you can” to pass the measure and restore “traditional marriage.”

41 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Ms. Dee

I’ll never understand why some people need to turn something that’s so simple and so logical into a big, ugly mess.  No!  No, no, no!  Pure and simple.  This isn’t complicated.  It’s a human rights issue, and it’s time for the legal discrimination against the LGTB community to END!  It’s unconstitutional.  You just can’t deny any two people the right to marry, any more than you can deny any two people the right to divorce.  And if there are legal rights attached to marriage, they should be there for everybody who enters into that life-style…a married life-style.  ‘Cause you certainly lose those rights when you break up.

By Ms. Dee on 03/11/2009 11:49 am
Z ****
Absolutely, Ms. Dee — I couldn’t agree more.   I also agree with those who see this as a slippery slope which opens to vote of the majority the rights of the minority.
By Z **** on 03/11/2009 11:53 am
rocky rocky
Absolutely, Z. This is a very dangerous precedent. What will stop "them" from saying atheists can’t marry, or some other one of their bugaboos. Have we not all already decided that to be American is to believe that ALL are equal under the law? What a mess the fear-mongers and haters are making of things.
By rocky rocky on 03/13/2009 8:54 pm
miarosa gambino
The rights of the majority? what rights am i a lesbian woman taking from you /the exclusive right to know the secure love of placing your head on  at night next to the one you love .didn’t know it was yours? the right to find a good man?were not looking as i speak for the lesbians  and the gay men arent looking for a hetrosexual wife? if you stop listening to the hate spewed by the religous zealots who are so twisted up inside the thought of two people knowing love is in their eyes somehow wrong and use your heart and common sense if you are a straight hetro sexual woman in the market for a
honest straight hetro sexual husband we take nothing from you the majority we only add more happiness in your world whe we all lay our heads at night more of us share the pillows with our bashert our one love and that can never be a bad thing shalom to all straight or gay
By miarosa gambino on 03/16/2009 11:01 pm
Z ****
Miarosa………..my post was in support of homosexual’s right to marry.   
By Z **** on 03/17/2009 8:34 am
Mike Hunt
You can deny same sex people the right to marry. Its not right, that’s why its illegal for gays to marry in this country. The word is Prop 8 will be upheld, although anything can happen. If you and your friend wanted to marry because she needed to be on your health insurance, how can someone tell who’s gay?
By Mike Hunt on 03/11/2009 7:50 pm
miarosa gambino
why isnt it right mike? show me where in the bible it says women may not lay down with women? infact it was encouraged in the harems of the day of the bible for women to pleasure each other while waiting to be chosen by the man of the house it was said it kept them happy ?well ten years im not complaining
By miarosa gambino on 03/16/2009 11:07 pm
Maurine H
Beneath all the legalize and hyperbole, there is only one term that describes the passage of Prop. 8: Discrimination. Californians, and all Americans for that matter, ought to remember that discrimination against any group of citizens for any reason is unconstitutional. Justice has a way of being meted out in surprising ways, and those who so adamantly supported Prop. 8 may be shocked at some future date when the people vote to strip away a right they believe to be inherently theirs.
By Maurine H on 03/11/2009 12:06 pm
f p
Well said Maurine. :-)
By f p on 03/11/2009 1:06 pm
Mike Hunt
Should brothers and sisters be allowed to marry? How about a mother and her daughter? If they’re in love, why discriminate. 
By Mike Hunt on 03/11/2009 7:52 pm
Maurine H

Ah, yes, the silly old right wing fundamentalist diversionary tactic, unearthed once again, employing the same ridiculous arguments. Let me ask you a question. Do you know of even one mother or daughter who want to marry? Do you know of even one brother or sister who want to marry? Because I have never heard of one person who has expressed that desire. And if you are being honest, you haven’t either. This article is about a group of people, numbering in the millions, who had already been granted a legal right - a right that was taken away from them, largely because of the big bankrolling of sensational advertising by the Mormon church and other religious organizations that still don’t understand the separation of church and state.

By Maurine H on 03/11/2009 9:01 pm
Z ****
Maureen…….he’s just talking smack.   Heterosexual marriage doesn’t allow fathers and daughters to marry…..so the comparison is ridiculous.
By Z **** on 03/14/2009 4:45 pm
miarosa gambino
mike mike mike you left out horses and sheep bunny rabbits and birdies and oh my god the worst thing that could possibly happen that gay marriage statistics are on average 10% better chance of survival oh my god if you let us fornicators what next white after labor day at least one thing happeir gays equates to better dressed hetros no offence but you guys need some shuzzing get a life mike perhaps it would be more beneficial to you if you supported the decriminalization of marijuana at least you’d chill out
By miarosa gambino on 03/16/2009 11:12 pm
mmm mmm
As nice as legal recognition of full marriage rights would be, the cost is mostly financial.  If large pockets of the country want to think they are righteously following a book written when a wheelbarrow was high tech, let them.  Meanwhile, I have a baby shower to attend, done with real technology.  Did you know that in CA, a baby born via surragacy has the parents listed on the birth certificate?  Could be 2 men, could be 2 women.  We are here, we are raising families.  We are in the churches, schools, grocery stores.  Your children see us and aren’t afraid.  If you want to be, go ahead.  As time passes, as the old "guard" passes (away) younger voters will correct the discriminations of their elders.  The demografics are already on the side of less injustice.  Sadly, the bigots will continue to gasp and sputter.  Pity them.
By mmm mmm on 03/11/2009 2:57 pm
Dee T

mmm,

 I agree that the younger, more tolerant, accepting generation will put this form of discrimination to rest, just as our (middle aged) generation put racial discrimination to rest, and the generation before that put women’s discrimination to rest. Each generation has an opportunity to improve human rights- this will be their turn.

By Dee T on 03/11/2009 8:06 pm