Keyword
in
Collection
Date
to
Download Folder

0 items

Houston Voice, March 18, 2005
File 008
Citation
MLA
APA
Chicago/Turabian
Houston Voice, March 18, 2005 - File 008. 2005-03-18. University of Houston Libraries. University of Houston Digital Library. Web. December 16, 2017. http://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/montrose/item/5687/show/5669.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

(2005-03-18). Houston Voice, March 18, 2005 - File 008. Montrose Voice. University of Houston Libraries. Retrieved from http://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/montrose/item/5687/show/5669

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

Houston Voice, March 18, 2005 - File 008, 2005-03-18, Montrose Voice, University of Houston Libraries, accessed December 16, 2017, http://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/montrose/item/5687/show/5669.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

URL
Embed Image
Compound Item Description
Title Houston Voice, March 18, 2005
Contributor
  • Crain, Chris
  • Fisher, Binnie
Publisher Window Media
Date March 18, 2005
Language English
Subject
  • LGBTQ community
  • LGBTQ people
  • Gay liberation movement
Place
  • Houston, Texas
Genre
  • newspapers
Type
  • Text
Identifier OCLC: 31485329
Rights In Copyright: This item is protected by copyright. Copyright to this resource is held by the creator or current rights holder, and the resource is provided here for educational purposes. It may not be reproduced or distributed in any format without permission of the copyright owner. Users assume full responsibility for any infringement of copyright or related rights.
Note This item was digitized from materials loaned by the Gulf Coast Archive and Museum (GCAM).
Item Description
Title File 008
Transcript HOUSTON VOICE www.houstonvoice.com MARCH 18, 2005 I national news Calif, ruling could rekindle national marriage debate CALIFORNIA, continued from Page 1 The cases, known collectively as Woo, et al v. Lockyer, et al were brought by Lambda Legal, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the ACLU on behalf of same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses, and the gay rights groups Our Families Coalition and Equality California. In 2000, California voters passed Prop. 22, which states, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The initiative passed with 61 percent support. Four years later, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom determined that the California Constitution's guarantees of equality and due process required him to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. On Feb. 12, 2004, San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses in defiance of Prop 22. More than 4,000 marriage licenses were granted to same-sex couples before the California Supreme Court ruled on Aug. 12, 2004 that San Francisco did not have the authority to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The California Supreme Court nullified the same-sex marriages but did not rule on the constitutionality of denying marriage to same-sex couples. "Today's decision is a landmark for the law and an important development for the entire nation," stated ACLU Attorney Christine Sun. "With plain but compelling logic, the judge has shown us all why in a nation committed to fairness, gays and lesbians must not be shut out of marriage. But this decision is most important to the thousands of same-sex couples who desperately need the protection that marriage gives, and who deserve the dignity it brings." "It was a giant step forward for our families," said Eddie Gutierrez, communications director for Equality California, which joined the suit as a group that advocates for the rights of lesbians and gays. "[The] ruling affirms that same-sex families deserve equal treatment under the law." "There is opposition to this ruling, said Gutierrez, but it is weakened when stories of gay and lesbian people are shared in the press, in the court and all over as they have been recently." Representatives from both sides said San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's decision to allow more than 4,000 gay couples to get married last year led to this week's Superior Court ruling that overturned the state's law that limits marriage to heterosexuals only. (File photo by AP) they expect that the case will be appealed and will go through the appellate process and on to the California Supreme Court. California politics have been turning toward ballot measures and referendums of late and both social conservatives and gay rights advocates expect an effort to amend California's Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. Gutierrez said he believes that a marriage amendment would be defeated in California. "This is still a road that we can win on," said Gutierrez, "because California is full of fair-minded people." Equality California is working to promote Assembly Bill 19, which was introduced by assemblyman Mark Leno and will be considered in the 2005 legislative session. AB19 would restore the gender-neutral language in the part of California's Family Code that deals with marriage. Until 1977, California's marriage law defined marriage as "a personal relationship arising out of a civil contract between two persons." AB 19 would also explicitly recognize civil mar riage as a fundamental human right. While Kramer's ruling in favor of samesex marriage rights is a clear victory for marriage equality 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 with the Kansas Ethics Commission until March 21. McKnight characterized the comparative financial situations of the pro and anti marriage amendment groups as a "David and Goliath situation" with those opposing the amendment as David. "Pro-marriage amendment lawn signs are proliferating like dandelions," McKnight said, "and those don't come for free." McKnight said she believes most of the money for the campaign that supports the marriage amendment is coming from out of state. Your agent. Your advocate. Rob Schmerfer Insurance Agency 6575 West Loop South, Suite 185 Belloire, Texas 77401 713.661.7700 www.schmerleragency.com Elijah Kabalks Auto Home Renters Lite Health Business And much more! lEn^SKEDIEoIMl 8IJiaDQ32S38[!ia330J^ 800-382-2422 305-864-2422 1428 Collins Avenue Miami Beach, FL 33139 lslandHouseSouthBeach.com * Not valid during holidays or special events
File Name uhlib_31485329_n1273_007.jpg