Keyword
in
Collection
Date
to
Download Folder

0 items

Houston Voice, March 18, 2005
File 011
Citation
MLA
APA
Chicago/Turabian
Houston Voice, March 18, 2005 - File 011. 2005-03-18. University of Houston Libraries. University of Houston Digital Library. Web. December 15, 2017. http://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/montrose/item/5687/show/5672.

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 011. Montrose Voice. University of Houston Libraries. Retrieved from http://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/montrose/item/5687/show/5672

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 011, 2005-03-18, Montrose Voice, University of Houston Libraries, accessed December 15, 2017, http://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/montrose/item/5687/show/5672.

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 011
Transcript IrUIMMll voice EDITORIAL & PRODUCTION Executive Editor CHRIS CRAIN Editor BINNIE FISHER rwrespondents BRYAN ANDERTON, DYANA BAGBY, LOU CHIBBARO, JR., JOE CREA, MUBARAK DAHIR. LAURA DOUGLAS-BROWN, MIKE FLEMING, MATTHEW HENNIE, JOHNNY HOOKS, PHIL LAPADULA, RYAN LEE, BRIAN MOY- IAN, KEVIN NAFF, YUSEFNAJAFI, KEN SAIN, * RHONDA SMITH. STEVE WEINSTEIN, ANDYZEFFER Contributors DON MAINES. JERALAYA VELINADU, SHANA NICHOLSON, JA CHAPMAN. ANDARJANTIMMERMANS Photographers DALTON DEHART, KIMBERLY THOMPSON Production JAMES NEAL Webmaster ARAM VARTIAN SALES& ADMINISTRATION General Manager JASON WILSON I wilson. a houstonvoice.com Sales Executive KERRY WALD - kwaldiahoustonvoice.com Classified Sales /Office Administrator JOHNNY HOOKS - jhcckstffihoustonvoice.com National Advertising Representative Rivendell Media • 212-242-6863 UT Publisher-WINDOW MEDIA LLC President- WILLIAM WAYBOURN Editorial Director-CHRIS CRAIN Corporate Controller- BARNETTE HOUSTON Art Director- ROB BOEGER Director of Operations- MIKE KITCHENS Director of Sales- STEVEN GUERRINI Director of Classified Sales- NATHAN REGAN Marketing Manager - RON ROMANSKI CHARTER MEMBER Established 1974 as the Montrose Star. 500 Lovett Blvd. Suite 200 Houston, Texas 77006 (713)529-8490 Fax (70)529-9531 VVWWiK)UStOflV(HC^COni Office hours: 9 a.m.-5:30 p.m. weekdays To submit a letter Letters should be fewer than 400 words. We reserve the right to edit for content and length. We will withhold names upon request but you must include your name and phone number for verification. Please send mail to Houston Voice. 500 Lovett Blvd. Suite 200, Houston, Texas 77006; fax (713) 529-9531 or e-mail to edrtor'ffihoustonvoicerom. Opinions expressed therein do not reflect those of the Houston Voice. AH material in Houston Voice is protected by federal «MrigM !,!■*, \mi MJ Ml *>■ 1-HWOdMml -vtthoitt ■ht' written consent ot Houston Voce. The sexual orientation of advertisers, photographers, writers and cartoonists published herein is neither inferred or implied. The appearance of names or pictorial representation does not necessarily indicate the sexual orientation of that person or persons. Houston Voice accepts unsolicited editorial material but cannot take responsibility for its return The editor reserves the right to accefi reject or edit any siinnission. All rights revert to authors jpon pubheatwn Codeines lor freelance contributors are available upon request Forum HOUSTON VOICE MARCH 18, 2005 PAGE 10 editorial Califoria marriage ruling actually behind the curve When it comes to same-sex marriage, the Golden State isn't on the cutting edge. Its judiciary is playing catch-up. Still, the ruling was welcome news in a bleak season. By MUBARAK DAHER OR THE SECOND TIME IN a year, gay and lesbian couples gathered in matrimonial throngs at city hall in San Francisco this past week. Some were waving rainbow flags. Others held up marriage licenses in a sign of victory. But unlike last year — when the prescient mayor of that city, Gavin Newsom, announced his city would start handing out marriage licenses to same-sex couples because he felt the state law banning it violated the state's constitution — there were no nuptials this time around. But there was plenty of gay marriage celebration. And before long, there may well be wedding bells ringing there again for same-sex couples. As the entire nation knows by now, that's because a state judge in California ruled on Monday, March 13, that the state's ban on gay and lesbian marriages violates California's constitution. County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer wrote there was "no rational purpose" in refusing same-sex couples the right to marry. "The denial of marriage to same-sex couples appears impermissibly arbitrary," he ruled. "Simply put, same-sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so." He likened the state's domestic partnership laws — considered to be the third most comprehensive set of laws in the country protecting same-sex couples, after only Massachusetts, which allows gays and lesbians tamarry, and Vermont, which sanctions civil unions — to the historically flawed 'separate but equal" racial laws of the past. Kramer flatly rejected the argument by two conservative groups that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because they cannot procreate. "One does not have to be married in order to procreate, nor does one have to procreate in order to be married," Kramer wrote. "Thus, no legitimate state interest to justify the preclusion of samesex marriage can be found." THE RULING MADE HEADLINE NEWS, and provided further fuel to the already red hot flames of same-sex marriage. Anti-gay groups intend to appeal the law in California, so the ruling is far from the last word on the subject — there, or anywhere else in the country. Still, the victory gave a much-needed injection of public optimism, not to mention a level of vindication, to those supporting and fighting for same-sex marriage rights. Just a few months ago, following the outcome of the November presidential election, supporters and activists on the same-sex marriage front were being scapegoated and vilified, even from within gay and lesbian quarters, for making such a public stand on marriage. George W. Bush brilliantly manipulated the issue to his advantage at the polls, voters in 11 states approved bans on same-sex marriage, and the Democrats conveniently used the issue to cover up John Kerry's failings as an uninspiring presidential candidate. All of a sudden, gay marriage was no longer hip. It was poison. This ruling, particularly if it holds — and many observers are optimistic it will — has seemingly made us a popular cause again in the imaginations of many Americans. I guess everybody really does love a BUT IN ALL THE HOOPLA, IT'S CRUCIAL that we note one extremely important and often misrepresented fact, especially since there will undoubtedly be other less joyous moments ahead in the long and strenuous road ahead for same-sex marriage rights. Despite the media frenzy and the second rash of celebrating in San Francisco's city hall, the California ruling is not groundbreaking or exceptional. It's very good news. It's an important step. It's a reason to cheer. But in many ways, it's old hat. The fight for recognizing the legal marriage rights of gay and lesbian couples goes at least as far back as 1993, when Hawaii's Supreme Court similarly ruled that discrimination against samesex couples was more than likely unconstitutional. A trial judge removed the restrictions prohibiting gays and lesbians from marrying, but voters there amended their constitution to limit marriage to one man and one woman. But since then, an additional half a dozen state's courts have ruled in favor of allowing same-sex couples to marry: Alaska, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Washington and now, California. Furthermore, there are court cases pending in Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland and Indiana. Vermont offers a nearly carbon copy of marriage in their form of civil unions, and Massachusetts allows it outright. And of course, Canada, too, has come to the same conclusion on same-sex marriage rights. Interestingly, the Connecticut legislature looks poised to pass a civil unions law soon, too — even without a court order to do so. Even in California, the court ruling doesn't really break much new ground when it comes to the notion of same-sex couples: In the past few years, the state legislature has passed a collection of laws that give gay and lesbian couples nearly as many rights and protections as straight married couples, without calling it by that sacred name. Here in New York, meanwhile, a judge ruled only a month ago that New York City had to allow gay marriage. Mayor Michael Bloomberg is appealing that ruling. JUDGE KRAMER'S RULING WILL, without question, boost the energy, will and determination of foot soldiers in the conservative right who want to pass a federal amendment to the US Constitution banning gay and lesbian marriage. Conservatives will protest loudly that California's Judge Kramer is just another outlandish example of "judicial activism" that has veered out of control. But the truth is that, for years, not only the courts, but politicians and legislatures have been debating — and granting — marriage rights to same-sex couples. The notion can no longer be reasonably called outside the mainstream. When it comes to same-sex marriage, California is not even cutting edge. Mubarak Dahir is editor of the Express Gay News and can be reached at mdahir@express- gaynews.com
File Name uhlib_31485329_n1273_010.jpg