California gays in marriage case cite status woes

0 CommentsPrint E-mail China Daily via Agencies, January 12, 2010
Adjust font size:

Two California men challenging a ban on same-sex marriage on Monday said they had been a couple for nine years and felt like third-class citizens, leading them to launch the federal case which could set national precedent.

Same-sex couples Paul Katami (L), Jeff Zarillo (2nd L), and Kris Perry (2nd R) and Sandy Stier pose for photographs before the start of their trial in San Francisco, California January 11, 2010. California's ban on gay marriage goes to trial on Monday in a federal case that plaintiffs hope to take all the way to the US Supreme Court and overturn bans throughout the nation. [Agencies]



The men and a lesbian couple unable to marry in California hope to take their case against the state's Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage all the way to the US Supreme Court and to overturn bans throughout the nation.

A loss in the top court, two ranks above the action in the case which began on Monday, would seriously undermine efforts to win gay marriage rights in state courts.

The United States is divided on same-sex marriage. It is legal in only five states, though most of those, and the District of Columbia, approved it last year.

Approval of Prop 8 in November 2008 was a sweet victory for social conservatives in a state with a liberal, trend-setting reputation, and maintained the steady success they have scored on the issue at the ballot box. Where it is legal, gay marriage has been championed by courts and legislatures, not voters.

"I don't think of myself as a bad person," said Paul Katami, describing the persecution he felt from a media campaign warning California parents to 'protect' their children by voting against same-sex unions in the 2008 poll.

He and his would-be husband, Jeffrey Zarrillo, described slights in gay life that ranged from being pelted with rocks and eggs in college to the awkwardness of checking into a hotel and not being able to clarify the relationship.

"Being able to call him my husband is so definitive," Katami said. "There is no subtlety to it. It is absolute."

Gays and lesbians have nearly equal rights under domestic partnership laws, but the two men said that left them feeling second- or third-class citizens and they wanted to be married to have kids.

"We hear a lot of 'What's the big deal?'. The big deal is it is creating a separate category for us," Katami said.

Gay rights lawyers in the case describe their battle as a continuation of the fight against racist laws stopping whites and blacks from marrying. Marriage is a fundamental Constitutional right, and in addition gays and lesbians deserve special protection from discrimination, they say.

The lawyers defending the ban say millennia of tradition limit marriage to heterosexual couples and that a state, without malice, can be cautious about changing the institution. Heterosexual couples can procreate, which society needs to continue, they add.

On Monday, District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker peppered lawyers with questions even before they had made their cases. He asked lawyer Ted Olson, arguing in favor of same-sex marriage, whether the institution of marriage had improved as it changed over the years, and why the court should get involved in the case at all, as voters and legislatures act.

"We wouldn't need a Constitution if we left everything to the political process," replied Olson, who won President George Bush his presidency in 2000 in a case against Al Gore argued by David Boies - now working with Olson on this trial.

Charles Cooper, the chief lawyer defending Proposition 8, began by saying ban was passed legally in a state which gives broad support to gays.

"This speaks not ill will or animosity toward gays and lesbians but a special regard for this venerable institution," he said.

US President Barack Obama became a turning point early in the trial. When Judge Walker asked for evidence that changes in marriage law had improved the institution, Olson replied, "The President of the United States."

Obama's parents, a black man and a white woman, would not have been allowed to marry in Virginia before a Supreme Court decision allowing interracial unions in 1967.

Walker later asked for a response from Cooper, who said, "The limitation of marriage to a man and a woman is something that has been universal. It has been across history, across cultures, across society. The loathsome restrictions based on race are of an entirely different nature."

The trial is expected to last about two weeks. The Supreme Court on Monday halted plans to show video of the trial on the Internet, though it will consider the case more fully by Wednesday, when its stay ends. Walker agreed on Monday to allow video recording to continue in the meantime, in case the top court relents.

1   2   3   4   Next  


Print E-mail Bookmark and Share

Go to Forum >>0 Comments

No comments.

Add your comments...

  • User Name Required
  • Your Comment
  • Racist, abusive and off-topic comments may be removed by the moderator.
Send your storiesGet more from China.org.cnMobileRSSNewsletter
主站蜘蛛池模板: 最近中文字幕免费mv视频7| 亚洲综合伊人久久大杳蕉| 久久精品国1国二国三| 精品无码国产污污污免费| 国产精品成人扳**a毛片| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区孕妇 | 日韩在线视频线视频免费网站| 免费一级国产大片| 麻豆亚洲av熟女国产一区二 | 精品无人区一区二区三区| 国产真实伦视频在线视频| 一区二区视频在线观看| 月夜直播手机免费视频高清| 免费一区二区视频| 网站正能量www正能量视频| 国产精华av午夜在线观看| 97久久精品人人做人人爽| 无码精品人妻一区二区三区影院 | 欧洲美熟女乱又伦免费视频| 全球全球gogo专业摄影| 国产精品jizz在线观看直播| 奇米在线777| 久久免费公开视频| 欧美日韩国产精品自在自线| 午夜精品久久久内射近拍高清| 人与禽交另类网站视频| 天天天天躁天天爱天天碰2018| 久久久无码人妻精品无码| 欧美极度极品另类| 午夜精品视频5000| 国产精品乳摇在线播放| 国产精品久久一区二区三区| 一二三四在线视频社区8| 成人性生活免费看| 二女一男女3p完整版在线观看| 热99re久久精品香蕉| 国产va免费精品| 日本娇小videos精品| 国产精品久久久久久网站| 99精品视频在线观看免费播放| 无码人妻精品一区二|