LAKEPORT ? More than 20 people gathered in support for marriage equality Tuesday night, responding to a ruling by the California Supreme Court that upholds Proposition 8.
“?Separate but equal” has never been equal,”” stated organizer Laurie Lamonaco, who represents Lake County Pride.
Asked about the “equal protections” available to couples in domestic partnerships, Lamonaco said that California extends approximately 300 rights to couples who register their domestic partnership with the California Secretary of State but that federally-recognized marriage between a man and a woman bestows more than 1,000 legal rights.
Advocates for marriage equality stood holding signs and rainbow flags along Main Street in Lakeport in front of the courthouse museum. Supportive honks by passing motorists were met with appreciative cheers.
Many people present at the gathering are involved with Lake County Pride or with the Unitarian Universalist Community of Lake County.
“This is a civil rights issue,” said Carol Cole-Lewis, president of the local UU association. “You cannot deny Constitutional rights to a portion of the population.
“Prop. 8 will eventually be overturned and I”m sad that it will be later rather than sooner,” Cole-Lewis added.
Approved by 52.3 percent of voters in November 2008, Prop. 8 added Section 7.5 to Article I of the California Constitution, stating that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California.” An initiative to amend the California Constitution requires simple-majority approval in a statewide election.
Opponents challenged the validity of Prop. 8, stating it should be viewed as a constitutional “revision,” which cannot legally be adopted through the initiative process. The Supreme Court ruling determined that Prop. 8 was limited in scope, removing only the designation of “marriage” and leaving all legal rights associated with marriage intact. Given its narrow focus, Prop. 8 was an amendment, according to the ruling of the court.
The California Supreme Court opinion stressed that the task before it was not to determine whether the provision was “wise or sound,” or whether the justices as individuals believed that the amendment should be part of the California Constitution.
“Regardless of our views as individuals on this question of policy, we recognize as judges and as a court our responsibility to confine our consideration to a determination of the constitutional validity and legal effect of the measure in question … The principal issue before us concerns the scope of the right of the people, under the provisions of the California Constitution, to change or alter the state Constitution itself …”
The ruling upholds the validity of all marriages between same-sex couples that were performed before Prop. 8 took effect.
To read the complete opinion, available as a PDF, visit www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/. Follow the link for case No. S168047, Strauss v. Horton.
Asked what would be the next step for Lake County Pride, Lamonaco said she would ask everyone attending a meeting that took place Wednesday night, to bring their vision for the future.
“My vision is, one, to include everybody and, two, to create safe and social events where people can come out and be themselves.”
Lamonaco added, she also wants the group to have an educational focus: educating people for example about the differences between marriage and a civil union. “Once you are married, what does that mean? If one partner is on Medi-Cal and one has insurance from work, what information do you need?
“Lake County is progressing,” Lamonaco said, “as people of all orientations are moving here.” She expressed her hope that Lake County Pride will become an umbrella group with information about local resources.
Lake County Pride is reaching out to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, intersexed, queer and questioning (LGBTIQ) communities as well as to their allies. For more information about Lake County Pride, visit www.myspace.com/lakecountypride.
