Illustration by Maren Slobody.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently started hearing arguments for and against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and Proposition 8 — debates which have brought forth a strong response among anyone listening.

City on a Hill Press strongly supports overturning DOMA and Prop 8. However, lawmakers must continue to push for marriage equality, no matter the outcome.

Pres. Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law on Sept. 21 1996. Since then, he has decided to advocate for marriage equality by renouncing his support of DOMA and instead is urging the Supreme Court to overturn the law.

The law denies same-sex couples federal marriage benefits, including Social Security and hospital visitation rights. It also denies interstate same-sex marriage.

Clinton is one of many American politicians — including conservatives and Republicans — who have recently voiced support for legalizing same-sex marriage, reflecting a sea change in public opinion on marriage equality.

The day before the examination of DOMA, the Supreme Court held a debate about Prop 8. Passed in 2008, the California proposition effectively outlawed same-sex marraige by only recognizing the legality of heterosexual marriage. A large number of advocates and opponents were drawn to the grounds outside the Supreme Court on March 26 to protest Prop 8.

In 2008, Prop 8 passed due to the support of 52 percent of California’s population, but many have argued the proposition would not pass in an election today.

The ruling on Prop 8 could yield dramatically different consequences for gay marriage. The justices could make a sweeping decision that all 50 states and the federal government must recognize same-sex marriage, they could declare same-sex marriage unconstitutional or they may choose to not take a stance and leave the decision to a lower court in California.
Overturning DOMA, on the other hand, would not legally mandate that the 50 states and federal government recognize same-sex marriage. But it would entitle same-sex couples to benefits from over 1,000 federal programs in the nine states that currently recognize same-sex marriage.

The Supreme Court may decide it is unconstitutional to overturn both DOMA and Prop 8, leaving the battle for marriage equality in the rut it has been in since Prop 8 passed. This would create a longer waiting period for people who are denied the opportunity to legally marry those they love — a disappointing reality for those whose legal rights have been oppressed by DOMA and Prop 8. However, the battle would not end there.

No matter what the Supreme Court rules on DOMA and Prop 8 in June, lawmakers pushing for the legalization of same-sex marriage can ride the wave of support created by the Supreme Court’s debates to continue pushing for marriage equality.

It’s time to acknowledge that our outlook on marriage is changing. Traditional marriage values will inevitably be replaced by an expanded, more humane definition of marriage.
Supreme Court justices must match their ruling with the morals of equality: allow same-sex couples to have the opportunity and benefits of marriage. If they do not, people’s convictions within the battle for equal rights should only grow stronger from there.

Illustrated by Leigh Douglas

On Tuesday, Jan. 7, it was announced that the California federal appeals court found Prop 8 — the notoriously controversial ban on gay marriage — unconstitutional and discriminatory toward a minority set of people.

While this ruling is historic, the battle for marriage equality is anything but over. As far as California is concerned, opponents to the recent court ruling can appeal in the Ninth Circuit or go straight to the Supreme Court — and it is likely they will.

As for now, the stay on gay marriages in California will stand, as litigation continues.

Like California, many states are addressing the issue, and currently Washington state has introduced legislation to legalize gay marriage. If passed, our neighbors to the north will be only the seventh state in the nation to give LGBT couples equal marriage rights.

While the Washington legislation has already passed in the state senate, it now heads to the House and many are eagerly waiting to hear the legislature’s decision. Many are hopeful the legislation will pass — we here at City on a Hill are hopeful — but even if it does, it will not be the end of the struggle.

Even as the bill floats through the House, even as representatives read over it and argue legal nuances, even before it has been brought into law, opponents to the legislation are preparing to counter the bill. If the legislation passes, it’s expected that a referendum will be placed on the ballot, and decisions about the basic rights and happiness of many people will be made by the public.

But this is where people can make a difference, and for this reason it’s important to vote, it’s important to stay informed and it’s important to let the government know it is unacceptable to deny people the right to marry based on sexual orientation.

In 2008, when Prop 8 was on the ballot and won by a margin at just barely over 52 percent, it was a referendum to a court ruling. Prop 8 was a conservative response to a California Supreme Court decision stating that marriage was a constitutional right regardless of sexual orientation.

Gay marriage and LGBT rights are a contentious issue to say the least, and in states like California and Washington, they are divisive — communities are split down the center, and the difference between supporting and not supporting something like Prop 8 is marginal. The only way to ensure our voices and our support for gay marriage are heard and understood by our government and by our representatives is to take action — to vote, to educate and to advocate.

Marriage equality has been and continues to be a grueling series of legislative battles and court cases, but it’s worth it — it’s worth it because these are men and women and their families being denied equal rights in the eyes of the law. This is bigger than religion — this is an issue of civil rights and human dignity.

Illustration by Kenny Srivijittakar.

Man’s first step on the moon. Obama’s inauguration. “I Have a Dream.” Some of the nation’s best moments, moments that attest to the nobility and courage of this beautiful country, are now only the click of a search button away.

We were looking forward to adding the first YouTube broadcast of a 9th Circuit Court hearing to the list. The outcome of this particular trial will render whether marriage between a man and man, or woman and woman, is constitutional in the state of California. Nearly 2.6 million people await the verdict, poised on pins and needles. If Proposition 8, the law in question, is upheld, these individuals’ right to marry whom they choose will again be denied. Should it be overturned, their right as human beings, their right as Americans, to determine the course of their lives and share in the privileges afforded to the rest of the nation, will be acknowledged and shared.

U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, overseeing the trial, ruled that cameras could film the litigation and the footage could be broadcast on YouTube. The Prop. 8 trial has a potential audience that is nearly 10 percent of the state’s population, not to mention the millions of queer people and their allies around the globe emotionally invested in this historic moment. Judge Walker pushed for as much accessibility and transparency as possible, clearly recognizing the breadth of the issue at hand.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to indefinitely block cameras from the courtroom, stating that Walker decided “at the eleventh hour” to broadcast “a high-profile trial that would include witness testimony about a highly contentious issue.” He made the decision on Jan. 6, five days before the trial began. The dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court decision countered by stating that “the public interest weighs in favor of providing access to the courts.”

The trial promises to be extremely emotional. In three days of litigation, tears have been shed, deeply personal stories have been shared, and fears and concerns about the future of the nation have been voiced from both sides of the courtroom. When the freedom to love openly and equally is the right being contested in a court of law, things are bound to get passionate.

This will be the first time in history that testimony regarding the harm done to gays and lesbians by Proposition 8, itself an unprecedented law, will be heard in a courtroom. It is every citizen’s right to watch this moment unfold as it happens and see the real toll this hateful measure has taken.

Defendants are concerned that broadcasting the trial will open them to intimidation and risk. They stem from the “Yes on 8” camp, the group that led a highly financed and confusing campaign that resulted in the narrow passage of a ban on same-sex marriage.

Intimidation concerns are natural and legitimate. But Judge Walker guaranteed that those who desired their faces be blanked out would be, and that every measure would be taken to ensure privacy and safety. Most of the trial’s key figures have already made themselves public through their ardent involvement in “Yes on 8.” Furthermore, the campaign conducted a vindictive assault on the right of two humans to legally unite based on archaic beliefs about the meaning of marriage. One of the central arguments of their case is that the state has a vested interest in restricting marriage to heterosexual couples for the sake of procreation. In the age of cloning, stem cell research and global overpopulation, this logic is ludicrous.

Judge Walker’s decision to allow cameras and YouTube broadcasting should be upheld. It’s time we stop hiding behind the halls of justice and open them up to people whose future health and happiness depend on what goes on behind them. This trial will not be the end of this debate. Appeals will probably continue for years, no matter who wins. When the question over same-sex marriage makes its way to the Supreme Court, as it inevitably will, the nine justices will determine the constitutionality of a minority population’s right to wed. This trial is only the beginning, and everyone, whether they are for or against it, should be privy to it.

Illustration by Joe Lai.

It’s been just over a year since the passing of Proposition 8 in early November 2008, the amendment that restricted the marriage between same-sex couples in California. One long year that has left the gay community questioning the legitimacy of their unions, and the potential for official state recognition.

Although it has only been a year since a major setback in what is being called our generation’s civil rights fight, it seems that gay marriage, no longer the “hot” topic of the day, has faded from the minds of most citizens. Replaced by concerns about the economy, health care and education, most Americans have pushed the question of gay marriage to the back burner.

After a brief period of hope in 2008, when over 18,000 couples were officially married in California between June and November, it seemed that we were finally taking a step forward. However, after the grievous blow of Prop 8, the only meager concession given to the state of California was the upholding of marriages performed that past summer, before the amendment’s passing. A small victory, but by no means satisfactory or acceptable.

While several concessions have been magnanimously imparted to the gay community by our glorious land of opportunity since 2008, it is clear that we are far from winning the war against ignorance and intolerance. In fact, in recent months several states have taken steps backwards in the fight for equality.

On Nov. 3, the state of Maine repealed its same-sex marriage statute. This most recent injustice was the latest in a series of repeals and rejections. Maine marks the 31st state to put gay marriage laws to a popular vote and lose. Presently, only Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa have officially legalized gay marriage. Out of the 50 states in our union, only five allow gay couples the same bonds that heterosexual couples have access to.

The UC, even with the budget crisis and fee increases, is doing more to support gay marriage than many states in the U.S. — a country that is currently undergoing similar financial crises and reassessment of priorities. According to the University of California Human Resources and Benefits Department, any UC employee with a domestic partner, regardless of gender, is eligible to the University of California’s retirement benefits and survivor benefits.

This public entity of California recognizes unions that many states have officially denied as being valid. Although we as a state are making some progress, conservative state statutes such as the Alabama Marriage Protection Act, take a step backwards, claiming same-sex marriage is not only against the laws of the state, but of nature.

We protest libraries closing and fee increases on a bi-weekly basis at UCSC. Why can’t we unite in the same spirit to protest this infringement of our constitutional rights? While Proposition 8 had yet to be voted on, UCSC was up in arms. Do we take defeat so easily? This is not to say that there are not many people still fighting on a daily basis to have these laws repealed all over the country, but what happened to our fire?

On January 11, 2010, the issue of the unconstitutionality of Proposition 8 will be presented and debated in the federal courts by two lawyers, Ted Olson and David Boies. We must show our support and take up our right as citizens of this often great country by letting our lawmakers know that we will not stand for this breach of our social contract any longer. As a country of progress — go Obama! — we need to keep our momentum and not lose the fervor of 2008. This is no trend that will be idly passed by.

While the issue of same-sex marriage may no longer be splashed across every front page, the problem is still undeniably present. Students and non-students alike need to rally to the cause and make sure that this violation of human rights doesn’t goes unnoticed until it is rectified.

Photo by Alex Zamora.

The Cantú Queer Center, located across from Crown College on campus, is accepting of all sexual orientations and is open to students from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Mon. thru Fri. Photo by Alex Zamora.

VIbrant Balloons led this year’s PRIDE march as it made its way throughout all of campus, ending at Kresge College in a huge celebration. Photo by Alex Zamora.

On Nov. 4 of last year, UC Santa Cruz students celebrated the election of the 44th president of the United States with a large victory run that spanned the entire campus. However, the joyful mood was soon dampened when news of the passage of Proposition 8 became known, and students’ hopes for marriage equality in the state of California began to fade.

The proposition added a section to the California Constitution that reads, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” 

On March 5, the California State Supreme Court heard the oral arguments of three cases challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8. A 90-day decision period commenced and the fate of 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place before the November election hung in the balance.

On May 26, the court rejected the challenges by a 6-1 vote and further disappointed those who had hoped for the legalization of same-sex marriage. However, the court ruled that the marriages that had occurred before the election would be exempt from the adopted revisions to the California Constitution. Justice Carlos R. Moreno was the only judge to rule that Proposition 8 was invalid. 

The arguments addressed in the hearing focused on Proposition 8’s validity, as it constitutes a revision of the California Constitution. The proposition was also questioned for possible violations under the separation of powers doctrine in the California Constitution. 

Adriana Lopez, UC Santa Cruz residential educator, and Monica Morales, UCSC alumna, were married in August 2008. Lopez is worried about what the exception to the proposition will mean for their future.

“It’s a very odd position that we’ve been put in, being one of the 18,000 same-sex couples to keep their marriage in California,” Lopez said. “We are not part of the mainstream, and I can see that becoming an obstacle.” 

Despite the difficulties arising from the state, Lopez believes her marriage means more than what others think of it. 

“We were planning on getting married even before it was legal in the state,” Lopez said. “It was more of a personal recognition of our bond before anything else.  

“The main obstacle we faced came from our family’s perception of marriage, but having a family of our own is more important to us than anything else,” Lopez said. 

With the recent legalization of same-sex marriage in Maine, there has been more and more talk about what advances California should make in the fight against the ban on same-sex marriage in California. 

New York is predicted to be next in line to jump on the same-sex marriage bandwagon that now includes Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont and Iowa. New York governor David A. Paterson broke ground when he introduced a same-sex marriage bill for his state in April. 

This latest string of New England states in support of same-sex marriage has increased the LGBT advocates’ drive in California to tackle another ballot measure on the issue by next year. 

LGBT Pride in the Community

On campus and in town, students and citizens have been gearing up to fight the court rulings with events and protests.

The people of Santa Cruz and several towns in the surrounding area gathered together on the “Day of Decision” for the California Supreme Court hearing, May 26. 

Equality Action Project team member Cathy Andrews organized the event and saw more people there than she had anticipated.

“There were several hundred people there with signs, even though so many folks in Santa Cruz were upset by the decision,” Andrews said.

On campus, a gay pride march from Cowell to Kresge caused many students to get involved and informed about California’s status for same-sex couples.

“It was great to see so many straight and gay people out marching together for the same cause,” said first-year Cowell student Mark Rossow, who participated in the march.

At the UCSC Cantú Queer Center’s GALA Gallery, the photo exhibit entitled “We Now Pronounce You” documents the recent marriages of UCSC staff, students, faculty and alumni. It is open for the spring quarter during the center’s open hours, Monday through Friday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

Deb Abbott, director of the Cantú Queer Center, said that the photo exhibit gives the stories of each couple, and although the exhibit is a celebration of the marriages, for some of the couples it was a long and strenuous process to be married. 

“There are many couples that got married last summer, which is very exciting, but very few people realize that for a long time, those weddings were in limbo,” Abbott said. “There are couples that were forced to get their marriage annulled.” 

Santa Cruz’s Stance

Long before the LGBT community was more widely accepted, the city of Santa Cruz took a strong stand in supporting it. In 1983, John Laird, an openly gay man, became mayor of Santa Cruz. As one of the first gay public officials elected in the country, he successfully fought the Briggs Initiative, which attempted to ban gay teachers in schools in California. 

“Santa Cruz is particularly accepting of the GBLT community because early on, we did a lot of basic public education and grassroots organizing on the issue,” vice mayor Mike Rotkin said. “The city of Santa Cruz also started one of the first consistent gay pride events in California.” 

On June 6, the 17th annual “Dyke March” will take place in Santa Cruz, and the 35th annual LGBT Pride Festival will follow the next day at San Lorenzo Park. With a variety of booths, speakers and entertainers, both events characterize the fervent support of gay pride that can be found in the Santa Cruz community. 

With the majority of the fight to legalize gay marriage taking place in the more liberal cities of the state, there are also protests in support of gay marriage taking place in characteristically conservative areas of central California. A rally called “Meet in the Middle for Equality” took place in Fresno at the City Hall last Saturday after the California Supreme Court ruling.

“In communities that are small or not typically progressive it is especially important to have some visibility of GBLT issues and to begin to educate them on the rights they deserve to have,” Abbott said. 

In addition to less progressive areas of the state, there are also religious groups that are not accepting of the union between same-sex couples. 

Cowell first-year Nick Paterno has faced the difficulties of being an openly gay Catholic head-on. 

“At first I stopped going to church because it scared me when the priest said that it was a ‘hellfire damnation’ to be gay,” Paterno said. “I don’t think that most churches support the gay community even if they say they do.” 

Reverend David Grishaw-Jones of the First Congregational Church in Santa Cruz expressed the importance of accepting multiple viewpoints within the church community. 

“I want to believe our country can be a place where a wide diversity of views and spiritual values are tolerated and welcomed,” Grishaw-Jones said. “What worries and angers me is the attitude among some fundamentalist Christians that theirs is the only view that matters.” 

Abbott said that California’s decision was more of a reflection of the financial power of religious groups than a reflection of how the majority of California citizens felt on the issue of same-sex marriage.