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.

---- (C) 2011 City on a Hill Press. All Rights Reserved. View online at Voting with Purpose

Illustration by Muriel Gordon.

With the 2012 presidential elections quickly approaching, the nation has witnessed President Barack Obama rushing follow through with the promises made during his campaign.

Democrats grinned and bore through the bank bailouts, the extensions of the Bush-era tax cuts, and seeing 30,000 additional troops pour into Afghanistan. But now the compromised, freewheeling Obama administration is finally turning its attention to gay rights.

Hot on the heels of repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, last week Obama openly criticized the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), saying that the law is “unconstitutional.”

DOMA places federal restrictions on marriage to legally recognize only unions between one man and one woman. The law affected 1,138 federal programs in which marital status was a factor in eligibility for benefits, according to a 2004 federal report. Ever since it was signed into law in 1996 by President Bill Clinton, DOMA has received heated criticism from gay rights activists as unfair and immoral.

Obama’s stance, as backed by Attorney General Eric Holder, marks the strongest domestic policy move the president has made regarding gay rights. The calls on the Justice Department to simply stop defending DOMA would also be one of the largest stretches of Obama’s executive power to date, something conservatives like Newt Gingrich have come to see as an “impeachable offense.”

While it may be a large stretch, it is not unheard of.

In 1990, the administration of President George H.W. Bush ceased to defend federal laws that set a preference to awarding broadcasting rights to minority-owned businesses. For an added twist, the Justice Department’s attorney who refused to defend the laws was John Roberts, now chief justice of the Supreme Court.

Thus, it is a little absurd to suggest, as Gingrich has, that the president’s actions warrant an impeachment.

The question the Obama administration faces is simple: Can moral legislation be considered lawful? While Obama has stated that he didn’t “believe” in gay marriage in the past, his “evolving” campaign agenda did include pushing for the states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws.

The absence of a unified consensus from both chambers of Congress — having lost the House to a Republican majority in the midterm elections — it is clear that Obama lacks the necessary tools to properly implement his agenda.

This is why gay rights advocates should be speculative about this being their “watershed moment.” As it stands, repealing DOMA is an uphill battle in the House. Furthermore, pending the upcoming 2012 presidential election, a different president could always readopt defending DOMA — as has been the case for the last 15 years.

In lieu of a stronger call for the states to individually recognize same-sex marriage — as Iowa, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Hampshire have done — the president must push for a more concrete solution to be put in place.

---- (C) 2011 City on a Hill Press. All Rights Reserved. View online at DOMA Arigato, Mr. Obama

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.

---- (C) 2011 City on a Hill Press. All Rights Reserved. View online at Here, Queer and Not Going Anywhere

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. 

---- (C) 2011 City on a Hill Press. All Rights Reserved. View online at The Same-Sex Marriage Fight in California Is Not Over

Illustration by Joe Lai.

These days, it seems that culture wars have as secure a standing in America as apple pie and baseball. 

The recent battle between entertainment blogger Perez Hilton and Miss USA contestant Carrie Prejean highlights one of the most contentious cultural debates facing our nation: same-sex marriage.

Unless you’ve been avoiding all forms of mainstream media for the past month, you’re probably aware that 21-year-old Miss California’s response to Hilton’s question about legalizing same-sex marriage on a national level sparked a media firestorm that only the modern instantaneous news cycle could produce. There were press conferences with Donald Trump, instant endorsements of the beauty queen by anti-same-sex marriage groups, battles between the left and right media talking heads, and of course, topless photos released on the Internet.

However, as the incessant media coverage begins to dwindle and Prejean’s 15 minutes of fame finally comes to a close, our nation has come no closer to addressing the fact that the civil right to marry is still systematically denied to a portion of our population.

During the April 19 pageant, in which Prejean finished runner-up, she explained her belief that marriage should remain between a man and a woman. A whirlwind tour of daytime talk shows followed, during which Prejean justified her answer, saying her intent was to remain biblically, rather than politically, correct. 

Prejean was also featured in an advertisement produced by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) that warned against the potentially threatening “consequences of same-sex marriage” and later announced that she would be a spokesperson for the group.

At a press conference on May 12, Trump, who partially owns the Miss Universe Organization, announced that Prejean would be allowed to keep her Miss California crown, despite the recent emergence of some risqué photos of her. He also defended the contestant’s right to speak her belief that marriage should be between a man and woman.

Trump was right in that regard. Prejean should not be punished for honestly answering the question she was asked. And while the subsequent release of her topless photos seemingly undermines the moral righteousness that she used to initially justify her position, that’s not really the problem either.

What is truly at issue is the fact that by joining the campaign to fight same-sex marriage on a legislative level, Prejean took her beliefs beyond simply answering a controversial question.

It is one thing to oppose same-sex marriage on strictly religious and personal grounds, even when those religious beliefs might be masking bigotry and intolerance. However, by partnering with groups like NOM, which influences policymakers to keep same-sex marriage illegal, Prejean is using her crown in an effort to deny people the fundamental right to marry — people who Prejean, as Miss California, is supposed to represent.

“On April 19 on that stage, I exercised my freedom of speech, and I was punished for doing so,” Prejean said at the May 12 press conference. “This should not happen in America. It undermines the constitutional rights for which my grandfather fought.”

Miss California is right — her free speech should not be denied in America. But neither should the 1,138 federal protections and benefits that are not extended to the gay couples that cannot legally marry or enter civil unions in this country. 

Perhaps Prejean should consider that her grandfather fought not only for her constitutional and civil rights, but everyone’s. Maybe then, she can wear a Miss California crown representing all the people of our diverse state, not just those who fit the status quo.

---- (C) 2011 City on a Hill Press. All Rights Reserved. View online at Politically Correct Misses