By Alex Emslie
STAFF WRITER

Members of Bay Area Coalition of Welcoming Congregations lead the march from Church Street to Civic Center Plaza in San Francisco On May 26 in support of overturning Prop. 8. RAMSEY EL-QARE / THE GUARDSMAN

Supporters of same-sex marriage gathered in force early Tuesday morning at St. Frances Lutheran Church and marched chanting and singing to hear the state Supreme Court’s decision on the fate of Proposition 8. The cautiously optimistic crowd erupted into boos and shouts of, “shame on you,” when the decision was announced at approximately 10:03 a.m.

Of the three arguments before California’s highest court, two challenged the constitutionality of Prop. 8’s denial of marriage to same-sex couples. In a 6-1 vote, those constitutional challenges were rejected, and the amendment to the state constitution stating “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California,” was upheld.

The third argument before the state Supreme Court, raised by attorney’s representing The Official Proponents of Proposition 8 and asking for the annulment of roughly 18,000 same-sex marriages conducted before the passage of the amendment, was unanimously denied by the court. Common supreme court practice denies the retroactive application of new laws unless the legislation contains specific language requiring it. Prop. 8, as it was presented to voters, contained no such language.

Protester of the state Supreme Court's decision on upholding Prop.8 being arrested for blocking the intersection of Van Ness Avenue and Grove Street in San Francisco on May 26. RAMSEY EL-QARE / THE GUARDSMAN

After the announcement, angry protesters moved to block the intersection of Grove Street and Van Ness Avenue, just outside City Hall. San Francisco Police Department Lieutenant Slade said, one platoon — or about 60 officers — were present at the civil disobedience following the announcement. According to sfexaminer.com, 175 protesters were arrested and released.

“This is a great demonstration between community activists and local clergy who are really outraged by the decision of the Supreme Cxourt to uphold Proposition 8,” said Rev. Roland Stringfellow of The Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion and Ministry. He said despite the Court’s decision not to nullify previous same-sex marriages, many protesters still saw the ruling as a defeat. “That is why we’re out on the streets today to make our voices heard and also put our bodies on the line.”  Rev. Stringfellow was arrested roughly 30 minutes later.

United Methodist Minister Israel Alvaren, who helped to coordinate about 40 clergy members with the organization One Struggle, One Fight, said he had cooperated with the SFPD to stage the protest. “Yes. We had a liaison,” an SFPD Leiutenent said. “We’re going to give them their time to express their opinions and differences, possibly for about an hour. At that point, we have to restore order.”

Proponents of Proposition 8 also made a smaller appearance Tuesday, hoisting signs reading “‘Gay’ = Perverted” and “Marriage is still one man and one woman.”

“Our social fiber is based upon the relationship between a man and a female,” said Steve Macias, student body president of Sacramento City College. “That is the beginning of the family; the beginning of society. [The] ruling upholds the right way to conduct society. Without this, we have a degradation of society.”  He also said the state Supreme Court’s decision against nullification was “politically motivated.”

Frank Parish, who said he had worked for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, was outside the Supreme Court building collecting signatures for an initiative to strike down Proposition 8. He said more than 700,000 signatures would be required, since some would disqualified. Rev. Stringfellow said they would, “get marriage equality back on the ballot hopefully as soon as 2010 and, if not, 2012.”

“As a person of faith I would just say that the fight is not over; that we struggle in the tradition of the leaders of the civil rights leaders of the past,” concluded Alvaren. “This is a civil rights issue. For those who are on our side, let them have hope that this will, in the end, be a triumph for justice and equality.”

Ramsey El-Qare contributed to this story

In mid-March, US Attorney General Eric Holder announced the Drug Enforcement Administration would no longer target growers in states permitting legal medical marijuana use.

Holder’s approach is starkly different from that of the Bush administration policy to raid state-sanctioned medical marijuana dispensaries because they violate federal law. The 1970 Controlled Substances Act classifies marijuana as a schedule I controlled substance with a “high potential for abuse” and “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.”

California and 12 other states have tenaciously legalized marijuana as medication, however. Holder’s policy statement is a victory for states’ rights and indicative of a more respectful, less pulpit-style administration. States now have the right to assert their own will concerning drug laws and enforcement, at least in respect to marijuana.

The new federal medical marijuana enforcement policy is a historic step toward liberalization of America’s traditionally conservative drug laws, which have built a nation of prisoners and an immoral economy of people-keepers, attorneys, judges, police, parole officers and councilors. I’m in favor of any change allowing states to realize the liberty of their citizens to the fullest extent.

As I thought about our nation’s recent sensible shift in drug policy, I began to wonder when I’m in favor of states’ rights and when I am not. I might not a republican as strict as Thomas Jefferson was, who generally defended the rights of states to govern themselves.

I welcome the right of states to implement drug policy, but I’m appalled by Proposition 8. I fail to grasp how a tyrannical majority could presume to inflict oppression and degrade a percentage of America’s population to a lower class: One undeserving of the Declaration of Independence’s creed of natural equality; one slipping through the cracks of the 14th amendment’s equal protection doctrine.

As separate as the issues of medical marijuana and same-sex marriage may seem, they embody two opposing sides assaulting my morality when I think about states’ rights. But the conundrum is short lived, for there is a difference in the details of these issues that allows reconciliation.

First, the Obama administration’s new drug policies encourage harmless liberties — the right to make health decisions for one’s self — whereas Proposition 8 denies liberty. The propagation of freedom is an important and intrinsic American ideal; good enough for a final, shot-in-the-dark justification for the Iraq War , so it should be good enough for my political sensibilities.

The war on drugs is an advent of the 20th century, while the principle of equality among citizens under the law is foundational to the United States’ concept of democracy. Equality is a conviction too fundamental to be threatened by a bare majority in a state-wide election.

I hope California’s Supreme Court will look past the intricate, state-based legal reasoning presented March 5 and agree with the somewhat loftier argument of Attorney General Brown — who said the natural rights of liberty prohibit Proposition 8. And as for the new administration, I’m glad there are some positive news to report. Though some policies — like the wars in the Middle East and the economy — leave me uneasy, I’m glad for a small respite in this tired, lost and strange war on drugs.

Thousands of protesters gathered in San Francisco's Civic Center Plaza on November 15 to protest the passing of the California ballot initiative Proposition 8. GRAHAM HENDERSON / THE GUARDSMAN

By Lauren Tyler
Staff Writer

Thousands of protesters gathered at San Francisco’s City Hall on Nov. 15 to protest the recent passage of Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage in California.

Several speakers presented their views on Proposition 8 and gave the crowd fuel and strategy about how to possibly overturn the proposition.

California state assemblyman Mark Leno compared the passing of Proposition 8 to the ballot initiative Proposition 22 in 2000, which prevented the recognition of same-sex marriage. Proposition 22 received eighteen more points than Proposition 8 did this in election.

“We picked up eighteen points, they [the supporters of Proposition 8] lost eighteen points. We have the momentum and they are hanging on by a thread,” Leno said.

Leno also questioned the motives of religious groups supporting Proposition 8, saying that the proposition denies citizen of their basic civil rights.

State Sen. Carol Migden told protesters their gathering presents “the fuel, the substance, the momentum … that we will use to propel from this day forward.”

Migden also spoke about the position taken by many religious organizations against same-sex marriages in their churches. “I’ll take it [same-sex marriage] through City Hall. You don’t want us in your church? I don’t go to your church,” Migden said.

From the opposite end of the political spectrum, the Rev. Amos Brown, head of the San Francisco chapter of the NAACP and a devout baptist from Mississippi said, “I am heterosexual … though I am a baptist, I am not a bigot!”

He questioned the beliefs of the conservative religious right and the persistence on keeping marriage from same-sex couple when the divorce rate is highest in the bible belt.

Same-sex couples and their children also spoke to the crowd gathered at the Civic Center Plaza.

Join the Impact, the group that organized the protest, coordinated simultaneous protests in 150 U.S. cities, as well as international protests against Proposition 8.

Check back with The Guardsman for any post-updates updates from Nov. 15 Proposition 8 protests that are happening around the Bay Area, and specifically at San Francisco’s City Hall.

View Guardsman staff writer Lauren Tyler’s story on San Francisco’s Prop 8 protest: Thousands gather in Civic Center Plaza to protest Prop 8.

Follow The Guardsman on Twitter via sfbreakingnews for any breaking news in San Francisco, or at City College.

By Graham Henderson
Staff Writer

On November 4, California voters will have a chance to take away the right of same-sex couples to marry by voting YES on Proposition 8. The proposition is an amendment to the California Constitution put onto the ballot following a petition initiated by voters.

The proposition is identical to Proposition 22, which was passed by California voters in 2000, but was overturned as unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court in May 2008. Proposition 22, like Proposition 8, define marriage as only between a man and a woman.

Couples of all sexual orientations should be allowed to marry. Just because the proposition was passed in 2000 does not make it correct, that’s why the court overturned it.

Groups, both for and against the proposition, are running ads on major television networks across California. The group “Yes on 8” asserts that if Proposition 8 were to be defeated, it would force church organizations which support traditional marriage or lose their tax-exempt status, and would force same-sex marriage to be taught in school, “starting with kindergartners”, according the group’s Web site.

This is not true. When the court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, it specifically declared that no groups would have to change their beliefs, nor would they have to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies against their will.

California law already prohibits schools from teaching children health and family values against the will of their parents. If a child were to be taught values their parents disagreed with, the parents would legally be able to stop it. It is never mentioned that this same law would also prevent schools from teaching marriage is strictly between a man and a woman if, for example, a same-sex couple with children objected to it.

Schools should teach tolerance — teaching that marriage is only between a man and a woman is not teaching family values: it is teaching discrimination.

Rights for domestic partners are already provided for by California law, but being married gives more dignity and respect in society, according to Vote No on Prop 8, a group running ads opposed to the proposition. “Married couples can automatically make life or death decisions for each other in these crisis situations, no questions asked,” the group’s Web site reads.

Interracial marriage between blacks and whites was still illegal in 16 states until half a century ago, when the ban was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Even California’s laws banning interracial marriage were not overturned until 1959. Interracial marriage had been considered socially unacceptable, but people finally realized that banning different races from marrying was discriminatory, regardless of what their personal beliefs might be.

Today the issue is not longer interracial marriage, but same-sex marriage. Ironically, the whole battle is really over a word. A healthy relationship is no different than a marriage. It shouldn’t matter if your relationship is called a marriage, boyfriend/girlfriend or a domestic partnership. Two people who love each other are two people who love each other, regardless of what they call themselves. But straight couples have the right to call their relationship a marriage – if same-sex couples want that right too, not giving it to them is discriminatory.

MICHAEL MORGAN / GUARDSMAN