YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollectionsBan On Same Sex Marriage

Ban On Same Sex Marriage

May 23, 2010 | By Ruben Vives, Los Angeles Times
Targeting districts that voted heavily in favor banning same-sex marriage, gay-rights activists took to the streets throughout Los Angeles County on Saturday and made personal appeals for legalization. Organizers said they hoped to humanize their cause by having gay and lesbian couples share their struggles with residents. "We become human when we tell our stories, that is why across the state we're going out and talking to people who aren't with us," said Marc Solomon, marriage director of Equality California, the state's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocacy organization.
August 4, 2010 | By Maura Dolan and Carol J. Williams, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
The federal judge who overturned Proposition 8 Wednesday said the ballot initiative that banned same-sex marriage was based on moral disapproval of gay marriage and ordered the state to stop enforcing the ban. U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker, in a 136-page ruling, said California "has no interest in differentiating between same-sex and opposite-sex unions." "The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples," Walker wrote.
June 5, 2012 | By Patt Morrison
On what political tout sheet is North Carolina listed as a swing state? Because it looks like it's already swung, and not in the direction of the Democrats, who hold their convention there in September. First came last month's vote to put a ban on same-sex marriage in the state's Constitution (a San Diego church has put up a billboard in Charlotte, the site of the Democratic convention, apologizing for the "narrow-minded, judgmental, deceptive, manipulative" vote). Now the state's Legislature is considering a law that would, for all intents and purposes, give all the legislators doctorates in climatology.
February 7, 1997 | From Times Staff and Wire Reports
Hawaii's Senate called for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages while approving a new law that would give gay and lesbian couples many of the benefits of married heterosexuals. The first bill would allow Hawaiians to vote in 1998 on a constitutional amendment giving the state the power to approve only opposite-sex marriages, as long as the marriage laws don't discriminate on the basis of gender.
January 14, 2010 | By Maura Dolan
A federal trial on same-sex marriage focused Wednesday on the similarities and differences between homosexual and heterosexual couples, with a psychology professor citing "remarkable similarities." Letitia Peplau, an expert on couple relationships, testified that studies have found that the quality of heterosexual and homosexual relationships was on average "the same" as measured by closeness, love and stability. "On average, same-sex couples and heterosexual couples are indistinguishable," said Peplau, a UCLA professor of social psychology called by attorneys for two same-sex couples who are trying to overturn Proposition 8, the 2008 voter initiative that reinstated a state ban on same-sex marriage.
January 13, 2010 | By Maura Dolan
During the second day of a widely watched federal trial on same-sex marriage, an expert on the history of marriage testified that its central purpose historically was not procreation, but the creation of stable households. Harvard professor Nancy Cott, who has written a book about the history of marriage in the United States, told a federal court in San Francisco that child rearing was only one of several purposes of marriage, not "the central or defining purpose." "There has never been a requirement that a couple produce children in order to have a valid marriage," Cott testified, adding that George Washington, the father of the nation, was sterile.
January 14, 2010 | George Skelton, Capitol Journal
The notion that baby-making is the principal purpose of marriage in 21st century America is plain absurd. Let's just say that upfront. Arguably it never has been the main reason for matrimony. Of course, for some people it has been and still is. But that doesn't make it a universally accepted concept. Not being a psychologist, anthropologist, cleric or attorney, I'm a little out of my league here. I'm merely a hack columnist, a California native who writes about state government and politics.
February 25, 2004
Under the false guise of "protecting marriage," President Bush said Tuesday he supported a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The reality is that a ban on same-sex marriage, just like former bans on mixed-race marriage, would not provide heterosexual marriages any protection. One can only wonder why President Bush feels so threatened by legal recognition of a loving relationship between two same-sex people. The thing that Bush should truly find "deeply troubling" is the possibility that he will preside over the establishment of the only amendment to our great nation's Constitution that discriminates against a minority, unfairly depriving it of benefits that are enjoyed by the majority.
October 2, 2009 | Times Wire Reports
A judge has cleared the way for two Dallas men to get a divorce, ruling that the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates the constitutional guarantee to equal protection under the law. District Judge Tena Callahan ruled that the court had jurisdiction to hear the case even though the marriage was performed elsewhere. Texas Atty. Gen. Greg Abbott argued that because the state doesn't recognize same-sex marriage, its courts can't dissolve one through divorce. Voters approved a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in 2005.
January 30, 2009 | Jessica Garrison
A federal judge Thursday denied a request by Proposition 8 supporters to withhold disclosing any more names and addresses of donors who supported the campaign for the state's ban on same-sex marriage. Yes on 8 campaign officials had challenged the constitutionality of the state's Political Reform Act, saying that people who gave money were being harassed and that some received death threats. The act, passed in 1974, requires campaigns to reveal personal information of people who give more than $100 to campaigns.
Los Angeles Times Articles