|
CA Gay Marriage |
| Performing Gay and
Lesbian Marriages in California |
|
|
HOT NEWS TOPICS
| Home
Ceremonies
Civil Unions
About Us
Contact Us
Affiliates
News
|
|
|
California gay marriage battle turns to court role
Tue Jan 6, 2009 2:46am GMT
By Peter Henderson
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The legal battle over gay marriage
in California turned on Monday to whether the state's top court
could strike down a change in the state constitution that was
approved by voters.
Gay marriage opponents said overturning a same-sex marriage
ban would change the nature of California government by gutting
the people's right to make law.
Giving such power to the court would create "a sweeping
power vested in the least-democratic branch that overrides the
precious right of the people to determine how they will be
governed," they said in court papers filed on Monday.
"It is essentially changing the constitution-making
function from the people to the courts," lawyer Andrew
Pugno, a supporter of Proposition 8, which defines marriage as
between a man and a woman, said by telephone.
Gay marriage proponents, led by California Attorney General
Jerry Brown, argue that the right to marry is part of the
"inalienable right" to liberty, so the state Supreme
Court must strike down even an amendment to the constitution
limiting it.
State voters approved Prop 8 on November 4, removing
California from the short list of U.S. states, Canadian
provinces and mostly European countries allowing same-sex
unions.
The vote in California, which had begun allowing gay marriage
only months earlier, sparked protests across the United States,
even though a solid majority of states have outlawed same-sex
marriage.
California often sets socially liberal precedents for the
rest of the United States, but many of its residents have a
fundamentalist democratic, anti-government bent. Citizens have
wide latitude to change laws and the state constitution directly
via popular vote -- which was the case with the gay marriage
ban.
The ban was approved by 52 percent of voters. Brown says
that, unless there is a compelling societal need, the court must
safeguard liberty first and foremost. Lawyers backing the ban,
he said, want "to say that a fundamental liberty is only
fundamental until 52 percent of the people say otherwise."
The court, which in a summer 2008 opinion opened the door to
same-sex marriage -- until the ban was passed in November -- is
expected to hear oral arguments in March.
(Reporting by Peter Henderson, Editing by Patricia Zengerle) |
|
===============
|
Anti-gay marriage group steps up for Prop. 8
Bob Egelko,
Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
(11-10) 16:48 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- A group opposed
to same-sex marriage wants to help defend Proposition 8 before the
California Supreme Court, saying lawsuits seeking to overturn the Nov. 4
ballot measure threaten the initiative process.
Three suits filed the day after the election open the door to
"step-by-step elimination of the people's right to amend the
Constitution by initiative," attorneys with Liberty Counsel said
Monday in papers submitted on behalf of the Campaign for California
Families.
They said Attorney General Jerry Brown's office, which plans to
defend Prop. 8 in court, represents only the interests of state
officials in "furnishing marriage license forms" and enforcing
the law and can't adequately speak for the voters who backed the
measure.
Prop. 8, which passed with 52 percent of the vote, amends the state
Constitution to allow marriage only between a man and a woman. It would
overturn a state Supreme Court ruling on May 15 that granted same-sex
couples a constitutional right to marry.
It is being challenged by two groups of same-sex couples, gay-rights
advocates and local governments led by the city of San Francisco. They
contend Prop. 8 violates fundamental rights of equality and interferes
with the judiciary's constitutional duty to protect minorities. Two of
the suits argue that the measure amounts to a revision of the state
Constitution, which can be placed on the ballot only by a two-thirds
vote of the Legislature.
Calling the suits "patently frivolous," Liberty Counsel
founder Mathew Staver said in a statement Monday that "it makes no
sense that four judges can rewrite the historic definition of marriage
and more than 5 million people (who voted for Prop. 8) cannot restore it
to its common understanding."
The state Supreme Court has not yet said whether it will accept the
suits for review and grant the plaintiffs' request to block enforcement
of Prop. 8, an order that would allow gay and lesbian couples to marry
while the case was pending. The justices could also address the validity
of an estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages that were conducted before the
election.
The Campaign for California Families, a conservative religious
organization, is asking to intervene in the case and take part in any
hearings the court holds. The group that sponsored Prop. 8, Protect
Marriage, has said it will also seek to intervene. If the court denies
the requests, the groups could still submit written arguments.
A similar question arose earlier this year when the court was
reviewing state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. The court allowed
the same two organizations to take part in oral arguments, where they
contended the laws were valid because children are better off with
opposite-sex parents. The state did not make that argument, and none of
the justices writing majority and dissenting opinions in the case
endorsed it.
The court eventually decided that the conservative groups were not
proper parties to the case because their rights were not at stake. In
the new filing, however, the Campaign for California Families argues
that it has a right to defend the ballot measure that it helped to pass.
"None of the (state officials sued in the case) has the same
interests that the campaign and its members have in preserving the
people's will as expressed in Proposition 8," the group's lawyers
said.
The lead case is Strauss vs. Horton, S168047.
|
| Home
Ceremonies
Civil Unions
About Us
Contact Us
Affiliates
|
|
===============
Prop. 8 repercussions hit Sacramento theater
3:09 PM, November 11, 2008
Los Angeles Times.com
The blowback from last Tuesday's passage of Prop. 8, which
prohibits same-sex marriage in California, has hit the California
Musical Theatre, a major nonprofit stage company in Sacramento,
following the revelation via the Web that its artistic director gave
$1,000 to back the state constitutional amendment.
Among those weighing in with dismay over Scott
Eckern's donation are Tony winners Jeff
Whitty, who wrote the book for "Avenue Q," and Marc
Shaiman, composer and co-lyricist of "Hairspray."
Shaiman said Tuesday that he phoned Eckern on Friday to protest,
then e-mailed more than 1,000 contacts to alert them about the
donation.
"Of course it's his right to donate the money," said
Shaiman, who was disappointed that Eckern, a California Musical
Theatre employee since 1984 and its artistic director since 2003,
had benefited from last season's touring production of
"Hairspray," then piped money to a cause the L.A.-based
Shaiman deplores. In their conversation, Shaiman said, "he
basically gave me that thing we're just sick of hearing -- 'these
are my religious beliefs, but it's nothing personal' " against
gay people. "I don't want to hear that anymore. I just told him
I'm disgusted at that use of money that came in some way from a show
I created." (Update: The “Hairspray” production at
California Musical Theatre last August was not a touring production,
but one mounted by CMT itself. A touring version of “Hairspray”
was seen at the theater in 2004.)
Whitty, whose "Avenue Q" is scheduled to play the
Sacramento theater in March, was among those alerted by Shaiman's
e-mail. On Monday, he wrote in his whitless.com
blog that "like Marc, I'll work to prevent CMT from
producing any of my future shows with Mr. Eckern at the helm. To me,
he's one of those hypocrites who profits from the contributions of
gays ... but thinks of us as ultimately damned."
But today, despite wanting to "make an example of
somebody," Whitty blogged that he reversed his stance on a
boycott, writing that Eckern had given him a "convincing and
sincere apology" and didn't deserve to be targeted for more
censure. Whitty said he would "look forward to working with the
California Musical Theatre in the future."
Shaiman said he would keep pushing for public acknowledgment and
redress that would not damage the theater for one individual's
political views but would make it clear that anti-gay views won't be
accepted in the theater community. A benefit event at California
Musical Theatre might be appropriate, he said, allowing backers of
gay marriage an artistic platform while raising money to help mount
a legal appeal to overturn Prop. 8.
In any case, Shaiman said, the response should be measured. When
told that Eckern's donation had been posted on a website called
antigayblacklist.com that calls for a boycott against businesses and
professionals who backed Prop. 8 -- including some public school
teachers -- the composer, who also writes film music, questioned
using the word "blacklist," the term for the exclusion of
artists in 1950s Hollywood for having suspected Communist leanings.
"We have to watch ourselves and not become what we're fighting
against," he said.
Eckern released a statement today apologizing "for any harm
or injury" caused by his donation. He said he would donate
$1,000 -- commensurate to what he gave Prop. 8 backers -- to the
Human Rights Campaign, a group that supports equal rights for gays
and lesbians. .
After talking with many friends and colleagues, he said, "I
have a better idea ... how deeply felt these issues are, and I am
deeply saddened that my acting upon my religious convictions has
been devastating to those I love and admire." He noted that his
sister, a lesbian, is in a domestic partnership relationship.
Richard Lewis, the executive producer whose family founded
California Musical Theatre decades ago, said Eckern's views were his
own, not the theater's, and affirmed "appreciation ... for the
[lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] community who have played a
crucial role in our success." A torrent of e-mails and calls
protesting Eckern's donation began on Friday and has continued, said
Lewis, who likened the blowup to when Los Angeles Dodgers
executive Al Campanis questioned on national television whether
black ballplayers had the right stuff to be successful baseball
managers.
"We're looking at the magnitude of the situation and need to
discuss whether we take any action.... We don't want to rush into
things and do something foolish," Lewis added. "We just
put the initial statement out there: 'Don't punish the theater for
what Scott chose to do.' "
The theater, which presents touring Broadway shows and produces
its own summer musical festival of seven shows, hiring scores of
actors and designers who commonly work in New York, has no policy
against employees being politically active or making political
contributions, Lewis said. He dismissed the notion that Eckern could
be fired for backing Prop. 8 or that it would be allowable under
California employment law.
-- Mike Boehm
Photos: Marc Shaiman, top; Jeff Whitty, with Tony Award
Photo credits: Shaiman, Al Seib / Los Angeles Times; Whitty,
Jeff Christensen / Reuters
|
| Home
Ceremonies
Civil Unions
About Us
Contact Us
Affiliates
|
|
=====================
California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban
In a 4-3 decision, the justices rule that people have a fundamental
'right to marry' the person of their choice and that gender
restrictions violate the state Constitution's equal protection
guarantee
By Maura Dolan, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
May 16, 2008
SAN FRANCISCO -- -- The California Supreme Court struck down the
state's ban on same-sex marriage Thursday in a broadly worded decision
that would invalidate virtually any law that discriminates on the
basis of sexual orientation.
The 4-3 ruling declared that the state Constitution protects a
fundamental "right to marry" that extends equally to
same-sex couples. It tossed a highly emotional issue into the election
year while opening the way for tens of thousands of gay people to wed
in California, starting as early as mid-June.
The majority opinion, by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, declared
that any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation will
from this point on be constitutionally suspect in California in the same
way as laws that discriminate by race or gender, making the state's high
court the first in the nation to adopt such a stringent standard.
The decision was a bold surprise from a moderately conservative,
Republican-dominated court that legal scholars have long dubbed
"cautious," and experts said it was likely to influence other
courts around the country.
But the scope of the court's decision could be thrown into question by
an initiative already heading toward the November ballot. The initiative
would amend the state Constitution to prohibit same-sex unions.
The campaign over that measure began within minutes of the decision. The
state's Catholic bishops and other opponents of same-sex marriage
denounced the court's ruling. But Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who
previously has vetoed two bills in favor of gay marriage, issued a
statement saying he "respects" the decision and "will not
support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn" it.
The ruling was greeted with loud cheering and whooping when it was
released at the high court's headquarters here Thursday morning. About
100 people lined up outside to purchase copies of the decision for $10
apiece. Some people bought 10 to 15 copies, calling it a historic
document. One man said he planned to give them out as Christmas
presents.
Gay groups planned celebrations up and down the state.
"I can finally say I will be able to marry John, the man that I
love," said Stuart Gaffney, one of the plaintiffs in the case,
referring to his partner of 21 years, John Lewis. "Today is the
happiest and most romantic day of our lives."
Conservative and religious-affiliated groups denounced the decision and
pledged to bring enough voters to the polls in November to overturn it.
Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, called the decision
"outrageous" and "nonsense."
"No matter how you stretch California's Constitution, you cannot
find anywhere in its text, its history or tradition that now, after so
many years, it magically protects what most societies condemn,"
Staver said.
The decision came after high courts in New York, Washington and New
Jersey refused to extend marriage rights to gay couples. Only
Massachusetts' top court has ruled in favor of permitting gays to wed.
The court's ruling repeatedly invoked the words "respect and
dignity" and framed the marriage question as one that deeply
affected not just couples but also their children. California has more
than 100,000 households headed by gay couples, about a quarter with
children, according to 2000 census data.
"Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to
establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another
person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend
upon the individual's sexual orientation," George wrote for the
majority. "An individual's sexual orientation -- like a person's
race or gender -- does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to
deny or withhold legal rights."
Many gay Californians said that even the state's broadly worded domestic
partnership law provided only a second-class substitute for marriage.
The court agreed.
Giving a different name, such as "domestic partnership," to
the "official family relationship" of same-sex couples imposes
"appreciable harm" both on the couples and their children, the
court said.
The distinction might cast "doubt on whether the official family
relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of
opposite-sex couples," George wrote, joined by Justices Joyce L.
Kennard, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar and Carlos R. Moreno. All but Moreno
were appointed by Republican governors. George was appointed by Gov.
Pete Wilson in 1991.
The ruling cited a 60-year-old precedent that struck down a ban on
interracial marriage in California.
The three dissenting justices argued that it was up to the electorate or
the Legislature to decide whether gays should be permitted to marry.
In 2000, 61% of California voters approved a ballot measure, Proposition
22, that said "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and
recognized in California."
Since then, the Legislature has passed one of the strongest domestic
partnership laws in the country, giving registered same-sex couples most
of the rights of married people.
"In my view, California should allow our gay and lesbian neighbors
to call their unions marriage," Justice Carol A. Corrigan wrote in
the first sentence of her dissent.
"But I, and this court, must acknowledge that a majority of
Californians hold a different view and have explicitly said so by their
vote. This court can overrule a vote of the people only if the
Constitution compels us to do so. Here, the Constitution does not."
Justice Marvin R. Baxter, joined by Justice Ming W. Chin, said the
ruling "creates the opportunity for further judicial extension of
this perceived constitutional right into dangerous territory."
"Who can say that in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might
not rely on the majority's analysis to conclude, on the basis of a
perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting
polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally
justified?" Baxter wrote.
The decision takes effect in 30 days. Gay couples would then be
permitted to marry in California, even if they do not live in the state,
gay rights lawyers said. Under federal law, however, other states would
not have to recognize those marriages as valid. And same-sex couples
would remain ineligible for certain federal benefits, including Social
Security benefits for spouses and joint filing for income taxes.
Lawyers on both sides of the debate said they were uncertain how a
victory for the proposed November initiative -- which both sides predict
will qualify for the ballot -- would affect gay couples who marry during
the next several months.
University of Santa Clara law professor Gerald Uelmen, who has closely
followed the state high court for decades, said he was "blown
away" and "very surprised" by the ruling.
"The court is exerting some leadership here, and I think it needs
to be said that it is a new role for the court," Uelmen said.
"This has not been a court that has been willing to stick its neck
out and lead the way on cutting-edge issues like this that involve such
strong political feelings."
Uelmen said the court's vote probably reflected the fact that a growing
number of Californians favor marriage for gay couples. He noted the case
attracted a record number of friend-of-the-court briefs, most of them in
favor of same-sex marriage.
Although critics of the ruling, including the dissenters, argued the
court should have waited for the voters to decide the question of
same-sex marriage, "the majority is not always supposed to have its
way" in constitutional democracies, said University of Pennsylvania
constitutional law professor Kermit Roosevelt, one of many legal
scholars who weighed in on the case Thursday.
Roosevelt predicted more states would follow California's example and
that the U.S. Supreme Court would eventually rule in favor of same-sex
marriage.
"That decision will come at the end of a process that is now just
beginning," Roosevelt said. He predicted it would follow the
pattern of state courts that struck down laws banning interracial
marriage decades ago.
The decision followed several recent rulings by the state high court
recognizing the rights of same-sex parents, including those not
biologically related to their children. The children in those families
figured prominently in the court's reasoning in those cases.
The road to Thursday's ruling began with San Francisco's highly
publicized same-sex weddings, which in 2004 helped spur a conservative
backlash in an election year and a national dialogue over gay rights.
Several states later passed constitutional amendments banning gay
marriage, and same-sex marriage became an issue in the race for
president.
After a month of jubilant gay weddings here, the California Supreme
Court intervened and ordered the city to stop issuing licenses to
same-sex couples.
The state high court later invalidated the licenses, saying the city
should have waited for a judicial ruling before acting.
The plan by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, City Atty. Dennis Herrera
and gay rights lawyers to challenge state law by marrying same-sex
couples was carefully drawn.
City officials chose the first couples to wed, hoping their long unions
and sympathetic stories would put a face on same-sex marriage that
courts would find difficult to reject. The city also decided to begin
the weddings on a day when courts were closed to deprive opponents of
quick legal intervention. One of the first couples to wed has since
separated.
The long parade of weddings at City Hall -- across the street from the
California Supreme Court -- provided a dramatic backdrop for the gay
rights debate.
As the issue moved into the high court, Brad Sears, executive director
of the Williams Institute at UCLA's law school, which examines sexual
orientation and the law, said the state's broad domestic partner law had
undercut the traditional argument that children were better off being
raised by opposite-sex parents.
"Taking those issues off the table, which the domestic partners act
did, might have made this an easier case for everyone," Sears said.
Once the state recognized the right of gays to rear children, the fight
for same-sex marriage was shaped as "the right to have a
family" and the ruling became "about family being
protected."
The court concluded that giving gays a separate institution -- domestic
partnership -- "marked gays and lesbians as second-class
citizens," Sears said.
The Massachusetts high court ruling that permitted gays there to marry
did not give sexual orientation the same kind of constitutional
protection that Thursday's decision did, nor was the Massachusetts
ruling as explicit in stating that marriage licenses must be given to
same-sex couples in the immediate future, legal analysts said.
Sears said recent polls show that Californians are divided over same-sex
marriage. Forty-three percent of Californians supported gay marriage in
a Field Poll taken a year ago.
He added that the issue was likely to affect the political debate even
outside California.
"It is going to give some new teeth to an issue that was losing its
potency in terms of being a wedge issue," Sears said.
Times staff writers Patrick McGreevy in Sacramento, Rong-Gong
Lin II, Jean-Paul Renaud, Francisco Vara-Orta, Molly Hennessy-Fiske in
Los Angeles and John M. Glionna and Lee Romney in San Francisco
contributed to this report.
------------------------------------ |
Gay revelers celebrate pride, marriage rights
By MALIA WOLLAN –
June 30, 2008
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A lesbian motorcycle group dressed in bridal
veils, wedding gowns and leather lent a matrimonial touch to San
Francisco's gay pride parade Sunday as revelers celebrated their
newfound freedom to marry.
The riders tossed bouquets as they led the city's 38th annual gay
pride parade down Market Street. Some of the motorcycles were adorned
with signs that read "Just Married."
Huge crowds lined the route as city tourism officials predicted the
largest turnout yet for the parade, which typically draws tens of
thousands.
The county clerk's office was busy Friday handing out marriage
licenses and handling wedding ceremonies. Same-sex marriage has been
legal in California since June 16, after a state Supreme Court decision.
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom received ovations along the parade
route for his role in working to overturn the state's gay marriage ban.
Though City Hall was closed Sunday, parade organizers put up a
wedding pavilion across the street where couples could get information
about tying the knot or celebrate newly sanctioned unions.
Wade French, 51, and his partner, Brent Lok, 54, wed in San Francisco
the day after the court's decision took effect. At the parade, Lok wore
a T-shirt reading "Finally married..." while French's shirt
read "after 30 years together."
"We always come to the parade, but this year is a different
feeling because we're celebrating something that's personal to us,"
Lok said.
The couple said they were asking friends and family not to send
wedding gifts and instead make donations to a nonprofit group working to
fight a ballot measure that would once again ban gay marriage in the
state.
In a taped interview Sunday morning on NBC's "Meet the
Press," Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger called the measure "a waste
of time."
"I personally believe that marriage should be between a man and
a woman," Schwarzenegger said. "But at the same time I think
that my, you know, belief, I don't want to force on anyone else."
The initiative set to go before voters in November would provide that
"only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in
California." Its language was taken directly from a gay marriage
ban enacted by voters in 2000, one of two the state Supreme Court found
unconstitutional and struck down on May 15.
Julie Kendall, 59, walked with her partner of 23 years, Melinda
Kendall, 50, holding a sign that read, "We're here, we're queer and
we're registered at Macy's."
Though both women were grinning, they said they were worried voters
might pass the ballot initiative.
"I'm calling and e-mailing my friends urging them to get
involved in the campaign. I'm reminding them this is a civil rights
issue," Julie Kendall said.
The pair first wed in 2004 when Newsom ordered the city to begin
issuing licenses to same-sex couples in defiance of state law. The state
Supreme Court later nullified those marriages. The couple said they got
a new marriage license and plan to wed next month.
In New York City, residents cheered Gov. David Paterson as he joined
the city's annual gay pride march a month after he directed state
agencies to provide full marriage benefits to same-sex couples who were
legally married elsewhere.
Jim Saslow carried a bouquet to the march down Manhattan's Fifth
Avenue and wore a wedding gown stamped with the words, "Coming Here
Soon?"
"Everyone here is thinking if California can do it then we
should be able to do it here soon," he said.
Overseas, gay pride marches in the Bulgarian capital of Sofia and the
Czech Republic city of Brno came under attack Saturday by extremists who
threw rocks and eggs. No serious injuries were reported.
In Paris, more than half a million people celebrated in the streets
below a river of rainbow flags.
In India, hundreds chanted for gay rights in Calcutta, Bangalore and
New Delhi in the largest display of gay pride in the deeply conservative
country, where homosexual acts are illegal. The marches came days before
the Delhi High Court is expected to hear arguments on overturning a law
against homosexual sex that dates to the British colonial era.
Associated Press writers Sam Dolnick in New Delhi and Karen
Matthews in New York contributed to this report.
|
McCain Supports Efforts to Ban Gay Marriage
The GOP candidate speaks out against same-sex unions in California
By Justin Ewers
Posted June 27, 2008
SAN FRANCISCO—After several weeks of silence on the issue of same-sex
marriage, Sen. John McCain has made it official. The presumptive
Republican nominee for president has endorsed efforts to ban gay
marriage in California.
McCain sent this short statement to the Protect Marriage campaign,
one of the conservative groups spearheading an effort to amend the state
Constitution in November and define marriage as between a man and a
woman:
"I support the efforts of the people of California to recognize
marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman, just as we
did in my home state of Arizona. I do not believe judges should be
making these decisions."
McCain's stance on same-sex marriage comes as no surprise to
political analysts, since he has never varied widely from the mainstream
of the Republican Party on the issue. While McCain voted against a
federal constitutional amendment supported by President Bush in 2004, he
has said he thinks states should be able to determine their own
approaches to marriage—and he has repeatedly said the matter should be
left to voters, not judges, to decide. In 2006, McCain supported a
failed initiative in Arizona, his home state, that would have amended
the state Constitution and banned same-sex marriage. Another effort to
place a constitutional ban on the Arizona ballot this fall was defeated
in the state Senate this week.
Many experts believe the timing of McCain's announcement is no
accident. Earlier this week, James Dobson, the founder of the
conservative group Focus on the Family, railed against both Barack
Obama and McCain on his radio show, saying he was disappointed that
the likely Republican nominee, in particular, had not been muscular
enough on an issue that is dear to the hearts of evangelical Christians.
Most of Dobson's ire was directed at Obama, the Democratic
presidential nominee, who Dobson said was "deliberately distorting
the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world
view." Still, Dobson had harsh words for McCain as well,
complaining that the Arizona senator has not done enough in his home
state to convince voters to ban same-sex marriage. "That is very
disappointing," Dobson said. Neither candidate, Dobson declared,
"give[s] a hoot about the family."
Obama, who does not support gay marriage but believes same-sex
couples should be allowed to enter into civil unions, has not yet taken
a position on the California initiative.
---------------
|
|
|
| Home
Ceremonies
Civil Unions
About Us
Contact Us
Affiliates |
|
We believe anyone two
people who are in love, should have the same rights as any heterosexual
couple. After all...
"We hold these truths to be
self-evident that all people were created equal, that they were endowed
by their creator with certain unalienable rights. Among these are
the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." |
CA Gay Marriage.com proudly serves the Following Counties,
Cities and Communities:
Los Angeles County:
Agoura Hills, Alhambra, Arcadia, Artesia, Azusa, Baldwin Park, Bellflower,
Beverly Hills, Big Pines, Burbank, Carson, Century City, Cerritos, Chatsworth,
China Town, City of Industry, Claremont, Commerce, Compton, Covina, Culver City,
Downtown LA, Downey, Eagle Rock, El Monte, El Segundo, Encino, Gardena,
Glendale, Glendora, Granada Hills, Hawaiian Gardens, Hawthorne, Hermosa Beach,
Hidden Hills, Highland Park, Hollywood, Inglewood, Irwindale, Japan Town, Korea
Town, La Canada/Flintridge, La Crescenta, La Habra, La Mirada, La Puente, La
Verne, Lakewood, Lancaster, Lenox, Lomita, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Los Nietos,
Lynwood, Manhattan Beach, Marina Del Rey, Monterey Park, Montrose, Northridge,
Norwalk, Palmdale, Palos Verdes Estates, Paramount, Pasadena, Pico Rivera,
Pomona, Rancho Palos Verdes, Redondo Beach, Reseda, Rolling Hills Estates, San
Fernando Valley, San Gabriel, San Marino, Santa Clarita, Santa Fe Springs, Santa
Monica, Signal Hill, South Pasadena, Temple City, Torrance, Valinda, Van Nuys,
Ventura County, Verdugo City, Walnut, West Covina, West Hollywood, Westlake
Village, Westwood, Whittier and all other cities and communities of Los Angeles
County.
Orange County:
Aliso Viejo, Anaheim, Balboa Island, Brea, Buena Park, Capistrano Beach, Corona
Del Mar, Costa Mesa, Coto de Caza, Cowan Heights, Cypress, Dana Point, El Modena,
El Toro, Foothill Ranch, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington
Beach, Irvine, La Habra, Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel, Lake Forest,
Leisure World, Lemon Heights, Los Alamitos, Mission Viejo, Modjeska Canyon,
Newport Beach, Orange, Orange Park Acres, Placentia, Rancho San Margarita,
Rossmoor, San Clemente, Santa Ana, Seal Beach, Silverado Canyon, Stanton, Sunset
Beach, Surfside, Tustin, Villa Park, Westminster, Yorba Linda and all other
cities and communities of Orange County.
San Bernardino County:
Adelanto, Apple Valley, Argus, Baker, Barstow, Big Bear, Bloomington, Chino,
Chino Hills, Cima, Colton, Daggett, Devore, Earp, El Mirage, Etiwanda, Essex,
Fawnskin, Fontana, Forest Falls, Grand Terrace, Harvard, Helendale, Hesperia,
Highland, Hinkley, Hodge, Ivanpaw, Joshua Tree, Kelso, Landers, Lenwood, Loma
Linda, Lucerne Valley, Ludlow, Montclair, Morongo Valley, Muscoy, Needles,
Ontario, Oro Grande, Phelan, Pinon Hills, Rancho Cucamonga, Redlands, Rialto,
Running Springs, San Bernardino, Twenty Nine Palms, Upland, Victorville,
Wrightwood, Yucaipa, Yucca Valley and all other cities and communities of San
Bernardino County.
Riverside County:
Anza, Arlington, Banning, Beaumont, Blythe, Cabazon, Calimesa, Canyon Lake,
Cathedral City, Cherry Valley, Coachella, Corona, Desert Hot Springs, Edgemont,
El Cerrito, Gilman, Glen Avon, Glenn Valley, Hemet, High Grove, Home Gardens,
Homeland, Hot Springs, Idyllwild, Indian Wells, Indio, La Sierra, Lake Elsinore,
Lakeview, La Quinta, Mecca, Mead Valley, Meadow Brook, Mira Loma, Moreno Valley,
Murrieta, Murrieta Hot Springs, Norco, Nuevo, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, Perris,
Quail Valley, Riverside, Rancho Mirage, Ripley, Rubidoux, Sage, San Jacinto, Sun
City, Temecula, Temescal Canyon, Thousand Palms, Valle Vista, White Water,
Winchester and all other cities and communities of Riverside County.
Imperial County:
Brawley, Calexico, Calipatria, El Centro, Holtville, Imperial, Westmorland and
all other cities and communities of Imperial County.
Ventura County:
Camarillo, Fillmore, Moorpark, Ojai, Oxnard, Port Hueneme, San Buenaventura,
Santa Paula, Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks and all other cities and communities of
Ventura County.
Copyright 2008-2009
Another eWebNation Creation
But today, despite wanting to "make an example of
somebody," Whitty blogged that he reversed his stance on a
boycott, writing that Eckern had given him a "convincing and
sincere apology" and didn't deserve to be targeted for more
censure. Whitty said he would "look forward to working with the
California Musical Theatre in the future."
