Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Star Trek actor 'disappointed' by vote to ban gay marriage

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 07 November 2008
THE former Star Trek actor George Takei has spoken of his disappointment after the people of California voted to put a stop to gay marriage.
The electorate narrowly backed Proposition 8, passing a constitutional amendment restricting marriage to heterosexual couples.

The vote took place at the same time as the presidential election on Tuesday, and many supporters of gay marriage had h
oped a strong Democratic turnout for Barack Obama would cement the right to marry extended by the state's supreme court in May, in what is one of the most liberal states in America.

But it was not to be, and amendments banning gay marriage also were approved in Arizona and Florida.

Takei, who played Mr Sulu in the sci-fi series, and his long-term partner, Brad Altman, were the first to receive a marriage licence in West Hollywood after the court ruling.

He was disappointed but philosophical about the voters' decision to take away the right of gay couples to marry.

"There are going to be heartbreaks, setbacks and sacrifices to be made," he said, "but we will soldier on."

The passage of Proposition 8 stirred anger, protests, lawsuits and a deep sense of loss among gays in California. At least three legal challenges had been filed by Wednesday night and others were being prepared.

More than 1,000 people took to the streets of Los Angeles and West Hollywood to protest about the ban, blocking traffic. Police said at least four people were detained.

Hundreds also gathered on the steps of San Francisco's City Hall. Some held candles and carried signs saying, "We all deserve the freedom to marry".

It was still unclear last night what will happen to the estimated 18,000 gay and lesbian couples, many from other states, who tied the knot after same-sex marriage was legalised in June. California will continue to allow same-sex civil unions, which offer many of the legal benefits of marriage.

On the other side of the issue, supporters of the ban hailed the outcome of the vote.

"Government did not create marriage, and neither politicians nor legislators have the right to redefine its basic meaning," Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organisation for Marriage California, said.

"Common sense, and concern for the common good, trumped ideology, bigotry and power politics here in California."

Denise Fernandez, 57, of Sacramento, said: "I believe a Christian is held accountable, and we have to make a difference."

With 99 per cent of precincts reporting by Wednesday night, 52 per cent of Californian voters favoured the ban, versus 48 per cent against. It was the first time a state had taken away gay marriage after it had been legalised.

In downtown San Francisco, a city where a majority of residents voted against the ban, people were disappointed by its success.

"I feel sad," said Venkaf Mannava, 30, a computer programmer who is married with three children. "It's a personal decision and we should not say how other people should live their lives. They should be free to love and marry who they want."

Despite intense disappointment, some newlyweds took comfort in the fact that millions of Californians had voted to validate their relationships.

"I'm really OK," said Diana Correia, of Berkeley, who married Cynthia Correia, her partner of 18 years, last Sunday in front of their two children and 80 relatives and friends.

"I hope the marriage holds, but we are already married in our hearts, so nobody can take that away," she said.

In Los Angeles, Altman said having the state recognise his marriage to Takei had been "extremely meaningful to me, but our relationship will continue and we will live long and prosper no matter what happens on the legal front".



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 06 November 2008 11:00 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

,

07/11/2008 03:39:43
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

Guga II,

Rockall 07/11/2008 03:43:51
We should be given the opportunity for a similar referendum in this country.

Oops, I forgot, we only pay lip service to democracy in this country.
3

,

07/11/2008 03:56:47
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
4

eric,

07/11/2008 07:42:54
I know a lot of gay folks who would agree with the vote,they think mardi gras does nothing to help image of gay people in fact they think it has a negative effect.
5

zeno,

www.thinkhumanism.com 07/11/2008 08:55:34
What's the problem with two people of the same sex getting married (but please don't just repeat what you think the bible says or that homosexuality is unnatural).
6

Tim Hopkins,

Equality Network 07/11/2008 08:59:12
2006 Scottish Social Attitudes Survey:

"Gay or lesbian couples should have the right to marry one another if they want to"

Agree 54% Disagree 21% Neither agree nor diagree 21%

Ie, Scots support same-sex marriage.

But even in California, the anti-gay margin fell from 23% in the proposition 22 ballot in the 2000 election (the marriage ban won then by 61% to 38%), to 5% in this week's proposition 8 ballot (the ban won by 52.5% to 48.5%).

Gay Californians will overcome injustice; it will just take a few more years.

7

zeno,

www.thinkhumanism.com 07/11/2008 09:30:15
Tim: good to see you here and thanks for the figures.
8

Maximus,

Roberton 07/11/2008 10:36:07
Okay, let’s cut through all the stats, the ‘I want therefore I must get’ attitudes, the deeply held beliefs that equality equates to ‘what one group has I must have too’ … and ask yourself two basic questions:

1) What is the purpose of man?
2) What is the purpose of woman?

The answer to the first only makes sense in light of woman, the answer to the second only makes sense in light of man.
9

Keithie Boy,

St Albans 07/11/2008 12:14:09
Here we go! Out come the nutters. I think it sad that we cannot allow two people to be married becasue they happen to be of the same sex. It's curious how the debate has been hijacked by people who have little knowledge about homosexulaity in terms of it's history and biological background. Christinaity's rant against homosexuality is primarily based around an anti-roman sentiment since the Roman's had no problem with homosexulaity; they didn't even have a word for it. Those of you who saw the exhibition at the British Museum will know that Hadrian had a feamle wife AND a male partner. This was considered pretty normal.
From a biological standpoint the "unnatural" nonsense is exactly that. Throughout the animal kingdom homosexual activity is prett common. Often the best race horses are "gay" which is why artificial insemination is so common. Dolphins which I think we'd all agree are pretty intelligent display homosexual activity. Groups of males have been videoed with erect penises having sex together. Even Sir David Attenborough covered this.
I just wish we could all allow the gay community to live as they wish and not have to put up with this baseless nonsense.
Oh and just to point out I'm stright and married so there's no bias here.
10

Maximus,

Roberton 07/11/2008 13:40:12
#9, What nutters? I certainly never mentioned religion. Surely I’m allowed to disagree.

BTW Christianity’s ‘rant’ against homosexuality is not based on anti-roman sentiment but the recognition that God created only man and woman only … remember Sodom, which probably predated the Roman empire by about 1000 years. Furthermore the Fathers of the Church never argued against same sex unions on the basis of what the Romans did.

Also, Christian thinking based on the recognition that human beings are people, not animals. Whatever dolphins get up to is fine, but I’m sure you wouldn’t want to what dogs do when answering the call of nature.
11

,

07/11/2008 13:40:57
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
12

SouthernGent,

07/11/2008 14:57:10
I'm not taking sides one way or the other, as both sides can make a serious argument, but answer this question logically.

Why was the human species "created" as a sexual species vs an asexual species? There are many asexual species on our planet, and humans aren't one of them. Why?
13

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 07/11/2008 15:02:57
Now, was this proposed legislation termed "gay marriage" or "civil union"?

Could anybody clarify for me?

In Canada it is termed a "civil union", I think
14

Denyse,

Somewhere, USA 07/11/2008 15:04:50
#11 A homsexual relationship remains forever naturally infertile!

The first person that came to mind when I read that was Mary Cheney.

The Mormon Church financed this effort, so I have to believe that in California, people who voted to add discrimination into the California Constitution have no problem with giving teenage girls to old men for their sexual pleasure.
It is also interesting that people who have been married several times, after having promised at their first marriage, to love one another "Till Death Do Us Part" now preach about the sanctity of marriage.
15

SouthernGent,

07/11/2008 15:10:02
#14
"people who voted to add discrimination into the California Constitution "

So by your statement, you also oppose "Affirmative Action", which is also "legal" discrimination.

Right?
16

Lanna,

07/11/2008 16:56:44
If the Romans et al. sanctioned homosexuality, why did they not institute gay marriage?
17

,

07/11/2008 17:04:11
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
18

El_Kabooko,

California 07/11/2008 17:20:30
Given that I actively supported passage of Prop 8, I can state the reality instead of the spin.

To start with, the voters past this very same law, but 4 out of 7 judges, based in San Francisco, decided to shoot it down and make "gay marriage" a protected class, equivalent to gender and race based discrimination. This in turn, allows for the teaching of "gay marriage" in schools, regardless of the religious beliefs of the parents, without notification, and without age limits. This means children, as young as 6 to 8, would be exposed to "gay culture" outside of the home. In addition, gay and lesbian organizations were actively pushing their philosophical points of view in schools while denying they were doing this in the public square. Add to this, there was a real danger that religious rights, protections, and free speech would be taken way.

Outside the rhetoric, I think actions speak louder than my words. We saw the radical gay community actively supporting vandalism, intimidation, and anger towards us standing up for our religious beliefs. "Yes on 8" signs were actively destroyed, stolen, or vandalized. One older gentleman was attacked when he stopped someone from taking a bunch of yard signs and required stitches. Yet no one from the "yes on 8" coalition was found destroying signs or yelling hate filled speech.

Personally, I had to stop two individuals destroying signs in a roundabout. They had no problem with denying me my free speech rights or allowing me to have my point of view. I was working a polling place and saw two lesbians enter the polling place, holding hands. They saw my "yes on 8" bumper sticker and when I made eye contact, one of them flipped me off. Where are the love, compassion, and tolerance? It does not exist in their community since they are only into themselves and their lifestyle. Anyone getting in the way of their selfishness is the enemy and must be destroyed.
19

,

07/11/2008 19:49:12
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
20

Selgovae,

07/11/2008 22:54:04
One question is why would this be an issue to put on public ballot. Why do we treat marriage as a civil matter? Surely it's a private thing.

One issue, of course, is the treatment of partners in respect of inheritance. Scotland's civil partnerships appears to deal with this. What is the situation in the States? I'd echo Tim's questions at #13. How was the question put?
21

,

08/11/2008 01:17:15
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
22

Tim Hopkins,

Equality Network 08/11/2008 03:38:51
It's a little late, but in answer to #13 & #23:

The California proposition 8 vote would ban same-sex marriages but would not ban civil unions. Some other US states have a ban on both.

Canada has same-sex marriage, not civil union. The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, South Africa, and Massachusetts also have same-sex marriage. As of next week, so does Connecticut, and as of 1st Jan 09, so does Norway.

The UK has civil unions (called civil partnership here) with the same legal effects as marriage.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.