News

Gay rights protestors block Stanford road

A coalition of gay rights advocates protesting today's state Supreme Court ruling upholding Proposition 8 announced a civil-disobedience sit-in aimed at blocking Stanford University's key Palm Drive/Campus Drive intersection.

The sit-in was scheduled for about 12:45 p.m., according to organizers, following a noon rally and speeches at White Plaza in the central campus.

The action is to protest the California Supreme Court 6-1 ruling today that upheld Proposition 8, the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage.

At the same time, the court ruled unanimously that the 18,000 existing gay marriages in California remain valid.

The ruling was issued at the court's headquarters at the state building in San Francisco.

Word of the decision quickly filtered out to a crowd of hundreds of people on both sides of the issue who were waiting outside the state building.

Some supporters of gay rights began to boo and chant, "Shame on you."

David Mitchell, a Stanford senior, said the Stanford rally and sit-in were organized by two groups: the Emma Goldman Society for Queer Liberation and the National Marriage Boycott, which he described as "a collection of queer people and allies who have agreed not to get married until all people can get married" in the United States.

That would mean repeal of the national Defense of Marriage Act, and abandoning the "Don't ask, don't tell" policies of the military, he said.

He said straight persons would be invited to join in the boycott of marriage. The boycott concept was launched at Stanford, he said.

"By acting today and standing with our queer brothers and sisters, we not only condemn the injustices in our great country, but we also

celebrate our pledge of solidarity with queer people in the National Marriage Boycott. We offer hope that by standing together, we can win equal rights for all," a press release on the rally and sit-in stated.

He said the use of the word "queer" is "currently in vogue, especially on college campuses," as a "re-appropriation of a negative word."

He said Stanford Hospital is being notified of the sit-in plans so officials could re-route ambulances. He said law enforcement agencies have not been given advance notice, however.

Comments

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Marshall
a resident of Old Mountain View
on May 26, 2009 at 1:59 pm

Its a shame that hate and fear have so many supporters.

So much harm is done in the name of religion.

Hopefully the next generation will have a more level head in thinking about these issues.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter
a resident of Old Mountain View
on May 26, 2009 at 3:31 pm

I do not understand how the Court upheld the constitutional amendment stating that marriage is between a man and a woman while also upholding the 18,000 gay marriages;oxymoronic. Reminds me of the Supreme Courts shameful decision "Plessey v. Ferguson," i.e., separate but equal, or rather, separate and unequal.
I think it is a shameful decision by the Court.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by JJ Blues
a resident of another community
on May 26, 2009 at 3:36 pm

I just wish Gays respected other's rights as strongly as they advocate for theirs - equality for all, not just the fashionable!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by USA
a resident of Old Mountain View
on May 26, 2009 at 3:50 pm

USA is a registered user.

It's a shame that people act that way.

Like president Obama, the vast majority of Californians support traditional marriage. 52% are even will to go so far as to amend the California constitution to support traditional marriage. Even the courts in California uphold traditional marriage. Yet, a handful of people who lost yet another election, act childishly and block traffic because they didn't get their way. Whaaaa.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sal
a resident of Whisman Station
on May 26, 2009 at 3:56 pm

Do you think the court would allow for a constitutional change that would nulify all marriages for people who voted for Prop 8?

I think that would be a fitting bill for us to pass next.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by JoAnn
a resident of Sylvan Park
on May 26, 2009 at 4:20 pm

For those of you who think that passing a bill to DENY people equal rights will stand closer scrutiny in the US Supreme court, you are sadly mistaken. You cannot give a majority of the UNinformed public, with their many biases -both learned and inbred, the ability to determine others' rights. It is NOT democratic.

What if we voted to not allow people over 40 to marry, because they cannot procreate? what if we disallowed people who had no desire to procreate from marrying? The same folks who think it is ok to deny gay people the right to marry ("because marriage is for a man and woman to join to procreate ") would be up in arms!!! The populous will NEVER be unbiased enough to vote on legislating rights for others, especially if they feel it does not include themselves. And, you should never vote to discriminate against individuals, it should not even be up for a vote by the public at large.

Deny one person their basic human rights, you deny ALL their rights!



 +   Like this comment
Posted by eric
a resident of another community
on May 26, 2009 at 4:55 pm

USA-

I find your post dissapointing, though not because of your clear opposition to gay marriage.

-The protest at Stanford was very low key. Peaceful political protest is in the best tradition of our country, and an important implementation of our guaranteed right of free speech. I personally draw a line between hateful vitriolic mobs (plenty of examples from every part of the political spectrum; no need to enumerate) and a benign action like that seen today.

- "like president Obama, the vast majority of Californians...". Canned right-wing phrase of the day, well below your intellectual bar. Like many politicians, Obama chose to dodge this issue with an unfortunate bogus denial of his obvious support-or at least lack of disapproval- for gay marriage.

- The courts did not uphold "traditional marriage". They shot down a weak technical challenge to the validity of Prop 8. One could argue that to a degree (an inadequate one) they upheld gay marriage by declaring the 18,000 existing couples to still be married.

-Pure majority rule is not democracy, but mob rule (tyranny of the majority and all that). Prop 8 is the assertion of the will of the collective over the individual-- that aint democracy.

Banning gay marriage is to deny a group of people their rights. I have yet to have anyone explain to me how the marriage of a gay couple harm mine or anyone else's marriage.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Franky
a resident of Whisman Station
on May 26, 2009 at 5:03 pm

USA - I feel a little sorry for you...

Did you say "Whaa" when Blacks stood up for their rights?

Did you say "Whaa" when Women stood up for their rights?

Why do you not support equal rights?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by curious
a resident of Cuesta Park
on May 26, 2009 at 5:12 pm

This mob blocking roads and others who have targeted churches and individuals who supported Prop. 8 shows the violent, fascistic side of the Left. They support political rights only for those who agree with them.

President Obama does oppose so-called homosexual marriage. As do the vast majority of Americans. Saying it is a talking point does not make the statements false. Your dismissal is a talking point.

Homosexual marriage has never approved by voters in any state. It has been forced upon people by judicial tyrants just like the CA Supremes tried to. CA is lucky to have the initiative process so we can undo this tyranny. Maybe the US Supremes will try to pull this off too but I doubt it. Judges are politicians too and they can read polls like anyone else.

CA Supremes also have to come before the voters periodically. Two of the four that tried to force this down our throats will come up in 2010. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by USA
a resident of Old Mountain View
on May 26, 2009 at 5:23 pm

USA is a registered user.

Eric -- That's good. We were starting to agree on too many things. I was getting worried.

- While the protests at Stanford are more low key than say Oakland, blocking traffic never won any converts. That's just drives people away.

- The pro gay marriage folks have tried to paint their opponents as a small group of political and religious extremists. The reality is that the substantial majority of centrists support traditional marriage. The Mormons just provided a convenient targets for the liberal blogger talk points.

- Yes, the court cases are often decided by side issues. There was the weak argument about marriage-for-procreation from the Yes on 8 folks and now the weak legal challenge from the No on 8 folks.

- yeah, democracy sucks when you don't get your way. Let me tell you about last November ...

Gay marriage is not a right to begin with, but that's a topic for another post.





 +   Like this comment
Posted by Funny
a resident of Rex Manor
on May 26, 2009 at 5:25 pm

LOL - was that a Steven Cobert posting above this one?!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Cuernavaca
on May 26, 2009 at 5:41 pm

JoAnn:

Big shocker for you I guess, but most people are inbred to believe that homosexuality and gay marriage go against the natural order of things. You just can't spin basic biology and the survival of the specie any other way.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by eric
a resident of another community
on May 27, 2009 at 1:12 pm

"Eric -- That's good. We were starting to agree on too many things. I was getting worried."
-I think it shows intellectual growth on your part ;-)

"While the protests at Stanford are more low key than say Oakland, blocking traffic never won any converts. That's just drives people away."
-Maybe, but it doesnt alter my assertion

"The pro gay marriage folks have tried to paint their opponents as a small group of political and religious extremists... The Mormons just provided a convenient targets for the liberal blogger talk points."
-I concur with the first part of this statement. This is pretty much universal in a 'social-issue' debate. Mormon support was, however, quite substantial-- which is not a big issue to me, though I question why they retain tax-exempt status given their large role nationwide in the political arena.

"The reality is that the substantial majority of centrists support traditional marriage"
-Maybe so (for now), though I think that this is a soft point for most centrist opponents-- I think that there are a LOT of gay marriage opponents that wouldnt cross the street to voice their disapproval. Less so on the pro-gay marriage side.

"yeah, democracy sucks when you don't get your way. Let me tell you about last November ..."
--no, no, no. As you are well aware, there is a deeply-rooted component of democratic government that exists to protect the minority from mob rule. Not only is it extensively written about in pretty every source that influenced the formation of our govt (Mill, of course, de Toqueville, I'm pretty sure Locke covered the concept), but its the entire POINT of a good deal of the Constitution. I contend that Prop 8 is enforcing mob rule on a minority. During our lifetimes, it would have been possible to win a popular vote in some parts of the country banning blacks from living in certain towns, for seizing property from billionaires, barring certain religions from practing their beiefs, etc, etc. Doesnt make any of these things right or protected under the guise of democracy.

"Gay marriage is not a right to begin with, but that's a topic for another post."
- I disagree, but thats a bigger can o' worms than I'm willing to open today. I will ask again, though-- how does a gay couples marriage impact mine or yours?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by eric
a resident of another community
on May 27, 2009 at 1:13 pm

Curious-- Obama publicly opposed prop 8.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Old Mountain View
on May 27, 2009 at 3:31 pm

Obama opposed 8 because the rights of the minority should never be put up for a vote by the majority. I don't understand how people think that is OK. And I say "right" because it WAS legal at that point. It's a slippery slope, whose rights will we vote to take away next? Because I have some ideas...

And yes, Obama believes marriage is between a man and a woman. I voted for him but I am totally disappointed in his stance on the issue.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by USA
a resident of Old Mountain View
on May 27, 2009 at 3:59 pm

USA is a registered user.

Unlike the rest of you, I have never been very good at reading other people's minds, so I cannot comment on what Obama *really* thinks or the strength of his beliefs.

His statements, though have been clear that he opposes prop 8 but is not for gay marriage, a position held by many Californians that oppose gay marriage but don't want to go so far as to amend (revise) the CA constitution. His positions were well known before the election.

By the way, I am ROFLMAO at people who called Bush an idiot but are now so surprised that Obama really isn't everything to everyone.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by eric
a resident of another community
on May 27, 2009 at 10:08 pm

USA, how do you figure that taking some unpopular and nuanced stances is the same as being an idiot? Obama has taken some actions that I disagree with, but many have gone against the safe and predictable ideological grain. Bush, not so much.

I dont want or expect my president to be all things to all people. I want him to make decisions and lead. Obama is doing just that-- Bush didnt


 +   Like this comment
Posted by USA
a resident of Old Mountain View
on May 28, 2009 at 9:18 am

USA is a registered user.

Eric, my learned friend, we are again in agreement. I think that Obama is doing a good job navigating the realities of running the country.

My delight is with the angry Left who have been armchair quarterbacking for the last eight years. They thought Bush was an idiot and are now disappointed with Obama for adopting several of Bush's policies. What they just cannot comprehend is that the real world has many conflicting priorities, costs, and constraints. In many cases the Bush/Obama policies are the best solution given the realities.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by eric
a resident of another community
on May 28, 2009 at 9:54 am

You are correct that some of the LATE term Bush polilicies-- greatly altered from the bulk of his administration--- remain intact. While I dont completely agree with Obamas choices here, as you correctly point out, the facts on the ground differ from public perception.

By the time Bush had changed course, though, the damage was done- our nations security and standing were harmed, lives lost, money spent, economy wounded.

A modest course change in the 8th inning doesnt excuse the rest of the game.

All that said, you are 100% correct that people out there saying, 'well I wont vote for Obama because of (insert single policy choice here) are silly and unrealistic-- just like their right wing ding-dong counterparts.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by J B
a resident of Old Mountain View
on May 29, 2009 at 7:32 am



Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Civil union is for anything else.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by eric
a resident of another community
on May 29, 2009 at 9:51 am

JB-- why?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Pastor Martin
a resident of another community
on May 29, 2009 at 2:16 pm

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not protest;
I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me.




 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Cuernavaca
on May 29, 2009 at 8:18 pm

And then when gay marriage is passed and Catholics and Protestants who believe and express their values of traditional marriage, the gay Nazi thought police will be the first to label them haters.

And when gay values are pushed upon our children in public schools, and parents attempt to speak out against it, the gay Nazi thought police will seek to over rule the rights of parents, even though they cannot biologically reproduce, only indoctrinate.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Marshall
a resident of Whisman Station
on Jun 1, 2009 at 3:50 pm

Steve - Don't forget the Boogieman! Clearly he is out to get you. ;)

Considering that gay couples are common parents, I'm not sure what you're taking about.

Are you saying that older couples or sterile couples should not be allowed to marry or have a say in society because they cannot reproduce?

Should people who attend church also be barred from society because they indoctrinate?

Why should you have rights that your fellow lawful citizens don't have?

Why is being equal so bad?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ed
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jun 1, 2009 at 5:18 pm

Lots of money is being wasted on this, at a time we can not afford it.

Save the money - give them the rights they want - it's not going to hurt anyone, where the other way it does hurt people.

It's going to happen anyway, and the sooner it does, the less hard feelings.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Best High Dives to Watch the Game
By Laura Stec | 14 comments | 2,520 views

Flirtation
By Chandrama Anderson | 1 comment | 1,398 views