Prop 8 Challenger Says "Heart Has Been Dealt Irreparable Blow"
SAN FRANCISCO — Today, following the ruling of the California Supreme Court in Strauss v. Horton, the LGBT community's challenge to Proposition 8 brought by the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal and the ACLU, lead petitioners Karen Strauss and Ruth Borenstein released the following statement:
Karen Strauss:
"I would give anything to be in different circumstances that would allow me to be with you today. Instead, I am at my mother's bedside in Florida. Her poor health — a major impediment to Ruth's and my wedding plans last year — has taken the turn our family has been dreading; she is now under hospice care. The opportunity for her to witness my marriage has gone forever. My heart, already on the verge of breaking, has just been dealt an irreparable blow. I was so hoping the court would find its way to a decision that continues, rather than repeals, our equality under the law and that would allow our family to celebrate the love Ruth and I have shared for nearly 18 years. I will continue to work with our large and diverse community toward the day when Ruth and I and any other same-sex couple can marry in California. I will celebrate when that day comes — but when it does, know that the tears of joy that will run down my face will also be tears of great loss and sorrow."
Ruth Borenstein:
"I am 52 years old. In my lifetime, I have had equal rights for exactly four and one-half months. That is not enough. That brief period came at a particularly difficult time for my and my partner's aging parents, who could not travel to California before the November election. We chose to wait rather than to have a wedding without our beloved parents there to celebrate with us. Now it is too late. While I am confident that the voters ultimately will overturn Prop 8 and restore our equal rights, having to wait comes at a tremendous personal cost to us and our parents. We've already lost my dad and Karen's mom is in precarious health. This ruling is a devastating disappointment to us and our surviving parents, who had hoped to share our joy at our long-awaited wedding."
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
The only good note here is that the existing marriages are allowed to stand... but that only serves to make the whole situation more surreal.
It says to me that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with same sex marriage , that the act is legally sound
"It says to me that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with same sex marriage , that the act is legally sound" I hope that's not your only condition for something being legally sound. There's many a government sponsored atrocity that would be considered "legally sound" were it so.
I sympathize with Karen Strauss and her plight but I take a little issue with her attitude about her relationship. Particularly,
--"and that would allow our family to celebrate the love Ruth and I have shared for nearly 18 years."
As though it couldn't be celebrated before. As though a government seal of approval is the basis for making something real and worth treasuring. That is what I find sad. "Equal rights" debate sea maldito the love they have isn't the issue. Never was.
I agree that they could have just gotten a intrinsic marriage. My mom and step mom got a marriage before Conneticut recognized gay marriage.
But i think its more about the legal title than anything else *shrug*
I know as a gay man myself that i find it a little offensive that people are trying to keep me from haveing the marriage title. It tells me that my marriage isnt valid enough... *shrug*
And what do you care? Not to be demeaning in any way but your lifestyle IS different. Why do you WANT to be like the rest of us? Why do you care what we think? If it's in your heart live it you don't need our permission or our sanction. But we still believe that marriage, especially in my church, is not only a sacred union of man and woman important in this life but is essential for eternal salvation. My church will never recognize a gay marriage. But that shouldn't stop you. I will never cast my vote in favor of sanctioning it or I would not consider myself true to who I am and what I believe. But none of this, is your problem. If you want to be more socially accepted you need to conform to society . Try changing it if you like but if you promise you won't be disappointed if it doesn't happen in your lifetime I promise not to be disappointed if it does.
Well lets think about things here... No one is asking or demanding that your church accept and marry gays. But what about the churches that do marry gays? Are they less religious?
when i said my marriage wasnt valid i thought you would understand that i also am saying that by keeping me from my "title" your forcing me to not be able to be true to my faith. This ISNT a kill or be killed situation, no one is saying all for nothing, all people want is for the conservative christian community to but out of others lives.
The most funny thing about this argument is that the opposing side is controdictory for what our country stands for, -freedom-.
(((((I also find it kinday funny that this argument is exactly like the one on the pledge of allegence; as in the fact that the pledge origanally didnt have god in it, and now people want it back to the way it is and christians arent having it. That debate is just like this one because gays didnt get tons of persecution from christians till the 12th century. Gays used to be able to marry, still do in some countries, cities, towns, etc. Even Catholic Churches arent able to deny some of the leturgical manuscripts that show same sex marriage in the catholic church. I also laugh at the people that insist it never existed and that they know more than the historians featured on the History Channel, national Geographic, or historians in many colleges.)))))
So in other words, i am not trying to change it, im just trying to restore it ^_^.
"I hope that's not your only condition for something being legally sound. There's many a government sponsored atrocity that would be considered "legally sound" were it so."
It certainly is not the only criteria for me, I've been a supporter of same sex marriage for many years now. I do see the government letting the marriages stand as a clear indicator that same sex marriage is not intrinsically illegal (as in it did not violate any existing laws when the marriages took place) but rather that this is clearly the people of California removing rights from a minority... a very disturbing proposition.
Or a tactic to avoid the red tape and green money of the state voiding the marriages.
I'm just...there are no words...