skip to main content

Listen

Read

Watch

Schedules

Programs

Events

Give

Account

Donation Heart Ribbon

Supporters Of Traditional Marriage Rally In Downtown San Diego

Evening Edition

Above: As Supreme Court justices heard arguments for and against same-sex marriage, a rally was held in downtown San Diego in support of traditional marriage. KPBS reporter Susan Murphy was there.

As Supreme Court justices heard arguments for and against same-sex marriage, people in downtown San Diego rallied in support of traditional marriage.

Dozens of people clutched banners and waved flags on the steps of the downtown San Diego U.S. Federal Courthouse. Homemade signs read “every child deserves a mom & dad“ and “don’t empty marriage of its meaning.”

The rally was spearheaded by a handful of San Diego faith-based organizations, whose leaders vowed to keep marriage between a man and a woman.

"I think the future of our country depends on the strength of our families and the grounding of our children in their faith and we have a right to raise our children accordingly to our own religious beliefs," said Cathy Williams, who thought the rally was so important that she brought her five children.

Sylvia Sullivan attended the rally as a “concerned citizen,” and to encourage the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the vote of the people of California through Proposition 8.

Supporters of traditional marriage rally at the U.S. Federal Courthouse in downtown San Diego on March 26, 2013.

"The same-sex community -- they have all the benefits of marriage under their civil unions in the state of California," said Sullivan. "They merely wish to somehow or other force their views upon us. And we say, what’s best for the children, for society is that marriage remain between one man and one woman."

Becky Davies, director of public affairs for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said she’s feeling overruled because the people of California already voted.

“Traditional marriage is the way we’ve done it forever, since the beginning of time. And it’s what is the ideal as far as a family and raising children,” said Davies.

Tamandra Michaels, a same-sex marriage advocate, brought her camera to the event to document history.

“And I’m just curious as to what motivates people to cling to their hate and their fear. It’s a fascinating subject for me and then I enjoy writing about it."

Michaels said the issue has become a defining moment of our time.

“We had civil rights, and me having a disability, I was at the forefront with that when I was a kid. And I guess it’s sort of been planted in my heart to be an activists for what’s right."

Hundreds of supporters of same-sex marriage rallied Tuesday night at the same place. The "Light The Way To Justice" rally was moderated by Sean Sala, a local same-sex marriage activist and Navy veteran.

“I think that as more people have come out, you know, family members, friends, soldiers, brothers, sisters -- people have finally realized it was sort of a bunch of malarkey, and discrimination is just that . . . and it needs to end."

On Wednesday the court will consider a case involving the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Comments

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | March 27, 2013 at 7:18 a.m. ― 1 year, 7 months ago

Marriage is about love.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Anon11'

Anon11 | March 27, 2013 at 9:33 a.m. ― 1 year, 7 months ago

1. Gay marriage doesn't prevent "traditional" marriage.

2. If marriage has legal benefits, it shouldn't be religious. If it's religious, it shouldn't have legal benefits.

3. Not every marriage produces or adopts a child.

4. If the "traditional" marriage crowd is so concerned about the welfare of the family structure, they'd rally against divorce and try to make THAT illegal.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | March 27, 2013 at 10:04 a.m. ― 1 year, 7 months ago

Heterosexual marriages are impacted by allowing gays to marry.

These people are already free to marry the person they love, practice the religion of their choice, raise their children how they want, and lead the lifestyle of their choosing.

Why are they insisting on preventing others from being able to do the same?

Luckily, I am extremely confident that come summer, marriage equality will be restored permanently in the state of California.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | March 27, 2013 at 10:06 a.m. ― 1 year, 7 months ago

Sorry, the first sentence above should read "Heterosexual marriages are NOT impacted ...."

I think one of the misguided protesters put a hex on me while I was typing ;-)

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | March 27, 2013 at 10:08 a.m. ― 1 year, 7 months ago

".....we have a right to raise our children accordingly to our own religious beliefs," said Cathy Williams.

Yes, you do.

But you don't have the right to tailor the governmental institution of marriage that impacts hundreds of millions of Americans to fit your religious definition.

When gay marriage is permanently restored in California, you will still be able to raise your children with whatever religion you want, that won't change.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | March 27, 2013 at 10:12 a.m. ― 1 year, 7 months ago

Becky Davies, director of public affairs for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said she’s feeling overruled because the people of California already voted.

The vote was almost split, and the only thing that put it over the edge to give Prop 8 a narrow victory was the cult money pouring in by the MILLIONS from organizations like the one she represents and the Catholic one.

If the supreme court does not restore marriage equality in CA (which I think is highly unlikely), there will be another vote Ms. Davies, and this time the people will over-rule you.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | March 27, 2013 at 10:17 a.m. ― 1 year, 7 months ago

"The same-sex community -- they have all the benefits of marriage under their civil unions in the state of California," said Sullivan. "

Do your research Ms. Sullivan, you are incorrect.

Are you even aware of the case being heard today?

It involves Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, a lesbian couple and the hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes Edith had to pay when Spyer died that she WOULDN'T have had to if DOMA was not in place.

There are other tax implications and rights regarding when a spouse is incapacitated as well.

I really wish people would actually know about the cases they are protesting before blurting out erroneous garbage to the media.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | March 27, 2013 at 3:50 p.m. ― 1 year, 7 months ago

ILK, it's a little more complex than that.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | March 27, 2013 at 4:03 p.m. ― 1 year, 7 months ago

Marriage is, and always has been, and always will be, between a man and a woman. Same sex couples can never be married, even if they call themselves "married".

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | March 27, 2013 at 9:52 p.m. ― 1 year, 7 months ago

Missionaccomplished, how is it more complex than that?

JeanMarc, why is marriage what you say it is but not what I say it is?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | March 27, 2013 at 11:56 p.m. ― 1 year, 7 months ago

Err, well if I have to explain it to you . . .

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | March 27, 2013 at 11:57 p.m. ― 1 year, 7 months ago

Tamandra Michaels, a same-sex marriage advocate, brought her camera to the event to document history.

“And I’m just curious as to what motivates people to cling to their hate and their fear. It’s a fascinating subject for me and then I enjoy writing about it."

Because two people disagree on what is basically the politicization of a personal matter, that is hate, Ms Michaels??? I guess for a straight-jacket ideologue it would be.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | March 27, 2013 at 11:59 p.m. ― 1 year, 7 months ago

BEIJING QUACK writes:

"But you don't have the right to tailor the governmental institution of marriage that impacts hundreds of millions of Americans to fit your religious definition."

Contradict much? Think about what you just wrote, then enroll in Logic 101.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | March 28, 2013 at 8:02 a.m. ― 1 year, 7 months ago

Sorry JM, I just don't think that is true. There are currently cultures that specifically allow a man to marry more than one woman. If those are marriages, why are other possible combinations not?

Or perhaps we are just stuck on terminology. What is the inclusive term for all wedded unions (heterosexual, homosexual, polygamist, polyandrous, miscegenous and group)?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | March 28, 2013 at 9:29 a.m. ― 1 year, 7 months ago

The term is civil union, they already can do that. They are trying to redefine marriage, which has always been between a man and a woman... roman men used to pork each other but they didn't get married.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Anon11'

Anon11 | March 28, 2013 at 9:41 a.m. ― 1 year, 7 months ago

2. If marriage has legal benefits, it shouldn't be religious. If it's religious, it shouldn't have legal benefits.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | March 28, 2013 at 11:03 a.m. ― 1 year, 7 months ago

JM, so all marriages are civil unions? If so, we can do a find/replace in federal law and change the terminology to satisfy your objection and still treat all officially unionized people equally.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | March 28, 2013 at 11:33 a.m. ― 1 year, 7 months ago

Yes, we should do that. Then churches cannot be punished for refusing to wed a gay couple.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | March 28, 2013 at 2:10 p.m. ― 1 year, 7 months ago

JeanMarc
"The term is civil union, they already can do that. They are trying to redefine marriage, which has always been between a man and a woman... roman men used to pork each other but they didn't get married".

Civil unions don't ptovide all the bennefits of marriage, DOMA prevents this as Justice Ginsberg pointed out yesterday in her now famous "skim milk marriage" line. And if civil unions were EXACTLY the same as marriage, then why do we need to call them two diferent things? Marriage is pretty broad as it is - Rush Limbaugh can marry and divorce 4 wives, Newt Gingrich can leave a wife while she is sufering from cancer and marry his new mistress, Anna Nicole Smith (May she RIP) can marry a dying billionaire many decades her senior and all of those are called the SAME EXACT THING as my grandparents (may the RIP) who were married to each other and loved each other until the year they passed away.

As it is now the word MARRIAGE in this country is inclusive of people you likely agree with and don't agree with, how is denying people of the same gender from calling it "marriage" in any way taking away preserving an insitution that is already vastly different depending on the individuals involved in it?

MissionAccomplished, if you disagree with something make a tangible argument instead of insulting and asking if I've taken "logic 101". It's a sign of someone with a weak argument who does that.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | March 28, 2013 at 2:16 p.m. ― 1 year, 7 months ago

Jean, wouldn't you say marriage has already been "redefined"?

Have you been able to get married in a drunken stuper in an Elvis costume in Los Vegas for Thousands of years?

Have you had vans parked on the side of the road in CA cities advertising "Quickie Divorces" for thousands of years.

Society is changing, and not to accept society's institutions to do the same is not realistic.

People are marrying much later than they used to in the "old days", people in western countries are having fewer children, and more people are deciding not to marry in number far higher than in the history of the institution.

It is changing so fundamentally from the inside, yet people are all up in arms about the "definition".

So the "definition" is that as long as it's kept only between 1 man and 1 woman, all other traditional aspects of it are allowed to change?

That's pretty inconsistent.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | March 28, 2013 at 3:43 p.m. ― 1 year, 7 months ago

Who cares what it is called if all the same legal effects are consistently applied? It seems like a 'rose by any other name' situation. Forget the labels, fix the actual rules.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'CaliforniaDefender'

CaliforniaDefender | March 28, 2013 at 3:51 p.m. ― 1 year, 7 months ago

This is insane.

Each religion approaches marriage with a different set of superstitions, chants, amulets, costumes, potions, jewelry, idols, jingles, juju, book readings, candles, spells, incense, dances, bells, glitter, smoke, and other displays intended to appease their god(s).

Why is one method better than the other? Why should government be involved at all?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'CaliforniaDefender'

CaliforniaDefender | March 28, 2013 at 3:59 p.m. ― 1 year, 7 months ago

Speaking of types of marriage, why are Christians opposed to harems?

If their argument is one man and one woman makes a good family, wouldn't six more women make it four times better?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | March 28, 2013 at 11:10 p.m. ― 1 year, 7 months ago

ILK, it is NOT because of what Jean Marc "says," rather it's some 3,000 or 4,000 years of human history AND biology vs. what "Ilk" says.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | March 28, 2013 at 11:18 p.m. ― 1 year, 7 months ago

Quackster writes: "Rush Limbaugh can marry and divorce 4 wives, Newt Gingrich can leave a wife while she is sufering from cancer and marry his new mistress, Anna Nicole Smith (May she RIP) can marry a dying billionaire many decades her senior and all of those are called the SAME EXACT THING as my grandparents (may the RIP) who were married to each other and loved each other until the year they passed away."

Or Gavin Newsom can cheat on his hot, hot, hot wife Guilfoyle and then grandstand for marriage for gays. Or Antonio Villaraigoza can likewise cheat on his hot wife and then granstand in the name of marriage for gays.

Yes, Quackster, BOTH sides can be as spineless and immoral, but your side is more intellectually dishonest. Actually Gringrinch supports gay marriage AS does Darth Cheney because of their sisters.

If this comes to pass, marriage will most certainly have to be redefined. I'm all for legally deleting the word "marriage," have the local governments issues civil union licenses, and leave matrimony for individual religious ceremonies.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | March 29, 2013 at 8:48 a.m. ― 1 year, 7 months ago

CD you say "Speaking of types of marriage, why are Christians opposed to harems?
If their argument is one man and one woman makes a good family, wouldn't six more women make it four times better? "

Just curious, but what sort of non-linear scale of 'goodness' are you measuring with?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Lacey92122'

Lacey92122 | March 29, 2013 at 10:31 a.m. ― 1 year, 7 months ago

@Anon11, Very well put. Gets right to the point and highlights the hypocrisy. Thanks

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | March 29, 2013 at 1:23 p.m. ― 1 year, 7 months ago

Mission, I'm not making an argument that both sides don't have their immoral sides - one of my examples was Anna Nicole Smith (may she RIP) who was hardly a conservative opposed to gay marriage!!

The difference between Gavin Newsom and Mayor Villaragoisa is that yes, they did terrible things, but they are not trying to prevent gay couples from marrying.

There is an added level of hypocrisy when you have people like Limbaugh and others who have cheated, visited prostitutes on Carribean islands with their doctor-shopped illegal erection pills., etc. who THEN go on to claim that allowing gays to marry will somehow destroy the institution.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | March 29, 2013 at 1:24 p.m. ― 1 year, 7 months ago

My point is that many of these politicians claiming allowing gay marriage will ruin the institution of marriage have already done their part to ruin it as it is.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | March 29, 2013 at 1:27 p.m. ― 1 year, 7 months ago

Benz, I agree with you about the label - I don't care what it's called as long as it's equal (no more DOMA) and it's called the same thing for everyone.

I would be perfectly fine with changing the GOVERNMENT term for marriage to civil union for everyone.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | March 29, 2013 at 11:17 p.m. ― 1 year, 7 months ago

LIMBO cheated??? With whom??? That better be true because I find it hard to believe! Who would cheat with Limbo? But unlike Darth or Gringrinch--or Gotsome or Villaraigoza, Limbo has never held a political position and he probably ignores the pro-same sex marriage people in his own party, like Darth and Gringrinch--just to further polarize this listeners. Smith is dead, and gold diggers have been around since Day One--or at least since Day Two, after money was first coined (lol). I honestly believe though that Limbo's "trying to prevent gay couples marrying" is no worse, than Newsom and Villaraigoza saying it is some kind of lofty universal right after having p*ssed on their own!!!

Yes, I totally agree, if it DOES come to pass, let us change the federal government term to civil unions to all and leave matrimony to individual religions as they see fit.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | March 29, 2013 at 11:23 p.m. ― 1 year, 7 months ago

Here's another one for you to think about, Quackster, sociologist Judith Stacey, author of UNHITCHED: Love, Marriage & Family Values from West Hollywood to Western China (2011), says she is personally torn. On the one hand, she favors same-sex marriage, but on the other, she states that this will only increase the discrimination against unmarried people in the legal sphere, as far as benefits, inheritance, taxes, etc. For example, in my old health coverage through my employer, I paid the same ridiculously high amount as a single man that I would if I was married with ten kids!!! Totally unfair. Stacey has a good point, or at least, half of one.

( | suggest removal )