By Mario Conde

marriage-2El Centro California-The County Board of Supervisors decided to intervene on behalf of the voters of Imperial Valley in a federal lawsuit that is trying to overturn proposition 8.

The Board of Supervisors met early in their meeting on closed session to discuss two last minute items that was brought to them. When the board came out of closed session County Counsel Michael Rood informed the public the board decided to take action to intervene in the case of Perry v. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The County of Imperial, according to Rood, will be done in order to represent the voters of the Imperial Valley who overwhelmingly supported to define marriage as the union between a man and a woman.

Supervisor Wally Leimgruber, Fuentes, and Terrazas voting in favor to intervene and Supervisor Wyatt and Kelley voted against it.

County Board Chairman and District 5 representative Wally Leimgruber said that the board decided to get involve representing the voters of Imperial Valley who voted 69% in favor of this proposition. Leimgrubers said the County was approached by a law firm who asked them if they wanted to get involved since they looked at the valley’s high voting in favor of the measure. The Chairman said that they had to act fast since federal judge Vaughn Walker set January 11, 2010 as the date when he will open a federal trial to decide whether or not proposition 8 is unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution.

Proposition 8 was passed by California voters on November 2008 to keep marriage defined as the union between a man and a woman. The measure was challenged at the State court which upheld the decision of the voters. Gay marriage backers argued in Perry v. Schwarzenegger that Proposition 8, the voter-approved measure that repealed gay marriage in California, “was only made on the grounds of animus towards same-sex couples.”

This situation comes after Washington D.C. approved marriage between same-sex couples this Tuesday.


18 Responses to Supervisors Act on Gay Marriage Issue

  1. Allen Shan says:

    I do agree with what others are claiming regarding same sex marriage relationship. It’s just that why won’t give them a chance to marry on who they choose. It’s not dangerous to their health, so why not satisfy their desire?

  2. People should be able to marry who they want, no matter their gender.

  3. Marriage is one of the most sacred ceremonies that we humans experience. Being married also gives us happines.-,:

  4. Thanks for the information… I truly like this blog. I bookmarked this post and will definitely be making a return visit.

  5. huntergirl says:

    Joel – I’m surprised you didn’t stoop to calling me homophobic as most gays would, thank you for that. I have always been attracted to men (by God’s design). I suppose I was lucky as I have never struggled with same sex attraction, however, many have and have chosen to deny that desire understanding that it does not lead to fulfillment in life. As far as whether I am an expert or not, you can see I never claimed to be. However, it is easy to cite many instances of proof where men who have led the gay lifestyle for many years find that they do have choices, and they have chosen instead, to turn their lives around. As have many women. See Exodus International or Reconciliation Ministries. I applaud those who have homosexual tendencies to choose not to act on those tendencies. I understand it to a degree, I am an ex-smoker- have quit 8 years ago. I struggle with that desire EVERYDAY, yet make the choice to not satisfy that desire. So, while we, as humans, have desires, it doesn’t mean we have to satisfy those desires and then tell everyone to validate our choices. So to you, all I can say is, again, the people have spoken.

  6. Chas R says:

    I find it interesting how Drooster states that millions of people support same sex marriage. The current effort to overturn Prop 8 needs to get a million signatures to get their proposition on the ballot, and they are having a difficult time getting those signatures. So where are these millions of same sex marriage supporters at? Humm! Interesting. We’ll see.

  7. Joel says:

    Huntergirl – where to begin with you. I’m gay and all my life from childhood I’ve been attracted to the same sex. Funny but i’m speaking first hand and can’t remember ever making a choice. Tell me when did you make the choice between girls and boys?? I’m afraid its not been “proved” over and over. Its interesting your an expert on the matter. I think 2 consenting adults who are gay will always be gay, have NO CHOICE and denied the ability to chose to marry another gay man or woman is nothing short of discrimination. I’m sorry you can’t see that but why should I as a tax paying citizens be subjected to your discrimination in a secular society. Let’s make a deal, you chose one man to marry and I’ll do the same.

  8. huntergirl says:

    It’s disconcerting when homosexual people keep trying to equate their “march for equality” to the civil rights issues back in —–. Black people were being discriminated against due to the color of their skin. The color of skin was not a choice for them. However, homosexuality is a choice, as proved over and over again by the number of homosexuals who choose to live a life of celibacy or who choose not to act on their desires (much like a person who is not married, would choose not to act on their desires to have sex without the benefit), as well as those who have turned from homosexuality and are living a heterosexual lifestyle now. The majority does not have to have their iives redefined by a small minority who want to have things their way. If a minority gets to choose and change laws, then how long will it be before Bob and Joe and Betty and Gail all want to marry one another (there are many other scenarios which could happen which would bring harm to traditional families)? We who are for traditional marriage, which allows us to create other human beings and maintains a strong society, have spoken. Good for the BOS of Imperial Valley. Your constituents have spoken, standing up for them is the only right thing to do. Stand strong.

  9. Daniel G. says:

    I tried to email this publication with the below response to the article, but their advertised email address apparently doesn’t even work…? Nice.

    Anyway, here is what I wrote…



    I am writing in response to today’s article by Mario Conde, ‘Supervisors Act on Gay Marriage Issue.’ The article contains some information that seems to be misleading or completely inaccurate. Either the writer was unaware of the full facts, or the perhaps it was a simple wording choice which caused the ambiguity.

    First, the writer states, “Proposition 8 was passed by California voters on November 2008 to keep marriage defined as the union between a man and a woman.” This is untrue. The exact wording of Prop 8 stated:”Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.”Prop 8, therefore did not keep marriage’s definition, but actually changed the definition in order to take away the right of a specific group of people.”

    Second, the author claims, the with 69% voting yes on Prop 8, Imperial Valley voters “overwhelmingly supported to define marriage as the union between a man and a woman.” however shows that 51.1% (29,692/58,150) of the registered voters in the county actually cast a ballot. [See: ] 69% of the 51.1% who actually did vote then is 20,487 which is only 35% of the actual total registered voters in the county. True, there was more people voting yes than no, but to use the adjective “overwhelmingly” is a bit of an exaggeration when you look at the real facts.

    Lastly, I feel I must point out as well that when the measure was challenged in the California Supreme Court, it is also true that the Court decided uphold the decision of the voters in terms of future same-sex marriages. Yet they also kept intact all the thousands of current same-sex marriages which were legally sanctioned when gay marriage was legal in the state. This is something the opponents of marriage-equality did not want to see happen, so it was not a complete loss for equality.

    Thank you for your time. I would imagine that any reporting/journalistic entity would want to be sure they were reporting nothing but the complete and accurate truth, so I felt it necessary to write in about Mr. Conde’s article.

  10. Chas R says:

    Awesome! Way to go Imperial! As a resident of Imperial County, I am deeply grateful that our county board of supervisors has the guts to stand for what is right and also to stand behind the majority vote of the citizens of our fine county.

  11. Drooster says:

    Lets see…voters changing the Constitution by ammendment and taking away an already EXISTING right of approximately 1 million California citizens….is democracy? Is progress? Is kind? Is the right thing to do?

    The California Supreme Court seemed to think so, because they were shackled by the wild west California ammendment process. Indeed justice Moreno, in blistering opposition, warned that this was a slippery slope to go down.

    While voters may have this power, they do not often use it ‘wisely’, in the words of Schwartzennegar, Chief justice, and even Kenneth Starr, the chief attorny for prop 8.

    I, along with millions of others, hope to get this injustice overturned. In the meantime, our only revenge is to wait.

    And, just for fun, we are voting to REALLY save marriage, by enacting a no divorce law, which will ban divorce for all Californians. This will show you how fun, and mean spirited politics can get!

  12. Jason says:

    Clearly not everyone in Imperial Valley voted for Prop 8, I DID NOT. Why would the Board of Supervisors let a law firm pull the Board i.e. the citizens into this lawsuit. I thought it was an ethical violation of the bar for a law firm to directly proposition a client for services. How much is this going to cost the citizens and for what purpose?? This is outrageous behavior on the part of the Board and the attorney that is dragging us into this.

  13. Mary Waterton says:

    There is no Constitutional right for homosexuals to marry. Contrary to popular delusion, homosexuals are not a newly discovered race or sex. This is a lifestyle choice, just like polygamy, which has been banned in all 50 states. The Homo-Nazi’s want to argue in the face of thousands of years of history that marriage is entirely a legal function and not a religious one. That is nonsense. The MAJORITY of Americans do not want to change the definition of marriage. They understand the financial and legal implications of opening that Pandora’s Box, and there is already enough evidence accumulated from Massachusetts where clashes of faith versus lifestyle have occurred to support this claim. Homosexuality and “gay marriage” will be taught in schools, it will be forced on churches and church-related organizations by way of “discrimination”, and people will have to spend time and money defending their faith and their children in court.

    Homosexuality being is currently being taught to YOUNG children in Massachusetts & New York public schools:

    My question: When will the EVIL state governments of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire give their citizens a chance to vote on “gay marriage”?

  14. admin says:

    Proposition 8 (or the California Marriage Protection Act) was a ballot proposition and constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008, state elections. The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of Article I, to the California Constitution. The new section reads:
    “ Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.[1][2][3] ”

    By restricting the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the proposition overturned the California Supreme Court’s ruling of In re Marriage Cases that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The wording of Proposition 8 was precisely the same as that which had been found in Proposition 22, which, as an ordinary statute, had been invalidated by the Supreme Court. California’s State Constitution put Proposition 8 into immediate effect the day after the election.[4] The proposition did not affect domestic partnerships in California.[5]

    Proponents of the constitutional amendment argued that exclusively heterosexual marriage was “an essential institution of society,” that leaving the constitution unchanged would “result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay,” and that gay people would “redefine marriage for everyone else.” Opponents argued that “the freedom to marry is fundamental to our society,” that the California constitution “should guarantee the same freedom and rights to everyone” and that the proposition “mandates one set of rules for gay and lesbian couples and another set for everyone else.” They also argued that “equality under the law is a fundamental constitutional guarantee” (see Equal Protection Clause).[6]

    The campaigns for and against Proposition 8 raised $39.9 million and $43.3 million, respectively, becoming the highest-funded campaign on any state ballot that day and surpassing every campaign in the country in spending except the presidential contest. After the elections, demonstrations and protests occurred across the state and nation. Same-sex couples and government entities filed numerous lawsuits with the California Supreme Court challenging the proposition’s validity and effect on previously administered same-sex marriages. In the Strauss v. Horton case, the court upheld Proposition 8, but allowed existing same-sex marriages to stand (under the Grandfather clause principle). Additional lawsuits in federal courts are still pending.

  15. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Mike Smith , frieda. frieda said: Supervisors Act on Gay Marriage Issue: Imperial Valley Weekly Proposition 8 was passed by California voters on .. […]

  16. Richard says:

    Mario Conde, Your article is incorrect in this statement:

    “Proposition 8 was passed by California voters on November 2008 to KEEP MARRIAGE DEFINED as the union between a man and a woman.”

    Actually Proposition 8 was passed to TAKE AWAY the right of same sex couples to marry, as the definition at the time was of marriage equality.

    Please try not to distort this as it is insulting.

    Thank you,

    Richard Cortijo

  17. Kudos to DC and to CT where just celebrated the one year anniversary of our marriage equality law in 11/12, which followed the passage of a civil union law in 2005.

    And congrats to all the couples coming to CT to wed from all across the country, many of whom have been together for 20, 30 and 40 years..

    Onward, Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace,
    Washington, Connecticut, USA

  18. Should civil rights be put up to a popular vote?

    I don’t think so.

    And lets not forget that marriage is firstly a civil matter in America, as marriage licenses are issued by and recorded in town halls not church halls, or mosques or temples..

    Onward to equality,
    Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace,
    Washington, Connecticut, USA

    (So to the marriage police, sexually phobic and flat earthers, it’s time to find a more pressing issue to work on in the 21st century, because life’s just to short. Find love….)

%d bloggers like this: