Above: March along Santa Monica Blvd., with the pastor of the Metropolitan Community Church in the foreground.

A rally was held in support of Gay/Lebian/Bisexual/Transgendered marriage rights was held on Monday, July 12th, 2004 in the diverse community of West Hollywood. Both GLBT and straight members of the community came out in force to demonstrate their opposition to any rule that would limit the rights of individuals to marriage.

After the initial rally, the assembled demonstrators marched down Santa Monica Blvd, blocking traffic in two of the three Eastbound lanes (with support from the West Hollywood Sheriffs per prior arrangement). A new rally was convened at the Metropolitan Community Church about a mile East of the original rally.

Speakers included members of the ANSWER coalition (which helped to organize the event), as well as the pastor of the Metropolitan Community Church (also a rally sponsor). Also speaking were:

* A teenage GLBT activist

* A gay man whose partner is from South America and cannot immigrate because of the lack of a marriage license

Other event sponsors included the Out Against the War Coalition and the Don't Amend.com.

The following links provide additional information:

http://www.marriagerightsla.org/

http://www.temenos.net/action_war.shtml

http://dontamend.com/

http://www.answerla.org/

The images presented are in approximate chronological order.

M. Nature had already passed sentence on the gay "life"style.

It is incompatible with nature, reproduction and the health of a society that hopes to last.

Gays are no less equal in the eyes of God, but there are some behaviors--beyond the concept of sin--that are simply not compatible with health and longevity, either of individuals or society.

Civil unions, fine. Gay "marriage?" No way.

Two men or two women are not and will never be equal to one man and one woman and the gay pairing will still not be equal 30 years from now when children can be grown in vats of goo.

Irrational gay selfishness, like other forms of irrational self-interest, show contempt for the health of society and are unwelcome.

Point by point response to "Mother Nature":

"M. Nature had already passed sentence on the gay "life"style. It is incompatible with nature, reproduction and the health of a society that hopes to last. "

COMMENT:

if I read you correctly, you believe that gay marriage is incompatible with Nature because it does not yield offspring.

I take it then that heterosexual couples who choose not to have children are also, in your opinion, "incompatible with Nature."

Not to mention, a thousand and one randomly selected activities that do not result in children, such as dog ownership, driving a car, eating, sleeping, posting messages on the Internet, etc. By your logic, each and every one of these is "incompatible with Nature" because no offspring result from them. These renders your use of that phrase meaningless, as it could be applied to almost anything other than sex between a fertile man and a fertile woman.

There are many kinds of socially valuable activities that two people can carry out together that do not involve giving birth. Adopting a child and raising it would be only one of many examples.

Personally, I happen to be a heterosexual who is in a committed relationship that has lasted almost two decades. Neither I nor my partner has ever had, nor has any plans of having, children. Would you require us (and all hetersexuals) to sign an agreement that we must create (not adopt) at least one baby before granting us a marriage license? If not, then what on Earth are you talking about?



"Gays are no less equal in the eyes of God, but there are some behaviors--beyond the concept of sin--that are simply not compatible with health and longevity, either of individuals or society."

COMMENT: For example, discrimination by a majoritarian population segment against a minority population segment. This promotes divisions and conflict within society, and reduces social diversity and individual freedoms by punishing certain behaviors merely because they are "different," while promoting other behaviors because they conform to the majority's own desires.

"Civil unions, fine. Gay "marriage?" No way.

"Two men or two women are not and will never be equal to one man and one woman and the gay pairing will still not be equal 30 years from now when children can be grown in vats of goo.

"Irrational gay selfishness, like other forms of irrational self-interest, show contempt for the health of society and are unwelcome."

COMMENT: Your direct comments are unsupported and they contain many unsupported presuppositions, as well. You have in no way supported any of your above assertions or presuppositions, and so there is no way (or need) to respond to them, as they are simply irrational beliefs that you no doubt put forward because they conform to you own selfish interest in reserving certain rights, such as marriage and the legal and economic benefits that go along with it, for you own group (heterosexuals). Hence, you appear to be personally guilty of the very thing of which you have unjustly accused an entire community of people. Psychologists refer to this as "projection."

Negative characterizations of an entire community, such as the ones that you have put forward here, are the very definition of predjudice. You need to examine your own behavior and beliefs and attempt to root out the irrationality and arrogance that so evidently pervades them.

Gays are as natural as four leaf clovers. They aren't the norm, but they're part of the natural diversity of human existence.

If you want to talk about nature, consider that same-sex behavior was discussed 2,000 years ago, and put in the Bible. From this we can assert that gays were around back then. They are still around. Therefore, same-sex relations are, very likely, natural.

Moreover, assuming that the birth rate for same-sex relationships is pretty low, because, well... they are not "sexual," we can deduce that it's not a hereditary thing, and might be randomly distributed in the population.

We may even conjecture that an evolved population benefits from this diversity, but that these benefits have yet to be understood. What I mean is this: homosexuality seems to be present in every society. It seems to just "pop up" at random. Perhaps it's a trait that actually has some evolutionary advantage, but we don't know it yet.