Update: On November 19th, the California Supreme court agreed to hear the lawsuits but denied a motion for an immediate stay.

Update: Alameda County and the City of San Mateo unanimously voted in closed session to join the lawsuits on November 18th. The city of Oakland voted in closed session to join the lawsuits on November 19th.

In a four to one vote, the Fremont City Council voted on November 18th, to become a party in the now four lawsuits being waged against the state in opposition of Proposition 8. Fremont is the first city in Alameda County to join the lawsuits.

City Attorney Harvey Levine presented his legal assessment of the litigation its primary argument that Proposition 8 is a revision, rather than an amendment to the California state constitution.

“The underlying issue is whether or not you can take a fundamental right away from the Constitution with a simple majority vote,” said Levine.

Following Levine’s remarks, the microphone was opened up for community statements. Seven individuals came forward, each making two minutes speeches urging the council members to support these lawsuits.

Each of the seven, while presenting individual perspectives, all referenced Fremont’s minority majority population and large immigrant community as reasons to oppose Proposition 8 and ensure that rights for all will be protected.

Christina Melnarik, a resident of 22 years, emphasized the American commitment to the separation of church and state as set forth by James Madison.

She went on to state, “Every generation has resisted the inclusion of a group of others into our society. How can we laud the election of our new president election as a triumph over bigotry and prejudice while on the other hand we apply that same bigotry and prejudice against another subset of other?”

Reverend Barbara Myers, a minister at Mission Peak Unitarian Universality congregation and 33-year resident of Fremont, said she was concerned that Proposition 8 might establish a precedent for taking away the rights of other minority communities in the future.

“In my view this is simply not just and I’m confident that eventually justice is going rain in this matter,” she said

Natalie Mun stepped up to the podium and with a quivering voice and tears in her eyes, urged the council to do the right thing.

“I’m embarrassed that the constitutional change wrought by Proposition 8 is wrong for CA, that it’s wrong for my neighbors, and that it’s wrong for our city. As a minority majority city we have a particular need to protect the rights of all our residents, but especially minorities. Let’s wake up from this bad dream,”

Following the statements, councilmembers briefly discussed the issue, turning to Levine for clarification on the difference between filing an “amicus” brief, or simply join the lawsuit. This time also gave members the opportunity to voice their personal opinion on the matter, which were overwhelmingly supportive.

Vice-Mayor Anu Natarajan stated, “Something more important than whether we join in the lawsuit is the fact that we as community leaders are taking a stand on this for our community in Fremont. Especially in a diverse community like ours, we need to be looking out for the smallest of the groups amongst that diverse group.”

Also a vocal supporter was Councilman Bob Wieckowski, who said, “Can you imagine after the Civil Rights Act had been passed by Congress, that the state decided by a majority that they want to go our own way because this is what the majority of our state wants? So sometimes it’s appropriate for the city to express their will.”

The city expressing its will was one of the reasons given in Councilman Steven Cho’s sole voice of dissent. He argued that the city council has not taken an official stance on civil rights issues that have been brought to the council in the past and that this issue was no different.

“I want to protect civil rights, but to change the definition of marriage, in my mind, is a different issue than one of civil rights. The Prop 8 language is what I grew up with. I will talk about civil rights but I won’t go against 8,” said Cho.

Mayor Bob Wasserman said that during his 16 years as mayor he has been a staunch opponent of getting involved in issues that do not affect the city. But he was quick to jump in and say that this issue is different because it results in the “deprivation of rights of people in Fremont.”

Despite Cho’s disagreement, the majority opinion of the council was summed up by Councilman Bob Wieckowski, “There’s no reason why we shouldn’t join the lawsuit. We’re doing this for all of our citizens.”

The four to one vote was met with a standing ovation by those in the gallery, many of whom were wiping away tears.

Fremont joins the ranks of San Francisco city and county, Los Angeles city and county, city of Oakland, as well as Santa Clara, Alameda, Marin, San Mateo and Santa Cruz counties in their lawsuits against the state of California.

At November 18th’s Fremont City Council meeting, City Attorney Harvey Levine will be presenting his legal brief concerning three lawsuits filed by the city and county of San Francisco and a handful of other city and county governments challenging the legal authority of Proposition 8. According to Mayor Bob Wasserman, the request that the city sign onto the lawsuits did not come from the San Francisco city attorney, but from local residents.

At the meeting, city council members will discuss potential actions the city can take, or not take, in support of the lawsuits. Wasserman said that the most likely outcome would be for the city attorney to file an “amicus currie” in support of the lawsuits.

An “amicus currie” is a brief filed with the court by someone who is not a party to the case but believes that the court’s decision may affect its interest. Wasserman said the reason the council would not consider becoming an official party in the lawsuits is that the city does not have sufficient resources to supply the necessary attorneys.

The placement of this issue on the city council’s agenda did not come from government officials or lawyers, but from a few concerned residents. Neighbors Christina Melnarik and Beth Hoffman spearheaded several anti-Proposition 8 fundraisers and rallies in the lead up to the election. When the measure passed, the two women said they went back to the drawing board to figure out their next move.

When San Francisco decided to file suit in opposition to Proposition 8, Hoffman said the City Attorney Dennis Herrera’s office began recruiting other cities to join the lawsuit. While he took the time to fly to San Diego, Hoffman said he never even picked up the phone to call Fremont – its neighbor and the fourth-largest city in the Bay area.

“In 2004, when all these cities joined in on the first initial court action against the state on gay married, no one asked Fremont to join. We were ignored. So it seems like, to me, that nobody asks so Fremont doesn’t normally take action,” said Hoffman.

Fremont is demographically different than other cities in the Bay area and has one of the highest per-capita income rates. As such, Hoffman said this means the city also has a large number of traditional married couples. Instead of opposition, she said she was surprised how adamantly many of her neighbors were working to oppose Proposition 8 and subsequently have it repealed.

“They’re happily married. It’s visceral with them. They don’t want people to be denied marriage because it’s really important to them. This [city council decision] could be a really good thing for Fremont. It can change the perspective of who lives here and show that people care about the community and members of the community,” said Hoffman.

This type of outlook is one that Melnarik is also fighting to support. As a wife and mother of two young children, she said her support for gay marriage is founded on two simple concepts: equality and the separation of church and state. With a large immigrant population in Fremont, she said issues of equality resonate throughout the city.

“My kids are one of only three white children in their classroom. For many of the families I know, they’re new to the country, some are perspective citizens, and they wondering whose rights will be taken away next,” said Melnarik.

The concept of the separation of church and state is something Melnarik said is much more confusing for these immigrants to understand. But for those who fled to the United States to escape an autocratic society, Melnarik said the thought of moving to another nation where religion dictates policy is frighting.

“There are a lot of different religions in Fremont. What gives one church the rights to say that a certain right or law goes against their theology and now everyone has to follow their theology? Fremont has a responsibility to reassure all its citizens that if somebody’s rights are taken away they will stand up and say this is wrong,” said Melnarik.

Melnarik said that she and some of her neighbors and friends will be attending the city council meeting and speaking out against Proposition 8 and requesting that the council file an “amicus” brief in support of the lawsuit.

The demonstrators yelled slurs like “faggot,” according to several people who said they were harassed. Some said they were pushed, poked, and hit with signs by aggressive demonstrators.

“They said, ‘You’re a sick fag,’” said Oakland resident Anthony Lecours, 46, who held a sign opposing Proposition 8. Lecours said he was poked repeatedly and that one demonstrator told him he had AIDS.

“They were telling me I wish I had a penis,” said Julie Harris, another resident of Oakland who was holding a sign opposing Proposition 8 across the street from the main demonstration. “[They said] that I was angry a man left me, stuff like that.”

Harris also said a demonstrator pushed and elbowed her.

On Friday, police department spokesman Jeff Thomason said one demonstrator was cited for battery.

The demonstration drew between 30 and 40 people to the intersection of Lakeshore Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard, as the sun set Thursday. Over several hours, between three and six Oakland police officers monitored the scene. Drivers passing by honked and pointed toward the side they supported.

Asked about the allegations of harassment, Officer Chris Keden said that several people had complained to him about the slurs, but that he personally had not heard anyone use them.

Proposition 8 supporter Benjamin Finau, 27, was holding a sign and yelling to passing cars.

“Gay and lesbian marriage, and just being gay, too, that’s not good,” he said. “I see it as a spiritual battle between good and evil, and we’re on the good side.”

His view appears to conflict with the stated position of the sponsors of Proposition 8, who say on their Web site that the measure is not an attack on gay couples or homosexuality but rather a reaffirmation of heterosexual marriage.

The measure’s sponsors have repeated this stance in television advertisements and media interviews. In recent days, however, witnesses have reported numerous instances of abusive language and physical intimidation at Yes-on-8 demonstrations throughout Oakland.

The Protect Marriage campaign, which is sponsoring Proposition 8, declined to comment for this story.

Finau said he and many of the other demonstrators are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Protect Marriage campaign estimates that 40 percent of its donations have come from members of the LDS church; Californians Against Hate, a group opposing Proposition 8, puts the amount at 80 percent.

A spokesman for the Oakland Temple, a local LDS branch, said the church does not take political positions.

“Individuals can do what their conscience dictates,” he said. “I’d be disappointed that church members were using anything but good language.”

A ballot measure to end gay marriage in California has attracted money and endorsements from Christian groups around the country, but many local Christians say they are wary of being associated with the campaign.

Groups supporting the gay marriage ban, Proposition 8, have raised more than $25 million, according to data from the California Secretary of State’s Web site. Some of the biggest contributions have come from Christian groups like Focus on the Family, which is evangelical, and the Knights of Columbus, which is Catholic, according to an analysis of the data by the 510Report.

Rev. Jeff Johnson, pastor of the University Lutheran Chapel near the University of California, Berkeley campus, opposes Prop. 8. His church has a rainbow flag—a symbol of gay rights—hanging outside on its wall. Johnson said that while many local Christians and churches share his views, the visibility of the Prop. 8 campaign could lead some observers to associate Christianity with an opposition to gay marriage.

“It gives Christianity a bad name,” Johnson said of the campaign.

Other local Christians say they are more conflicted about Prop. 8. Sara Chi, a senior at the University of California Berkeley, said she has been a member of the Cal Christian Fellowship since she started college. She said she will vote against Prop. 8, but the decision was made difficult by her conservative Baptist upbringing.

“When I first saw it on the ballot I was pretty torn,” said Chi, 21. “Growing up, it was emphasized in my home or among my friends that gay people are weird.”

Andrew Lee, a sophomore and member of the Christian fraternity, Alpha Gamma Omega, said he skipped Prop. 8 when he voted by mail earlier this month.

“Morally, I don’t think there should be gay marriage…but I don’t think it’s the government’s job to define what marriage is,” said Lee, 19, a Presbyterian.

In interviews with several local Christians of various denominations, none would go on the record as supporting Prop. 8.

An analysis of campaign contributions and published endorsements shows that Evangelical, Mormon and Catholic denominations are among the Christian churches most supportive of Prop. 8. Episcopal and Congregational groups are among those most opposed, favoring a continuation the legal gay marriage made possible by state Supreme Court ruling in May.

But the divisions do not always occur along the lines of denominations, some of which are themselves conflicted about gay marriage. In opposing Prop 8, University Lutheran is in conflict with congregations such as Zion Lutheran Church outside Sacramento, which has endorsed the measure. And by performing gay marriage ceremonies, the church is at odds with the official policy of its national affiliate, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

“It’s a very gray area in the church,” said ELCA spokesman John Brooks. “We don’t recognize same-sex marriage but there’s no outright ban.”

But according to Johnson of University Lutheran, gray areas could get lost among in a socially liberal setting like Berkeley.

“If you’re a Christian in Berkeley, then everyone assumes that you think like Jerry Falwell,” the late fundamentalist leader, Johnson said.