San Francisco Officials Marry Gay Couples

[radhak]

Talk of radical action ! Maybe they are the George Wallace from this side of the fence?

San Francisco Officials Marry Gay Couples (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20040212/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_calif_16)

edit : pasted the article below :

San Francisco Officials Marry Gay Couples

By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO - In an open challenge to California law, city authorities officiated at at least eight same-sex weddings Thursday and issued about a dozen more marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.

The act of civil disobedience was coordinated by Mayor Gavin Newsom and top officials in the city considered the capital of gay America.

Longtime lesbian activists Phyllis Lyon, 79, and Del Martin, 83, were hurriedly issued a married license and were wedded just before noon by City Assessor Mabel Teng in a closed-door civil ceremony at City Hall, mayor's spokesman Peter Ragone said. The two have been a couple for 51 years.

By early afternoon, city officials had married at least seven other gay couples. The vows in one of those weddings, performed before TV cameras, replaced the traditional phrasing that couples take each other as "husband and wife" with "spouse for life."

City Hall was crowded with jubilant same-sex couples. About 30 couples crowded outside the San Francisco County Clerk's office awaiting licenses, many arm in arm. One of the women, wearing a white wedding dress and veil, encouraged couples to shout out their names and how long they had been together.

It remains unclear what practical value the marriage licenses will have, but the symbolism was clear on a day when lawmakers in Massachusetts debated for a second day a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

A conservative group called the Campaign for California Families characterized Thursday's marriages as a sham.

"These unlawful certificates are not worth the paper they are printed on. The renegade mayor of San Francisco has no authority to do this," said Randy Thomasson, the group's executive director. "This is nothing more than a publicity stunt that disrespects our state law and system of government itself."

San Francisco officials insisted the licenses were legally binding.

Thursday's marriages violate a ballot measure California voters approved in 2000 that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

No state legally sanctions gay marriage, though Massachusetts could become the first this spring. The Massachusetts high court has ruled that gays are entitled under the state constitution to marry. That led to the debate over a constitutional amendment.

The gay marriages in San Francisco were timed by city officials to outmaneuver the conservative group. The group had planned to go to court on Friday to stop mayor's announced plans to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. But the city acted first.

Lyon and Martin said after their brief ceremony that they were going home to rest and did not plan anything to celebrate. The couple seemed proud of what they had done.

"Why shouldn't we" be able to marry? Lyon asked.

The mayor was not present at the morning ceremony but later presented Martin and Lyon with a signed copy of the state constitution with sections related to equal rights highlighted.

The two official witnesses were Kate Kendell, director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights and former city official Roberta Achtenberg.

The conservative group fighting gay marriage has also sued, so far unsuccessfully, to block the state's domestic partner law, which then-Gov. Gray Davis signed in September.

That law expands the rights of gay couples in areas ranging from health coverage and parental status to property ownership and funeral arrangements.

[numediaman]

Originally posted by radhak
City Hall was crowded with jubilant same-sex couples. . .

. . . then they got married.

Gay couples may soon find out what straight couples have known for years . . . its more fun before the ceremony!

EDIT: Sayhey, you're absolutely right. I miss S.F. -- bring me home!

[Sayhey]

I didn't vote for Newsom, but I'm proud of what he has done. It would be a tremendous mistake to leave the good folks of Massachusetts to fight this legal battle on their own. Sometimes I forget why it is so great to live in San Francisco - days like today make me remember.

[mactastic]

Good for SF. The dam is about to break for gay marriage.

We may have just witnessed a pivotal moment in the advancement of civil rights.

[miloblithe]

Let's just hope things keep moving in the right direction. Good news though.

[rainman::|:|]

Originally posted by mactastic
Good for SF. The dam is about to break for gay marriage.

We may have just witnessed a pivotal moment in the advancement of civil rights.

i have the exact same feeling. i believe today will go down in history, the formal beginning of gay equality. it's very exciting to me personally, my partner and i are being joined in an honest-to-god mass ceremony at the Mensa AG in Vegas this summer... if this catches enough steam, maybe we'll get a certificate to go along with it. the vegas industry stands to make a lot from gays with disposable income, and industry does seem to write the law out there...

anyway, i digress. hopefully this won't be like the medical marijuana initiative, where mayors sat in civil defiance of federal law, only to be ignored and then superceeded... but since it's such a big election issue, and happening elsewhere in the US, i think it's not just an isolated incident.

i wonder who will be assassinated in this civil rights frenzy. i've always said we need our own Martin Luther King Jr to lead us, maybe that's not such a good idea...

paul

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by paulwhannel
i wonder who will be assassinated in this civil rights frenzy. i've always said we need our own Martin Luther King Jr to lead us, maybe that's not such a good idea...

paul

Paul, you're too young to remember Harvey Milk aren't you? Don't wish for such things.

This move is designed to set up a court case before the California Supreme Court to test the DOMA proposition vs. the equal rights sections of the State Constitution. Hopefully we will get a similar result to Mass. The local Assemblyman, Mark Leno, is also putting forward a bill in Sacramento to allow for gay marriage statewide. Lots of things going on out here.

[IJ Reilly]

Does that work as a legal strategy, though? What standing does the city have to challenge state laws respecting marriage? I am also concerned that this will be taken as a grandstanding ploy that might be cheered in San Francisco, but jeered (if not ignored) everywhere else. If it doesn't work as a legal strategy, then I also have questions about how it works as a political strategy.

[iMeowbot]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Does that work as a legal strategy, though? What standing does the city have to challenge state laws respecting marriage?

That's sort of the question the exercise is designed to answer. There are arguments that the California constitution renders discriminatory marriage laws invalid, and now those arguments can be tested in court.

[AMDMACMAN]

These marriages, like them or not will be overturned eventually. They are against the law. PERIOD. Untill the issue is settled these newly "married" couples better not get to cosey with the term marriage. I am not stating an opinion wether i agree or not just how i see the law.

[SPG]

I sure hope this goes before the court (would it be the 9th circuit?) and that marriage for same sex couples is allowed. That being said, I'm still hazy on how a mayor can do this and not just get it shut down as a case of overstepping his bounds. Anyway I guess it starts this way and eventually ends up at the supreme court.
While I'm rambling here, what is the deal with people opposing this? Marriage is a state contract with state benefits and obligations wholly unrelated to the religious realm. By denying these benefits and obligations solely over the basis of sexual orientation can be seen as nothing but simple descrimination or imposing religious doctrine on the public.

[SPG]

Originally posted by AMDMACMAN
These marriages, like them or not will be overturned eventually. They are against the law. PERIOD. Untill the issue is settled these newly "married" couples better not get to cosey with the term marriage. I am not stating an opinion wether i agree or not just how i see the law.

Perhaps they will be ruled invalid, but that will be appealed and then the question will be whether it is discriminatory or not to deny same sex couples the right to marry.
I am curious as to how you personally feel on the subject though, legalities aside.

[Dont Hurt Me]

all these progressive pro gay marriage judges and mayors are going to force a constitutional amendment to spell this out for these officials who are ignoring law,history,tradition. we will have a amendment and that will be the end. Law is no longer law what is going on are these elected officials are doing as they feel or want. the minority is trying to force its view on the majority. It doesnt work that way. sorry. thats why we have elections.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
the minority is trying to force its view on the majority. It doesnt work that way. sorry.

Huh? The minority is trying to gain equal access to rights the majority enjoys. This has nothing to do people with forcing their views on anyone. The fact that anyone thinks it is shows how easily (and mistakenly) emotionalised this issue can become.

[SPG]

DHM, I guess you're saying that this will force an anti gay marriage amendment to the constitution?
Legal cases do not amend the constitution, they merely interpret laws and set precedent. A constitutional amendment may be in the works as a reaction to these rulings, but that's as much of a link as possible. Right now polls show a fairly even split on outlawing gay marriage, but show fairly good support for allowing civil unions that grant same sex couples the same rights as hetero couples. If this comes to a vote, there would probably be a good debate about it and hopefully people would realize that it's a case about discrimination and rights, and not about the icky things people do in their bedrooms that their priests say is bad.

Disclosure: I'm not gay but I am married... So what do I know?

[SPG]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Huh? The minority is trying to gain equal access to rights the majority enjoys. This has nothing to do people with forcing their views on anyone. The fact that anyone thinks it is shows how easily (and mistakenly) emotionalised this issue can become.

Word.
It's been two days and I still haven't divorced my wife to marry a man...I guess the minority hasn't gotten around to forcing their views on me yet.

[Krizoitz]

This was one of two things. It was either

A) An attempt to force a constitutional challenge to over turn a law.

B) A dumb stunt by this guy to ingratiate himself to the gay community.

For his sake I hope it was choice A. Regardless I think it was a dumb stunt. I think that the tide of public opinion is turning in favor of civil unions at least, possibly marriage for gays. As a previous poster pointed out this could force a constitutional ammendmant that (shudder) if it passed could make this issue even worse.

I think what he is doing is just piggy backing on the momentum of the Massachusetts law and trying to make himself look good by doing what is probably the right thing. If he really wanted to challenge the DOMA why didn't he do it before now?

[Dont Hurt Me]

they are ramming this down the politicians throats. Bush and Kerry have allready said no gay marriage. it may take some time but like i said they will spell it out in black and white so there is no debate. our society revolves around the idea of man & wife and procreation so they can create more taxpayers. man & man or wife and wife dont help to create taxpayers no matter how hard they try.;) If the gays want to pass wealth there are other ways to do this. civil rights stuff is malarky. marriage is a privilege like driving. its not a right. Its not even a campaign issue for me but thats my 2 cents.

[iMeowbot]

Originally posted by SPG
Perhaps they will be ruled invalid, but that will be appealed and then the question will be whether it is discriminatory or not to deny same sex couples the right to marry.

Yes, this is maybe a bit nitpicky, but I see this all the time and...

There's no question on the facts. Any time one class of people is treated differently from another, it's discrimination.

What the courts have to work out is whether or not this instance of discrimination is okay.

Our laws openly deny various rights from children, convicted felons, people from out of town/state/country, and other classes, just because of who those people are. There are good justifications for most of those forms of discrimination, but surely there are some people in each of those classes to whom the discrimination ideally would not apply. The broader brush is though to be more fair in those instances -- not necessarily fair to those individual, but to the public overall.

And that there would be what the court would have to decide, whether the public at large would be harmed if those of us who fall in love with someone whose plumbing fixtures resemble our own want to make it official.

[vniow]

Holy ****.

[AMDMACMAN]

Originally posted by SPG
Perhaps they will be ruled invalid, but that will be appealed and then the question will be whether it is discriminatory or not to deny same sex couples the right to marry.
I am curious as to how you personally feel on the subject though, legalities aside.

I personally am for same sex unions. Not marriages. I would be in favor of an amendment banning marraige for gays. I do not think the majority of the people in the US want something like to this to be legal.
Now before anyone attacks me for having an apposing opinion, which happens alot around here, I respect gay/lesbian/bi or whatever sexual orientation people choose. I dont find samesex partnerships(or what ever they are called) to be offensive. I just feel that marriage is more of a religious union that a civil one.

If people want to fight over discrimination i will grant that gays should be given equal protection under the law, just call it something other than marraige so middle america doesnt have to go through a constitutional debate over the use of the word marraige.

[iMeowbot]

Originally posted by AMDMACMAN
If people want to fight over discrimination i will grant that gays should be given equal protection under the law, just call it something other than marraige so middle america doesnt have to go through a constitutional debate over the use of the word marraige.

Here's the latest text under discussion in the Massachusetts constitutional convention (this is a snapshot; they haven't even finished beginning yet):

This article shall ensure that the people, not the courts, define the unique relationship of marriage.

It being the public policy of this commonwealth to protect the unique relationship of marriage, only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Massachusetts. Two persons of the same sex shall have the right to form a civil union, if they meet the requirements set forth by law for marriage between a man and a woman.

Civil unions for same sex couples are established hereunder and shall provide entirely the same benefits, protections, rights and responsibilities that are afforded to couples married under Massachusetts law. All laws applicable to marriage shall also apply to civil unions.

This article is self-executing, but the General Court may enact laws not inconsistent with anything herein contained to carry out the purpose of
this article.

So here we have proposed law saying that two different things are entirely the same.

The Hatter opened his eyes very wide on hearing this; but all he SAID was, `Why is a raven like a writing-desk?'

`Come, we shall have some fun now!' thought Alice. `I'm glad they've begun asking riddles.--I believe I can guess that,' she added aloud.

`Do you mean that you think you can find out the answer to it?' said the March Hare.

`Exactly so,' said Alice.

`Then you should say what you mean,' the March Hare went on.

`I do,' Alice hastily replied; `at least--at least I mean what I say--that's the same thing, you know.'

`Not the same thing a bit!' said the Hatter. `You might just as well say that "I see what I eat" is the same thing as "I eat what I see"!'

`You might just as well say,' added the March Hare, `that "I like what I get" is the same thing as "I get what I like"!'

`You might just as well say,' added the Dormouse, who seemed to be talking in his sleep, `that "I breathe when I sleep" is the same thing as "I sleep when I breathe"!'

`It IS the same thing with you,' said the Hatter, and here the conversation dropped, and the party sat silent for a minute, while Alice thought over all she could remember about ravens and writing-desks, which wasn't much.

[vniow]

Originally posted by AMDMACMAN
I respect gay/lesbian/bi or whatever sexual orientation people choose.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!

[Neserk]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
they are ramming this down the politicians throats. Bush and Kerry have allready said no gay marriage. it may take some time but like i said they will spell it out in black and white so there is no debate. our society revolves around the idea of man & wife and procreation so they can create more taxpayers. man & man or wife and wife dont help to create taxpayers no matter how hard they try.;) If the gays want to pass wealth there are other ways to do this. civil rights stuff is malarky. marriage is a privilege like driving. its not a right. Its not even a campaign issue for me but thats my 2 cents.

:rolleyes: Kerry's stance is different than Bush's. Kerry wants to allow Civil Unions. Bush does not.

Get used to the idea that there will be Gay Marriages. It is just a matter of time. And this act of civil disobedience may just be what makes it sooner :D

Tradition is the absolute *worst* argument there is for anything! That make as much sense "as everyone else is doing it* (whine).

Marriage is not a privilege. How do you figure? It *is* a right, a right that is given to all people 18 and older. To deny someone the right to marry a consenting adult is what is malarky.

That is my 2 million dollars worth! :P

[Dont Hurt Me]

Neserk say what you may but this will be defined more clearly for those who dont grasp this concept of man & wife=marriage and pushing for gay marriage isnt going to get anyone elected. Just to listen to Kerry's tune now:eek:

[AMDMACMAN]

I just dont understand how Sanfransisco thinks they have the right to do this. Maraige has been defined by Prop. 22(i think) in California. If i am correct gay maraige has been outlawed by Prop. 22. The mayor of San Fran. needs to think about the message he is sending. If I or the gay comunity does not like a law, screw it. that is hardly how this country works. Laws are in place for a reason. there are routes one can take to change a law. If the people of america want a law in place then it will eventually become so.

When america wants gay mariage(enevitable but not soon) it will happen. For a very liberal pro gay mariage mayor to try and ram this down the rest of americas throuts as an "in your face" gesture does not make sense.
In "my opinion" this would only hurt the cause(just or not) of gay couples. In my mind people can gain respect by obeying laws and following the procedures to change them. to openly defy the people of california and america is stupid on the part of sanfransisco.

In the end if the people or the american government choose to legalize gay maraige i will be a little disapointed at the direction the county is turning but at least the the people(or their representatives) will have spoken.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Krizoitz
This was one of two things. It was either

A) An attempt to force a constitutional challenge to over turn a law.

B) A dumb stunt by this guy to ingratiate himself to the gay community.

For his sake I hope it was choice A. Regardless I think it was a dumb stunt. I think that the tide of public opinion is turning in favor of civil unions at least, possibly marriage for gays. As a previous poster pointed out this could force a constitutional ammendmant that (shudder) if it passed could make this issue even worse.

I think what he is doing is just piggy backing on the momentum of the Massachusetts law and trying to make himself look good by doing what is probably the right thing. If he really wanted to challenge the DOMA why didn't he do it before now?

I know this is going to come as a shock to some folks out there but San Francisco isn't like most of the rest of the Country. If a vote was taken in my fair City the support for gay marriage side would win by a very large margin. People here, gay and straight, believe that this is a question of discrimination and the denial of a very basic right to a substantial part of the nation.

As to Newsom's motives, as I said earlier, although I didn't vote for him he has shown a lot of courage and leadership in getting this done. Not only did he and other City officials organize this, but they also organized free legal services for the City in the coming legal battles. The idea is to challenge the contradictory nature of the State Constitution, which prohibits discriminatory laws and the DOMA law passed by statewide vote. Many propositions have been thrown out, in whole or part, by such challenges in the past.

Why now? For many reasons. What is going on in Boston is only part of it. Remember Newsom is only in office for a little over a month now so this is just part of his attempt to use the office of Mayor to make some real changes for San Francisco. Also this is part of coordinated strategy to force a vote on this in the State Legislature with Mark Leno's bill being introduced at the same time.

I know a lot of folks would not want to have this as part of the political agenda this year (myself included), but I think we don't always get to choose the time or method of when a struggle is engaged. Like it or not the choice to stand up for an end to discrimination is before us all. Not just the Legislators in Boston and not just the city officials in San Francisco.

When Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of the bus, many told her and King that this wasn't the time and we must move slowly. After all there were an awful lot of white folks who were very upset by the social changes being forced on them by a "radical minority" and "activist judges." Those folks were wrong.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by AMDMACMAN
I just dont understand how Sanfransisco thinks they have the right to do this. Maraige has been defined by Prop. 22(i think) in California. If i am correct gay maraige has been outlawed by Prop. 22. The mayor of San Fran. needs to think about the message he is sending. If I or the gay comunity does not like a law, screw it. that is hardly how this country works. Laws are in place for a reason. there are routes one can take to change a law. If the people of america want a law in place then it will eventually become so.

The Constitutions of the United States and California, and the interpretation thereof by the Supreme Courts are the ultimate law of the land.

That is how this country works. All the propositions and laws in the world cannot override the Constitutions of States and the United States.

When america wants gay mariage(enevitable but not soon) it will happen. For a very liberal pro gay mariage mayor to try and ram this down the rest of americas throuts as an "in your face" gesture does not make sense.

Why not? He wants to peacefully challenge the status quo because he believes it to be wrong and unconsitutional. Would you say Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat as an "in your face gesture" that didn't make sense too?

In "my opinion" this would only hurt the cause(just or not) of gay couples. In my mind people can gain respect by obeying laws and following the procedures to change them.

This is exactly how you follow the procedure to change laws. This is hardly overt civil disobedience.

In the end if the people or the american government choose to legalize gay maraige i will be a little disapointed at the direction the county is turning but at least the the people(or their representatives) will have spoken.

The people may have already spoken. If the court rules that the Constitution truly extends equal rights to everyone, then it becomes so that when those articles or amendments were ratified, the people spoke to legalise gay marriage.

[mactastic]

Hehe... And Newsom was the more conservative choice for mayor!

[numediaman]

Yet another reason to love S.F.:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/02/14/BAG0O517Q61.DTL&type=printable

S.F. won't give feds abortion data
Justice Dept. wants General Hospital records on banned late-term method

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, February 14, 2004

The Bush administration wants San Francisco General Hospital to turn over records of abortions prohibited by a federal law that is now being challenged in court. The city refused Friday to provide the information, which is also being sought from six hospitals in other cities.

"The city will not disclose the medical records of patients who have received abortions'' at the hospital, "nor will it disclose the names of physicians who have observed or performed abortions,'' City Attorney Dennis Herrera's office said in a letter to the U.S. Justice Department.

"Wholesale disclosure of this information would result in the gross violation of our patients' privacy rights, and the unjustifiable harassment of our physicians.''

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by mactastic
Hehe... And Newsom was the more conservative choice for mayor!

Yes, and how many candidates move to the left after they get elected. The amazing thing is that it isn't just on this issue. Newsom has been showing up at murder scenes in the Bayview/Hunter's Point neighborhood (largely african american area) and pressuring the police to put the needed resources into solving the crimes. His rhetoric is all about how City government can't abandon citizens to this violence. He is also reached across the ideological divide on the issue of homelessness and brought in folks to develop a "ten year plan" to solve long term homeless problems by tackling things like drug addiction and mental health problems.

Before the election I told many left leaning friends I didn't think Newsom was as horrible as they thought, now I'm beginning to think that may have been a huge understatement.

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by Sayhey

Before the election I told many left leaning friends I didn't think Newsom was as horrible as they thought, now I'm beginning to think that may have been a huge understatement.

Not to question his motives here, cause I think he's doing an awesome job - but do you think Newsom's stance on some of these issues might be the result of the strong left-wing competition he was up against with Gonzalez? ie. could the rise of Gonzalez as a leading contender for the Greens have influenced Newsom's politics to the left? Interesting the think about.

I long for the day when the two party choice in this country is Green vs. Dem.

Davis

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
Not to question his motives here, cause I think he's doing an awesome job - but do you think Newsom's stance on some of these issues might be the result of the strong left-wing competition he was up against with Gonzalez? ie. could the rise of Gonzalez as a leading contender for the Greens have influenced Newsom's politics to the left? Interesting the think about.

I long for the day when the two party choice in this country is Green vs. Dem.

Davis

Absolutely. Newsom's moves, while they may or may not reflect his personal convictions, show that there is more political ground to the left of Newsom than most people thought there was. At the very least it shows he is a smart enough politician to recognize that fact.

[Krizoitz]

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
I long for the day when the two party choice in this country is Green vs. Dem.

I think this would be a really really BAD thing. Here's why. Democrats and Republicans are polarized on just about every issue. This is a good thing. It means that with both parties having strong control things get done nice and slowly, its kinda like a legislative survival of the fittest. If you had a bill that is too conservative then you get the liberals to slow it down. And vice versa. Now I realize that some people feel we should be more liberal, or more conservative, but its kinda a Yin/Yang thing. Change may be slow, but its far more stable that way. Yes occasionally change is too slow and we need to push the system, but over all its a good thing. I love the environment, I really do. But sometimes I think the green party forgets that there are human costs in terms of jobs, familes, to uber liberal environmentalist policies. I'm afraid of extremeists. And while the green party isn't as bad as some, I don't like the idea of them having power. I like the dems and repubs because they are both reasonable moderate for each of their positions. The scariest thing in the world to me would be a libertarian/green party race.

[SPG]

Originally posted by Sayhey
When Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of the bus, many told her and King that this wasn't the time and we must move slowly. After all there were an awful lot of white folks who were very upset by the social changes being forced on them by a "radical minority" and "activist judges." Those folks were wrong.

Amen!

In the 1960's just being gay was a crime in a lot of places. There would be raids on gay bars and firing someone for being gay was common. I'm glad that this country is finally making some progress on these issues.

[radhak]

this is getting really interesting. now the trickle is turning into a flood :

Hundreds line up for same-sex marriages (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/02/14/samesex.marriage/index.html)


Californians filled the ranks for the most part, but gay couples from other parts of the country were beginning to join the line for marriage licenses in San Francisco, which does not require a blood test or proof of residency.


maybe we are witnessing history in the making without realizing the huge significance.

any SF-ians here who have been to the city hall? how about taking advantage of this and getting hooked up? :D

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Krizoitz
I think this would be a really really BAD thing. Here's why. Democrats and Republicans are polarized on just about every issue. This is a good thing. It means that with both parties having strong control things get done nice and slowly, its kinda like a legislative survival of the fittest. If you had a bill that is too conservative then you get the liberals to slow it down. And vice versa. Now I realize that some people feel we should be more liberal, or more conservative, but its kinda a Yin/Yang thing. Change may be slow, but its far more stable that way. Yes occasionally change is too slow and we need to push the system, but over all its a good thing. I love the environment, I really do. But sometimes I think the green party forgets that there are human costs in terms of jobs, familes, to uber liberal environmentalist policies. I'm afraid of extremeists. And while the green party isn't as bad as some, I don't like the idea of them having power. I like the dems and repubs because they are both reasonable moderate for each of their positions. The scariest thing in the world to me would be a libertarian/green party race.

I have another idea. Actually it is not mine, but I think it is good nonetheless. How about runoffs? Instead of having to settle for voting for the "lesser of two evils" a voter could actually vote for the candidate that represented his or her views. It would allow third parties (or fourth or fifth parties) to become a real choice for voters. It would also mean the candidate who gets elected would have a majority of the vote (assuming we also get rid of the asinine Electoral College.) This radical notion is common place in many countries. It is about time we tried to live up to our rhetoric about "Democracy" and made some reforms in the system.

radhak, I'll have to go down to City Hall and checkout the lines. Sorry, I'm straight and recently divorced - no intention of taking the plunge again anytime soon.

[Neserk]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Neserk say what you may but this will be defined more clearly for those who dont grasp this concept of man & wife=marriage and pushing for gay marriage isnt going to get anyone elected. Just to listen to Kerry's tune now:eek:

intesting how you say "Man + wife" that is pretty sexist. I thought it was man +woman" :rolleyes:

And they said that about freeing slaves, women's rights, and civil rights. All those things have changed, this will change too.

Gay people *WILL* have the right to MARRY!

[Neserk]

Originally posted by AMDMACMAN
[B]I just dont understand how Sanfransisco thinks they have the right to do this. Maraige has been defined by Prop. 22(i think) in California. If i am correct gay maraige has been outlawed by Prop. 22. The mayor of San Fran. needs to think about the message he is sending. If I or the gay comunity does not like a law, screw it. that is hardly how this country works. Laws are in place for a reason. there are routes one can take to change a law. If the people of america want a law in place then it will eventually become so.



Change Gay to black... This is exactly what MLK did! Civil Disobedience! It was against the law for blacks and whites to eat at a counter together AND THEY DID IT! It was against the law for them to drink from the same water faucet AND THEY DID IT! It was against the law for them to ride in the same seats on a bus AND THEY DID IT!

San Francisco is doing what is RIGHT which is not always what the law says. That law is now being challenged and will be challenged in the highest courts of the land! We know what the 9th district court will say! The law will be challenged over and over and over and over again if necessary until the IMMORAL law is changed!

[AMDMACMAN]

Originally posted by Neserk
Change Gay to black... This is exactly what MLK did! Civil Disobedience! It was against the law for blacks and whites to eat at a counter together AND THEY DID IT! It was against the law for them to drink from the same water faucet AND THEY DID IT! It was against the law for them to ride in the same seats on a bus AND THEY DID IT!

San Francisco is doing what is RIGHT which is not always what the law says. That law is now being challenged and will be challenged in the highest courts of the land! We know what the 9th district court will say! The law will be challenged over and over and over and over again if necessary until the IMMORAL law is changed!

Yes, I am glad that you have an opinion, but on the other hand the mayor of San Fansisco is doing what is wrong. He is telling the people of San Fran and the rest of America, if you dont agree with a law, then you dont have to follow it. I dont agree with lots of laws. I think i should be able to to drive my car as fast as I want, but i dont because it is against the law. Period. The legality of gay maraige is already pretty much in the process of review. the mayor of this city does no one any good(including gays). the people who illegaly got mariied will have their licence revoked per state law.


People should realize that right or wrong, untill changed, the law is the law.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by AMDMACMAN
Yes, I am glad that you have an opinion, but on the other hand the mayor of San Fansisco is doing what is wrong. He is telling the people of San Fran and the rest of America, if you dont agree with a law, then you dont have to follow it.

That's exactly right. If I don't agree with a law, then I am free to not follow it and face the consequences. That's how it works.

If a judge agrees that I broke it, he'll convict me. If I want to then challenge the interpretation or constitutionality of that law, I can appeal as high as the Supreme Court of the US to do so.

If you want to drive 100mph, go ahead. If you think there is a constitutional right that allows you to do so, you can argue this in court and if you're right, you'll not only be found not guilty but the laws against speeding will be invalidated.

People should realize that right or wrong, untill changed, the law is the law.

They're trying to get it changed.

I don't understand how you can't understand this simple process.

You don't have to wait for someone else to change something that you yourself have the power to change.

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by AMDMACMAN
Yes, I am glad that you have an opinion, but on the other hand the mayor of San Fansisco is doing what is wrong. He is telling the people of San Fran and the rest of America, if you dont agree with a law, then you dont have to follow it. I dont agree with lots of laws. I think i should be able to to drive my car as fast as I want, but i dont because it is against the law. Period. The legality of gay maraige is already pretty much in the process of review. the mayor of this city does no one any good(including gays). the people who illegaly got mariied will have their licence revoked per state law.


People should realize that right or wrong, untill changed, the law is the law.

I think the mayor here is operating under the assumption that the laws are wrong in terms of higher law - ie. the US/California Constitution. Not only this, but I am sure he, to some extent, believes denying gays the right to marry is in violation of the laws of human decency - and I agree with him.

I forget the name - there's some term for "laws of morality above the written law". Any philosophers here who can help me out?

There is such a thing as unjust laws. I would have applauded an Iraqi citizen risking his life and speaking out against Saddam, wouldn't you? I would have never told him to "keep quiet, stop breaking the law". This is a much less extreme example, but is in the same category - along with the violations of MLK, Civil Rights, the Underground Railroad, etc. They were operating under a law higher than US law, the law of universal human dignity.

The law is wrong, so in the meantime, you know what? ******* the law.

Davis

[AMDMACMAN]

This is not about Saddam. People are not out killing gays in the streets. The mayor should be arrested for allowing this to go on.
I will not argue the merrit for gay mariage. I find it to be to hard to an arguement.(that is to say that no one is ever swayed either way).

Lets look at when that judge in Alabama disobeyed the law and displayed the comandments in the court house. Was it right for him to do that. He blatently disobeyed a law. Great for his supporters. But stupid in terms of his legal situation. His stand was made now he is no where. He lost his job for that stunt. As much as I agreed with his "Right" to do such a thing, I totally disagreed with his total disregard for law and order.

There is a process for changing laws and breaking them is not it.
Debates are real method of doing things in a civilized world, not choas.

pseudobrit, you said that people are free to break laws as long as they are willing to face the consequences. How does this make any sence. If this was true civilization would come crashing down on itself. Idiots break laws, smart people work through the proper chanels.

[Krizoitz]

Originally posted by Neserk
Change Gay to black... This is exactly what MLK did! Civil Disobedience! It was against the law for blacks and whites to eat at a counter together AND THEY DID IT! It was against the law for them to drink from the same water faucet AND THEY DID IT! It was against the law for them to ride in the same seats on a bus AND THEY DID IT!

San Francisco is doing what is RIGHT which is not always what the law says. That law is now being challenged and will be challenged in the highest courts of the land! We know what the 9th district court will say! The law will be challenged over and over and over and over again if necessary until the IMMORAL law is changed!

I'm sorry, but I just don't think that you can compare the way Gays are treated to the way Blacks were treated. Can you still eat in the same restaurants as straight people? Can you drink from the same drinking fountains? Can you vote? Is the KKK burning crosses in front of your house, or lynching you by the dozens? Are you forced to ride in the back of the bus? Is the idea of a gay person on TV so shocking that entire parts of the country refuse to even show it? Hell no, one of the most succesful tv shows on right now is Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. Don't even try and compare what blacks had to go through to this. Its disrespectful.

Being black was something you had absolutely no control over. Being gay *might* be. I realize that many many people think that it is not something you choose, and I tend to agree with them, but it hasn't been proven yet, and I have heard of people who say that they choose not to be gay after a while. Being gay right now the only limitation you have is you can't get your partnership recognized as the same as a heterosexual couple can. Considering that marriage is no more a right than being able to drive a car, I don't think you can compare it to the basic rights of being able to vote or being forced to eat in seperate establishments.

Personally I'm beginning to think that the BEST solution would be for the gov't to get out of marriage and unions all together.

Make some sort of civil contract that two people can sign that allows for shared health care benefits, visitiation, inheritance etc. and leave it at that. Let churches, synagogues etc perform ceremonies as they feel comfortable, and we can ALL be happy.

[Rower_CPU]

The severity of the injustice doesn't matter. It's still an injustice.

Tell gays that Matthew Shepard's death is disrespectful to all those who black men who were lynched.

Why should a group of people have to have suffered "enough" to demand change?

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Krizoitz
I'm sorry, but I just don't think that you can compare the way Gays are treated to the way Blacks were treated. Can you still eat in the same restaurants as straight people? Can you drink from the same drinking fountains? Can you vote? Is the KKK burning crosses in front of your house, or lynching you by the dozens? Are you forced to ride in the back of the bus? Is the idea of a gay person on TV so shocking that entire parts of the country refuse to even show it? Hell no, one of the most succesful tv shows on right now is Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. Don't even try and compare what blacks had to go through to this. Its disrespectful.

Being black was something you had absolutely no control over. Being gay *might* be. I realize that many many people think that it is not something you choose, and I tend to agree with them, but it hasn't been proven yet, and I have heard of people who say that they choose not to be gay after a while. Being gay right now the only limitation you have is you can't get your partnership recognized as the same as a heterosexual couple can. Considering that marriage is no more a right than being able to drive a car, I don't think you can compare it to the basic rights of being able to vote or being forced to eat in seperate establishments.

Personally I'm beginning to think that the BEST solution would be for the gov't to get out of marriage and unions all together.

Make some sort of civil contract that two people can sign that allows for shared health care benefits, visitiation, inheritance etc. and leave it at that. Let churches, synagogues etc perform ceremonies as they feel comfortable, and we can ALL be happy.

First it is not disrespectful to the struggles of african americans to learn from their history in the fight for civil rights. Is it disrespectful for women or other ethnic groups who have fought discrimination to compare and learn lessons from Dr. King, John Lewis, Rosa Parks, Dr. Dubois, or others? I think not. To compare the struggles of people today for full equality to the history of civil rights movements of yesterday is a tribute to those movements. Because some straight folks feel uncomfortable about gay people doesn't change that fact. Also the simple fact that every movement has its own specific history doesn't change the things that they have in common.

Second, it doesn't matter if you believe homosexuality is from biological (genetic) or cultural (learn) origins. People still don't choose to be gay and can therefore choose to not be gay. But even if this preposterous notion was true (it flies in the face of everything we know about homosexuality), then what right as a society do we have to deny people such a choice? This debate is about a political decision and what is a stake is a society that believes in equality for all of its citizens. Nothing less.

Lastly, I disagree completely that marriage is a privilege not a right. The ability to love and have that love recognized by the rest of society is as basic as it gets. Krizoitz, I don't know if you are married, but just think what it would do to you if you were denied the respect given to others to make that choice.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by AMDMACMAN
pseudobrit, you said that people are free to break laws as long as they are willing to face the consequences. How does this make any sence. If this was true civilization would come crashing down on itself. Idiots break laws, smart people work through the proper chanels.

I don't know how many times I have to beat you over the head with this simple fact:

This is one of the "proper channels"

In order to challenge the constitutionality of a law or the application thereof, one must have it decided by a court.

Breaking the law in order to get your day in court is sometimes the only way to further your cause.

One of the cornerstones of a free society is one where people are free to break any law they wish, so long as they are held accountable to the law and the judiciary if they do. You are free to speed, violate zoning ordinances, start fires and free to kill someone, but you'll be held to task after the fact. To think otherwise is to deny reality.

[Neserk]

Originally posted by AMDMACMAN

People should realize that right or wrong, untill changed, the law is the law.

Well, I'm glad you weren't in charge of the Civil Rights movement or we would still all be segregated.

We are not talking about murder here. We are talking about people getting married!

[Krizoitz]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Lastly, I disagree completely that marriage is a privilege not a right. The ability to love and have that love recognized by the rest of society is as basic as it gets. Krizoitz, I don't know if you are married, but just think what it would do to you if you were denied the respect given to others to make that choice.

Ok, let me rephrase that, having a marriage that allows you to have some societal benefits isn't a right anymore than being allowed to drive is. Being allowed to be with whomever you want (as long as they want to be with you of course) is a right. Do I think the government has the right to grant that privilege only to a select few? Not in this case. But it does happen. We only allow certain people to drive, that is based on age. Or drink alcohol. No one seems to be up in arms about a 12 year olds right to drink. I'm not saying allowing gays to marry and kids to drink are the same, I think they carry with them different consequences, but other people think kids should drink, and I still think they are wrong and that society shouldn't allow it for various reasons. Just trying to point out that the argument that every group should be treated equal isn't even done now a days, and if it were could be very troublesome and even dangerous.

[Sayhey]

OK, now you have me totally confused. I thought you were for civil unions. That is for granting gay couples the economic benefits and rights but not the status of marriage. I would seem that you agree that the right to love and have that love recognized is now something you agree with, but the "privileges" or benefits given by society are not? Am I right that your argument is shifting all over the place?

[iMeowbot]

Originally posted by AMDMACMAN
People should realize that right or wrong, untill changed, the law is the law.

You realize, of course, that the founding of the US itself was against the law, that the Declaration of Independence was treason, a capital offense? Breaking laws in an attempt to to change them is part of our system.

[Krizoitz]

Originally posted by Sayhey
OK, now you have me totally confused. I thought you were for civil unions. That is for granting gay couples the economic benefits and rights but not the status of marriage. I would seem that you agree that the right to love and have that love recognized is now something you agree with, but the "privileges" or benefits given by society are not? Am I right that your argument is shifting all over the place?

Sorry, just trying to play devils advocate on that one. I am for civil unions only because I don't feel the government should be allowed to deny equal rights in this case. I'm beginning to think the govt should just get out of this buisness all together but that is neither here nor there.

I don't think the govt has the power not to allow you to love someone, thats up to the individuals involved.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Krizoitz
Sorry, just trying to play devils advocate on that one. I am for civil unions only because I don't feel the government should be allowed to deny equal rights in this case. I'm beginning to think the govt should just get out of this buisness all together but that is neither here nor there.

I don't think the govt has the power not to allow you to love someone, thats up to the individuals involved.

You are right, but the government and society at large does have the ability to make that love illegal (which it was until the recent Texas case) and to try to make it a shameful and disrespected thing. I think we should change that.

Don't worry about the "devils advocate" stuff. You just had me confused. An easier and easier thing to do these days. ;)

[Neserk]

Over 1,000 Gay Couples have been married so far this weekend :D

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Krizoitz
Personally I'm beginning to think that the BEST solution would be for the gov't to get out of marriage and unions all together.

Make some sort of civil contract that two people can sign that allows for shared health care benefits, visitiation, inheritance etc. and leave it at that. Let churches, synagogues etc perform ceremonies as they feel comfortable, and we can ALL be happy.

I've made a very similar proposal here a couple of times already, so I can hardly say I'm opposed to it now. And I'm not. It seems such a fair and sensible option -- which is why I'm coming to believe that it hasn't got a prayer of ever happening. At the risk of sounding like a cynic, I have to acknowledge the way our politics works these days -- not so much by settling differences by compromise, but by the two sides of an issue bludgeoning each other into unconsciousness.

Then I turned on the TV over the weekend, and saw the scenes of all those gay couples standing in line for marriage licenses in San Francisco. They all seemed so, well, happy. The thought occurred to me: what right does anyone have to stand in the way of people's happiness? Like there's already too much happiness in the world today and we've got to dole it out by government decree only to the deserving?

So I'm beginning to have the not-so original idea that this isn't about legal rights after all. I've started to have less concern with the legal ramifications of marriage and more with the those who'd deny happiness to others, if for no other reason then it in some strange way makes them feel safer and more secure and more privileged. To them I say, get over it -- and the sooner the better, because that'll be less time you'll need to spend living on the wrong side of this issue.

[Sayhey]

IJ, it may not have been original but it was extremely well said.

[Sayhey]

For those interested here is Newsom's letter that started this challenge to the State Law. I think it spells out what the basis of the challenge will be.

February 10, 2004

Nancy Alfaro
San Francisco County Clerk
City Hall, Room 168
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102

Dear Ms. Alfaro,

Upon taking the Oath of Office, becoming the Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco, I swore to uphold the Constitution of the State of California._ Article I, Section 7, subdivision (a) of the California Constitution provides that "[a] person may not be . . . denied equal protection of the laws."_ The California courts have interpreted the equal protection clause of the California Constitution to apply to lesbians and gay men and have suggested that laws that treat homosexuals differently from heterosexuals are suspect._ The California courts have also stated that discrimination against gay men and lesbians is invidious._ The California courts have held that gender discrimination is suspect and invidious as well._ The Supreme Courts in other states have held that equal protection provisions in their state constitutions prohibit discrimination against gay men and lesbians with respect to the rights and obligations flowing from marriage._ It is my belief that these decisions are persuasive and that the California Constitution similarly prohibits such discrimination.

Pursuant to my sworn duty to uphold the California Constitution, including specifically its equal protection clause, I request that you determine what changes should be made to the forms and documents used to apply for and issue marriage licenses in order to provide marriage licenses on a non-discriminatory basis, without regard to gender or sexual orientation.

Respectfully,

Mayor Gavin Newsom

cc:______ Dennis Herrera, City Attorney, City and County of San Francisco
___________Matt Gonzalez, President of the Board of Supervisors, City and County of San
___________Francisco
___________Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, State of California
___________Kevin Shelley, Secretary of State, State of California
___________Mabel Teng, Assessor, City and County of San Francisco


Findlaw (http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/glrts/sfmayor21004ltr.html)

[Dont Hurt Me]

you said it. what other laws can you ignore or not recognize? Anarchy? Laws suck anyways dont they? lets just vote Libertarian and send Govt Home. who needs it?

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
you said it. what other laws can you ignore or not recognize? Anarchy? Laws suck anyways dont they? lets just vote Libertarian and send Govt Home. who needs it?

Dont Hurt Me,

I don't think that is what Newsom's letter says at all. I think his argument is laid out in a fairly clear manner. There is a difference between the State Constitution and Prop. 22. San Francisco is following what it sees as the overriding need to guarantee equal protection. The Mayor's office did this knowing full well there will be a fight over what takes precedent - the Constitution or a proposition. That is not anarchy, that is City government fighting for its citizens. It's looking great from here.

[IJ Reilly]

It's interesting that the city is challenging the current system based on California's equal protection provisions, not the federal Constitution. I'm reminded of an incident from a few decades back (late '60s?) when the voters of California decided by referendum to overturn a court decision invalidating racially restrictive deed covenants. That referendum was challenged in the courts and found to be unconstitutional. Could this be the model for San Francisco's gay marriage initiative?

[Neserk]

Almost 2,500 couples were married this weekend in SF! And the judge urged the city to stop the marriages but did not force them. The City will continue to hand out gender neutral marriage licenses. Their court date is March 29th! Wonder if they will break 10,000?

WAHOO!

[vniow]

Gay couples marry in New Mexico
County clerk: State law doesn't ban same-sex marriage


BERNALILLO, New Mexico (AP) -- A county clerk issued marriage licenses Friday to at least 15 gay couples, some of whom then exchanged vows outside the courthouse, and dozens more same-sex couples lined up for a chance to tie the knot.



http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Southwest/02/20/samesex.marriage.nm.ap/index.html

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by vniow
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Southwest/02/20/samesex.marriage.nm.ap/index.html

nice!

is it me or does gavin newsom remind me of craig kilborn? not so much his looks, but his slicked hair and his "style"... he's a ballsy guy... should be commended.

[mactastic]

Hot damn! Civil rights progress in action. So when does the world end? Oh you mean they married gays and nothing happened? Who'd've thunk it!

[pseudobrit]

Fire and brimstone take at least a month to make the trip from heaven.

[Neserk]

Originally posted by mactastic
Hot damn! Civil rights progress in action. So when does the world end? Oh you mean they married gays and nothing happened? Who'd've thunk it!

LOL!

Maybe more and more will do it, especially in the states where there is no law specifially prohibiting it :D I'm telling you, we are seeing history in the making!

[Neserk]

Almost 4,000!

[iMeowbot]

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
I forget the name - there's some term for "laws of morality above the written law". Any philosophers here who can help me out?

That's called natural law, and it's a very important principle in the context of US law as the country was explicitly founded on it. It's exactly the principle that the DoI was referring to with "the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle" people and "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"

That "separate and equal Station" phrase sure has caused a lot of trouble over the years, being used at various times as part of the justification to institute segregation and rights refusal of various flavors[1]. In context, however, it's clear that "separate" is referring to autonomy, not containment.

(edit)
[1] including within the constitution itself, with its notorious 3/5 of a person stuff in article I and the escaped slave stuff in IV.

[vniow]

Originally posted by Neserk


Maybe more and more will do it, especially in the states where there is no law specifially prohibiting it :D

Looks like that will have to wait, New Mexico officials stopped the issuing of liscences to same-sex couples not too long after they were issued, the ones that were issued inbetwen then were declared null and void, they got up to 26 couples before the legislature stopped it.

Bummer.

Hmm.....I smell a lawsuit coming.....

[Neserk]

Originally posted by vniow
Looks like that will have to wait, New Mexico officials stopped the issuing of liscences to same-sex couples not too long after they were issued, the ones that were issued inbetwen then were declared null and void, they got up to 26 couples before the legislature stopped it.

Bummer.

Hmm.....I smell a lawsuit coming.....

That is the goal, imo. File that forbidding same sex marriages is a violation of civil rights. What happens now isn't so important as what happens in the courts. Let them stop them, then people have the right to sue :D

[vniow]

Looks like I was right about the lawsuits, not in New Mexico though...



Gay couple sues to win marriage license


'This is a civil rights demonstration'

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- A gay couple has filed suit challenging the denial of a request for a marriage license in Los Angeles County.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/23/same.sex.lawsuit/index.html

[Sayhey]

It is important that lawsuits are filed in other places in the state other than San Francisco. It maybe the State Court will throw SF's claim out on procedural grounds and this suit could be what actually ends up deciding the core issue before the State Supreme Court. By the way, I'm not hopeful of a positive outcome before this panel of judges. We've had too many republican appointments.

[Krizoitz]

Here's my take

The mayor wanted to challange the constitutionality of the law so he issued marriage licenses. I'm ok with that.

The courts should have told him to stop until the case is decided, they are there to enforce the law until it is changed.

I hope the law will be changed, but I think the courts need to uphold the law until it is ruled unconstitutional.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Krizoitz
Here's my take

The mayor wanted to challange the constitutionality of the law so he issued marriage licenses. I'm ok with that.

The courts should have told him to stop until the case is decided, they are there to enforce the law until it is changed.

I hope the law will be changed, but I think the courts need to uphold the law until it is ruled unconstitutional.

In all likelihood the courts will do just what you say they should. They have just rejected a stay because the folks who have brought the case haven't proved anyone is being harmed without it. The pace of the courts in this case is what is normal unless there is some immediate reason for it to speed up. The political agenda of conservative groups is not a valid reason to do so.