First Gay Marriage in San Francisco

[Bilbo]

RE: W. - appearance vs. reality

 

Gentlemen, I am coming back to you after an interesting adventure, staging a three performer, edited (45 minutes) production of Midsummer Night's Dream, where the man playing Puck was a multilingual man, but one where English is decidedly his second language. So, it is blatantly neither as a lawyer nor a psychiatrist that I address you.

 

W. started out saying that he didn't think that a constitutional amendment was necessary. I really think that he still thinks that way and doesn't want to see one enacted. He just needs to look like he does in order to have any chance at reelection. Meanwhile, the House has announced that they are going to sit in session for so few days as to set a record. They have also announced the major situations which they will address. Homogenous marriage was not mentioned. In fact, in the news report that I read, the author was speculating about things that will not see any action from the House this year, and gay/lesbian marriage was mentioned. I do not look for it to be discussed in the House this year. So much for perceived momentum. Now, it is possible that W. doesn't want it discussed this year so that he can use it as a campaign topic. Delaying action - always good for keeping up momentum. And he may delay it into a different president's administration.}(

[KY_TOP]

I have watched this Gay Marriage thing start to play out with much amazement. At first I thought there might be a huge backlash across the Country. But other than the normal Right Wing Extremist, who you expect to hear from, I've not heard much of a backlash. In fact at my workplace, the few who even mention it are like so what, who cares if Gays want to get married. In fact the talk is more of why would ANYBODY want to get married?

 

Of course the Courts will have the final say and the only reason anyone mentions a Constitutional Amendment is because of the fear some have about how the Courts will rule. A Constitutional Amendment may come up but they are hard to pass because you must have MORE than majorities by the Congress and then the States. It will get interesting.

[Doug69]

RE: Backlash against gay marriage

 

>I have watched this Gay Marriage thing start to play out with

>much amazement. At first I thought there might be a huge

>backlash across the Country. But other than the normal Right

>Wing Extremist, who you expect to hear from, I've not heard

>much of a backlash.

 

The fact that there is a backlash against gay equality couldn't be clearer. A newly released poll by the Boston Globe shows that opposition to gay marriage in Mass. has INCREASED SIGNIFICANTLY ever since the Mass. Supreme Court took away the right of the citizens of that state to decide the issue.

______________________________________

 

Majority in Mass. poll oppose gay marriage

Survey also finds civil union support

By Frank Phillips, Globe Staff, 2/22/2004

 

A majority of Massachusetts residents said they oppose legalizing gay marriage, a significant increase since the state's highest court ruled three months ago that gay couples have a constitutional right to marry, according to a new Boston Globe poll.

 

The poll also found that an overwhelming majority of those surveyed wanted the voters, not the courts or the Legislature, to define marriage in Massachusetts, through a statewide ballot question to amend the constitution. And it indicated significant support for civil unions.

 

The survey, taken by phone Wednesday and Thursday, indicated opposition to gay marriage has jumped 10 percentage points since a Globe survey done just days after the Supreme Judicial Court's Nov. 18 ruling legalizing gay marriages.

 

Then, 48 percent polled supported legalizing gay marriages, while 43 percent were opposed. In the recent poll, 35 percent supported legalizing gay marriage and 53 percent were opposed; the survey of 400 adults has a margin of error of plus or minus five percentage points.

 

The survey indicated deep divisions over what course the state should take on the question of the legal status of gay unions. None of the three proposed amendments to the constitution that lawmakers are considering to define marriage won a majority of support from the poll respondents.

______________________________________________

 

Here was a state well on its way to having a majority of its citizens approve gay marriage. Then, 4 unelected judges decided that it would better if they took away the right of the citizens to decide and decided it themselves. As a result, a huge backlash has enused, and the level of opposition to gay marriage in this most pro-gay of states has now increased greatly.

 

This will happen over and over as gay people try to obtain the right to marry through every means possible except for the democratic one.

[KY_TOP]

RE: Backlash against gay marriage

 

My concern has always been that a Backlash from the Gay Marriages will not result in advancement of any Gay Rights but instead the opposite. A backlash may cause a setback, not just with Gay Marriages but also affect other advances that have been made in the last few years. Regardless of how noble many feel this is, we must admit that middle America's acceptance to Gay's has been very slow and gradual. Many men are just now feeling like they can come out of the closet. A backlash may keep that door closed for many.

[Trixie]

This has been a great thread about a historic moment in the US. No matter what the near-future outcome, children will be reading about these events on their history software in years to come. The heroicism of Mayor Newsom and the government officials of San Francisco will never be forgotten.

It's been interesting to read the many voices in this thread, not only those who support the latest events, but also those who find themselves frightened by them, such as Doug69. I think a great many gayfolk may shrink just a little when push starts coming to shove... this is not like the destruction of the Berlin Wall, all joyous bewilderment. As this wall comes down, there will be people on the other side with guns loaded with hate, and resistance. This first attempt may well

end in a temporary failure. Nevertheless, this moment of Triumph is delicious indeed, and will provide gayfolk with passion for the battle ahead. For that, it's been a very worthwhile endeavor, at the very least.

I believe the time for such acts of civil disobedience has come. We must have faith that those people who rally against us will be eventually relegated to embarrassing historical footnotes, just as those who resisted the civil rights movement in the '60's, or the Women's Suffrage movement at the turn of the century, have become. These changes will result in a rejuvenation of the USA.

Change is difficult, sometimes frightening. When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on that bus in Alabama, there were many, many african-americans who read about it and said, "I am not ready for this."

Likewise, when the Stonewall Inn went up in flames the night that Judy Garland died, many gay people preferred to pretend nothing was happening.

Thank God for the people, in thse events, who looked upon the situations, and declared "The Time has come! Let Our voices be heard!"

 

******************************************

 

This past Friday, I was on my way home from the San Francisco Orchid Show, in a car I'd borrowed from a friend. It was around six o'clock, and I was slowly, slowly making my way down VanNess in rush-hour traffic. I was stopped in front of City Hall, and a young lesbian couple, both in tuxedos, came dashing down the steps, both holding bouquets. They were probably the last couple of the day, giddy in the sun's last light. Then, VanNess erupted in a cacaphony of horns, as people, complete strangers, signalled their congratulations and love to this young couple.

It's a good thing traffic was stalled, because I could not have driven. The Tears of Joy were flowing too freely, too strongly. I more or less cried, quite happily, all the way to Oakland.

I may not be in a postion to be married, not now, nor in years to come. But this is a moment of civil disobedience that I can wholeheartedly support. There used to be a bumper-sticker that read "Do not Put Off Joy". Other people's Joy is as good as mine, so I think I shall not.

La Trix

[Doug69]

>It's been interesting to read the many voices in this thread,

>not only those who support the latest events, but also those

>who find themselves frightened by them, such as Doug69. I

>think a great many gayfolk may shrink just a little when push

>starts coming to shove...

 

LOL! Sweetheart, you've missed the point. Nobody is "frightened" about the straight people getting angry because we are demanding the right to have equality in our marriage laws. I think we should be demanding nothing less, settling for nothing less, and doing everything possible from protesting to organizing in order to demand these rights - regardless of what straight people or anyone else thinks.

 

The problem is that, in San Fransisco, an elected official has decided that he has the right to enforce only those laws that he likes and to violate those laws that he doesn't like. If elected officials have the right to disregard the laws which they don't like, that's called tyranny. It's the definition of tyranny. And if gay people are pursuing tyrannical rather than democratic means for obtaining their goals, then that's not only wrong in itself, but far more likely to achieve counter-productive results.

 

The heroicism of Mayor Newsom and the government

>officials of San Francisco will never be forgotten.

 

LOL again! Yeah - what a brave guy - I mean, he's the Mayor of San Fransisco and he stands up and takes a pro-gay position. Wow, what a hero.

 

During the Roy Moore controversy, I literally could not understand how even the most ardent Christians could support him. I mean - it's so incredibly obvious that government officials can't go around violating laws just because they don't like those laws that I couldn't understand how even his pro-Christian followers could support what he did.

 

This thread has genuinely shed light on that. When a group of people is convinced that they are so good, so pure, so just - that their goals are so noble - they think that nothing should be able to get in the way of what they want, especially something as petty and annoying as the rule of law.

 

I can't wait until some state does enact gay marriage and, citing Mayror Newsom's lawless behavior, some conservative Mayor of some city in that state decides to ignore the law and orders his City Hall not to issue marriage liceneses to same-sex couple - and then all of the people in this thread who are praising Mayor Newsom are suddenly going to re-discover their love of the law and start frothing at the mouth with outrage -like they did with Roy Moore - and scream that no government official has the right to violate the law.

 

Mayor Newsom isn't King, even though you want to grant him the powers of a King - to proclaim what the law is. We had a revolution in order to make sure that no man has those powers. Don't you see how it may be problematic for gay pepole to try to achieve their goals only by resurrecting a form of behavior which Americans - historically, inherently, and understandably - find rather repugnant?

[Boston Guy]

It seems to me that those people who are upset at Gavin Newsom's actions in San Francisco (except the conservatives, who hate the whole concept of gay marriage) are off the mark.

 

The battle for any kind of civil rights is seldom tidy. Our history is full of examples of people moving their struggles forward, bit by bit, shove by shove, sometimes lawsuit by lawsuit, and often through acts of civil disobedience. I well remember a time when my father thought Martin Luther King should be thrown in jail.

 

These fights aren't organized, not really, and the battle for gay marriage is no exception. What's going on in San Francisco is considered a travesty by some and a great example of terrible timing by others. But this dialog in America had already started -- witness the highly-publicised battle in the Massachusetts legislature just a few weeks ago. And it's accelerating.

 

People in various states are taking actions that are moving the battle forward (or sometimes backward), step by step. They're not answering to any central organization that's directing their moves. They're simply demanding rights they think they should have. That's how we've gotten this far and how we'll move forward. And it's happening all around us, too, in Canada and Europe and South America, sometimes in the unlikeliest places.

 

Court cases in other jurisdictions in the US are moving forward, too, and at least one, in New Jersey, is getting fairly ripe for a decision. There is every reason to hope New Jersey's court will go the way of the Massachusetts court.

 

But most important of all, and what people seem to be forgetting, is that it's absolutely entirely likely that gay people in Massachusetts will be married, legally and with the blessing of the state government, in less than 90 days.

 

So all those democratic leaders who are wringing their hands and castigating Newsom for upsetting the genteel dialog of an election year campaign would have been doing the same thing in May in Massachusetts. The debate in San Francisco, seen in this light, may well help to make the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts seem like just one more inevitable step. By that time, people may start to view this as something whose time has come. And, if so, Newsom will have done us all a favor.

 

Regardless, I think that it's entirely refreshing to see a young politician do something that he truly believes is right to do, as a matter of principle, instead of worrying about polls and focus groups and what everyone will think. I wish we had more leaders like him.

 

And, finally, for those who want to see Newsom in court: to the best of my knowledge, he hasn't committed a crime. In his official capacity as mayor, he has taken a step that he believes to be correct. If he is incorrect, one court or another will issue an injunction and tell him to stop. If he doesn't obey such an injunction, that would be different and that would be a crime. But I don't think he's done anything illegal -- so far.

 

Here's a link to Ken Garcia's latest column in SFGate (the Chronicle' online forum). The column is about Newsom and I found it interesting.

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/02/23/EDG8J4FKVO1.DTL

 

BG

[dannynyc]

Here's an excellent list of reasons why Gay Marriage is doomed to failure . . .

 

(I did take this from another website - and, it was originally posted on a heterosexual website, so I understand . . .)

 

1.Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.

 

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid becasue they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs more children.

 

3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

 

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

 

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

 

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.

 

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire counrty. That's why we have only one religion in America.

 

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

 

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

 

10. Children can never suceed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

 

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to things like cars or longer lifespans.

 

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "seperate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Seperate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as seperate marriages for gays and lesbians will.

[eastbayguy]

>The problem is that, in San Fransisco, an elected official has

>decided that he has the right to enforce only those laws that

>he likes and to violate those laws that he doesn't like. If

>elected officials have the right to disregard the laws which

>they don't like, that's called tyranny. It's the definition

>of tyranny. And if gay people are pursuing tyrannical rather

>than democratic means for obtaining their goals, then that's

>not only wrong in itself, but far more likely to achieve

>counter-productive results.

 

Deliberatly denying a defined class the same rights available to others/most is no less tyrannical. And, you have this backwards. The mayor is failing to enforce a law DENYING rights.

 

By the way, the definition of tyranny is "a system of government in which absolute power is vested in a single individual".

 

Seeing the reaction in SF has persuaded me that the only way gay marriage is going to become a reality is through a return to dramatic action. Time to demand change, and do so loudly.

 

As usual, Doug, the facts simply do not support the conclusions you try to draw. You are equally loathesome as those blacks who preferred discrimination to taking any and all necessary and required steps to force change. You disgust me.

 

--EBG

[eastbayguy]

Miss Trixie,

 

>This has been a great thread about a historic moment in the

>US. No matter what the near-future outcome, children will be

>reading about these events on their history software in years

>to come. The heroicism of Mayor Newsom and the government

>officials of San Francisco will never be forgotten.

 

[deletia]

 

>This past Friday, I was on my way home from the San Francisco

>Orchid Show, in a car I'd borrowed from a friend.

 

Only a delightful flower such as yourself would know about much less attend the San Francisco Orchid Show. I know someone I should send. Having left the Gay, er Bay Area for the deserts of Arizona, I have been feeling a little sad to be left out of the whirlwind of events in my former home. These are heady times. My almost forgotten roots in gay activism are feeling quite renewed these days.

 

Thanks for the splendid visual portrait you painted of the lesbian couple leaving Silly Hall. I think I captured it quite clearly in my mind's eye. What a glorious moment to enjoy. Several of us here in AZ have wanted to be there to share in the joy. But, upon reflection, we've all decided to wait it out. No doubt our presence, travel dollars and so forth will be needed more later as this battle unfolds more. And, no question but what this is a battle. Short of a quick victory in court, those with the courage to stand up and be heard are likely to be needed, in person, later in the game.

 

And, you're right. This is a battle. Our side has won a quick skirmish. Seeing the events in SF unfold, and seeing the reaction, I think we're going to have to prepare for a long, hard campaign. In readiness, I've made sure my contributions to HRC are current, and encourage others to do the same.

 

--EBG

[Doug69]

>By the way, the definition of tyranny is "a system of

>government in which absolute power is vested in a single

>individual".

 

Right - like the Mayor saying that he doesn't care what laws were enacted. He, as a single individual, will claim the power to decide for himself what the law will be and will ignore the laws that have been actually enacted democratically.

 

As you point out, that is tryanny. He thinks he has absoulte power vested in a single individual - him. You sould be ashamed of yourself for endorsing that tyrannical claim of power.

 

>You are equally loathesome as

>those blacks who preferred discrimination to taking any and

>all necessary and required steps to force change. You disgust

>me.

 

I'm in good company. Martin Luther King refused the notion, promoted by Malcolm X and others, that equality should be achieved by "any means necessary." The mantra you invoke - "any means necessary" - was the motto of Macolm X and was the tactic which MLK resoundingly rejected.

 

To the contrary, he imposed strict limits on the types of tactics which should be used in achieiving the goals of civil rights. That was because he -- unlike you and unlike Malcolm X -- understood that stomping your feet and demanding things and refusing to recognize the rule of law was not only immoral and unjust, but also certain to prevent those goals from being realized.

 

By contrast, the company you are in - advocating that government officials ignore the law and violate it whenever they want - is not such good company. It's what Lester Maddox and George Wallace did - used the power of their office to refuse to adhere to valid federal law. It's also what Roy Moore did - refuse to adhere to valid law.

 

Like you and the Mayor of San Fransisco, they thought that they were so right, and their basic liberties were at stake, that they had the right to ignore the law and to use the power of their office to defy the law.

 

You are no different than them. You think you are, because you think you are pure. But everyone who claims the right to break the law thinks they're pure. That's why a basic precept of our government is that we are a Nation of Laws, not of Men.

 

The people who formed our governemnt didn't trust the likes of you or Mayor Newsom or Roy Moore or Lester Maddox to take it upon yourselves to decide when government officials were free to ignore the law. They understood that you were all the same and not to be trusted, because the road you advocate is one that leads to tryanny.

 

Once you start advocating that government officials are free to ignore the law whenever they want, you lose the right to complain when government officials do that in a way that you don't like. YOu can be 100% sure that will happen - and when it does, you have no right to complain, since you, pitifully, endorse this act of ultimate lawlessness.

[Guest TommyTam]

Friends of my just got married last Friday in San Francisco, so they can come back and bring the state of Texas to the court for discriminate act. What do you guys think, do you think is a good idea? :7

 

Tommy Tam

Best Asian Escort in the State

512-635-0379

Website: http://www.tommytx.com

Review: http://www.male4malescorts.com/reviews/tommytamaustin.html

for more information please send e-mail to austintt@hotmail.com or tommy@tommytx.com

[+ glutes]

I see where Ahnuld has stepped up the rhetoric, the Govenator now predicitng 'civil unrest' if the marriages don't stop.

Check-out SFGate.com:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/02/23/MNGJ7566RL1.DTL

[Trixie]

Yes, EBG, it will be a long hard battle, and we're going to read and hear some things that will chill each of us to the core.

This morning, as I turned on the tv to check the weather, I caught Bush's proclamation of his intent to institute a constitutional amendment.

I feel, for the short term, this amendment will pass.

On the other hand, it will only serve to illustrate how foolish prejudice is, and it won't take long for the amendment to be reversed.

It seems now that it's that word, "Marriage" that's so scary... Civil Unions are ok, just don't use the M-Word. Frankly, I'm not sure what the difference is, so long as the social, legal and economic benefits bestowed upon any heterosexual couple are also applied to same-sex couples. It is, and forever will be, Marriage. I don't care what the politicians want to call it for now.

 

BTW... The Orchid Show was fabulous, as always!

 

La Trix

[Bilbo]

RE: Married with Children?

 

I am glad that mainstream media are quietly pointing out the length of relationships argument. Even some of my personal straight allies have been taken aback at some of the numbers. So I am assuming that some of the on the fence people are noticing those numbers, too.

 

But one thing I haven't seen in either gay or mainstream media is anything about gay people who have adopted children and are now getting married. I would think that that could sway a few swing voters our way, too. Perhaps I've missed it? Maybe a picture with caption? Has anyone noticed anything like this?

[VaHawk]

RE: Married with Children?

 

IMO, I don't believe that bringing up the issue of adoption by gays would bring in more votes, but more likely would have the opposite effect. The last thing that needs to be brought into the discussion is children, as that is a very volatile issue with many people. (just go read craigs list rant and raves sometime).