San Francisco Mayor presided over the marriage of a lesbian couple that have been together for 51 years.

I will post a link.

My opinion: Congratulations to them both.

Now THAT is a step forward!!

Here's the link to the story


http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/02/021204s...4sfMarriage.htm

Isn't the mayor the very handsome, rich young Democrat Gavin Newsome? I love it! He's got my vote...oops, I don't even live in California, but hey, if he runs for national office....

Congratulations to both Phyllis and Del! If you know you're pre-Stonewall history, they are more than just a long-lasting lesbian couple; they are the founding mothers of the lesbian arm of the gay rights movement. They were at nearly the first meeting of the Daughters of Bilitis, the first lesbian group of its time and a contemporary with the Mattachine Society. In the early days of the DOB, the women actually locked the doors and lowered the shades because they believed they could be arrested just for talking about being lesbian! For all of our griping, how times have changed.

It actually brought tears to my eyes to read that. Good for them! I cannot wait for the day when the one I love and I get married and I know it will happen.

[SheaBoy throws rice]

[SheaBoy weeps just a little]

[ February 12, 2004, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: SheaBoy ]

Mazel tov!

(btw, that's Roberta Achtenberg, second from left, whom Jesse Helms famously called a "damn lesbian" and a "mean lesbian." Girlfriend's let her hair grow out!

Yes, Allen. You will. ((hug))

Glad to see Mayor Gavin Newsom is letting it be known so soon after taking office that he will go to "extreme" measures, if necessary, to demonstrate support for EVERY citizen that he represents, and NOT just the ones that share what some would call the "popular" belief.... here's the letter from Mayor Newsom to the SF County Clerk stating his intention to "issue marriage licenses on a non-discriminatory basis, without regard to gender or sexual orientation"....kudos to Gavin and all the right-minded citizens of SF who had the foresight to elect this man to office.

Given that gay marriage is such a hot topic right now, I'm surprised this isn't a bigger news item.

Do we hear wedding bells for any San Francisco-area Outsporters?

This could be one of the shrewdest political moves in US history, although I have no idea of Newsome sees it that way. By taking this action, and rushing through as many couples as the city can handle, suddenly the spotlight will turn on SF, and not Mass. Since most of the country thinks SF is loony to begin with, it won't seem nearly as weird coming from there - and provides a perfect opportunity to challenge the California DOMA. Meanwhile, perhaps John Kerry takes a little less flack.

Whatever happens, I applaud Mayor Newsome, and I think the following (from the MercuryNews) sums it up best:

Gay-marriage move by mayor courageous

I will be fascinated to see what the CA courts do with this. If they declare the state DOMA to be unconstitutional, there may not be enough support for an amendment in that state to challenge the ruling. Then suddenly gay marriage, legal and proper, will be out there and the whole country changes.

This type of leadership is exactly what the Democratic party has been lacking for quite some time. The right wing seems chock full of people willing to lay it on the line for their beliefs, but where are the liberal candidates with this type of cojones? We need more like Newsome.

Shrewd leadership, CPT? This is a blatant and arrogant defiance of the Rule of Law. It is anarchy when an elected official ignores the Law. Proposition 22 in California specifically states that marriage is valid only between a man and a woman. (Change the law if you don't like it.)

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore defies the Law and you people here are demanding his head on a platter. Even people who agreed with Moore's point of view believed he should be held accountable for his defiance of the Law and of a federal judge's order.

Now comes the San Francisco mayor who does the same damn thing, and you're suddenly in favor of such illegal actions.

A bigger bunch of hypocrites I have never seen.

\"See ya next Tuesday,\" says Superior Court Judge James Warren to the two conservative groups attempting to stop the "municipal anarchy". (Talk about getting your panties in a twist!)

City Hall will be open and issuing licences on Saturday, Valentine's Day, for the ultimate in romance AND civil disobedience. Mazel tov!

[ February 13, 2004, 08:41 PM: Message edited by: redsoxbreath ]

Shame shame on anyone who thinks this is either acceptable or funny.

Being in favor of gay marriage is one thing, but not this way. I can't believe those of us who were so quick to condemn the arrogant Roy Moore are just as quick to applaud and excuse Newsome's actions. How sadly expedient.

Both Roy Moore's actions and the actions of the S.F. Mayor amount to civil disobedience, but not all acts of civil disobedience are created equal. The intent is to spark a debate about the merits of the law being protested using non-violent means, and the actors know full well they can still be held accountable and be punished for breaking the law.

Both Roy Moore and Mayor Newsom are certainly courageous for standing up for what they believe in. Moore paid the penalty of losing his job, and Mayor Newsom could face a similar penalty. That doesn't make it hypocritical to say Moore is wrongly protesting a good and necessary law, while Newsom is protesting a law that should in fact be revoked.

It's not the same thing. He may be disregarding a law, but thus far he has not been charged with a crime or ordered by a court to stop what he's doing. The judge disregarded the separation of church & state, was ORDERED to stop by a higher ranking judge and when he refused, even after exhausting his appeals, he was punished. If the courts order the mayor to not issue licenses to same-sex couples, and he ignores it even after all appeals, THEN the situations are the same.

As CPT mentioned earlier, this may serve to illustrate the conflict between California's Equal Protection clause and its DOMA. I don't remember Moore's stunt being about anything more than your usual Christian goose-stepping.

No, i don't totally agree with it. No, i don't think it will end well either, but i think it is more about the political/social/legal argument this will trigger in the coming week. It has certainly gotten people's attention, and if not in America's gay capital, where else?

And maybe some of us will need to be hypocrites to balance out the hypocrites on the other side, because God knows there's plenty of them and they're not afraid to get their hands dirty. Well-written legal briefs have only got us so far.

It doesn't surprise me that those who support Newsome's decision say, "It's not the same thing." Well, what else are they going to say: "Sure, it's the same thing; we're hypocritical but it's the ends that justify the means." Excuses, excuses.

In both cases a public official disregarded and disobeyed the Law. But because one is a liberal with whom liberals agree, it's acceptable.

Either it's acceptable in both cases or it's acceptable in neither.

Oh, boo f**king hoo MIB. I'm GLAD Roy Moore got his ass handed to him, solely because he's a Christian. Anything that diminishes the role of Christianity in this country, I rejoice in. Roy Moore can f**k off for all I give a damn, dreary peasant.

And if we're the biggest collection of hypocrites you've ever seen, you need to get out and about more.

Newsome is doing what he's doing to provoke a legal fight, pure and simple. The CA Supremes will hear arguments starting Tuesday.

[ February 13, 2004, 10:09 PM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

Sort of like when the conservatives don't agree with a Judge he or she is a "Judicial Activist". But because one is a conservative with whom conservatives agree, it's acceptable.

Comparing the actions of a City Mayor (elected politician at the whim of the people) and a Chief Justice (appointed for life to uphold the law of the land) is bit apples & oranges to me. But don't let me spoil anyone's chance to overly use the word hypocritical.

[ February 13, 2004, 10:01 PM: Message edited by: HornFan ]

From the SFGate article quoted by redsoxbreath:

Maybe the Mayor is just doing his part to help out with California's budget crisis.

Here's the link to the City Clerk's office, if you want some info on its functions. As you'll, the site has not been updated to include infor about gay marriages, but that's okay in my book.

After all, the office has to deal with hundreds, soon thousands, of queer couples showing up to get hitched, the world' eyes watching.

Glorious time to be alive and living in SF to witness homo history in the making.

I plan to ride my bike to City Hall tomorrow and participate in my own way, just by being there to snap photos.

Bravo, Newsom!

That might be the case if your statement was accurate, but it's not. The Justices of the Alabama Supreme Court, including its Chief Justice, are elected to 6-year terms.

Time to dispose of those apples and oranges. Wrong fruits there.

There is no appointment involved or lifetime tenure as you stated.

[ February 13, 2004, 11:19 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

As was Moore. He was doing what he was doing to "provoke a legal fight," to use your own words. Therefore, it must be equally acceptable.

Laws be damned! Rules be damned! Law and order be damned! Just give us our gay marriage. We don't care what it takes.

Yeah, that is real smart.

I can't help the fact that you're an anti-Christian bigot, however, which just adds to your own hypocrisy. Nothing wrong with discriminating against Christians, but don't you dare come down against gays.

I personally do not like at all so-called Fundamentalist Christians, but I would never be bigoted against them.

At least it will be the California Supreme Court who, as you state, will hear the case (though I thought it was a superior court that would hear the case first). I just pray it doesn't find its way into the federal circuit, for the completely whacked-out 9th Circuit Court of Appeals might get ahold of it. God knows what the nation's most overturned court would make up then.

[ February 13, 2004, 11:27 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

actually, jip got this one exactly right. please reread his post and actually RECEIVE.

both judge moore and the mayor of sf did things that on their face seemed to be against the law. but the actions were taken as a challenge to the law itself, as a test of its consitutionality. without such challenges, legislatures would hold ultimate power and no law would be deemed unconstitutional. each did the morally appropriate thing when faced with a law they found constitutionally wanting.

and, until tuesday, at least, that is all we know. the cases may take very divergent paths or the exact same one. if the mayor is told by a higher judicial authority (as judge moore was) to cease and desist, and defies that order then and only then, do we have parallel situations that would let roll out your inevitable cry of "hypocrite".

if on tuesday, a judge returns and says that this is a legitimate challenge that should be heard by the full court, but doesn't require the mayor to cease, (unlikely if there is to be further review), then the mayor will have defied no direct judicial order, unlike judge moore.

the difference between intentionally breaking a law to challenge it, and defying a direct court order is like the difference between "safe" and "out", to put it in terms a sports lover like yourself can understand.

[ February 14, 2004, 03:06 AM: Message edited by: thersis ]

sorry for the consecutive posts.....

ladies and gentlemen, we have our poster children for gay marriage!

that photo would make any sentient being's heart melt. mine did, and i've been accused of not having one!

congratulations to the very happy couple!

My bad. (BTW, the Texas State Supreme Court is comprised of Republicans exclusively, so this would probably be the wrong state to try this tactic, although civil disobedience at an abortion clinic might fly. )

I still don't get how the City Mayor and the State Supreme Court Chief Justice's actions compare? :confused: Maybe it's because I too read and actually COMPREHENDED what JIP wrote.

[ February 14, 2004, 07:57 AM: Message edited by: HornFan ]

There is no requirement that anyone has to follow an unjust, unconstitutional and discriminatory law. According to his public statements, Newsom clearly believes that Prop.22 is unconstitutional, and therefore will not abide by it. Normally I don't agree with public officials defying laws, but I would have just as much supported a Southern mayor who had desegregated his city against state law (though none that I know of actually did so). Just because a majority of the people vote for a law, or support an executive decision (e.g., Japanese internment during WWII) does not automatically make that law constitutional.

First, a few addenda: the woman in black on the far left of the photo is the understandably overjoyed Kate Kendall, head of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, with whom I've had the pleasure to work over the years.

The "CA Supremes" will NOT be hearing this case on Tuesday. It will remain in SF Superior Court before Judge Warren, who rightly put the challenges to the marriages over until then because the opposition failed to abide by the usual notice requirements before seeking their relief. A mundane matter, yes, but the sort of procedural stuff we lawyers revel in!

As for the merits of the case, I agree with MIB to the extent that this was a bit of a Diktat from the Mayor's office and was a purely political ploy that flies in the face of the rule of law. Nor can his action be characterized as "demonstrating support for every citizen he represents;" people opposed to gay marriage are found even in SF! The courts could rightly find his actions violate the California Constitution, precipitating a fight over Prop 22's validity in the courts. But that's where whatever value these actions have lies: in provoking reexamination of laws limiting marriage to men and women. In that sense, the Mayor was rightly advised to do, and did, the right thing.

[ February 15, 2004, 07:30 AM: Message edited by: gmginsfo ]

GMG, d'oh! I was a bit drunk when I wrote that last night and thus, using my memory to recall an item I'd read earlier in the day about which court the case was going to be heard in was a poor choice, obviously. Thanks for the clarification.

I was my understanding that this passed by a HUGE majority in CA. So if you agree with the law or disagree with the law... you have to follow it. This is an elected official who said to everyone in CA, Screw What you think... i will not follow the law.

For that he is a dumbass.

Actions like these is what give the religious right all the fire they need.

Let me say i am for gay marriage 100% but this idiot needs to be put in his place. This does nothing but hurt the cause.

The man is an idiot and he should be recalled.

The problem with this is that we have anarchy if elected officials unilaterally decide a law is unconstitutional and subsequently ignore or defy it.

I assume, then, that you would be in total agreement with what the North Dakota legislature is about to do. After all, there it's not one elected official who is about to ignore the law but the state legislature who is about to do what Newsome did.

Then I guess we've had nothing but anarchy for as long as this country's existed because elected officials defy laws all the time to suit their purposes.

Then a pox on their houses and those dumb enough to elect such officials!

As one of the newly married gay couples in San Francisco, all my lover and I can say is, "IT WAS STUPENDOUS!" The wonderful mood, the great folks in line, the volunteers at City Hall, the officials---- I don't know where to begin.
Kudos to Mayor Newsom for saying that discrimination has no place in San Francisco. He put his neck on the chopping block, and all for our benefit.
It was amazing to walk in downtown SF and have total strangers say "Congratulation!"
Yes, there will be tons of lawsuits to come, and I'm honored to be part of the class that will be involved.

SFDutch, Congrats!!!!!!!

I wish My honey and I could get there. I don't know the ramifications of this event, but I do know that there are hundreds lined up and those numbers have to count for something. I haven't seen the pictures but hopefully the ones being shown will be the average Joe gay guys and lesbians. America needs to see this!

Oh, and I bet Phelps doesn't have the guts to protest in SF, he'd get killed!

[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42657-2004Feb14.html"]
In a 'Scene Not to Be Believed,' Same-Sex Couples Tie the Knot[/url]

Eighty-two bucks for a three-minute ceremony? Even Halliburton could do it for less than that.

[SFX: rimshot]

Origionally posted by MIB:

The problem with this is that we have anarchy if elected officials unilaterally decide a law is unconstitutional and subsequently ignore or defy it.


I say Hog Wash!!! Standing up to injustice does not create anarchy. It might get some panties in a wad, but that's what it's supposed to do. If no-one ever stood up to injustice and oppression, we would still be singing God save the Queen, and asking slaves to fetch a drink. It takes courage to do what Mayor Newsom has done. In the imortal words of Dr. Martin Luther King ,Jr., "When there is injustice anywhere, Justice is threatened everywhere." I encourage every one who has representatives voting on the issue of the deffinition of marriage to ask your representatives how they plan to vote on the issue. If they are voting in favor of banning gay/lesbian marriage ask them "Why, and don't use any religeous support?". I bet they will not be able to give you an answer other than that's the way it's always been. It's the way it's always been because we have not stood up to make the change before. In Georgia, there is a law banning gay marriage, we're going to get that changed, mark my words.
In Texas, until last year it was illegal for gay men to have sex in their own homes. Anarchy ensued when all the gay men had sex, so they struck down the law in courts headed by activist/radical judges. At least that's the perspective republican history. wink

The frenzy to go get married here in SF is unbelievable! My partner and I were going to go down yesterday but saw on the news that they were turning people away, couldn't handle that many weddings.

Plus, it's probably kind of crazy to spend almost $100 on something that could be invalid as early as Tuesday if the Christian coalition ass****s start raising hell about the whole thing.

Wedding Scenes - A photo-montage from San Francisco City Hall

It's a beautiful thing.

That was touching! Like I said ... someday.

RSB, great link! I liked this bit in the text: So true. They're going to lose this cultural war, like they lose every other one; it may take time, but it's inevitable.

Actually, the religious argument is not only moot, defining marriage as a man and a woman denies the right of gay-friendly churches to marry same-sex couples. The government should not be picking sides in what is a religious discussion.

Whatever happens tomorrow, the country has had a breathtaking demonstration that forever refutes the argument that gays don't want marriage. To have couples literally packing up and flying to SF at the drop of a hat simply because there is a chance, and a slim one at that, to have legal recognition of their relationship is stunning.

MIB, Phillyfan, I agree that mayors defying duly enacted laws is not a good thing, and generally they know they will be drummed out of office pretty quickly if they did so very often. But it is clear that in this instance Newsom has the support of the city government and the people of San Francisco, and I happen to believe that the injustice done to gay people from "DOMA" laws far outweighs the potential damage of Newsom's actions. That, I realize is my opinion, and it is a clear case of situational ethics - and I don't care. I admire you for sticking to your law-and-order guns, but I can't agree with you on this instance.

Love, love, LOVE those pictures! They brought tears to my eyes. Thanks, RSB.

The following may not really belong in this thread about SF marriages, as it is about church weddings and not legal/civil marriage, but I did't want to start a whole new thread:

A few excerpts from a lengthy KC Star article (I would link to it, but they now require registration, which I hate):
This was a very "gay" weekend in the Kansas City Star, in a good way. Just about every section of the paper had some positive article or feature about gay people or equality for gays, including a big Valentine's Day feature about 3 couples' secrets for staying together, one of which was a gay male couple.

The photos from San Francisco really moved me! All kinds of lesbian, gay, bi and trans people, getting married, all colors, ages, types. Just incredible! I've never been one for marriage (though I do feel everyone who wants it should have the right), but I'm rethinking this right now....

It's too bad the Gay City of the East Coast doesn't have a mayor who'd be equally willing to push the envelope--I mean New York and Bloomberg. That would also take considerable heat off Massachusetts, and SF's mayor.

Does anyone think there might be a backlash from California voters? Given the election of Der Gropenfuhrer, might this push the majority to the right? Because Lord knows, if W were to be given any kind of boost in California.... :-(

Loved the pics!!!
There was one with the school kids that were brought to the city hall to witness history in action. A big group were standing behind a particularly well dressed and stylish gay couple. I was moved to tears. There is hope.

Fantomas, f**k those people. Thank Buddha, this is not GA or IA or MT or any of those places. Prop. 22 is going to get its ass kicked whatever the whining from the right about being out-played by Newsome, Prop. 22 amounts to. That's what Newsome was aiming for: the smackdown of Prop. 22.

It's hard for people in other places to imagine, but here in a majority of California, the Religious Right and their fellow travellers are seen as a marginal freak shows. The people in shithole places like Fresno and Bakersfield may wish they were living in Alabama, but they're not. Long may it be so.

[ February 16, 2004, 08:07 PM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]