San Francisco Officials Marry Gay Couples

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Steering back on topic:

 

SAN FRANCISCO, California (CNN) -- A Superior Court judge rejected a motion Friday from a conservative group that asked for an immediate temporary restraining order to stop San Francisco from issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

 

Judge James Warren delayed the hearing until Tuesday, saying the group had given insufficient notice of the request.

 

The Alliance Defense Fund, based in Arizona, said in a statement on its Web site that the city is acting "in blatant violation of state law."

 

A separate group, Campaign for California Families, sued San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and County Clerk Nancy Alfaro on Friday "for violating California state law on marriage and the issuing of marriage licenses."

 

California law defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman, The Associated Press reported.

 

A directive from Newsom ordered the county clerk to begin issuing the marriage licenses Thursday.

 

As word spread, couples flocked to City Hall. Officials issued 95 marriage licenses to same-sex couples before closing for the day. The Associated Press reported that 87 couples were married on the spot.

 

Officials told the remaining couples to come back Friday, according to the AP. As of Friday afternoon, 489 couples had gotten married, the AP reported.

 

The first to be married Thursday were Phyllis Lyon, 80, and Dorothy Martin, 83, who have been together 51 years.

 

"We have a right just like anyone else to get married to the person we want to get married to," Lyon said. (Full story)

 

Newsom said not granting same-sex couples marriage licenses is discriminatory.

 

"We are reading the direct language within the state constitution, and we directed our county clerk to do the right thing and extend the privilege that's extended to my wife and myself and millions of us across the country to same-sex couples," the mayor told CNN on Friday.

 

Newsom said he did not accept that gay marriages were against state law, again citing the California Constitution.

 

"Where is the fundamental decency to extend the same privileges and rights the rest of us are afforded?" the mayor asked. "What is the fundamental right to perpetuate a policy of separate but unequal that people seem to suggest is a compromise?"

 

The issuing of the licenses came as lawmakers in Massachusetts attempted to produce a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

 

Late Thursday, the Legislature voted down a third attempt in two days at the legislation.

 

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November that gay men and lesbians cannot be forbidden from joining in civil marriages under the Massachusetts Constitution. Last week, in response to a question from the state Senate, the court said civil unions would not be an acceptable substitute.

 

The court has ordered the Legislature to allow gay men and lesbians to marry by May. (Full story)

 

In San Francisco, Newsom said he had not discussed his action with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The governor said before he was elected in October's recall election that he believed marriage was between a man and a woman, but he said he approves of some kind of domestic partnership.

 

"I feel strongly and passionately about this," Newsom said. "I don't know where the governor stands."

[Guest Cerebus]

Another "intriguing" article from the AP wire:

 

San Francisco's Gay Marriages Raise Tough Questions

 

By Lisa Leff Associated Press Writer

Published: Feb 14, 2004

 

Q: Are the gay marriages being performed in San Francisco legal?

A: Opponents say no - that state law supersedes city law when it comes to marriages. Also, a voter-approved state initiative in 2000 declares that California recognizes only marriages between a man and a woman. The city, however, cites the California Constitution's equal protection clause prohibiting discrimination, and state recognition of homosexuals as a protected legal class.

 

Q: Is this the first time gay and lesbian couples have been married in the United States?

 

A: No, although what San Francisco is doing is unprecedented in scale and is significant because it has support from the mayor on down. County clerks in Arizona and Colorado granted legal marriage licenses to a handful of same-sex couples in 1975, but those licenses were quickly revoked by other authorities. Massachusetts' highest court last week affirmed its ruling that it is unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage. Under the decision, the nation's first legally sanctioned gay marriages are scheduled to begin in mid-May.

 

Q: Why is the city sponsoring the marriages?

 

A: Mayor Gavin Newsom said he was disturbed by President Bush's State of the Union remarks suggesting that marriage should remain off-limits to same-sex couples. He and other city officials say they welcome the coming legal battles. Two groups already have asked the courts to block the city from issuing any more licenses and to declare the marriages invalid, and the city has vowed to appeal any injunction.

 

Q: What rights and benefits do these marriage certificates bring?

 

A: Without state or judicial approval, same-sex newlyweds could likely be denied the legal benefits of marriage as soon as they try to assert them, since most such advantages are bestowed by state and federal governments. Opponents expect the licenses to be declared void by a judge.

 

Q: Do the couples involved face other legal repercussions?

 

A: Couples already registered as domestic partners under California law before they took marriage vows in San Francisco could lose some of the dozen or so spousal rights to which they are already entitled. Those include the right to make medical decisions for incapacitated partners, to sue for a partner's wrongful death and to adopt a partner's child. The newly married couples might be disqualified from the state's domestic partner registry because of their changed marital status.

 

Q: Gay couples in California will be entitled to almost every spousal right married couples now enjoy once the state's new domestic partner law takes effect in 2005. Why issue marriage licenses now, and why the big uproar over changes already taking place in California?

 

A: The domestic partner law that takes effect next January does grant same-sex couples all the legal rights and responsibilities married couples have, except for the ability to file joint income taxes. But gay rights advocates argue that it still falls short of marriage. Also, the domestic partner law could be overturned.

 

Q: Do any countries already recognize same-sex marriages?

 

A: In April 2001, the Netherlands became the first country to allow same-sex couples to marry, followed by Belgium in January 2003. Last summer, the Canadian provinces of Ontario and British Columbia began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

[Ravenbomb 0]

Okay, I think I'm a little fuzzy on the gay marriages being legal/illegal. Is it illegal for them to be performed, or is that legal, but the government just won't recognize it as a marriage?

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

It's also the fact that even to prove a point, most Christians would not admit to it being "stupid".

I've seen and experienced enough unbelievable things in both my life and in the world to make believing in this stuff very easy. By "stupid", I mean scientifically unprovable.

 

Go to church every Sunday eh? That's odd for anyone on this forum not named "Spiderpoet".

Well... I'm gonna try and pick up going to Mass regularly again for my Lenten promise.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

It's also the fact that even to prove a point, most Christians would not admit to it being "stupid".

I've seen and experienced enough unbelievable things in both my life and in the world to make believing in this stuff very easy. By "stupid", I mean scientifically unprovable.

 

Go to church every Sunday eh? That's odd for anyone on this forum not named "Spiderpoet".

Well... I'm gonna try and pick up going to Mass regularly again for my Lenten promise.

Oh I'm not disagreeing with you at all. I'd consider myself a Christian too, so I know all about taking a "leap of faith".

 

If you used to go to church and felt that you were getting nothing out of it, I don't know that doing it for Lent would change all of that. More power to you though.

[Guest SP-1]

There's also a big difference between rejecting the act while still loving you. Which is what we're called to do. Unfortunately, most nominal Christians assume that rejecting the act means rejecting the person and can't divide the two.

 

If I were not capable of this, if those around me were not capable of this, we'd all hate one another and isolate ourselves in our dorm rooms until we were forced to congregate for meals and class. At my home church, and at school, I am friends with and deeply love and respect Christians who struggled with homosexuality. Back home I am friends with and deeply love and respect several people who completely disagree with Christianity, and who are very actively engaged in a homosexual lifestyle. They are my friends. BUT, as they respect our Christian beliefs and know we disagree with their lifestyle, we respect their choices and beliefs and they know we disagree with their lifestyle. We co-exist and we love one another. THAT is how it should be. Unfortunately, especially in the west, this isn't taught very often. I'm fortunate to attend a truly biblical church and a truly biblical educational isntitution that teaches correct doctrine without politics and western culture getting in the way.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Go to church every Sunday eh? That's odd for anyone on this forum not named "Spiderpoet".

 

Why? I do, too.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Okay, I think I'm a little fuzzy on the gay marriages being legal/illegal. Is it illegal for them to be performed, or is that legal, but the government just won't recognize it as a marriage?

It's up to each state at the moment. Most all the states, including the most liberal ones, have passed 'marriage is a man and a woman' laws, while a few haven't but haven't passed anything specifying it can go in the other direction either.

 

So while the country hasn't outlawed gay marriages, about 40 states or more have and a few just won't touch the subject, for fear of stirring up the backwards people.

[Guest Cerebus]

Go to church every Sunday eh? That's odd for anyone on this forum not named "Spiderpoet".

 

Why? I do, too.

Ditto.

 

Okay, I think I'm a little fuzzy on the gay marriages being legal/illegal. Is it illegal for them to be performed, or is that legal, but the government just won't recognize it as a marriage?

 

As far as I know, I could get married to my dog tommorow, but unless a county clerk recognized it, gave me a certificate which entitled me and my dog the same privelages they would give me and my wife then it doesn't mean jack.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Go to church every Sunday eh? That's odd for anyone on this forum not named "Spiderpoet".

 

Why? I do, too.

Eh, the only people I know that go to church that are in the age-range of 20-27 or whatever, are people that studied in Bible College and have actually gone further with a Christian education....like Spiderpoet. Maybe I'm just cynical. I go, but even if I didn't want to I still would since I live under my parents and all. Seventeen over here though.

 

Anyways forget it, back on topic. Here's a question; how many Christians here are against the marrying of Gay Couples? For the record, I am really indifferent and I don't care either way.

[Guest SP-1]

I'm against it. But I'm not going to stone anyone for doing it.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

I'm perfectly fine with it. I think marriage has more to do with love and committment than about bearing children.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

I'm perfectly fine with it. I think marriage has more to do with love and committment than about bearing children.

The general Roman Catholic stance on it is that it isn't just about love, but the fact that it makes a mockery of the traditional stance of marriage. At least, that's what most Christians I know say, the ones that are against it. I'd provide links on articles but I am unsure of whether or not people here would be willing to read it. I don't even read it, because I don't look at the concept of marriage as seriously as they do.

 

I'll say this much; no matter how "wrong" you may feel about it, it's not like they're going to go to hell because their parts don't fit "properly". I mean really.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

I know exactly how the traditional Catholic church looks at it.

 

I simply don't have any problem disagreeing in principle with the traditional Catholic church.

[Guest SP-1]

I know exactly how the traditional Catholic church looks at it.

 

I simply don't have any problem disagreeing in principle with the traditional Catholic church.

Heh. We agree on something, Tyler. First Marney and now this. The world is coming to an end.

 

I would like to throw in that the problem of sin and hell isn't an individual basis kind of thing. Sin itself has to be dealt with on the whole, which Christ did. The decision of Hell depends, in a base way, on whether one accepts that gift or rejects it.

[Firestarter 0]

Here's a question; how many Christians here are against the marrying of Gay Couples?

After considerable thought, I'm against it.

 

Partner benefits/recognition? Sure. Church ceremonies? Sure, if your church is happy with it. Civil unions? No. Marriage? No.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Out of sheer curiosity, why do you have a problem with it?

[Firestarter 0]

Well, it obviously has nothing to do with morality or God. It's just that the benefits given to married couples by the state are a recognition of the fact that traditional nuclear families are the foundation of our society and contribute to our population, and therefore their creation and continuation ought to be actively encouraged.

[snuffbox 0]

Here's a question; how many Christians here are against the marrying of Gay Couples?

After considerable thought, I'm against it.

 

Partner benefits/recognition? Sure. Church ceremonies? Sure, if your church is happy with it. Civil unions? No. Marriage? No.

So you feel that gay couples should have the same benefits of married heterosexuals then?

[Firestarter 0]

No.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Anyways forget it, back on topic. Here's a question; how many Christians here are against the marrying of Gay Couples?

My stance:

 

Privatize marriage from the gov't. Each church can decide what it wants.

 

Civil unions for both types of couples.

[snuffbox 0]

No.

Why not?

[snuffbox 0]

Seriously people, no disrespect to any of your religious beliefs or anything, but why should anyone take advice on sexual issues from the Catholic church? Shouldnt the thousands of child molestation(often homosexual at that) kinda bar their leaders from saying anything about sexual laws or mores?

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Thus, benefits for having children, etc.

 

I understand what you're saying. I don't necessarily agree with your rationale for not giving gay couples the same government-endowed benefits as heterosexual ones, but I do understand what you're getting at with the government trying to encourage (heterosexual) people to marry and procreate. Although, I'd argue that allowing homosexual couples to adopt would also be to the benefit of our society, seeing as unadopted children would tend to have much less of a chance at being productive members of society.

[snuffbox 0]

Imo, I think this country might give marriage a bit too much credit, considering how many broken and bad homes there are. Whats the divorce rate again?

 

Dont get me wrong, obviously the ideal family situation would be a mom and a dad and children and then extended family. Kids being raised in a healthy situation like this can learn and grow to be fine adults themselves.

 

But seriously, how often does that happen in this country? I might just be skewed due to the sheer amount of sad, broken homes Ive seen, but they just seem to outnumber the good family lives.

 

I personally would prefer a child growing with two loving moms or two loving dads then growing up with fighting, hurtful, abusive, or problematic parents. Of course, gay couples wouldnt always be Mike and Carol Bradyesque either.

[Firestarter 0]

I don't personally know even one homosexual couple which has adopted a child. AFAIK most tend to have their own from previous relationships. I'd be interested to see the actual numbers of adoptive homosexual parents, and perhaps some longitudinal research on their children.

[snuffbox 0]

I'd be interested to see the actual numbers of adoptive homosexual parents, and perhaps some longitudinal research on their children.

I would like to see those statistics as well.

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

Well, it obviously has nothing to do with morality or God. It's just that the benefits given to married couples by the state are a recognition of the fact that traditional nuclear families are the foundation of our society and contribute to our population, and therefore their creation and continuation ought to be actively encouraged.

But how would legalizing gay marriages have any impact on hetero marriages in this regard? I can't see hetero couples being dissuaded from getting married if gay marriages are legal.

[Firestarter 0]

Doesn't matter. The point is that a marriage between homosexuals does not contribute to society per se; therefore, society should not reward it. Note that I'm talking about the marriage and not the homosexuals themselves.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

I don't personally know even one homosexual couple which has adopted a child. AFAIK most tend to have their own from previous relationships. I'd be interested to see the actual numbers of adoptive homosexual parents, and perhaps some longitudinal research on their children.

Neither do I, and IIRC, I doubt that most adoption agencies give children to homosexual couples. Although, I could be completely wrong there, and I admit that.

 

I would be fascinated to see statistics like average income of children adopted by homosexual couples vs. children adopted by heterosexual couples, again out of sheer curiosity. I would be willing to wager that the disparity--if income can be used as an indicator for success or addition to society, thus making the statistic relevant--is minimal at best.

 

That's a lot of hypotheticals, of course, but if that was the case, wouldn't it be to the society's benefit to reward these couples by giving them a title ("marriage" or "union" or whatever) and encouraging them to raise children on their own? You might argue that not all homosexual couples are likely to adopt children, but then again, not all hetero couples procreate, either.

 

I don't know... maybe I'm formulating this argument on my liberal instinct to give equal rights to everyone, but it seems to me like these marriages COULD be beneficial, and giving equal rights--ESPECIALLY adoption rights--to homosexual unions would definitely be beneficial to the state.

Edited February 16, 2004 by Tyler McClelland