San Francisco Officials Marry Gay Couples

[Guest Cerebus]

Too bad the mayor and co. won't be touched by the electorate, but I find this as big a disgrace as Roy Moore.

 

San Francisco Officials Marry Gay Couples   

By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer

 

SAN FRANCISCO - In an open challenge to California law, city authorities performed at least 15 same-sex weddings Thursday and issued about a dozen more marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.

 

By midafternoon, jubilant gay couples were lining up under City Hall's ornate gold dome and exchanging vows in two-minute ceremonies that followed one after another.

 

"Today a barrier to true justice has been removed," said Gavin Newsom, newly elected mayor of the city considered the capital of gay America.

 

No state legally sanctions gay marriage, and it remains unclear what practical value the marriage licenses will have. The weddings violate a ballot measure California voters approved in 2000 that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

 

The move by San Francisco's mayor came as lawmakers in Massachusetts continued to debate a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in that state, where the nation's first legally recognized same-sex weddings are set to take place this spring under a ruling from the Massachusetts high court.

 

The assembly-line nuptials began with longtime lesbian activists Phyllis Lyon, 79, and Del Martin, 83, who 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. The two have been a couple for 51 years.

 

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.

 

"I understand there are wrinkles that need to be worked out, but as far as I'm concerned, we will be married," said Molly McKay as she and her partner of eight years, Davina Kotulski, stood at the clerk's counter.

 

During one of the weddings, performed before TV cameras, the vows were rewritten so that "husband and wife" became "spouse for life."

 

A conservative group called the Campaign for California Families called the marriages 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, 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 are legally binding and would immediately confer new benefits in everything from health coverage to funeral arrangements.

 

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer had no comment.

 

The gay marriages were timed by city officials to outmaneuver the conservative group. The group had planned to go to court on Friday to stop the mayor's announced plans to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. But city officials struck 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 to try to block California's domestic partner law, which then-Gov. Gray Davis (news - web sites) 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.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

The difference between that and this is that Roy Moore was simply being a blockhead for absolutely no reason. There was nothing good that could possibly have come from that, whereas this could spring a challenge of the ballot measure in the California courts.

Edited February 13, 2004 by Tyler McClelland

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

Was Jeff Garcia involved in any way?

[NoCalMike 0]

Yeah it is basically a publicity stunt that in the long run will probably prove to be meaningless, but hey, that doesn't mean ideally they shouldn't be able to be married.

 

I do kind of have a question on this issue. It seems as though one of the key statements from conservatives on this issue is, "we want to protect marriage" and I just don't understand that statement. First of all, protect marriage from what exactly? What exactly are they trying to imply would happen to "marriage" if gays were able to be married, that hasn't ALREADY happened?

[Guest Cerebus]

Edit:

 

The difference between that and this is that Roy Moore was simply being a blockhead for absolutely no reason. There was nothing good that could possibly have come from that, whereas this could spring a challenge of the ballot measure in the California courts.

 

How? Because San Francisco's mayor didn't like the ballot measure and had a huge publicity stunt it will change something? It's no different than Moore except its on a different issue.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

I was thinking of the wrong fundamentalist Christian

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

How? Because San Francisco's mayor didn't like the ballot measure and had a huge publicity stunt it will change something? It's no different than Moore except its on a different issue.

It's different because this, in effect, allows the "married" couples to sue for their right to marriage. Something is being taken away when the certificates are eventually (and officially) ruled invalid, so they could potentially challenge the ruling in court.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Yeah.....

 

this is a great way to win over public opinion. The more they piss everyone off the harder in the long run it'll be to get what they want.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

By the way, this is the face of what will DESTROY THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE!!!

 

[Guest Cerebus]

How? Because San Francisco's mayor didn't like the ballot measure and had a huge publicity stunt it will change something? It's no different than Moore except its on a different issue.

It's different because this, in effect, allows the "married" couples to sue for their right to marriage. Something is being taken away when the certificates are eventually (and officially) ruled invalid, so they could potentially challenge the ruling in court.

They could have sued for those rights anyway and Moore appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court when he illegally moved the 10 Commandments as well. I still dont' see the difference.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Moore was trying to just throw God in the public square because it fit his personal opinion. Newsom is trying to interpret the official city documents, but I think this is a bad move which will hurt his future.

 

I've always thought the SF mayor job is just child's play until he can get a more prominent Dem role in the federal government, although this will be used against him at that point.

 

These efforts will be taaaaaah-minated, most likely, but it's still kind of weird. I can't say I /DON'T/ approve of it, though.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Yeah.....

 

this is a great way to win over public opinion. The more they piss everyone off the harder in the long run it'll be to get what they want.

I think, in the long run, public opinion will agree with them.

 

The only people who REALLY care about "the American family" are a few preachers and some stiff in suits.

[Guest Cerebus]

Moore was trying to just throw God in the public square because it fit his personal opinion. Newsom is trying to interpret the official city documents, but I think this is a bad move which will hurt his future.

 

I've always thought the SF mayor job is just child's play until he can get a more prominent Dem role in the federal government, although this will be used against him at that point.

 

These efforts will be taaaaaah-minated, most likely, but it's still kind of weird. I can't say I /DON'T/ approve of it, though.

Come on Jobber, no matter what you feel about gay mairrage you can't say this isn't pretty brazenly illegal.

[NoCalMike 0]

So is anyone gonna tackle my question on the statement, "protecting marriage" ? No Pressure......

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Come on Jobber, no matter what you feel about gay mairrage you can't say this isn't pretty brazenly illegal.

Superior governments have deemed it illegal and will eventually stop it, such as the many medicinal marijuana busts over the years.

 

But where as Moore did his actions because he personally believed our nation's government should worship God, Newsom is following a city motto regarding no discrimination in this area. It will be overruled, of course. But it actually has more legal footing in his jurisdiction than simply "I think this should be like that."

 

While I think it's currently illegal, I think it ought to be legal (though I'm not sure if I'd approve of that on a federal level) and so I can't say I think it's a bad thing.

 

Newom, BTW, isn't really that bad a guy. He's the one who came up with the idea that the city should be barred from giving cold hard cash to the homeless, because that would just make the problem worse.

[Guest Cerebus]

Come on Jobber, no matter what you feel about gay mairrage you can't say this isn't pretty brazenly illegal.

Superior governments have deemed it illegal and will eventually stop it, such as the many medicinal marijuana busts over the years.

 

But where as Moore did his actions because he personally believed our nation's government should worship God, Newsom is following a city motto regarding no discrimination in this area. It will be overruled, of course. But it actually has more legal footing in his jurisdiction than simply "I think this should be like that."

 

While I think it's currently illegal, I think it ought to be legal (though I'm not sure if I'd approve of that on a federal level) and so I can't say I think it's a bad thing.

 

Newom, BTW, isn't really that bad a guy. He's the one who came up with the idea that the city should be barred from giving cold hard cash to the homeless, because that would just make the problem worse.

But it actually has more legal footing in his jurisdiction than simply "I think this should be like that."

 

How exactly? You obviously know a hell of a lot more California politics than I do (though if anything about Connecticut comes up I'm your man )

[NoCalMike 0]

Come on Jobber, no matter what you feel about gay mairrage you can't say this isn't pretty brazenly illegal.

Superior governments have deemed it illegal and will eventually stop it, such as the many medicinal marijuana busts over the years.

 

But where as Moore did his actions because he personally believed our nation's government should worship God, Newsom is following a city motto regarding no discrimination in this area. It will be overruled, of course. But it actually has more legal footing in his jurisdiction than simply "I think this should be like that."

 

While I think it's currently illegal, I think it ought to be legal (though I'm not sure if I'd approve of that on a federal level) and so I can't say I think it's a bad thing.

 

Newom, BTW, isn't really that bad a guy. He's the one who came up with the idea that the city should be barred from giving cold hard cash to the homeless, because that would just make the problem worse.

But it actually has more legal footing in his jurisdiction than simply "I think this should be like that."

 

How exactly? You obviously know a hell of a lot more California politics than I do (though if anything about Connecticut comes up I'm your man )

Is it me or does San Francisco seem to able to do it's own thing half the time without even being bothered? Just Saying......I mean it is almost if people look at that city and are just like, "yeah well umm.......fuck it"

[Jobber of the Week 0]

How exactly? You obviously know a hell of a lot more California politics than I do (though if anything about Connecticut comes up I'm your man )

In his own words:

 

“A little more than a month ago I took the oath of office here at City Hall and swore to uphold California’s Constitution which clearly outlaws all forms of discrimination,” said Newsom.  “Denying basic rights to members of our community will not be tolerated.”

 

“California’s Constitution is clear: discrimination is immoral, it is illegal and it is antithetical to our most cherished values – liberty and freedom,” Newsom continued.

 

Basically, it's pressing the issue to see how the state constitution will be interpreted. One of those things where everyone is going to have to decide how far-reaching equality and anti-discrimination law actually can go.

 

I give this current development maybe four days before a higher office (namely, Arnold) comes in and shuts it down, but the idea is to spark the state Democrats into hounding the Republicans on the issue. If they got it to the voters, I think it would win. Democrats still have a huge voter lead in this state.

[Guest Cerebus]

How exactly? You obviously know a hell of a lot more California politics than I do (though if anything about Connecticut comes up I'm your man )

In his own words:

 

“A little more than a month ago I took the oath of office here at City Hall and swore to uphold California’s Constitution which clearly outlaws all forms of discrimination,” said Newsom.  “Denying basic rights to members of our community will not be tolerated.”

 

“California’s Constitution is clear: discrimination is immoral, it is illegal and it is antithetical to our most cherished values – liberty and freedom,” Newsom continued.

That's WHY he did it (and its no more than a rehash of what many many others have said) but besides for free publicity it gives him no more legal muscle than yesterday.

 

If they got it to the voters, I think it would win.

 

Wait a sec, wasn't this springing from a 2000 ballot initiative in the first place?

[snuffbox 0]

By the way, this is the face of what will DESTROY THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE!!!

 

Those brazen hussy heathens!

[BX 0]

I could have sworn I saw a report where a woman married a dead guy. Isn't that breaking down the sanctity of marriage as much as civil unions are/could?

[snuffbox 0]

I could have sworn I saw a report where a woman married a dead guy. Isn't that breaking down the sanctity of marriage as much as civil unions are/could?

Nah...it was heterosexual. Its all good with the Christian folk so long as the dead guy's still ruling over his wife.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Wait a sec, wasn't this springing from a 2000 ballot initiative in the first place?

Er? If you mean we voted on this before in 2000, then you're free to look over the list of propositions from the 2000 vote, I don't see anything about marriage in there anywhere.

[Guest Cerebus]

Wait a sec, wasn't this springing from a 2000 ballot initiative in the first place?

Er? If you mean we voted on this before in 2000, then you're free to look over the list of propositions from the 2000 vote, I don't see anything about marriage in there anywhere.

The weddings violate a ballot measure California voters approved in 2000 that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

 

That's from the AP report I quoted. Is it in error?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Ah. I found it.

 

Well, a lot of good things happened that have been illegal as well. Although obviously this one depends on your point of view. I don't believe marriage is exclusively a religious word as the government uses it.

[Slovakia 0]

I could have sworn I saw a report where a woman married a dead guy. Isn't that breaking down the sanctity of marriage as much as civil unions are/could?

I think it's just sort of looked upon as a bunch of weirdos, sort of like the Mormons that baptize dead people.

 

 

On that note, board members, there's a good chance our friends in Utah have forcibly converted your deceased ancestors to the Latter-day Saints. Don't stand idly by.

[Guest MikeSC]

Ah. I found it.

 

Well, a lot of good things happened that have been illegal as well. Although obviously this one depends on your point of view. I don't believe marriage is exclusively a religious word as the government uses it.

So, basically, Cerebus is correct and this is, for all intents and purposes, the same thing Moore did in AL?

-=Mike

...Again, I don't care if gays get married --- I have a problem with courts (or, in this case, nutbars in SF) overstepping their bounds and swamping over the whole "Checks and Balances"

[Guest SP-1]

I could have sworn I saw a report where a woman married a dead guy. Isn't that breaking down the sanctity of marriage as much as civil unions are/could?

Nah...it was heterosexual. Its all good with the Christian folk so long as the dead guy's still ruling over his wife.

And why did I have any hope that anyone on here would have any kind of actual grasp on Christian views on marriage and women?

 

I don't know.

 

However, if anyone really wants the Christian take (the real evangelical, biblical Christian take, not what the liberals and/or the media would portray it as), I'd be happy to provide.

[NoCalMike 0]

I could have sworn I saw a report where a woman married a dead guy. Isn't that breaking down the sanctity of marriage as much as civil unions are/could?

Nah...it was heterosexual. Its all good with the Christian folk so long as the dead guy's still ruling over his wife.

And why did I have any hope that anyone on here would have any kind of actual grasp on Christian views on marriage and women?

 

I don't know.

 

However, if anyone really wants the Christian take (the real evangelical, biblical Christian take, not what the liberals and/or the media would portray it as), I'd be happy to provide.

I don't understand how that matters since marriage is not something exclusive to christians or any religious faith.

[Guest SP-1]

I could have sworn I saw a report where a woman married a dead guy. Isn't that breaking down the sanctity of marriage as much as civil unions are/could?

Nah...it was heterosexual. Its all good with the Christian folk so long as the dead guy's still ruling over his wife.

And why did I have any hope that anyone on here would have any kind of actual grasp on Christian views on marriage and women?

 

I don't know.

 

However, if anyone really wants the Christian take (the real evangelical, biblical Christian take, not what the liberals and/or the media would portray it as), I'd be happy to provide.

I don't understand how that matters since marriage is not something exclusive to christians or any religious faith.

Your reply has nothing to do with the quote at hand. The quote displays a clear misconception about what Christians actually believe and what the Bible teaches about both marriage and women. THAT was the point of my reply.