San Francisco Officials Marry Gay Couples

[Guest Brian]

What do you do with heterosexuals who don't choose to have kids? Or those who can't?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

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.

We are not facing a population problem.

 

I don't understand how we're "rewarding" anyone here. Even simply civil unions carry out the equal benefits and protections promised in the constitution. The benefits you think they shouldn't have.

 

Congratulations. You've managed to find an extremist stance you feel comfortable with. I figured you'd eventually find something where you were more to the right of GWB, but I didn't think it would be this issue.

[Mole 0]

I think this is great and is another huge step for Gay Marriages in this country.

[Firestarter 0]

We are not facing a population problem

Not yet, no. But Europe is. Draw your own conclusions.

 

Congratulations. You've managed to find an extremist stance you feel comfortable with. I figured you'd eventually find something where you were more to the right of GWB, but I didn't think it would be this issue.

Nicely done. Ignore the arguments, stick a label on their writer, and move on - isn't that what you were accusing other people of doing to you in a different thread? Congratulations, you're a hypocrite.

 

I'm still not comfortable with my position on this issue and I'm reading more about it to see if something changes my mind, or reinforces my current ideas. The two pieces (one a point-counterpoint sort of thing) I've read so far this morning both tend to make me think more favourably of gay marriage.

 

The Power of Marriage by David Brooks

 

Con/Pro essays by Ira L. Shafiroff and Peter Kwan (I think Kwan won that round pretty decisively)

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

We are not facing a population problem

Not yet, no. But Europe is. Draw your own conclusions.

But declining population has nothing to do w/ legalizing gay marriages.

[Guest Brian]

So if my kids see Gay people accepted in society, they'd be more willing to be gay? This is all assuming that not only gay is wrong, but gay is less than human and should be stricken down because of it. There's very little biological evidence to support this claim other than mern and women have interlocking parts. But then oral and anal sex are wrong, pulling out early is wrong, contraceptives are wrong, and jacking off is wrong.

 

And really, who's to say that having two parents of the same sex is a bad thing?

[Guest Cerebus]

off topic, Brian could you possibly reduce the size of that pic in your sig? It's a mite too big.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Might as well throw this in there:

 

Point by Point dissection of the same sex argument. (It's long, so if you don't feel like reading through all of that just look at specific points)

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Not yet, no. But Europe is. Draw your own conclusions.

If you want to make sure that we don't have a population problem, then society needs to be less taboo about sex and stop freaking out when something as simple as a woman letting her boob fall out happens on TV.

 

However, sex currently IS a huge near-omnipresent concept in this country. From movies to advertising to even the stupid scandal stories that take front page precedence over real news, sex is commonly talked about here.

 

Sex as a hush-hush concept will create less children than sex being out on display, IMO.

 

And sorry if I offended you, I just assumed you made up your mind already since, well, you usually already do.

[NoCalMike 0]

The argument that kids will be more likely to turn out gay if they see married gay people in society is a load of crap, however maybe teens that are experiencing and coming to terms with being gay, might not feel the need to go run and hide it from everyone in their life if being gay is viewed and accepted as a normal thing in society. On that same token, "gay" is not learned or worked on until it takes over your body, this comes down to, you either ARE or you AREN'T. Your NATURAL feelings determine this, not something you saw on tv or on the streetside. Now I am aware that maybe extreme cases of sexual abuse or something of the like, may blur the line, but then the real issue there is the sexual abuse and not the person being homosexual.

[Firestarter 0]

The End of Marriage in Scandinavia

 

Just another article I was reading.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

S.F. set to defend same-sex marriages

After wild weekend of weddings, judge will rule on injunction

 

After hundreds of weddings over the weekend, San Francisco city officials will head to court today to defend their historic decision to defy state law and issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.

 

Two conservative groups have challenged Mayor Gavin Newson's authority to allow the same-sex marriages, arguing that it violates the state laws that define marriage as between a man and a woman. The city is expected to respond that it is acting under the state's constitution, which guarantees equal protection for all Californians.

 

Since Thursday, when the option became open to them, same-sex couples have leaped at a chance to be legally married. Wearing tuxedos and lacy bridal gowns, sweatshirts and sneakers, they have camped out on the sidewalks for days waiting their turn, forging new friendships as they tried to ignore drenching rains. The line Monday wound for three blocks near the ornate City Hall, with shish kebabs, umbrellas, doughnuts, coffee and even breath mints being shared.

 

"It doesn't matter what the courts do -- I was married for a day in San Francisco,'' said Maylene Kuahiwinui, 26, who hugged her partner of nine years, Charity, also 26, before pointing their van back toward Seattle on Monday.

 

With a national audience watching, both sides are expected to rely on an arsenal of legal arguments as they venture into new legal territory. "I think it's impossible to predict what will happen,'' said Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional law professor at the University of Southern California.

 

In a brief submitted Monday for a court hearing today, opponents argued that only judges can declare California's prohibition on same-sex marriages to be unconstitutional.

 

An attorney for one of the opposition groups, Terry L. Thompson of the Alliance Defense Fund, said, "Our position is very clear. This is a simple issue of legal anarchy."

 

He said, "The mayor can't decide what is constitutional or what is unconstitutional. Only an appellate court judge can do that, and that is the substance of our brief."

 

Another of the groups challenging the same-sex marriage licenses is Campaign for California Families, a Sacramento organization that supported Proposition 22, the initiative voters passed in 2000 that bars same-sex marriages.

 

Mathew Stover, who is representing the group and its president, Randy Thomasson of Sacramento, in filing the suit, said they were seeking an injunction that would block the city from issuing licenses to gay and lesbian couples. He said they expected to rely on a series of state laws that specifically state that marriage must be between a man and woman.

 

He also will ask Judge Ronald Quidachay to declare that the city's actions are invalid, voiding the same-sex marriages that have taken place since Newsom ordered County Clerk Nancy Alfaro to begin issuing the licenses.

 

"We want to turn the clock back,'' Stover said.

 

He said that marriages are governed by the state, not local governments. In defending the city's actions, lawyers are expected to challenge the right of the two groups to file the suits. Legal experts point out that plaintiffs must show that they have suffered some specific injury to get an injunction.

 

But Stover said that Thomasson has a right to sue as a taxpayer and as a voter who supported Proposition 22. He accused Newsom of ignoring the will of the voters by trying to change state law.

 

The second suit was filed by the group Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund, which lost its first round in court on Friday.

 

The group's attorney, Robert Tyler, made an unsuccessful bid to get an immediate court order Friday to try to block the growing number of weddings expected on Valentine's Day. Among the arguments he raised was that the marriages were consuming taxpayer money and that the couples may not be aware that were risking their rights as domestic partners by tying the knot.

 

If Newsom is allowed to defy state law, Tyler argued, then cities and counties will feel free to follow their own set of rules.

 

But San Francisco Superior Court Judge James L. Warner did not see any need to issue an immediate stay and, instead, ordered the two sides to return to court today.

 

"This is an important case,'' he told the two sides. "It requires careful consideration.''

 

City Assessor-Recorder Mabel Teng, who oversees the clerk's office, kept her office open over the holiday weekend. She opened the office a half-hour ahead of schedule Monday, to get as many couples through as possible. She said the city would continue issuing marriage licenses today "unless told otherwise by the city attorney."

 

Aside from the court challenges, another wrinkle has emerged that could mar the status of the San Francisco licenses: State officials indicated Friday that the modified marriage forms that will eventually be sent from San Francisco to Sacramento would simply be returned without being officially registered.

 

California registers only couples whose marriages are documented on the standard-issue official state form. Therefore, San Francisco's move to change marriage license documents to make them gender-neutral may make them invalid.

 

By the end of the day Monday, 2,271 same-sex couples had gotten marriage licenses in San Francisco. Teng said the vast majority -- about 85 percent - - were from the Bay Area. An additional 50 couples had traveled to San Francisco from other states, and four came from abroad: the Netherlands, Switzerland, Thailand and New Zealand.

 

"It has been one long day since Thursday. The response has been tremendous and overwhelming," Teng said. "I am just very honored to be involved in this significant and history-making event."

 

As harp and flute music resonated off City Hall's marble walls Monday, five-year partners Nancy Faria, 42, and Linda Weidner, 47, of Bourne, Mass., waited for their turn -- flowers, rings and cameras poised for the event. The couple, who flew from Boston on Saturday, said marriage is an important step for gay couples who want equality, recognition and validity.

 

"They can't ever take this day away from us," Faria said.

 

Jim Macrae, 38, and his partner of 15 years, Allen Wood, 41, quickly swapped their rain-drenched clothes for tuxedos.

 

"We want the certificate that says we're married -- just like everybody else,'' Wood said.

 

Monday's last marriage ceremony ended about 5 p.m. At midafternoon, sheriff's deputies determined a cutoff point in the long line outside City Hall and asked all those beyond that spot to return today for their licenses.

 

If the plaintiffs in the pending cases are allowed to sue, city attorneys predict that the centerpiece of the argument will focus on an obscure section of the state constitution that bars administrative agencies from declaring a statute unconstitutional.

 

Chief Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart said that they would argue that the provision doesn't apply to local governments or Newsom's decision to defy the state laws governing marriage.

 

"Public officials have not only the right but the duty to comply with the constitution, which is the first and highest law of the state,'' she said.

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...BAG90512JG1.DTL

 

And as for the motive behind this whole thing, from the gossip column:

 

While his political allies weren't willing to tell him he made the wrong decision, Newsom says his "heads-up'' calls to some state and national Democrats weren't exactly met with rousing "right-ons!''

 

"The staffers were behind it, but some of the officials -- and I'm not going to give their names because these were private conversations -- took the news with sighs,'' Newsom said.

 

On the other hand (and on the QT), Newsom's political advisers are giving each other high-fives.

 

Why?

 

Believe it or not, some of those close to the centrist Newsom feared that the city's left and right were plotting a recall drive against the new mayor.

 

And, as the advisers see it, in one fell swoop, Newsom's move:

 

-- Trumped his more liberal opponents on the Board of Supervisors.

 

-- Instantly put the new mayor in the national spotlight as an opponent to President Bush.

 

-- Scored major points with the city's gay community which, pollsters tell us, had split pretty evenly between Newsom and Board of Supervisors President Matt Gonzalez in the last mayoral election.

 

And, as one Newsom adviser said, "If you can control the gay vote, the whole city tips in your favor.''

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Wow... I pretty much agreed with almost all of SP's last post. Shit! I'm breaking out in hives!

Christians shouldn't be persecuting anyone. It's not our call, it's not our way, and it never has been

 

Even that part? You'd better itch.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Regarding the subject, my feelings have been "leave it to the states" from day one, as at least ONE or two states will say "Ok" which will make the gays who are willing to drive very happy. Chances are, they'll be the most vocal ones about marriage rights. No more gay bitching, no nationwide moral, societal, and legal issues. Problem solved.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

P.S.

 

and NO constitutional amendments should even be considered regarding something this trivial. 50% of marriages end in catastrophe anyway, why should the gays be any different?

[NoCalMike 0]

I must say though, whether you disagree or agree with gay marriage. AT LEAST someone had the balls to come out and finally say they were for it, and tried to do something about it. None of this middle of the road, "don't want to upset either side" civil union compromise crap. Just flat out said he believed that it should be legal based on the constitution and did what he had to do to make it legal(for now at least). This just makes it that much harder to respect democrats on this issue because if they truly are what they say they are, they should be coming out in outright support for this. Republicans, well of course I don't expect them too, they think gays are deviant, and an abomination etc.......(generalization of course), however just the fact that the Democrats are so wishy-washy on this issue, should be the real case for concern.

[Vyce 0]

I must say though, whether you disagree or agree with gay marriage. AT LEAST someone had the balls to come out and finally say they were for it, and tried to do something about it. None of this middle of the road, "don't want to upset either side" civil union compromise crap. Just flat out said he believed that it should be legal based on the constitution and did what he had to do to make it legal(for now at least). This just makes it that much harder to respect democrats on this issue because if they truly are what they say they are, they should be coming out in outright support for this. Republicans, well of course I don't expect them too, they think gays are deviant, and an abomination etc.......(generalization of course), however just the fact that the Democrats are so wishy-washy on this issue, should be the real case for concern.

But the Mayor broke the law.

 

Roy Moore did that in Alabama, and people like you seemed to have a big problem with that.

 

Now, it's suddenly okay?

 

Gotta have consistency, you know.

[Guest Cerebus]

I must say though, whether you disagree or agree with gay marriage.  AT LEAST someone had the balls to come out and finally say they were for it, and tried to do something about it.  None of this middle of the road, "don't want to upset either side" civil union compromise crap.  Just flat out said he believed that it should be legal based on the constitution and did what he had to do to make it legal(for now at least). 

 

I must say though, whether you disagree or agree with the Ten Commandments. AT LEAST someone had the balls to come out and finally say they were for embracing its role in the founding of this country, and tried to do something about it. None of this middle of the road, "don't want to upset either side" keep in a historical display. Just flat out said he believed that it should be legal based on the constitution and did what he had to do to make it legal (for a time at least).

[Jobber of the Week 0]

 

Just another article I was reading.

Consider the source.

[Vern Gagne 0]

What about the source. The article gives the viewpoint of both sides of the argument, and shouldn't be dismissed because it came from the evil Weekly Standard.

[Guest Cerebus]

 

Just another article I was reading.

Consider the source.

Yeah a respected unabashedly conservative weekly political magazine. Much like the New Republic and the Nation only on the opposite end of the political spectrum.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

But the Mayor broke the law.

 

Roy Moore did that in Alabama, and people like you seemed to have a big problem with that.

 

Now, it's suddenly okay?

 

Gotta have consistency, you know.

If Roy Moore simply broke the law to make a statement, I'd still not like his statement, but I'd consider him another one of those people breaking laws to try and send a political message, and hey, a lot of things good and bad have come from peaceful lawbreaking conduct.

 

But he was also costing state taxpayers regardless of what they thought of his position.

 

Now, San Francisco is facing a lawsuit from a conservative group over this. But the suit was quickly filed before the marriages were even being performed. It was a reactionary lawsuit filed when news broke that they were investigating performing the marriages. So the taxpayer is paying fees whether the marriages were performed or not.

 

And in that case, hell, might as well do the marriages. They were going to be paying the price regardless.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

What about the source. The article gives the viewpoint of both sides of the argument, and shouldn't be dismissed because it came from the evil Weekly Standard.

I am immediately suspicious of media that makes insinuations and accusations ("Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more." and "Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has.") *BEFORE* they present any evidence.

[Vern Gagne 0]

So the writer presenting his viewpoint at the beginning of the column make his point invalid?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

A good journalist in this case would present evidence and draw a conclusion.

 

I had difficulty continuing reading past those opening points because it sounds like the writer is expressing his opinion instead of drawing a conclusion on evidence, and it turns away those who don't agree with him.

 

It's like if I wrote a news story and starting it off by saying the President may have lied to us. And then started reporting on missing WMDs and the reasons for going to war. If I laid out the facts first and then surmised that just maybe the President could have lied (or, if there's solid evidence he did lie, that he did) it would sound more factual.

[Styles 0]

A good journalist in this case would present evidence and draw a conclusion.

Journalism class teaches you the opposite (establish your position at the start, then defend it).

[Vern Gagne 0]

This story is not an article, like the one's you'll see on front page of the New York Times, and Washington Post. This is a column where the Kurtz is giving his viewpoint on the subject. Forget that he's agaisnt gay marriage, he does give numbers that show traditional marriage has been on the decline since gay marriage was allowed.

[Vyce 0]

But the Mayor broke the law.

 

Roy Moore did that in Alabama, and people like you seemed to have a big problem with that.

 

Now, it's suddenly okay?

 

Gotta have consistency, you know.

If Roy Moore simply broke the law to make a statement, I'd still not like his statement, but I'd consider him another one of those people breaking laws to try and send a political message, and hey, a lot of things good and bad have come from peaceful lawbreaking conduct.

 

But he was also costing state taxpayers regardless of what they thought of his position.

 

Now, San Francisco is facing a lawsuit from a conservative group over this. But the suit was quickly filed before the marriages were even being performed. It was a reactionary lawsuit filed when news broke that they were investigating performing the marriages. So the taxpayer is paying fees whether the marriages were performed or not.

 

And in that case, hell, might as well do the marriages. They were going to be paying the price regardless.

Amazing.

 

I'm not sure I've ever seen an advocation of lawbreaking on the one hand and admonishment of lawbreaking of the other argued quite along those particular lines.

 

I sincerely wish I could believe you're REALLY taking a "cost-efficient" attitude.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Well, there it is. Don't have much more to say.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

This story is not  an article, like the one's you'll see on front page of the New York Times, and Washington Post. This is a column where the Kurtz is giving his viewpoint on the subject.

Then all the more reasons to consider the source.

 

Forget that he's agaisnt gay marriage, he does give numbers that show traditional marriage has been on the decline since gay marriage was allowed.

 

Why should I forget he's against gay marriage? Why should I not at least be suspicious that his position may paint a picture that's spun or not enitrely accurate?

 

You're the people who run around talking about this huge slant in the media and the need to look for bias in the pages of large, respected journalistic organizations. You should know how this works.