Lesbian Couple Married in San Francisco
 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111267,00.html


SAN FRANCISCO — San Francisco officials presided over the marriages of at least eight same-sex couples Thursday and issued about a dozen more marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.



The act of civil disobedience was a political and legal challenge to California law. It pre-empted the efforts of the Campaign for California Families (search) to block Mayor Gavin Newsom's plan to license same-sex marriages (search).

A spokesman for the group vowed it would file an injunction request Friday and characterized Thursday's marriages as 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, the group's executive director. "This is nothing more than a publicity stunt that disrespects our state law and system of government itself."

Longtime lesbian activists Phyllis Lyon (search), 79, and Del Martin (search), 83, were the first to be married. San Francisco Assessor Mabel Teng wed them at 11:10 a.m. PST in a closed-door civil ceremony at City Hall, mayor's spokesman Peter Ragone said.

The two have been a couple for 51 years.

It remains unclear what practical value their marriage license will have, but the symbolism was self-evident on a day when lawmakers in Massachusetts were debating a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage but legalize civil unions.

Thursday's marriages defy a ballot measure California voters approved in 2000 that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. State lawmakers subsequently passed a domestic partner law that, when it goes into effect in 2005, will offer the most generous protections to gays and lesbians outside Vermont.

San Francisco officials insisted Thursday that the licenses were legally binding.

Campaign for California Families has sued, so far unsuccessfully, to block the state's domestic partner law, which Gov. Gray Davis 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.

On Thursday, San Francisco City Hall was crowded with jubilant same-sex couples.

The vows in one of the marriages, performed before television cameras, replaced the traditional phrasing take each other as "husband and wife" with "spouse for life."

Meanwhile, 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.

Before the crowds arrived, the elderly couple said after the brief morning ceremony that they were going home to rest and didn't plan anything to celebrate. Still, it was a profound moment for the pair, veterans of decades of gay rights struggles.

"Why shouldn't we" be able to marry, Lyon asked.

Mayor Newsom 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 (search) and former city official Roberta Achtenberg.

Good for them. Hopefully Bush's marriage amendment will die a horrible death. Same with the proposed changes in MA. Maybe someday gay couples will get the equality they deserve.

God bless them!:)

I hope they have long and happy lives together. :)


I wonder what Ah-nahld is going to say about this?

Who cares what he says... God Bless thewm and good luck to them...

congrats to them.

I wish them luck in their marriages.

As a lesbian, this warms my heart.

Follow-up: Bush 'Troubled' by Gay Marriage Issue
 

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...gay_marriage_3

Bush 'Troubled' by Gay Marriage Issue
35 minutes ago

By SCOTT LINDLAW, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) said Wednesday he was troubled by gay weddings in San Francisco and by legal decisions in Massachusetts that could clear the way for same-sex marriage. He declined to say whether he was close to backing a constitutional ban.

"I have watched carefully what's happening in San Francisco, where licenses were being issued, even though the law states otherwise," Bush said. "I have consistently stated that I'll support law to protect marriage between a man and a woman. Obviously these events are influencing my decision."

He didn't answer directly when asked whether he is any closer to endorsing a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages, as conservative groups say the White House has assured them Bush will do.

"I strongly believe marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman," Bush said during an Oval Office session with Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. "I am troubled by activist judges who are defining marriage."

"People need to be involved in this decision," Bush said. "Marriage ought to be defined by the people not by the courts. And I'm watching it carefully."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush recognized that gay marriage is a divisive topic. But, he said, "This is an issue where he believes it is important for people to stand up on principle."

Gay and lesbian couples from Europe and more than 20 states have lined up outside the ornate San Francisco City Hall since city officials decided to begin marrying same-sex couples six days ago. City officials said 172 couples were married Tuesday, a pace that would bring the total number who have taken vows promising to be "spouses for life" to over 3,000 by Friday.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled 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.

Lawmakers are proposing a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and the Legislature resumes its deliberations of amendments on March 11.

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

So, Bush is "troubled by activist judges who are defining marriage," but you know that if they were defining marriage as being only between a man and a woman, he would not be batting an eyelash. :rolleyes:

Gay people aren't hurting anyone by being married. If two people love each other and want to spend their lives together in a legally recognized way, they should be allowed to.

I am troubled by Presidents who define marriage!

I heard an awesome commentary on CBS radio about this on Monday. I didn't catch the name of the person talking but he had interviewed some of the people who had gotten married. One was a couple who had been together for 15 years and another had been together for 23 years. His commentary made note that these couples have been together longer than half the marriages between men and women last and sarcastically commented on how immoral these couples were for wanting to commit to monogamy! I wish I had the whole transcript.. it was great.

Dee

I hope they give the mayor of San Fran the boot. This is a gross violation of the law and of moral sensibilities. And as much as you all may be cheering it on, guess what THE MAJORITY OF THE COUNTRY is against Gay Marriage. Not to mention most religious groups...

And I would guess that's because a majority believe in God, and therefore a majority believe that homosexuality is wrong. But that is NOT a reason to deny marriage recognition to gay couples. Sure, churches can, but the state should legally recognize each and every one of us equally.*

Go Newsom.

* Though admittedly it's apples and oranges, I think our country successfully proved in the 20th century that "Separate but Equal" is not equal.

Although I did not vote for Newsome, I think this is the best thing he has done since he took office.

The fact of the matter is NO ONE can tell me or you how to live life, what to believe in or not believe in. NO matter how many laws or whatever say what is legal or illegal, how you feel for someone is just that, how you feel. The president, religious orgs and others need to quit worrying about how other people are living their lives (assuming these are positive healthy relationships) and worry about what's going on in their own backyards.

The people elected him, so why would they give him the boot? Moreover if you don't like gay marriage that is your choice and don't ever move to San Francisco, and you DO NOT speak for the majority of the country or religious groups. I can assure you that. I am part of an organized religion and am involved on the Naitonal Level, and we have bigger issues than people in committed relationships that love each other.

Does it really impact your daily life if two men or two women, either next door or thousands of miles away from you, decide that they want to have legal protection in case the other dies or becomes incapacitated? Does it really affect you if a gay couple wants a child, has the financial means to raise it properly, and will love a child just as well as any functional heterosexual couple? Will it weaken your own relationships if gay marriage is legalized?

No. So, just live and let live.

You don't make sense.

That was one of the most bizzare posts ever. You ask a question and just in case someone might give you an answer you don't like, you tell them that they have to let live and not let live. Well how about the majority does what the majority wants and you accept that?

-Rudey

my 2 cents
 

Gay Marriage, Civil Union, Heterosexual Marriage, Commonlaw Marriage ...whatever.

The ultimate battle is about SEMANTICS!!!!
It is about love, committment and legal sanction.

The argument I have heard brings for the point about "religious" ideals and what god has "endowed". Where does this leave those who seek to have a civil ceremony... IF this is the case then, I say do away with ALL "marriage". This also brings into the play the separation of church and state.

I think the procedure should be changed so that everyone gets a "civil union" and THEN if they want to call it a "Marriage", they have it officiated by some 'sanctioning' group besides a civil authority.

Then depending on the inclination of those involved...you can chose from a selection to have the type of "sanctioned" legal relationship you want. Heterosexual civil union, heterosexual civil marriage, heterosexual marriage, Gay civil union, gay civil marriage, gay marriage. :)

my 2 cents....





edited to clarify my use of the word buffet.

Re: my 2 cents
 

That's only because you're ELCA ;) My mother is part of the Sierra Pacific Synod, which includes San Francisco and gay marriage and clergy wasn't even on the agenda to discuss. We are WAY more concerned with where our coffee is coming from, fair trade and organic. Speaking of which there I need to skedaddle to a hot dish and jello salad supper at LCM.

Re: Re: my 2 cents
 

ELCA by marriage ;) LOL. Believe it or not, I was raised Episcopal :)!

Hot dish and jello salad, are you *sure* you aren't hiding in my town somewhere? :)

Re: my 2 cents
 

Yep...next people will be wanting to marry their mothers or sisters or even the family pet at the buffet. That way the partner can have insurance and legal protection if one of them dies. It's just a civil union, right?

Just my .02

Re: Re: my 2 cents
 

that's poor logic, you should see, as INCEST is ILLEGAL, and homosexuality is NOT.

Re: Re: my 2 cents
 

Let's see, I don't think ANIMALS have the intellect to be able to CONSENT to such a union, so that invalidates that faulty logic. Incest is illegal too...ok another hole in your scenerio.

Insurance companies set their own guidelines and I think cross species coverage is NOT within those guidelines as well.

Re: Re: my 2 cents
 

Worst logic ever, seriously.

If a person is homosexual they are still a person, a human being rather and last I checked it wasn't illegal to be homosexual. It's just illegal for homosexuals to get married just about anywhere except for Mass. and San Fran (at least temporarily).

On the other hand, incest is illegal. And as far as marrying a pet, well pets aren't human so I don't understand the comparison.

Re: Re: Re: my 2 cents
 

Plus, if you own a pet, you can get insurance for it--in some cases through your employer, others as an outside policy. So, no one would marry a pet that they own and can get insurance for, because the legal protection is there. :rolleyes:

Also, in some states, if you are the next of kin for a non-spouse and you are the sole caretaker, you can insure them as well. If you're someone's next of kin, then you ideally have power of attorney. So, still...no reason to marry a relative for insurance or legal protection.

Worst.
Logic.
EVAR.

He is violating state, not to mention national law, he doesn't have the power to do this. Personally if I had my way his butt would be forced out of office and thrown in prison.

Re: Re: Re: my 2 cents
 

Actually her logic is not far off. Homosexuality was looked at not so long ago by society as utterly reprehensible and wrong. And as time has passed these groups have pushed their agenda on us and the decent people of America and now its becoming acceptable to violate state and national law and allow marriages to occur. Next we'll have people saying they are naturally attracted to their cousins, siblings, etc., then we'll have pedophiles saying that they are just naturally attracted to little children, and then people will begin to accept that, next we'll start to allow bestiality. This is a slippery slope and if we allow this to happen, we will be taking a long and hard collective fall.

Name calling really makes your argument effective :rolleyes:

Hey guess what? You don't live there, how does this really effect you? If it bothers you THAT much move to San Francisco and register to vote and protest at City Hall. I am not aware of any national laws it is violating, so when you find that information out, do post it here for us.

Re: Re: Re: Re: my 2 cents
 

1) There are many societies that have no problem with homosexuality
2) Cousin marriage is legal in many places, it depends on the degree separation of the cousins, and cousin marriage was and is favored in many cultures and even inour OWN! Ever heard of the Roosevelts?
3) I am glad you said this is a slippery slope, which is a fallacy in an argument so I didn't have to point it out for you :) Negates your whole argument
4) When I am at the bar in 15 minutes I will do a big cheers for the people who are allowed to marry the people they love, and Mayor Newsome.

First it is currently against STATE LAW which you neglected to mention. Second, it will soon be against national law once the bill and the amendment that are on the floor RIGHT NOW pass.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: my 2 cents
 

We all know I was refering to FIRST COUSINS but instead of dealing with it properly, you instead try to extend it. I notice you didn't include siblings in there.

Yeah SOME cultures don't have problems with homosexuality, don't presume to say most. Off-hand, all Islamic and Asian nations are quite strongly anti-homosexuality infact its punishable by death or other harsh punishments in many of those cultures.

How you say in #3 that it negates my arguement is a mystery to me.

I am going to enjoy a few things in the next year. Seeing Newsome get the boot, watching the gay marriage ban pass and become a constitutional amendment, and no matter who the president is be it Bush or Kerry next, support the ban FULLY.

That is why I only mentioned NATIONAL LAWS, as I am aware of STATE LAWS due tot he fact I know how to read, and I lived in California two decades. I'd love to debate this with you, but I need a more challenging argument.

Please someone lend their Logic 101 notes out to explain slippery slope.

Cheers.

What a joke, you know you are wrong, and what Newsome did was illegal not to mention completely immoral.

Colonist, does it make you feel better to call people names like "fool" in your replies?

That really helps out your argument man, lemme tell ya.

---

I don't see the 'slippery slope' here. If we allow homosexual marriage, what's to stop a transgendered-homosexual-crack-whore from being the next President? (yeah, I know, that's a straw-man:D ).

I have certain moral reservations about this. However, I also believe that you should not legislate religious beliefs. Essentially, this is not a "societal value". This is a religous belief that we're trying to legislate.

Last I checked, this was a Democracy, not a Theocracy.

Were you actually justifying your stance on homosexuality by citing what they do in certain Asian and Islamic cultures? Just a question...

---

I'm still torn on this issue though. I generally believe that if someone wants to do something that has no effect on me whatsoever, let 'em. Well, this will effect my pocketbook. The only drawback that I can see to homosexual marriage is that gay couples will now have access to their spouse's benefits at work. Currently, diseases such as HIV are still more prevelant in the homosexual population, so I would envision that healthcare costs would probably rise.

On the other side of that coin, there are many children that live in households with same-sex parents. They could potentially be denied benefits because the wrong parent works. That is just plain wrong.

If you forced me right now to say whether I'm for or against it though, I'd be for it.

Yes it is against a specific state law. This is being done to accomplish a legal challenge to the CONSTITUTIONALITY of that state law. You have to have a case to fast track to a court judgement of that. IE, Brown Vs Board of Education...
a complaintant who feels that the law is violating their constitutionally protected rights.

from http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1

"CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy."

"CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SEC. 7. (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws; provided, that nothing contained herein or elsewhere in this Constitution imposes upon the State of California or any public entity, board, or official any obligations or responsibilities which exceed those imposed by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution with respect to the use of pupil school assignment or pupil transportation. ...

(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges
or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked."

"CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SEC. 31. (a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant
preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of
race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of
public employment, public education, or public contracting."

These sections alone bring may questions into the fray.

Re: Re: Re: Re: my 2 cents
 

You never make sense. Don't ever use the word logic again.

-Rudey

Re: Re: Re: my 2 cents
 

Two people of the same sex getting married is ILLEGAL in my state too. It's only a civil union - so that "spouses" can get benefits and recognition. Who says you have to be in love and have sex to get married? Incest is sexual relations with a family member. You could marry your sister and just not have sex. If we are going to disregard the laws pertaining to two people of the same sex getting married, why not disregard the laws pertaining to incest and animals? In some states, sodomy IS still a crime, and therefore illegal. I was referring to the "buffet" style suggested by a former poster. If you are going to have a buffet, next thing you know, there will be all kinds of new stuff on the menu.

Colonist - you said it much better than I. Thanks!

Re: Re: Re: Re: my 2 cents
 

Actually, someone correct me if I am wrong but didn't the U.S. Supreme Court just rule opposing laws like these? I vaguely remember a ruling by the Supreme Court dealing I believe with some aspect of homosexual relationships. I think it was concerning a gay couple somewhere in the south.

I checked this, and looks like you are correct. This also means that the following could be decriminalized since it takes place between consenting adults in private:

Adultery
Father-daughter/mother-son consensual sex
Fornication
Spouse swapping
Threesomes
Sadomasochism
Taking pictures of the act
Buying sex toys

So how come those fathers and daughters can't get married? It is consensual. They love each other. They just want to have the same benefits as other married couples. This should work for siblings too, or mothers who want to marry their daughters etc.

Since my logic is obviously so faulty, I'd like to know WHY it is so important for gay people to be able to get married, and why the same argument can't apply to siblings, and father/daughters or other family members.

ok, my heart wants to go with, "eh....it's not hurting me in any way. i know ppl who are gay and i have fabulous amazing gay friends....i know i wouldn't want to be denied the rights of other Americans just b/c of a personal preference or a choice i make for my pillow talk, so....ok"....but then there's my conservative republican southern baptist up-bringing that says, "eh....the Bible clearly states that 'a man lying with another man as one would with a woman' is an 'abomination'......and seeing as though i believe in the Bible and in God....and seeing as though so did those who built this country and wrote this very constitution......it's a tough one. get back to me later...."

i believe that, yeah, technically marriage is only btwn a man and a woman......however, i don't think that ppl should be denied rights of other human beings. yeah, technically what they are doing is a "sin", but i also sin...as does everyone. should i have my right to marriage taken away b/c i engage in pre-marital sexual activity--a sin? :eek: ppl's choices that directly harm others are the only choices i see as worthy of rights being taken away (killing, raping, etc. etc)....but a gay couple gettin hitched....how does that directly effect/affect me? (and i'm honestly asking, b/c i am just ignorant and don't know the answer to that....ktsnake, fill me in)

PSA: here are my personal rules about being flamey to other posters:
1) never be the one to throw the torch (ie: start with name-calling, be-little-ing, or just plain mean).
2) always carry an extinguisher (if flamed, come back with nice quips to shut the flamer up/explain in better detail your point....and a few GC homies to back you up aren't bad, either...right, annie? ;) )
3) attempt to always follow through with rules 1 and 2. we are not perfect, but remember: to have respect is to gain respect.
play nice! :D