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.