First Gay Marriage in San Francisco

[Boston Guy]

San Francisco beats Massachusetts to the gate:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Gay-Marriage-Calif.html?hp

 

BG

[nate_sf]

I was so excited to hear Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon were the first to be married. If anyone's going to become poster children for the cause, I think these fabulous women are the two. 51 years together... it's hard to beat that!

[Boston Guy]

I was frankly astonished when I heard that they were founders of the Daughters of Bilitis. That was so long ago, I guess I had assumed everyone connected with it was long dead.

 

And I agree: we would be hard-pressed indeed to find two more worthy poster children. 51 years, indeed, and pioneers to boot!

 

BG

[Boston Guy]

S.F. defies law, marries gay couples / Lesbian couple first to wed -- constitutional battle looms

 

Phyllis Lyon, 79, left, and Del Martin, 83, embrace after being married at San Francisco City Hall on Thursday. They are the first same-sex couple to be officially married in the United States. Chronicle photo by Liz Mangelsdorf

 

http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/pictures/2004/02/13/ba_gaywed_01_lm.jpg

 

BG

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Longevity

 

There is a long-proven medical certainty about the correlation between having people in your life and good health. Two individuals, in comprable health, of equal age and backgrounds, where one of them is in a relationship, or has close bonds, friendships, nearby and involved family members, or even pets, and the other person does not have these things in his life, one would both out live the other and/or also remain in better health.

[+ Axiom2001]

The symbolism is quite phenomenal, but when will their union become legally acknowledged and recognized?

[+ Axiom2001]

Please don't misconstrue my preceding comment/question. I am definitely for gays in ALL states in these our United States. (a misnomer) to marry and to be extended the RIGHTS that go along with marriage.

 

( another misnomer) "...With liberty and justice for all!"

The line should be: "Striving for liberty and justice for all!"

[Guest]

Well, I wish gay marriage were a reality in the U.S. However, if this action leads to a US Constitutional ammendment prohibiting gay marriage, or to another 4 years of Bush, Jr., will this have been worth it?

[trilingual]

It's time to stop being so fearful. Change is always accompanied by risk, but if we never changed for fear of what might happen we'd still be living in the Stone Age.

 

S.F.'s actions will put the issue squarely before the California Supreme Court and help decide the issue in that state once and for all. California's constitution has very strong equal protection language, and strong precedent that the equal protection under the state constitution is broader and more extensive than in the federal constitution, so the Court may follow the crystal clear reasoning by the Massachusetts court.

 

The California court could also rule that the ban on same-sex civil marriage violates BOTH the federal and state constitutions, throwing the issue into the U.S. Supreme Court. In that case, even if the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the federal constitution doesn't cover the issue, same-sex marriages would remain legal in California under the state constitution.

 

Stay tuned. The road ahead is bumpy (social change in the U.S. in NEVER easy) but in the long run the trend is towards equal rights, and we'll probably live to see the day when same-sex civil marriage is legal in the U.S.

[Candyman]

The best example was on TV the other night when they spoke about the ban on interracial marriage that exisited for so long in this country.

A constutional amendment against gay marriage will be as successful as the 18th amendent was at prohibiting drinking.

[Guest alanm]

I believe that marriage is a civil right for straight and gay couples.

On the other hand, The Democratic Party convention is being held in Boston and Massachusetts Senator John Kerry is the almost certain nominee. Isn't the $100 million dollar Bush has in the bank just for issues like this? I wish that gay marriage have become an issue in the second week of November, 2004 after Kerry is savely elected president.

[trilingual]

But we don't always get to pick when issues come up, so we've just got to deal with it.

 

I hope Kerry will take the (correct) line that marriage and family law are matters that the U.S. Constitution and its framers deliberately and wisely left in the hands of the states, and it's not the role of the Congress or the Administration to interfere with the rights of the states in those matters. He should also state that he opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment because it would turn our existing consitutional system on its head and have the federal government usurp a right reserved to the states ever since the founding of the Republic. He needs to point out that if we start taking away the rights of states to regulate family law, then all other states rights are at risk. That would be using a powerful conservative argument against the conservatives. He should also speak out strongly against amending the Constitution for the purpose of restricting people's rights and discriminating against any particular class of people. Not only have we never done that as a nation, once you do that every other class or group is fair game!

 

(Of course, even though the states currently regulate marriage and family law, they can't do it in ways that violate other provisions of the U.S. Constitution, like the equal protection amendment. That's how the U.S. Supreme Court was able to strike down the anti-miscegenation laws as being unconstitutional. The states have the right to administer their marriage laws as they see fit, as long as the laws are applied equally and do not discriminate against anyone.)

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Pete Wilson/George Deukmejian

 

All of the justices presently sitting on the California Supreme Court were appointed by Republicans, save one. In fact, the majority were selected by Pete Wilson and include, among other "notables," Janice Rogers Brown, who was recently opposed by a number of groups after Mr. Bush nominated for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (which is often a prelude to the Supreme Court - this was the route by which an inexperienced Clarance Thomas was elevated by Mr. Bush's father). Ms. Brown received an unqualified rating when she was nominated in California and has received the lowest possible rating for her current proposed position.

 

It is far more likely that these Supreme Court justices will find no right for gays and lesbian to marry in the State of California.

[eastbayguy]

>The symbolism is quite phenomenal, but when will their union

>become legally acknowledged and recognized?

 

Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin have been out and fighting for our community for >51 years. (They've been a couple that long.) They are the founders of the Daughters of Bilitis, among other achievements. To them, I'm sure that this is deeply symbolic, yet also just a beginning. I have no doubt that they'll fight the good fight for our community until no one is a second class citizen.

 

Frankly, I can't think of any gay couple I'd rather see leading this fight than these two. The picture that BG posted is just incredible. Nearly brought a tear to my eye when I saw it. This is huge. Words fail me.

 

Wow. What a moment.

 

--EBG

[Guest]

>It's time to stop being so fearful. Change is always

>accompanied by risk, but if we never changed for fear of what

>might happen we'd still be living in the Stone Age.

>

 

I'm not arguing that there shouldn't be change. I'm pleading for more gradual change. Start with domestic partnership, and the (U.S.) Permanent Partners Immigration Act. Marriage can wait another generation.

 

>S.F.'s actions will put the issue squarely before the

>California Supreme Court and help decide the issue in that

>state once and for all. California's constitution has very

>strong equal protection language, and strong precedent that

>the equal protection under the state constitution is broader

>and more extensive than in the federal constitution, so the

>Court may follow the crystal clear reasoning by the

>Massachusetts court.

>

The Massachusets and California Constitutions differ. Their Supreme Courts also differ. California's Constitution specifically prohibits same-sex marriage. It was a referendum issue just recently.

 

>The California court could also rule that the ban on same-sex

>civil marriage violates BOTH the federal and state

>constitutions, throwing the issue into the U.S. Supreme Court.

> In that case, even if the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the

>federal constitution doesn't cover the issue, same-sex

>marriages would remain legal in California under the state

>constitution.

>

Well, they won't remain legal under the state constitution, for the reason I alluded to above. As for the U.S. Constitution, although I personally agree that the 14th Ammendment affords us equal protection, I don't think the California Supreme Court will agree, and I feel it's even less likely the U.S. Supreme Court will agree. And if they do, I have little doubt but that there are the votes in the Congress and state legislatures to ammend the U.S. Constitution.

[Doug69]

>San Francisco beats Massachusetts to the gate:

 

The Mayor of San Fransisco belongs in prison for what he did. He has no right to violate the law, no matter how good the intention. The voters of California enacted a law banning the recognition of all marriages other than male-female marriages. The Mayor's order to issue these marraige licenses plainly violates the law.

 

What he did is no different than what Chief Justice Roy Moore in Alabama did. They both think they have the right to violate the law because they know best. It is equally wrong and dangerous in both cases, and it's so interesting to see many of the same people who strongly condemned Judge Moore's violation of the law praise the same conduct by the Mayor here.

 

I am as ardent a supporter as gay marriage as it gets, but the reason why there is momentum for this dangerous Marriage Amendment is because there is a perception that gay people aren't willing to go through the democratic channels in order to convince their fellow citizens that gay marriage is a good idea, and that it is therefore necesssary to amend the Constitution in order to stop these anti-democratic actions to IMPOSE gay marriage, rather than have it enacted democratically.

 

Illegal acts like this Mayor's order - which spit on the rule of law and on the votes of the majority of California citizens - only fuel that perception, understandably so. The lesbians may be cute, but it's a dangerous and destructive course to start violating the law and overriding democratically elected votes just because you aren't able to get what you want through democratic means.

[Doug69]

RE: Pete Wilson/George Deukmejian

 

>It is far more likely that these Supreme Court justices will

>find no right for gays and lesbian to marry in the State of

>California.

 

This may shock you, but not all judges make decisions based on their political preferences. Some make them based on what the law actually is.

 

The Masschuessettes Judicial Court's decision which suddenly found a "right" in the 300-year-old state Constitution for gay people to marry was a 4-3 decision. The 3 judges who dissented are all SUPPORTERS OF GAY RIGHTS, and made clear that they believe gay people SHOULD be able to marry.

 

But that isn't the same thing as imposing that preference on the citizens of Massachuessetes. As those PRO-GAY judges in dissent made clear, the authors of the Mass. Constitution are the SAME AUTHORS of the opposite-sex-only marriage laws, so to conclude that the authors of the Mass. Constitution somehow meant to ban the very same marriage laws that they wrote and enacted is just inane.

 

As they also made clear, gay marriage is a good idea, but one which must be enacted DEMOCRATICALLY. These judges should be given medals. They are pro-gay, liberal, Massachuessettes judges who nonetheless resisted the impulse to abuse their judicial power to force other citizens to accept their views.

 

Contrary to the desires and beliefs of most people on both sides of the political spectrum, that's what judges are supposed to do - say what is in the Constitution (and gay marriage clearly is not), not force other citizens to accept the laws which the judges want.

[+ Lucky]

RE: MA

 

"Masschuessettes"

 

Is this a new singing group?

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Author! Author!

 

(Patiently speaking very, very slowly:)

 

First point: The constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was written by convention. Laws, orders, etc., may be passed by either the senate or house so long "as the same be not repugnant or contrary to this constitution." The authors of the constitution of the Commonwealth and the presenting sitting House or Senate are not the same thing and even if they were, a decision by the House or Senate is not the same as the written constitution.

 

Second point: The Constitution of the State of California has a clearly defined Right of Privacy, unlike most other state constitutions. The voters also passed a "Defense of Marriage" type referendum a few years ago, but the Courts, including the Supreme Court, has long acted to judge the constitutionality of such referendums and is quite comfortable doing so. Notwithstanding that historical role, on a number of well-decided issues, the Justices of the Supreme Court have also taken it upon themselves to interject personal opinion for fact, bias for tradition, and a lack of foundation for statements of law.

[Doug69]

RE: Author! Author!

 

>(Patiently speaking very, very slowly:)

 

That's exactly how you should speak whenever you speak about legal matters, becuase the lack of information you have is exceeded only by the pomposity with which you pontifficate. I don't agree with Woodlawn about very much, but the displays he has put on mocking your legal puffery are almost too cruel for me to enjoy. As he has pointed out, the fact that you sit at home watching Law & Order a lot and that you try to sound like the lawyers you see on that show doesn't mean you know what you are talking about when you talk about legal issues.

 

>First point: The constitution of the Commonwealth of

>Massachusetts was written by convention. Laws, orders, etc.,

>may be passed by either the senate or house so long "as the

>same be not repugnant or contrary to this constitution." The

>authors of the constitution of the Commonwealth and the

>presenting sitting House or Senate are not the same thing and

>even if they were, a decision by the House or Senate is not

>the same as the written constitution.

 

This is totally besides the point, which you missed. The authors of the Mass. Constitution said X, Y, and Z are not permitted. They also wrote laws A, B, and C. In understanding what X, Y and Z in the Constitution mean, it's pretty fucking clear that they don't prohibit A, B, and C, since they same people who banned X, Y and Z also wrote A, B, and C. Do you think they would have outlawed the very laws which they themselves embraced?

 

>Second point: The Constitution of the State of California has

>a clearly defined Right of Privacy, unlike most other state

>constitutions.

 

So what? Even most gay legal advocates don't cite the constitutional "right to privacy" as a constitutional mandate compelling gay marriage.

 

The voters also passed a "Defense of Marriage"

>type referendum a few years ago, but the Courts, including the

>Supreme Court, has long acted to judge the constitutionality

>of such referendums and is quite comfortable doing so.

 

The California Supreme Court has most assuredly not declared that marriage initiative to be unconstitutional. It is thus the law of the State, and this Mayor is acting illegally in ordering the City Clerk's to issue same-sex marriage licenses - just as Roy Moore acted illegally in ordering that monument to remain where it was.

 

Moreover, the same people who enacted the Constitutional Right to Privacy did so when the law was clear that same-sex marriages were not permitted. If they had intended to compel the recognition of gay marriage, don't you think they would have said so?

 

>Notwithstanding that historical role, on a number of

>well-decided issues, the Justices of the Supreme Court have

>also taken it upon themselves to interject personal opinion

>for fact, bias for tradition, and a lack of foundation for

>statements of law.

 

Yes, this is a perfect description of what the Mass. Supreme Judicial Council did when it pretended that the Mass. Constitution requires gay marriage.

[Doug69]

RE: Author! Author!

 

>(Patiently speaking very, very slowly:)

 

That's exactly how you should speak whenever you speak about legal matters, becuase the lack of information you have is exceeded only by the pomposity with which you pontifficate. I don't agree with Woodlawn about very much, but the displays he has put on mocking your legal puffery are almost too cruel for me to enjoy. As he has pointed out, the fact that you sit at home watching Law & Order a lot and that you try to sound like the lawyers you see on that show doesn't mean you know what you are talking about when you talk about legal issues.

 

>First point: The constitution of the Commonwealth of

>Massachusetts was written by convention. Laws, orders, etc.,

>may be passed by either the senate or house so long "as the

>same be not repugnant or contrary to this constitution." The

>authors of the constitution of the Commonwealth and the

>presenting sitting House or Senate are not the same thing and

>even if they were, a decision by the House or Senate is not

>the same as the written constitution.

 

This is totally besides the point, which you missed. The authors of the Mass. Constitution said X, Y, and Z are not permitted. They also wrote laws A, B, and C. In understanding what X, Y and Z in the Constitution mean, it's pretty fucking clear that they don't prohibit A, B, and C, since they same people who banned X, Y and Z also wrote A, B, and C. Do you think they would have outlawed the very laws which they themselves embraced?

 

>Second point: The Constitution of the State of California has

>a clearly defined Right of Privacy, unlike most other state

>constitutions.

 

So what? Even most gay legal advocates don't cite the constitutional "right to privacy" as a constitutional mandate compelling gay marriage.

 

The voters also passed a "Defense of Marriage"

>type referendum a few years ago, but the Courts, including the

>Supreme Court, has long acted to judge the constitutionality

>of such referendums and is quite comfortable doing so.

 

The California Supreme Court has most assuredly not declared that marriage initiative to be unconstitutional. It is thus the law of the State, and this Mayor is acting illegally in ordering the City Clerk's to issue same-sex marriage licenses - just as Roy Moore acted illegally in ordering that monument to remain where it was.

 

Moreover, the same people who enacted the Constitutional Right to Privacy did so when the law was clear that same-sex marriages were not permitted. If they had intended to compel the recognition of gay marriage, don't you think they would have said so?

 

>Notwithstanding that historical role, on a number of

>well-decided issues, the Justices of the Supreme Court have

>also taken it upon themselves to interject personal opinion

>for fact, bias for tradition, and a lack of foundation for

>statements of law.

 

Yes, this is a perfect description of what the Mass. Supreme Judicial Council did when it pretended that the Mass. Constitution requires gay marriage.

[Rick Munroe]

>it's a dangerous and destructive course to

>start violating the law and overriding democratically elected

>votes just because you aren't able to get what you want

>through democratic means.

 

So, does this mean you think Rosa Parks should have given up her seat on the bus to that white man back in 1955?

[Doug69]

>So, does this mean you think Rosa Parks should have given up

>her seat on the bus to that white man back in 1955?

 

Black civil rights activists who engaged in civil disobedience were prepared to pay the price for doing so. Many of them were imprisoned, including MLK. I think the Mayor should be imprisoned, too. Do you?

 

Because we live in a democracy, we have mechanisms in place to enable unjust laws to be changed. That's how most gay rights have been won - not by judicial fiat, but by convincing our fellow citizens that anti-gay laws are wrong. I think that violating the law in a democracy is wrong, and that goes for everyone. Black people aren't exempt from this requirement.

 

Do you think anyone should have the right to violate whatever laws they want as long as they think those laws were unfair?

[+ Oliver]

>Do you think anyone should have the right to violate whatever

>laws they want as long as they think those laws were unfair?

 

Yes, if they are willing to accept the consequences!

 

Oliver

[Doug69]

>>Do you think anyone should have the right to violate

>whatever

>>laws they want as long as they think those laws were unfair?

>

>Yes, if they are willing to accept the consequences!

 

That's the point I made (although it's a little bizarre to talk about someone "having the right" to violate a law as long as they accept the consequences, i.e., go to prison, for it).

 

As I said, the civil rights activists who protested against segregation and Jim Crow laws went to prison for their violations of the law. The Mayor San Fransisco should, too - if it's anything more than a publicity stunt.