San Francisco weds first gay couple

[College_geek]

This is an opinion article that was in the Massachusetts Daily Collegian yesterday that I found noteworthy.



Gay marriage is not at fault


by Andrew Merritt
February 17, 2004



It's time to recognize the fact that all the critics of same-sex marriage are right. The value and sanctity of the institution of marriage is being threatened, and in some cases torn down, by a problematic, virulent force nobody is really willing to talk about.

The hitch? They're attacking the wrong target. Two men, or two women, who want to get married to each other, are in no way destroying the importance or relevance of marriage. On the contrary, two people who love each other, and want to signify that love by legally and spiritually committing themselves to one another for life is exactly the point of marriage, and the very reason it is so special.

But there is a social problem with marriage, an element of society that is ruining the sacredness of matrimony. And you have probably taken part in it.

The problem is on our television screens a dozen times a week.

It began with the highly watched, heavily anticipated "The Bachelor" show. The plot was simple: take one rich, improbably good-looking man, and have him whittle a list of women down to one who he liked a lot. Then, they go off and get engaged, married, and have a happily-ever-after life together.

Pop culture was enraptured. Television viewers across the country waited with bated breath to see who the lucky fella would eliminate next. They would become attached to some of the "contestants," a meat-market group of suitors who the man would hardly know when it came time to choose the woman with whom he'd spend the rest of his life.

It didn't stop there. Next, there was another installment of "The Bachelor," and then "The Bachelorette," to give a jilted woman from one of the first shows a shot at her own dream guy. Even worse, the concept grew in its morbid, cruel use of marriage and love as a ratings weapon.

Possibly the worst of all of these shows was "Married by America," where you, the lucky viewer, got to screen some poor schlub's choices for a mate, and then vote off the island the suitors you just didn't like so much. It's hard to tell what was more pathetic here: that someone would leave his or her fate up to the idiots gawking on prime-time TV at home, or that enough people actually watched the show to make it noteworthy.

Before we go on, it's important to note that a basis for "Married by America" is the arranged marriage, which is popular in countries that have likely never thought of the idea as something to put on TV. Don't get me wrong, I'm not even close to bashing that tradition. The bastardization of that tradition, though, well, that's fair game.

Of course, as is always the case in television development, one idea became the basis for a million spin-offs, some successful (see "Joe Millionaire"), some not so successful and all a travesty against the tradition and importance of marriage.

And now, a new spin: The ABC show "Extreme Makeover" recently featured a couple from Ipswich, Mass. who, before getting married, wanted extensive plastic surgery done to fix all of their superficial flaws. While I have no right to tell these people they shouldn't have had plastic surgery - if they're disappointed with their looks, and have the means, go for it - it is troubling that their lives prior to the procedure were depicted as sad and unfulfilling, and then after the work was done, their wedding was presented as a triumphant event. And it certainly was, but only because they were so gosh darn good looking. The minister who presided over the ceremony became a game show host, anxiously describing the "big reveal" that has become the climax of every "Extreme Makeover" episode.

It's all enough to make you want to forget marriage altogether.

Full disclosure: I am an only child, and my parents were divorced when I was three years old. As a result, marriage has had a different meaning for me than I suspect for others. It has become more important than almost anything in life. Marriage is, in my humble opinion, the most amazing, honorable, admirable thing two people in love with each other can do. And when I see that it is being degraded to the point that a coiffed, tanned TV host is guiding a woman's hand through the hole in a frosted-glass partition, so that a complete stranger on the other side can slide a ring onto it, I feel incredibly betrayed.

We have lost touch with what is special and holy about marriage. We have lost our connection to what makes the ring important. It doesn't matter how pretty the other person is, or whether or not they also like opera. It should be up to nobody but the two people getting married to make the decision. And yet, we watch. We give the networks reason to sell ad space. We cross our fingers and close our eyes, just praying that Trista will pick the right guy, the guy we like more than the other guy, who was somehow better than the other 40 shallow, fame-hungry participants in this carnival of depravity.

All this, while the divorce rate in the United States reaches an abominable number, predicted to be as high as 50 percent by the U.S. Census Bureau. While that number isn't entirely perfect, it does suggest an alarming trend. The true assailant of the American marriage is not same-sex unions, same-sex marriage, or any semantic variation. It is the powerful and harmful aspect of our culture that has degraded marriage to the point that it can be exploited on television.

That two people are so in love with each other that they want to get married is enough for me. And it is a disturbing hypocrisy that one of the leading voices in the anti-gay marriage conflict are religious groups, when the highest divorce rates come from marriages between two religious people. We must stop attacking the idea of same-sex marriage, because it has absolutely the same value as an opposite-sex marriage. We must refocus our criticisms on our own culture, which allows the manipulation of marriage to run rampant enough to make the idea of matrimony fodder for sweeps week.

Material from Americans for Divorce Reform was used in this column.

Andrew Merritt is a Collegian columnist.

 

[69forever]

As court mulls, gays wed

A judge may decide as soon as Friday whether to stop San Francisco's rush of gay marriages.

By Mark Sappenfield | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

SAN FRANCISCO - For the past week, the broad granite steps of San Francisco's City Hall have stood like a finish line to gay and lesbian couples from every corner of the United States.

They have come by the thousands to line up in the rain of a raw northern California winter - in a blocks-long gathering that is part street festival, part civic protest. All in the hope of exchanging wedding vows beneath the hall's gilded dome - and in defiance of state law.

In truth, though, the conclusion to their dream lies not here, but just across the road. It's there, in California's conservative-leaning Supreme Court, that this audacious challenge to the traditional notion of the American family is likely to be decided.

The outcome will not only affect those who have flocked to wed, but it will also the shape the national conversation on what may be, at present, the most divisive issue in American society.

The first step toward a court decision could come Friday, when a local judge considers whether to stop San Francisco from issuing marriage licenses to anyone but a man and a woman.

"The California Supreme Court is going to have to resolve this question," says Erwin Chemerinsky, a law professor at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. "So long as the California courts decide this is an issue of California law, the United States Supreme Court won't get involved."

California is hardly the only state dealing with such issues. As states across the nation consider gay marriage - or constitutional amendments to block it - the focus as of early last week was on Massachusetts, where the state's highest court says the state constitution permits gay marriages. But by the end of the week, as San Francisco was issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples at Mayor Gavin Newsom's order, Massachusetts lawmakers had decided to postpone deliberations on possible constitutional amendments. Thus, for the moment, California stands at the epicenter of the controversy.

Since San Francisco began offering marriage licenses to same-sex couples last Thursday, two conservative groups have separately asked courts to step in and stop the city. Responding to one of the requests, a judge asked the city to stop, but didn't make his order binding, meaning that the city could continue until its next court date on March 29. That leaves Friday's hearing on the other request, which could immediately stop the city.

Some legal experts suggest that San Francisco's decision to grant marriage licenses to same-sex partners will crumble in the state's highest court. Others argue that the city is using the same tactic that worked in Massachusetts. The case essentially turns on two opposing views of the California Constitution. On one hand, a proposition overwhelmingly adopted by state voters in 2000 declares that only marriages between a man and a woman are valid in California. But San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom contends that same-sex couples are afforded the right to marry under the equal-protection clause of the state constitution.

"It's a perfectly plausible and respectable legal argument," says Jesse Choper, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley. "The question is whether it is a winning one."

Mr. Choper has his doubts. Six of seven high court justices were appointed by Republican governors, and tend to be more conservative than the justices in Massachusetts. Still, Choper points to the momentum of the Massachusetts ruling - along with US Supreme Court's recent decision to strike down an anti-sodomy law in Texas - as a sign that anything is possible.

"The decision about Texas last year gives [San Francisco] a leg to stand on - not two legs," he says. "But you never know."

Other legal scholars, however, insist that the state Supreme Court will reject San Francisco's claim emphatically. It's not because San Francisco's argument is unsound, but rather its methods. The state alone has legal authority to recognize marriages, not cities. Therefore, the current case could come down to an issue of authority, not equality.

"This is simply an issue of state versus local authority, and the state wins," predicts Gerald Uelman, a law professor at Santa Clara University.

Then there's the broader question of which side benefits in public opinion from San Francisco's move. Actions like Mayor Newsom's possibly could galvanize opposition to gay marriage nationwide.

"If our democracy and republic are to survive, the rule of law on marriage must be protected," said Randy Thomasson of Campaign for California Families, one of the groups suing San Francisco, in a press release. "All people have worth in God's eyes, but marriage is only for a man and a woman."

Among some in the gay-rights community, there are concerns about moving too fast. But to others, the new sense of urgency both in San Francisco and nationwide represent an opportunity for change.And the fact that a heterosexual mayor staked his political future on a gay cause is a watershed event - even in liberal San Francisco.

Indeed, the scenes that have unfolded in and around the great gray box of City Hall have been nothing short of giddy. State Rep. Mark Leno, backer of a new same-sex marriage bill, showed up one night with grilled snacks.

Inside, more than 2,600 couples have wed. Vicki Zettler came on the first day. Her partner instant-messaged Ms. Zettler at work when she heard the news: Do you want to get married? By the afternoon, they were waiting in the foyer of the city clerk's office, keeping tabs on their license, the parking meter outside, and their place in history. says Zettler: "I didn't think this would happen in my lifetime."

 

[69forever]

Bush is up against the ropes with the renewed projections of the economy and joblessness looking bleaker by the week.

As shown in the results from the Wisconsin Primary, even moderate Republicans have had enough and crossed over, voting for Edwards.

The occupation of Iraq is turning into (duh?) a protracted guerrilla war reminisent of Viet Nam, with the body count in the media a dailey reminder of the human loss. Guardsmen mostly, the social and political affects are shaking local communities into the reality of the folly in pursuing Bush's vendetta.

The San Fransico challenge of the same sex marriage law comes at a critical political moment. With everything else going to hell politicallly for him, Bush chose yesterday to address the issue with a proposed constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage.

I believe this move of desperation will backfire on his administration. There will be the fundamentalists who line up behind it, but all in all, there are more pressing issues that the American people are dealing with every day. We have him by the balls.

 

[College_geek]

Bush is up against the ropes with the renewed projections of the economy and joblessness looking bleaker by the week.

there are more pressing issues that the American people are dealing with every day.

Seriously. There are so many issues that deserve more thought and attention than banning same-sex marriages. Instead of worrying about that, maybe he should worry about all the unemployed people and the people still stationed in Iraq. Oh, I know! If we ban gay marriages, it will be a trickle-down effect, miraculously creating new jobs and bringing everyone home!

 

[Pookie]

Seriously. There are so many issues that deserve more thought and attention than banning same-sex marriages. Instead of worrying about that, maybe he should worry about all the unemployed people and the people still stationed in Iraq. Oh, I know! If we ban gay marriages, it will be a trickle-down effect, miraculously creating new jobs and bringing everyone home!

I personally believe it is an effort by Bush to shore up the "social conservative" voters. They have been pushing him hard to take a stand for the proposed constitutional amendment. Bush's poll numbers right now are not very good for an incumbent. He can't afford to lose any votes with what looks to be a close election.

 

[Pookie]

Schwarzenegger: Gay marriage licenses illegal

Friday, February 20, 2004 Posted: 11:32 AM EST (1632 GMT)


(CNN) -- California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced that the marriage licenses San Francisco is issuing to same-sex couples are illegal, after the city sued the state over a law banning such marriages.

"The marriage certificates submitted to the Department of Health Services by the city and county of San Francisco fail to meet legal standards," Schwarzenegger said in a statement on his Web site.

San Francisco on Thursday filed a lawsuit against the state of California, challenging the state law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman only, the city attorney's office said.

The suit came a week after newly elected Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered the county clerk to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Nearly 3,000 couples have taken advantage of it, despite the filing of two lawsuits to stop the practice.

San Francisco's city attorney Dennis Herrera said his city and county are "going on the offense" with the lawsuit. "Mayor Newsom took a bold step last week, and we fully agree with him that his position is justified,"

Herrera said the city's case will assert that the state law banning same-sex marriage goes against California's constitution because it violates the equal protection and due process clauses.

Schwarzenegger's statement said California citizens generated, and passed, Proposition 22 -- the marriage law -- and it will be defended.

"The attorney general has assured me that he will vigorously defend the constitutionality of the law in the case brought against the state by San Francisco," the governor's statement said.

Herrera said he hopes to consolidate the cases against same-sex marriage pending against the city with the city's lawsuit against the state. A hearing on that matter is scheduled for Friday at 11 a.m. PT (2 p.m. ET).

"I would anticipate that this case is going to have a long life," Herrera replied when asked about the national ramifications of the city's move.


Separate suits

One of the suits against the city was to resume in San Francisco County Superior Court at 2 p.m. PT (5 p.m. ET) Friday. Judge Ronald Quidachay had continued the case from Tuesday.

That lawsuit was filed by the Campaign for California Families and the Alliance Defense Fund, which contend the city's issuing of same-sex marriage licenses violates current state law. They asked the judge to stop the practice immediately.

A separate suit, filed by the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund, was continued until March 29 to allow city attorneys time to prepare to show cause as to why Newsom's action is allowable.

Across the street from the Superior Court is City Hall, where lines of people snaked out the front door and down the steps as gays and lesbians from inside and outside the state hurried to get their relationships validated in the eyes of the law.

Newsom has said that marriage between same-sex couples is "inevitable" and that anything less is "fundamentally wrong."

Almost two-thirds of Americans do not think same-sex marriages should be recognized as legally valid, according to a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.

But the 1,006 people polled on Monday and Tuesday were almost split over whether individual states or the federal government should determine laws regarding marriages between gays or lesbians.

President Bush Wednesday repeated his belief that marriage should be restricted to heterosexual couples, adding that he was "troubled" by what was happening in San Francisco.(Full story)

Supporters of same-sex marriage say denying gay and lesbian couples marriage licenses denies them basic rights.

"We're talking about state inheritance, we're talking about state property issues, we're talking about children's issues, we're talking about power of attorney," Ralph Neas, president of the group People for the American Way, said.

Critics of same-sex unions say those rights can be afforded through other means, and homosexual couples don't need a marriage certificate to validate them.

Genevieve Wood, vice president of the Communications Family Research Council, said that redefining marriage might be a slippery slope.

"There are people out there ... who want to engage in polygamy, they think that's a good family structure. There are others who think that group marriages are a family structure," Wood added.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/20/samesex.marriage/index.html

 

[College_geek]

Who ever gave Arnie the idea that he could run a state? And who ever believed that he'd be good at it enough for him to warrant a vote? Now I really know why my friend who used to live in CA was so pissed off when he won.

 

[Pookie]

Results from the hearing this afternoon from msnbc:

Judge denies immediate stay of gay marriages in San Francisco

 

[Pookie]

Calif. judge decides not to halt gay marriages

The Associated Press

Updated: 6:52 p.m. ET Feb. 20, 2004

SAN FRANCISCO - A Superior Court judge in San Francisco has decided not to immediately halt the flood of gay weddings taking place in the city, saying conservative groups failed to prove the weddings would cause irreparable harm.

Conservative groups had taken the case to court Friday in hopes of putting a stop to San Francisco’s gay-marriage spree, which started when Mayor Gavin Newsom opened the floodgates last week.

Two judges had refused earlier in the week to immediately halt the issuance of licenses by the city.

On Friday, a defiant Newsom officiated at the wedding of one of California’s most prominent lesbian politicians in his City Hall office. A crowd of politicians and lawyers gathered for that wedding as others lined up to join the 3,000 same-sex couples the city has allowed to get married so far.

While most Americans remain opposed to same-sex marriages, a new poll out Friday showed that sympathy for allowing gays to marry has risen by 6 points over the past four years, to 44 percent. Fifty percent of Californians remain opposed.

 

[Pookie]

More from the hearing:

The conservative group argued that the weddings harm all Californians who voted in 2000 for Proposition 22, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

The judge suggested that the rights of the gay and lesbian couples appeared to be more substantial.

“If the court has to weigh rights here, on the one hand you are talking about voting rights, and on the other you are talking about equal rights,” Quidachay said.

Quidachay consolidated the Campaign for California Families’ lawsuit against the city with one filed by another conservative group, and told lawyers for both sides to work out between themselves when the next hearing would be held.

 

[Pookie]

ACLU and Gay Rights Groups Praise Court’s Decision to Permit San Francisco to Continue Granting Marriage Licenses To Same-Sex Couples

February 18, 2004

Next Hearing is Scheduled for March 29, 2004

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

SAN FRANCISCO – In a tremendous victory for gay and lesbian rights, a San Francisco Superior Court judge issued an order on Tuesday permitting the City of San Francisco to continue issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Since February 12, more than 2,700 same-sex couples have obtained marriage licenses in San Francisco. The court also granted a request to intervene on behalf of five gay and lesbian couples that are represented by the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), Lambda Legal, and the ACLU of Northern California (ACLU).

“This is a watershed moment in the struggle for equal marriage rights,” said Kate Kendell, Executive Director of NCLR. “As San Francisco Mayor Newsom and City Assessor Mabel Teng have rightly concluded, the California Constitution requires equal treatment of lesbian and gay couples.”

NCLR, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU are representing four gay and lesbian couples who were married in San Francisco as well as a same-sex couple that plans to marry. The groups argue that “excluding same-sex couples from the right to marry violates the equal protection and due process provisions of the California Constitution.”

Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, who are 83 and 79, were the first same-sex couple to get married on February 12, 2004 and are being represented by NCLR, Lambda Legal and the ACLU. “We have waited 51 long years for this day, for the right to get married,” said Martin and Lyon. “We’ve been in a committed and loving relationship since 1953 and we are thrilled that other same-sex couples will now have the same opportunity and rights as all married couples.”

“Two people in a loving relationship who have made a commitment to each other should not be denied the right to marry simply because their partner is of the same sex,” said Tamara Lange, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California. “Denying gay and lesbian couples the right to marry denies these couples of hundreds of important rights, including the right to make funeral arrangements for a partner, to take leave to care for a sick partner, or to be protected against the loss of a family home if one partner must go into long-term care.”

Jon Davidson, Senior Counsel for Lambda Legal in its Western Regional Office, added: "Married couples in San Francisco deserve respect and fair treatment. We will fight vigorously in court to protect their marriages and ensure that other couples continue having access to marriage licenses. While we still have a legal battle ahead, two separate courts have already seen that there's no need to stop what's happening in San Francisco now because there is no emergency and nobody is being harmed." NCLR, Lambda Legal and the ACLU are representing the following couples:

- Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, who are 79 and 83 years old and have been together for 51 years. They obtained a marriage license in San Francisco and were married in a civil ceremony on February 12. If their marriage were invalidated they would lose important rights and protections that are crucial for senior couples to protect themselves, such as the right not to lose their house should one them have to go to a nursing home.

- Margot McShane and Alexandra D’Amario have been together for three and one-half years. Alexandra is currently pregnant with twins. They obtained a marriage license and were married in a civil ceremony on February 12. As they start their new family, being married has given them an enormous sense of security because they know that, if one of them becomes disabled or ill, they will be better able to take care of each other and their children.

- Sarah Conner and Gillian Smith have been together for almost four years. They recently went through the experience of supporting one another through a severe disability and understand the unique protections marriage provides to spouses and surviving spouses at times of serious illness and death. On February 12 they obtained a marriage license and were married in a civil ceremony at San Francisco City Hall

- David Scott Chandler and Jeffery Wayne Chandler are a same-sex couple that have been in a committed relationship for 11 years. They have a son who was born on July 5, 2003. They were expecting twins, but one of the twins did not survive his premature delivery. Because they were not married, instead of being able to grieve for the loss of their son, they encountered painful barriers in arranging their son’s funeral. On February 14,

- David and Jeffery obtained a marriage license and were married in a civil ceremony at San Francisco City Hall.
Theresa Michelle Petry and Cristal Rivera-Mitchel are a same-sex couple that have been together for 12 years. They have a son who is almost four years old. They would like to marry one another.

Geoffrey Kors, Executive Director of Equality California, California’s Statewide LGBT political and lobbying organization, added: “Today, same-sex couples remain free to marry in San Francisco and the public will continue to witness the joy and happiness that these couples experience. As the court case moves forward, the California Marriage License Non-Discrimination Act is being considered by the California Legislature. California is once again demonstrating its leadership on civil rights issues and, in so doing, is sending an important message of inclusion and equality to the entire world.”

For more information about the case and copies of the legal documents visit www.nclrights.org, www.aclunc.org, and www.lambdalegal.org

Source: http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=14997&c=101

 

[Pookie]

California gay weddings to go on

Saturday, February 28, 2004 Posted: 8:00 AM EST (1300 GMT)


(CNN) -- California's Supreme Court has rejected a request from the state's attorney general to stop gay weddings and declare invalid over 3,400 same-sex marriages.

However, the court did agree to consider arguments in the court fight over the licensing of gay and lesbian unions by the city of San Francisco.

Chief Justice Ronald George instead ordered the respondents who oppose the weddings to file legal briefs by next Friday, March 5.

Meanwhile, in New York state on Friday, 21 gay and lesbian couples exchanged vows at a village hall in New Paltz.

Mayor Jason West said he considers it his "moral obligation" to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.

In California, Attorney General Bill Lockyer on Friday asked the Supreme Court to rule on the legality of same-sex marriages. He also requested an immediate injunction to stop them from being licensed in the meantime.

Lockyer told CNN that San Francisco's issuance of same-sex marriage licenses violates state law, which defines marriage as being between one man and one woman.

"The law is clear. Individuals and government entities that object to statutes may work to change them through the legislative or initiative process," Lockyer said in a statement on his Web site.

After the state high court issued its order, a spokesman for Lockyer said the court's action was "not surprising."

"In fact, we're encouraged the Supreme Court has decided to set up an expedited briefing schedule by next Friday because it means the other side will have a chance to give their argument on an expedited schedule," said spokesman Nathan Barankin.

The attorney general said the petition asks the court to instruct San Francisco to "declare as invalid" the same-sex marriage licenses that have already been issued and order the city to immediately stop issuing new licenses to gay and lesbian couples.


Confusion

Lockyer said he was filing the action for another reason: to clear up the confusion same-sex marriage licenses have caused in the state's 57 other counties.

Some county officials have expressed concern about how to apply their policies to gay and lesbian couples with a marriage license.

In an interview with CNN, Lockyer said he opposed the idea of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to define marriage.

"We certainly don't need to do that to resolve this issue in California," he said.

The attorney general refused to reveal his personal opinion about same-sex marriages.

"I have a duty to defend the law. I'm not here as an advocate, I'm not here to offer opinions," he said. "My job is to defend the law. The law says marriage in California is confined to a man and a woman."

The issue was brought to the forefront two weeks ago, when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered the county clerk to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. San Francisco has a consolidated government that functions as both a city and county.

The mayor said the state law actually went against the state's constitution, which does not allow for discrimination.

More than 3,400 same-sex couples have gotten marriage licenses since February 12 at San Francisco's City Hall.

Two lawsuits against the city seeking to halt the marriages and the city's suit against the state have been combined, but no trial date has yet been set.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has called upon the mayor to obey the law.

Schwarzenegger, while saying he was "very much against" same-sex marriage, said he believes "very strongly in domestic partnership rights," which would confer the same benefits on same-sex couples that marriage confers on male-female marriage.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/28/samesex.marriages/index.html

 

[Batch]

Seriously. There are so many issues that deserve more thought and attention than banning same-sex marriages. Instead of worrying about that, maybe he should worry about all the unemployed people and the people still stationed in Iraq. Oh, I know! If we ban gay marriages, it will be a trickle-down effect, miraculously creating new jobs and bringing everyone home!

Trickle down effect...giggles
how about all the plane tickets, wedding rings, hotel bookings, food being sold, the price of the licenses, and what ever else a couple need for a wedding...oh umbrellas and raingear for standing in the rain....
All those lovely people are generating a lot of spending in San Francisco.....okay that aside....


Oh and the evils of getting married:
Let's see people fall in love, get married, buy houses, cars, insurance, groceries together
have children, buy clothes and food for their children
furniture and what ever else houses need

establish credit
pay taxes
hold down jobs.... basically contibute to society as a whole and this equals a bad thing?

Instead of throwing fits about people getting married howabout...
spending all this effort on providing quality child care and affordable education and jobs that are worthwhile to people...
these are important issues also
Much more important then who is allowed to get married or not...
a state law is unjust if it violates a human right...
the right to marry whom ever one wishes to

just my ramblings

 

[Jessalynvix]

Gay Marriage Stalls in Calif., Mass.
By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO - The California Supreme Court halted gay weddings in San Francisco, but only so it can take the time to decide whether they are legal.

Across the country in Massachusetts — where the state's high court has already ruled that gays can marry — lawmakers returned to the Capitol to consider undoing the justices' mandate with a constitutional amendment


California's high court now must decide in May or June whether San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom had the authority to issue same-sex marriage licenses. The city has responded by filing a lawsuit demanding a judge declare the marriages constitutionally permissible, a question that could take at least another year to decide.


"I'm pleased the process is working as well as it is," Newsom said Thursday. "Now we will be getting to the Supreme Court and making our argument."


Minutes after Thursday's ruling, teary-eyed couples were turned away at San Francisco's City Hall, where 4,161 gay weddings have been performed since Feb. 12.


"We were filling out the application and they told us to stop," said Art Adams, who was the first to be denied along with partner Devin Baker. "It's heartbreaking. I don't understand why two people in love should be prevented from expressing it."


The court did not void those marriages, leaving the gay newlyweds in legal limbo.


Newsom's defiance of California law sparked a host of other municipalities across the nation to follow suit.


"They restored order to chaos in San Francisco," said Joshua Carden, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, one of two conservative groups that went to court to block the marriages.


Massachusetts lawmakers ended their impasse Thursday with a recess until March 29, stopping just short of final approval to a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage but make Massachusetts the second state to grant civil-union benefits.


The civil unions provision was little solace to gay-rights advocates, who want lawmakers to uphold the full marriage rights accorded by the Supreme Judicial Court in November.


"For many legislators, prejudice won out over equality," Arline Isaacson, co-leader of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, said after the current version of the amendment survived through three rounds of votes Thursday.


Massachusetts Senate President Robert Travaglini expressed optimism that after weeks of intense debate and failed compromises, lawmakers were headed toward consensus.


"I believe we've overcome significant hurdles to get to this point," Travaglini said. "I would hope that the road gets somewhat smoother and that we have encountered all of the bumps along the way, as of today."


If approved later this month, the constitutional amendment would then proceed to the next step in the convoluted process. It would be submitted to voters for final approval in 2006 at the earliest.


In the interim, the nation's first gay marriages are scheduled to take place May 17, although some legislative leaders have said they would try to block them.


Gov. Mitt Romney, who opposes gay marriage, has said he would seek to delay the issuance of marriage licenses to gay couples until after the voters have weighed in on the amendment 2 1/2 years from now.





While the national landscape has shifted dramatically since lawmakers last convened, with gay marriages occurring across the country and President Bush (news - web sites) endorsing a federal amendment, the spotlight remained on Massachusetts because of its unique status as the only state where the marriages are legal.

"No Hatred. Just loving biblical truth," read posters held by some of the opponents of gay marriage who gathered on the Statehouse steps.

Lynn Tibbets, 50, of Boston, held a sign urging "No discrimination in the constitution."

"It used to just make me mad — the people on the other side. Now it just makes me sad," Tibbets, a financial management consultant, said as she choked back tears.

In other developments Thursday:

_In Wisconsin, the state Senate approved a constitutional amendment early Friday that was earlier passed by the Assembly. If lawmakers approve the legislation again during the January session, it will go before voters on the April 2005 ballot.

_In Kentucky, the state Senate passed a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriages and not recognize civil unions. A similar amendment has been introduced in the House.

_New Paltz, N.Y., Mayor Jason West, who performed 25 same-sex marriages last month, met face-to-face with New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. West, now under a court order to temporarily stop the marriages, had hoped to win over Spitzer, who reiterated his position that state law prohibited gay weddings.

___

Associated Press writer Jennifer Peter in Boston contributed to this report.