“The little dog barks, but the caravan rolls on.” - Arab proverb
Just a general comment here - I’ve been frankly astonished at the speed at which this dam is bursting. I don’t see any way for the forces against gay marriage to prevail anymore; does anyone else? It’s just a matter of time now, and not that much time, either.
Maybe those unenlightened Europeans will have to flee to America to avail themselves of gay marriage. 
I suspect the SF situation will be nipped in the bud by Wed at the latest. It’ll be interesting what the courts decide. The MA situation seems unstoppable. I do expect that some states will adopt constitutional amendments banning gay marriages soon afterwards.
To return to the OP for a moment, there’s a good article on SFGate this morning about the process that the Mayor went through before making his decision. He did consult gay leaders throughout the country, and some of them urged him not to go ahead with issuing the licenses now. I’m impressed that he came up with the idea after watching the State of the Union, because I had a similar reaction. I felt sick when I heard Bush say he wanted to outlaw same-sex marriage, but I couldn’t think of what I could do about it. Gavin Newsom was in a position to do something, and he had the courage to take action.
SV:
That’s a good article. It’s too bad it doesn’t outline precisely which national political leaders gave him the thumbs out and which gave him a thumbs down (the only one detailed, Frank, was of the thumbs down variety). Looks more like it was an effort to inform others of a decision he had already made.
Nothing wrong with that, in and of itself. And perhaps Newsom felt that, as mayor, his most effective way of challenging the law was to issue licenses. It would have been nice, however, to see if he had considered challenging the law directly in the courts rather than just breaking it at his first opportunity. What’s kind of surprising is that it doesn’t seem that anyone has brought the CA “DoMA” to the courts since 2000 when prop 22 passed. Maybe some have tried and been unsuccessful, but I did a search before I started this thread and I didn’t come up with anything.
I apologize, Dewey. It wasn’t fair for me to do that, and I won’t do it again. Peace!
It certainly managed to draw a great deal of attention to this issue, both statewide and nationwide. If he was a good little law abiding mayor who “exhausted every legal avenue” I seriously doubt we’d even be talking about him right now in this thread.
Yep. Everyone who squawked against the decision in Lawrence said this was the next shoe to drop, and it sure as heck was. And now even the polygamists are trying a similar argument.
Back to the original question, I doubt the SF gay marriage thing is going to be an election issue. I do think the Mass. gay marriage thing is going to be a big issue, though, for a couple of reasons. First, in Mass. you have unelected judges ordering elected legislatures to pass laws (whereas in San Fran, it is an elected official making the call). There is a very compelling argument to make that this is terribly undemocratic and it amounts to 9 unelected judges in Mass. trying to set state law for the entire country despite the elected will Mass. and the other states. Second, Kerry is from Mass., and he’s going to have some explaining to do about what he thinks about this, why he’s now in the “marriage is between a man and a woman” camp (and his flip-flop, given he voted against Defense of Marriage Act – how’s that liberal Dems for a more craven political move?). Third, lets face it, I don’t think anyone in the country would expect anything less of San Francisco, and I think it probably has less of a potential Constitutional conumdrum under the full faith and credit clause if it is a municipality that is doing something different than if it is a state.
Are you sure you’re a lawyer? They “ordered” nothing; out of judicial restraint they actually held back from enforcing a right in order to *allow * the Lege to act. Please read the decision.
Sure, Rove will try to use it against Kerry, in a sneering, well-poisoning way, and kerry knows it, and that’s why the first thing he says when asked is that he has exactly the same position as Dick Cheney (who has a lesbian daughter, remember).
The technical niceties of Full Faith and Credit won’t gather much attention, either - the overall question for most who pay attention to it will be over the morality of allowing gay marriage vs. the morality of discrimination.
Kerry hasn’t flip-flopped that I know. His position is:
- no gay marriage
- full gay civil unions
- it’s basically an issue for states to decide individually
Just because you are confused by that for some reason doesn’t make it a flip-flop. Looks like you got taken in by a false story. How does that make you feel about those who fooled you?
http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2004_02_08_archive.html#107656099795297489
I have now. You’re right. They basically struck down the “man and a woman” part of the marriage laws on Constitutional grounds, and then stayed the decision to let the Legislature act accordingly (although what exactly the Legislature could do face with that decision is perhaps why it was reported as being an “order” since it’s pretty clear that the Supremes in Mass. are now telling the legislature they have to pass gay marriage laws or pass a Constitutional amendment to overturn their decision – which apparently can’t be done in 180 days, if the press accounts are right).
You mean Dick “corrupt Halliburton palm-greasing plutocrat” Cheney, right? Given that Kerry has exactly the same position on authorizing military action against Iraq as Bush, and the same position on passing the Patriot Act as Ashcroft, I’m not sure that’s going to help him a whole lot in shoring up the liberal base…
And as you can see from the positions staked out by both Bush and Kerry, they both currently seem to agree on the morality of discriminating against same sex marriage. If Kerry holds firm on that, maybe it isn’t an election issue, except Kerry’s going to have a hard time selling himself to those who differ with him and Bush on the morality of allowing gay marriage.
For this honor I nominate Senator Edmund G. Ross (R-Kansas). He cast the lone vote in Andrew Johnson’s impeachment trial that prevented removal of the president from office. It was his political suicide.
As for the OP, it’s just phenomenal how quickly the surge to marry in San Francisco has snowballed. Looks like a regular Stonewall II. The constitutional amendment is a crock of shit. It gives local politicos in the Bible Belt a chance to posture without actually requiring them to do anything, because it will never get anywhere. Blalron, as usual, has an astute view on this issue. It’s just like interracial marriages before Civil Rights. There was vehement, violent opposition to Civil Rights, if you recall, but nothing could ultimately stop the movement once it got going.
Whether this will help or hurt the cause in the long run, in the short run it’s doing the City and/or County of San Francisco some good. According to CNN…
Let’s see. Discounting Thursday’s marriages to allow some margin of error, six hours a day on Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday is 1440 minutes. With a $95 application/license fee, that comes out to $136,800.
Any cities out there in need of a quick cash boost?
Once people actually begin to see gay marriage as a real event, and not just some scary moral boogeyman that the far right conjures up as the downfall of western civilization, they will realize it’s just the same as normal marriage.
Once the ball gets rolling, it’s going to be hard to stop it. It’s one thing to not allow gays to get married in the first place, it’s another thing to take it away from them once they’ve already had it. Who wants to yank a marriage license away from two lesbians in their 80s who’ve been together for five decades?
I don’t think so. Whether you agree with gay marriage or not, I predict that all the SF marriages will be declared null this week. In fact, you can already argue that they are null since the state is not registering them.
The situation will be quite different in MA, where the court is ordering gay marriages to be allowed.
Whether or not the bold actions of the SF mayor cause a backlash against gay marriage nationwide, I can’t help but shout out a hearty “HUZZAH!” as the second significant volley is fired in the Gay Rights movement of the 2000’s. In the long run, this has to be a good thing. In the short run, I have no idea. Perhaps the nation will be plunged into a 60’s-esque turmoil as pro-gay-rights and anti-gay-rights folks clash in courthouses, in offices, on the streets. I hope that supporters don’t let the momentum die anytime soon; IMHO, now is the time to be loud and forceful until full equality before the law is achieved. Gay marriage is being de-exotified (thank you, old lesbian couple), and hopefully it can be de-evilized in the minds of fence-sitting Americans, as well. I am not sure if the SF mayor’s actions were the most sound strategically, but what’s done is done, and the snowball must keep snowballing, even if the struggle prompts some violent backlash (are there any KKK-style groups that focus on gay people?).
My main concern with the SF situation is that this may scare swing voters into voting for Bush…
i guess my main concern now is for the people who received the licenses. i hope that the vast majority of them didn’t expect to get a true marriage in the eyes of the state, with all the benefits befitting such an agreement. it would suck to have 2000 couples disappointed like that. i hope the major motivation was to make a statement, and to put a human face on the gay marriage saga.
and boy what a statement they’ve made! 2000 couples by the end of today, according to CNN’s projections. i can’t imagine who could’ve predicted this, but if anyone in the city government did, i’m beginning to see some motivation.
from CNN:
quite a demand spike. get some money for the city and draw attention to a big social issue, not a bad deal.
I’ve seen quite a few couples interviewed (it’s on the local news all the time) and none seemed to have allusions that the license was iron-clad legal. There are quite a few out-of-staters, too, btw.
The cat is out of the bag, and society hasn’t ended.
While the legality of these marriages is sure to be challenged this week, the whole thing has definitely made me happy. It is much easier to deny a person the right to marry than it is to look at a couple of 50 years, and tell them that you are now going to take away their marriage from them. So much, when it comes to the legitimacy of gay relationships hinges on the government recognizing gay marriage (and I do not mean in a religious sense), and the only real way for us to be able to truly ever be more than fringe members of society depends on this.
While Newsom’s methods may be questioned by some, the ultimate goal here is to touch off conversation about gay marriage, and debate about it. It is much harder to debate against gay marriage after over 1700 gay and lesbian couples have been married, and society didn’t end.
In the end, I think the marriages in San Francisco are going to benefit the movement. While it may galvanize the resolve of people who are against gay marriage, seeing married couples, who will now be fighting to have their marriages recognized, will only help the cause.
I’ve seen several news sources saying that the AM judicial ruling today has been postponed by the judge involved until Friday. No indication concerning the reason given for the delay. There is another court hearing that is supposed to take place at 2PM today. Stay tuned…
indeed, that is the case. from cnn:
there are also a lot more quotes from newsom, it seems. i wonder if we’ll ever hear the real reasons he’s doing this. but it seems like all the people involved are having a great time of it. maybe they just like being spotlighted by the country.
forgive me if i have problems believing everyone in politics in a given region is noble. but it seems to be going well so far.