Here is an article from the Washington Post:
Gay Couples Rush to San Francisco

This weekend couples are getting married by the dozen in San Francisco.
I was flipping through the channels last night and stopped on a channel that was projecting a crisis atmosphere. The sky was falling. My world felt askew. Then I realized I was spending a rare moment in the so-called no spin zone. And Bill O-Reilly was using a television news format to present his opinion about the world.
While watching I found my views described as those of the anti-Democratic forces of the country.

Among my newly defined peer group is activist judges, a liberal bastioned city (San Francisco of which there is apparently no equivalent of concentrated conservatism to counter, the liberal media conspiracy, and those who hate Judge Roy Moore but will be silent while the Mayor of San Francisco does the same thing by defying the law.

Something hit me when I had my views (which I tend to keep to myself) described as undemocratic. I remembered the dangers of allowing the tyranny of the majority to start dictating our personal behavior by law.

We have rights that our forefathers gave to us. The only way we can lose those rights is to damage our constitution. We can continue on our path to making the United States a progressively free society or we can start building a fundamentalist state.

I have never been against gay marriages but I have never seen a great need for them. This is because I have not walked in the shoes of someone denied by law a basic right. But lately I have been more personally connected to stories where good people cannot adopt a child when our foster systems lose children inside a perilous system, I have seen people denied life insurance because they are homosexual and honest about it.

My opinions in regards to the poll I posted above are as follows.
I do not think this weekend in San Francisco will matter for the long term because I do not think the mayor of a city can change official social policy. But, I hope that this triggers a recognition that the rights of American citizens are impeded when we treat them as second class citizens. It is every bit as wrong as it was with blacks, Asians, and women. Our society cannot allowed tiered citizenship.

I am also worried about this issue because it will allow smoke screen political strategies for the 2004 campaign season. They will go something like, if you vote for the radical liberal democratic party the sky will fall and the moral decline of America will continue because gay marriages will become legal.

However, although my animosity toward our present president is stronger than against any other political leader in my lifetime, I fully support gay marriage rights even if the cost is having bush get reelected. It is the right thing to do. That is why I support what is going on in San Francisco this weekend.

The government does not belong in anyone's bedroom.

What is happening this weekend in San Fran may not do anything but raise awareness of this issue - and that is probably what it was meant to do. I totally support gay rights and hope to see same sex marriages become legal in the very near future.

It is funny to me that the real crusaders of real liberty in this country is now the "liberals"- and that the true haters of freedom are now the "conservatives". Hooray for the mayer of San Fran- he has shown true character in the face of the taliban like regime we now have in this country.

As I have stated in another thread, I support gay marriage. I don't see a reason to call it civil unions unless that is the only way to get these rights and legal protections to these people who are discriminated against currently.

Homosexuals are the only group in this country, other then white males, that can be legally discriminated against. I don't hold much hope for helping white males but we can at least put a stop to the anti-gay bigotry out there.

However, I don't support the actions of the Mayor of San Francisco. I don't because he is a public official defying the law. Instead of working to change the law he is simply defying it. This is not good policy. If it is allowed to go unchallenged it opens the door to alot of public officials to take similar actions on subjects we disagree with.

On the other hand, I like that this will cause a legal action that at least has the potential of addressing the issue. I just hope it doesn't back fire. Regardless of the outcome the Mayor should be sanctioned in some way.

I would like to add something about Bill O'Reilly. If you listen to him. You'll learn that he supports civil unions and supports homosexuals having the same rights and protections as heterosexuals. His issue is with the word "marriage" as he sees this as what holds the issue back. Too many people in the country put too much stock in this word and the tradition associated with it. He has said many times that if the focus of the fight was on civil unions and not "marriage" he feels the majority would support it, or at a minimum, not stand in the way.

O'Reilly has his issues, but in this case he is far from the opponent. I don't get to watch him of TV much but he is on the Radio her in St. Louis and on the radio I have heard him argue this at length.

I am for it because it will weaken the Republican party during an election year.

Fifty percent of conventional marriages fail. I am on my second marriage, and I feel very fortunate. I jokingly describe myself as so heterosexual that I can't even find a good looking man by looking in the mirror. I am very fortunate, my wife finds me good looking.

San Francisco weds gay couples, a story in CNN on line, details the first of the gay marriages.

President George W. Bush is preaching sanctity of marriage and family, and vowing to fight gay marriages. I can see two people here, who are likely to vote for "anyone but Bush" in November. I have been told that 10% of the population is Gay or Lesbian. Perhaps George feels that he can lose a voting bloc that large, perhaps he feels that they will not vote against him based solely on one issue; or perhaps he truly feels that 100% of the voting public, votes according to the Revised Standard Christian Bible as interpreted by the Ayatollah "W."

In what one official described on television as a "giant act of civil disobedience," (I can't find a link) 100's of gay couples got married. The cat is out of the bag. I can't imagine ministers or judges suddenly decreeing that all marriages will be performed in the nude, so as to ensure their legality. The argument is going to be made that a valid license was issued, a valid ceremony performed, and that these couples are now married.

After 51 years together, Phyllis Lyon, 79, and Del Martin, 83, should be accorded legal recognition of their relationship. I can't envision them wanting it annulled 24 hours later, or filing for divorce within a year.

"Defense of marriage" for gay couples who have finally been allowed to marry, will have a much different meaning than for heterosexual couples who have married, then had affairs, separated, divorced, or murdered their partners. It will be a far more meaningful phrase to a segment of the population that has previously been barred from marriage, than to a segment where a large number of people question their decision to marry in the first place. Not all of the couples will have the financial wherewithal to fight City Hall all the way to the Supreme Court. City Hall, having collected $82 per couple for a license, will likely be reticent to refund the money collected, if they fail to defend the marriages in court. In the fight against AIDS, marriage is a weapon which allows the state to test for sexually transmitted diseases before a license is issued. I expect the city to defend what they have done. I expect the couples who have been married to fight to remain married. Part of that fight will involve going to the polls and voting Democratic, or Libertarian, or whatever way they think will get the message across. I told PE this morning, I'd be happy to concede Florida and Texas to Bush in November, if we can only get the other 48 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, etc. to vote Democratic! If George continues to hunt for non-issues to divert attention from the wars, he is going to look more and more like a fool.

Maybe I won't have to concede Florida... Texas, I suspect will still vote to keep him out of the state for another four years.

I have to disagree here. The majority of people who support the right of gay marriage are very liberal and quite likely to never consider voting republican under any circumstances (myself and some others on here being the exception).

However, there are a lot of people who would agree more with the Democrats on many issues but oppose gay marriage. Any of these people who consider this a paramount issue will likely vote Republican if the Media and the actions in San Francisco make it appear to them that this issue is about to be decided.

Consider how many members of Trade unions you know (myself being one of them). How many of them do you know that are homophobic? Of the homophobes how many are anti-gay enough to want to fight things like gay rights? The types that would make being openly gay and working with them on a daily basis impossible.

I think if this issue is pushed to the forefront in this election that the edge will marginally be given to the Republicans. This is based on the fact that the majority of polls I have seen show the small majority of Americans oppose it.

This is an issue that is none of the government's business, and the current Bush is using this to scare heterosexual middle Americans into voting for him. It is dishonest, and those who fall for this ploy are clearly being manipulated once again. If it's not the Taliban or al-Qaeda breathing down our necks, its the Gay Scare and what "they" are going to do to our society. Shame on Bush! Shame on Karl Rove! Let the marriages stand.

I spent over thirty years working in union shops. I can think of two people that I met on the job who were truly homophobic.

One had a gay brother-in-law, and constantly argued that it was his religious duty to someday kill him for being gay.

The other was so homophobic that he refused to drink homogenized milk. He eventually quit the company to go to work for a Seven-Eleven. He felt his chances of getting a promotion were better at the Seven-Eleven.

I remember a discussion in a lunch room thirty years back, following a raid by the police on a homosexual meeting place. The raid netted among other people, a local high school teacher. Someone felt that a homosexual teacher was more likely to make a pass at a student than a heterosexual teacher. The conversation got a bit far afield. A truck driver, waiting for his truck to be loaded, interrupted.


I was in and out of that bldg. throughout my career, and I never heard the subject raised again. One or two truly enlightened comments can easily clear the air on the "threat" created by homosexuals.

In 58 years, I've had to turn down two passes. Both men took no for an answer.

Voted "for" for the following reason:

The two sides of marriage, legal and spiritual, are not very well understood by most people until they are married and subsequently divorce. Getting married is way too easy. Getting divorced is never easy, unless there wasn't any caring in the first place and nobody is overly attached to goods and emotions. Very rare.

I fail to see how gay marriage "threatens" heterosexual marriage. Dick and Jane get married, see? Stuff happens and they fight. Is it over Dick and John down the street?

Never. It's always about expectations, battles of will, struggles over money, the stuff that everyone deals with in relationships.

Anyway, who can judge the spirituality of gay marriage? I dare say that is far beyond the outside observer's ken. It is a blatant act of arrogance to claim knowledge where none exists, and scripture speaks to this condition (judge not etc.). Meanwhile, the civil rights issues are strong arguments to support gay marriage.

So I support the rights of gays to get married, fall into the bizarre fights and behaviors of relationships, divorce, and suffer as everyone else does when these things happen. And of course I support the legalities surrounding properties that are in dispute during divorce or after the death of a spouse. That includes the completely unspiritual issue of child custody.

What's that, egalitarianism? Sure.

Sometimes it takes civil disobedience to start the slow wheels of change moving. I'm excited to see so many people taking advantage of this opportunity to get married.

Yet another reason why I love the city I live in, the best city in the US

I fully support what Newsom did, even if it happens to be completely overturned in the following weeks. By taking a risk, he was able to bring this to the forefront of the court's attention and force a decision. I think, that he may be able to make a case compelling enough to get the marriage ban overturned in California. The best thing about Newsom is that he is a progressive visionary, but has political sense too. He has forced the state's hand, and now they have to make a move. Support in CA is high enough now that they may be compelled to overturn the law.

I sincerely hope that these marriages stand for a few weeks at the very least so maybe people will realize that the sky is not going to fall in when homosexuals get married.

City Hall was indeed pretty decked out this weekend, I wish I had gotten a few pictures.

As an open homosexual, I completely (and astonishingly) agree with this sentiment. I'm all for gay marriage, but the Mayor of San Francisco is breaking California law with issuing marriage licenses for same-sex couples. I was adamantly against former Judge Roy Moore's unlawful displays, and it would be hypocritical of me to praise what the Mayor did in San Fran.

I will advocate equal rights for everyone, but we can't have politicians break laws even if it seems like the right thing to do.

Oh I'm conflicted... maybe someone can help me fix my quandry.

Fargo- there is no quandry here- a judges job is to uphold the law as written- Judge Roy Moore violated his oath- a public elected official is to make law and to uphold the wishes of his constituents- and in some cases, commit civil disobediance against an injustice- such as some elected officials did during the racial civil rights movement.

He has forced this issue to the fore front- and is a true libertarian and hero for doing it!

Ouch - how did you break your quandry?

I'm not familiar with the California State Constitution, but I saw Newsom on CNN this week-end saying that his actions were wholly in accord with that document and arguing, in fact, that preventing homosexuals from marrying was unconstitutional. I doubt he'd be making such statements - or taking such action - if he felt he didn't have at least a compelling argument...

If not, well, I've always been something of a fan of civil disobedience.

Basically, in 2000, California voters passed the Knight Initiative, which declared that same-sex marriage is illegal in the state. Whether or not it is ethical, the voters spoke and decided that gays and lesbians should not be married in the state. Mayor Newsom is going against this legislation and committing an illegal act. While I believe the Knight Initiative is unconstitutional and will eventually fall, what sort of precedent does this set? Mayors are elected officials and should not be allowed to act against the law.

While I was excited for the gay and lesbian couples, and I was pleased to hear that mayor's pronouncement, I fully realize the act is illegal and could land Newsom in a lot of hot water. It's disappointing this has to even be an issue, but until California voters decide to rescind the Knight Initiative, gay marriage is illegal in their state.

This is primarily why I'm fearful for the Federal Marriage Amendment, which will add social policy to the federal Constitution. Most politicians agree that social ideals should be determined by each state's populace. I'm conflicted because I agree with this ideal, but it also prevents me from getting married (the populace of Utah will never vote for gay marriage). Not that I want to marry... but that's not the point. I'd like to have the option to marry that whom I love without being told I can't.

A precedent where legislators ignored their duty to uphold the state's constitution by putting such an Initiative up for a vote.

If some Texas legislator puts up an initiative declaring it illegal for females to vote, and the people approve it, does that make it any less unconstitutional? Does that make the law more important than the constitution?

No.

Females should have the right to vote regardless of the popular vote (for instance, let's say that the population of Texas is 60% male). Just because a majority votes to oppress the minority, that doesn't make it right, legal, or constitutional.

Any public official who defends popularity over constitutionality is a foe of this country and deserves to be exposed for what they really are: a traitor.

This is exactly how to get your case in front of a court for review. You have to break the law to challenge the law.

In this case, the Knight Initiative discriminates against a class of people and the California constitution specifically says this is a "no-no". Since the two positions are in conflict with each other, the case needs to go through the court.

Now, though, there are lots of plaintiffs.

Proposition 22 was 14 words long — "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California." It was passed in 2000 by a 58 to 42 percent margin.

In 2003, the California Registered Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003, was passed and will take effect on January 1, 2005.

The mayor isn't breaking a law by issuing same sex couples a marriage license. He is allowing for something the people of the state of California constitutionally voted against.

I've heard the mayor's actions compared to what Judge Roy Moore tried to do in Alabama - that is dictate his beliefs on the public.

I'd like to see gay marriage in the US, but this isn't the best way to achieve that goal.

I was trying to remember what historical event this civil disobedience reminded me of, and I just read this this morning:

(The Great Valentine Wedding Party By Joel Federman, AlterNet
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17861)


Yes, this does remind me of Rosa Parks' civil disobedience.

This pictures of 3 of the couples in this link made me feel all warm and fuzzy -- and sure that the mayor of San Francisco is doing the right thing.

I wasn't going to jump into this because I've always thought the concept of government-sanctioned marriage is unconstitutional in that fails to provide equal protection under the law by establishing different classes of citizens (and therefore is a violation of the 14th amendment), but that's not the point here, I guess.

However, jenreiautter, you sucked me into this one.

I see one MAJOR difference between Ms. Parks' heroic actions and those of the City employees of San Francisco - Ms. Parks was not a government employee and never took an oath to uphold the laws of her state. The Mayor and the City Clerk did. As far as I can see, when a government employee refuses to follow the laws that the people have created then that means anarchy....doesn't it?

I applaud citizens who stand up to their government when civil rights are being violated. I can not say the same for those working in a representative/governmental capacity. What is the point of having a legislature in California now if a city government is going to ignore the laws that the people asked to be made?

So, let's just abolish the concept of government-established marriages altogether and stop this silliness.

Some good points, Jaime. Although ordinary gay citizens have had little luck in changing policy -- I would hope if I was ever in a situation where the law dictated my civil rights be violated (such as in the PATRIOT act, for example) -- I would hope that if citizen protest were insufficient in making change, that some one who had some power would go out on a limb for me.



I agree -- let's get the government out of the marriage business.

I also understand how the majority can often be incorrect and that's why we live in a Republic and not a true democracy. The government has been set up to prevent a majority from inhibiting a minority's right to life, liberty, and happiness. However, what is to be done when that very government is the one opting to prevent a minority from these rights? Should a Mayor be allowed to just circumvent the will of the public? I'd like to say yes, because I want to see gay marriage legalized in this country. But I don't know if this is legally the way things should go.

I see the point of Newsom rejecting the Knight Initiative on the basis of constitutional law, and it will be interesting to see how this plays out in a court of law. It's disappointing when citizens in a state will pass an unconstitutional bill into law simply because of moral beliefs. I guess this is something the Founding Fathers were fearful of, but our government has allowed it to occur. What should happen? I don't know any more. I think we should look to The Netherlands, Canada, even Germany (GERMANY!) which allows gays and lesbians the right to marry. Their societies have not been destroyed--life went on its merry (or marry) way.

Kudos to Mayor Newsom, but I'm hoping it doesn't backfire and make people even more leary of gay marriage. Oy, my brain is starting to hurt just thinking about the implications of this issue. I'll try to remain partial, despite my overwhelming favor of gay marriage and Newsom's ideals. We can't simply reject laws that are passed because they may be unconstitutional--there's a process which needs to occur. Thankfully, Newsom may have started the events which will lead to the overruling of the Knight Initiative. I just hope it's not setting a precedent that will be harmful to other minorities in the future (whatever they may be).

*edited to add*

By the way, if we really removed government from marriage, would there still be tax benefits for getting married? I can just imagine somewhere down the line, when gay marriage is becoming more mainstream, someone will ask that gays and lesbians be exempt from tax breaks because their "unions" are viewed as non-beneficial to our society (primarily the inability to produce off-spring naturally).

After sitting back and considering the actions of people throughout history I have to say that I can't condemn San Franciscos Mayor for doing this.

Personally, I am not sure it was the best way to go about this, but it certainly will force the issue into the courts, and if necessary the higher courts and ultimate resolution.

The People of America have a history of Civil Disobedience. From this all the way back to the Boston Tea Party. It does have it's place in political debate.

But lets not forget that it is still breaking the law. If, these actions cause legal problems for the Mayor, for example if this is considered a violation of his oath of office then he will have to accept the consequences of this. But his actions have a higher purpose, just as the Boston Tea Party did for our forefathers.

So, I have to change my position I have always supported Gay Marriage, but after some deep consideration, good reading here and some enlightening conversations with my wife and family I realize that his actions are a legitimate tactic.

Just PLEASE remember, Civil Disobedience frequently violates the law (or in this case possibly violates an oath of office). When you choose to engage in this tactic you have to be willing to accept the consequences. If it's breaking the law, then legal action, possibly even jail time. If it's violating an oath of office, then possibly facing censor, impeachment, or resignation are all possibilities.

I support the Mayor, His actions will force this issue toward final resolution. But, there may be consequences for this action and he will have to accept them.

Some possibly good news today. Two judges refused to bar San Francisco from issuing marriage licenses. Looks like the court date for opening arguments is set at March 29th. Story Here

After much thought, I've decided to change my initial disapproval of Mayor Newsom's actions. One of the primary goals of a republic government is to prevent a majority populace from inhibiting the freedoms of minorities. When Californians voted Proposition 22 through, they went against Constitutional law. Governor Schwarzenegger took a similar stance to the one I initially presented--should a government official break laws? However, after reading Newsom's stances (particularly that the California Constitution provides equal rights to all citizens), it would seem that Prop. 22 is actually the problem. Newsom's actions will send the issue to a court of law, where a judge can decide on the legality of Prop. 22 in terms of the Constitution. Since it would seem to prevent equal rights for gays and lesbians, Prop. 22 may be overturned.

When Prop. 22 was allowed on the ballot, it seems the government did not do their jobs. Personal religious and moral biases should not be the determining factor in those who obtain rights. I feel rather sheepish not realizing this very basic fundamental of law, and I'm glad Mayor Newsom understands the contradictory notions of the Constitution and Prop. 22.