Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Same-Sex Marriage Advocates Respond to Injunction
Protest on courthouse steps following Supreme Court injunction halting gay marriages.
Same-Sex Marriage Advocates Respond to Injunction
2688 same-sex couples on the waiting list to be married in San Francisco City Hall will have to wait until at least late May or early June to exchange vows legally in California. That is when The City will argue that it did not exceed its authority in refusing to enforce existing marriage statutes by marrying 4161 couples since it began issuing same-sex marriage licenses one month ago. The Supreme Court voted unanimously to halt the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses yesterday in response to two pending cases against The City, although there was no move to nullify already-issued licenses. Gay marriage advocates responded with a rally at Harvey Milk Plaza that proceeded to march to the Supreme Court steps in protest, but Mayor Newsom stated in a press conference following the injunction that the right to gay marriage is protected by the Equal Protection Amendment of the constitution. “The system is working” he said, “This interim stay is the next phase. I’m looking forward to arguing this case so that same-sex couples can enjoy the same basic rights as my wife and myself.”
Dale Schrodel and Lisa Honig were the last couple to be married before the County Clerk was ordered by Newsom to cease issuing licenses. Standing in City Hall with their daughter, they were happy that they made the deadline, but expressed regret for the couples that would now be denied. “This marriage is a political statement,” Schrodel said, “We’ve been together for 14 years and we’ve been married in our hearts for a long time, but it’s sad that other couples won’t get equal treatment.”
With blue skies and temperatures climbing towards 80 degrees, March 11 would have been a beautiful day to get married, but for Pali Cogren and Jenne Rizzo the nuptials would have wait. Their marriage was scheduled for 3 p.m., but a notice had been posted on the door of the County Clerk only moments before making them the first to be denied. Shocked, but determined, they hugged under the rotunda, and vowed to continue the battle. “It’s not about being on the threshold,” Cogren said, “It’s about all the people behind us. We aren’t getting relief from the pain of discrimination and we’re not going away.”
Although Newsom is confident that The Supreme Court will uphold The City’s stance, hundreds of people converged upon the intersection of Market and Castro Streets around five o’clock in a flash rally to protest the injunction. Under the ubiquitous rainbow banner, the fervently chanting protesters paraded down Market towards downtown, as bystanders cheered and waved from balconies and storefronts. A vanguard of police cleared the path for the crowd, whose overall mood seemed jubilant, despite the day’s setback. Nearing the courthouse steps, the din grew to a roar as Molly McKay of Marriage Equality California took the bullhorn and unleashed a tirade against the injunction, discrimination and President Bush’s proposed anti-gay marriage amendment. Amongst the sea of candles and “votetoimpeach.org” pickets came passionate shouts of compliance in response to McKay’s speech. “Let’s take this passion and fighting spirit and be love warriors!” she shouted.
When McKay introduced a gay couple from Boulder whose marriage had denied that afternoon, the crowd chanted “Marry them now!” Wearing matching tuxedos and purple leis, Ross Ladouceur and Stuart Sanders exchanged tearful vows of faith and devotion before locking lips amidst a flurry of flashes and cheers. Chants of “Spouses for life” consecrated this legally unrecognized union, before spontaneous renditions of “Stop in the Name of Love” and “What the World Needs Now” erupted in unison.
“I consider myself to be married now,” Sanders said. “We might not have a piece of paper from city hall, but if two drunk idiot in Vegas can get married by Elvis at three in the morning, why can’t we?”
Assemblyman Mark Leno then explained the parallels between the current battles for sexual-orientation equality in marriage with the struggle that mixed-race couples experience during the 1960’s, until such unions were legally-recognized by California in 1968. Other speakers raised immigration and financial benefits issues before yielding the steps to the Gay and Lesbian Choir. There were no counter-protesters at this rally.
(for larger format pictures see http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/03/1673204.php)
2688 same-sex couples on the waiting list to be married in San Francisco City Hall will have to wait until at least late May or early June to exchange vows legally in California. That is when The City will argue that it did not exceed its authority in refusing to enforce existing marriage statutes by marrying 4161 couples since it began issuing same-sex marriage licenses one month ago. The Supreme Court voted unanimously to halt the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses yesterday in response to two pending cases against The City, although there was no move to nullify already-issued licenses. Gay marriage advocates responded with a rally at Harvey Milk Plaza that proceeded to march to the Supreme Court steps in protest, but Mayor Newsom stated in a press conference following the injunction that the right to gay marriage is protected by the Equal Protection Amendment of the constitution. “The system is working” he said, “This interim stay is the next phase. I’m looking forward to arguing this case so that same-sex couples can enjoy the same basic rights as my wife and myself.”
Dale Schrodel and Lisa Honig were the last couple to be married before the County Clerk was ordered by Newsom to cease issuing licenses. Standing in City Hall with their daughter, they were happy that they made the deadline, but expressed regret for the couples that would now be denied. “This marriage is a political statement,” Schrodel said, “We’ve been together for 14 years and we’ve been married in our hearts for a long time, but it’s sad that other couples won’t get equal treatment.”
With blue skies and temperatures climbing towards 80 degrees, March 11 would have been a beautiful day to get married, but for Pali Cogren and Jenne Rizzo the nuptials would have wait. Their marriage was scheduled for 3 p.m., but a notice had been posted on the door of the County Clerk only moments before making them the first to be denied. Shocked, but determined, they hugged under the rotunda, and vowed to continue the battle. “It’s not about being on the threshold,” Cogren said, “It’s about all the people behind us. We aren’t getting relief from the pain of discrimination and we’re not going away.”
Although Newsom is confident that The Supreme Court will uphold The City’s stance, hundreds of people converged upon the intersection of Market and Castro Streets around five o’clock in a flash rally to protest the injunction. Under the ubiquitous rainbow banner, the fervently chanting protesters paraded down Market towards downtown, as bystanders cheered and waved from balconies and storefronts. A vanguard of police cleared the path for the crowd, whose overall mood seemed jubilant, despite the day’s setback. Nearing the courthouse steps, the din grew to a roar as Molly McKay of Marriage Equality California took the bullhorn and unleashed a tirade against the injunction, discrimination and President Bush’s proposed anti-gay marriage amendment. Amongst the sea of candles and “votetoimpeach.org” pickets came passionate shouts of compliance in response to McKay’s speech. “Let’s take this passion and fighting spirit and be love warriors!” she shouted.
When McKay introduced a gay couple from Boulder whose marriage had denied that afternoon, the crowd chanted “Marry them now!” Wearing matching tuxedos and purple leis, Ross Ladouceur and Stuart Sanders exchanged tearful vows of faith and devotion before locking lips amidst a flurry of flashes and cheers. Chants of “Spouses for life” consecrated this legally unrecognized union, before spontaneous renditions of “Stop in the Name of Love” and “What the World Needs Now” erupted in unison.
“I consider myself to be married now,” Sanders said. “We might not have a piece of paper from city hall, but if two drunk idiot in Vegas can get married by Elvis at three in the morning, why can’t we?”
Assemblyman Mark Leno then explained the parallels between the current battles for sexual-orientation equality in marriage with the struggle that mixed-race couples experience during the 1960’s, until such unions were legally-recognized by California in 1968. Other speakers raised immigration and financial benefits issues before yielding the steps to the Gay and Lesbian Choir. There were no counter-protesters at this rally.
(for larger format pictures see http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/03/1673204.php)
For more information:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/03/167320...
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Hi,
I was there last night and I just wanted to say that despite the Chronicle's story, there were at least 800 or more people at the rally and march and NOT 200 like they and other news outlets have been reporting.
Also, out of that number there was ONE person holding a "gavin rules" sign who conveniently marched in the front, probably strategically.
Please don't think that all of us queers are big sweethearts of Gavin just because he got behind the gay marriage issue. There are many issues that we disagree very strongly with him about and are constantly confronting him about.
I was there last night and I just wanted to say that despite the Chronicle's story, there were at least 800 or more people at the rally and march and NOT 200 like they and other news outlets have been reporting.
Also, out of that number there was ONE person holding a "gavin rules" sign who conveniently marched in the front, probably strategically.
Please don't think that all of us queers are big sweethearts of Gavin just because he got behind the gay marriage issue. There are many issues that we disagree very strongly with him about and are constantly confronting him about.
would all you patriarchical homos with your "Gavin Rules" signs please stick to some liberal mainstream web site. hey, not all queers are part of your little self-obsessed campaign for mainstream rights, especially when you laud someone that is anti-poor like Gavin Newsom, wake up, hello, heard of economic justice as well???
If please go home had read the post above his/hers s/he would have seen that we don't all like Newsom. In fact, several editors of this site have a strong dislike of him cuz of his anti-poor work. Many of us view marriage as a tool of the system of property relations that it came out of. But I have to admit that the site of all those people getting to do the same thing that opposite-gender couples did was really sweet.
I think it's ok to say, ok, as a new mayor he did one good thing, but that doesn't mean that we should not keep an eye on him.
I think it's ok to say, ok, as a new mayor he did one good thing, but that doesn't mean that we should not keep an eye on him.
A slip of the situational tongue that says so much.
Indeed, Gavin Rules. Now for his next trick...
Indeed, Gavin Rules. Now for his next trick...
Putting down gay couples because we want our marriages legalized, purportedly because all marriage is necessarily "patriarchal" and merely a "property" relation is no different than the religious right-wingers who ALSO try to claim that gay marriage is wrong AND that marriage is some frozen, olden-time institution that hasn't changed or can't change. Attention christofascists and Indybigots: Marriage is not now what it once was, and gay marriage will continue the evolution of marriage into a nurturing and positive force.
MY gay marriage isn't oppressive.
Your homophobia IS.
MY gay marriage isn't oppressive.
Your homophobia IS.
Our questioning of the marriage thing, as an idea or as a priority, isn't oppressive-- your middle-class privilege is.
"Questioning" marriage? You denounce my marriage.
And I denounce you right back, with your mind polluted with christofascist bullshit.
You can try and use class as a "respectable" weapon with which to bash gays--but it's not going to work. Gays of all classes are second-class citizens in Americunt.
And you are part of the problem.
And I denounce you right back, with your mind polluted with christofascist bullshit.
You can try and use class as a "respectable" weapon with which to bash gays--but it's not going to work. Gays of all classes are second-class citizens in Americunt.
And you are part of the problem.
You wish I were denouncing your marriage, it feeds your persecution complex. Meanwhile, your community already denounced me-- when it backed a vicious slashing of GA, in the face of skyrocketing rents, coupled with a police response to homelessness in the Castro, and backed that up with political support of Gavin Newsom.
Your little grandstand here doesn't impress me. Any sign that you've lifted finger one for anyone else's human rights or civil liberties but your very-little-own, well, for that I might step back.
But no, you merely defend your privilege by denouncing those who articulate it, that's your sword. Your shield is your self-perpetuating sense of victimization. Not much of a model for liberation, is it?
But then, that's not what this is really about.
Your little grandstand here doesn't impress me. Any sign that you've lifted finger one for anyone else's human rights or civil liberties but your very-little-own, well, for that I might step back.
But no, you merely defend your privilege by denouncing those who articulate it, that's your sword. Your shield is your self-perpetuating sense of victimization. Not much of a model for liberation, is it?
But then, that's not what this is really about.
So you don't denounce gay marriage? But you do? But you don't?
Slippery. Nice.
You have no idea what gay persons have done in our lives to help others. Not that it should matter--do you ask what the homeless have done for you? Of course not.
You "question" gay marriage because half the gay voters in SF went for Newsom, and you don't like Newsom's policies on homelessness...it's like guilt by distant association--*like* that, but actually more: you just don't like gays.
Slippery. Nice.
You have no idea what gay persons have done in our lives to help others. Not that it should matter--do you ask what the homeless have done for you? Of course not.
You "question" gay marriage because half the gay voters in SF went for Newsom, and you don't like Newsom's policies on homelessness...it's like guilt by distant association--*like* that, but actually more: you just don't like gays.
Aagain, you wish. I'm more likely to denounce, say, the unelected, unaccountable nature of gay "community" leadership, and the in fact antidemocratic nature of same. In particular, it tends to be dollar-appointed and otherwise-unaccountable (cf the "community center" meltdown-disaster), and it picks real loser issues, like gays in the military and gay marriage. The class privilege thing is underlying. Your tiresome rhetoric makes sure it never comes up. That's why I will bring it up again and again.
You like to rely on the ad hominem attack, where instead of engaging the points of debate, you attempt to smear your opponent as an individual, specifically by calling me (in this case) homophobic and/or self-hating. This is particularly pathetic in that you have no idea who I am or what my identity or experience is.
But anything to avoid facing the fatal flaws in your strategy, agenda and/or "community." Just the same way the Castro demonizes the homeless to cover its own spiritual vacuum and failure of values. So sad, it could have been different.
You like to rely on the ad hominem attack, where instead of engaging the points of debate, you attempt to smear your opponent as an individual, specifically by calling me (in this case) homophobic and/or self-hating. This is particularly pathetic in that you have no idea who I am or what my identity or experience is.
But anything to avoid facing the fatal flaws in your strategy, agenda and/or "community." Just the same way the Castro demonizes the homeless to cover its own spiritual vacuum and failure of values. So sad, it could have been different.
Do you make a point of opposing anti-discrimination movements in general, or only this gay one?
Clearly, you don't support equality for middle class gays, or gays who voted for Newsom, or gays period. But you are wrong in your flimsy reasoning. Two lesbians of color who are just barely making it--are they struggling for equal rights only out of "middle class privilege?" No, they'd see your homophobic faux-class war rhetoric for what it is: part of the problem.
We want equality. You may choose not to get married, but being single is not a choice for us as long as we don't have freedom of choice in the first place. Which doesn't bother you any, apparently, since you only seem to support freedom to choose as long as every choice conforms with what YOU would want for yourself (and thus for others). And you accuse ME of selfishness?
You have issues with gays because we don't do any more for the homeless than straights do? And you would passively aid and abet the coercive dissolution of my marriage in order to punish me and my spouse for the way half of this city's gay voters went in the last election?
No wonder homelessness is your pet issue--they simply can't reject you like I can.
Clearly, you don't support equality for middle class gays, or gays who voted for Newsom, or gays period. But you are wrong in your flimsy reasoning. Two lesbians of color who are just barely making it--are they struggling for equal rights only out of "middle class privilege?" No, they'd see your homophobic faux-class war rhetoric for what it is: part of the problem.
We want equality. You may choose not to get married, but being single is not a choice for us as long as we don't have freedom of choice in the first place. Which doesn't bother you any, apparently, since you only seem to support freedom to choose as long as every choice conforms with what YOU would want for yourself (and thus for others). And you accuse ME of selfishness?
You have issues with gays because we don't do any more for the homeless than straights do? And you would passively aid and abet the coercive dissolution of my marriage in order to punish me and my spouse for the way half of this city's gay voters went in the last election?
No wonder homelessness is your pet issue--they simply can't reject you like I can.
> Do you make a point of opposing anti-discrimination movements
> in general, or only this gay one?
As I've said repeatedly, my main issue is with the so-called leadership, and with social hypocrisy. Why do you insist on replacing that with "movement in general"? I believe that's the "straw man" logical fallacy.
> Clearly, you don't support equality for middle class gays, or gays
> who voted for Newsom, or gays period.
Clearly I don't think what's going on is going to achieve it. What I really don't support is the priority, nor do I trust the leadership on this one, again, as I've said repeatedly. And again, you change the issue in order to dodge it. Again, straw man logical fallacy.
> But you are wrong in your
> flimsy reasoning. Two lesbians of color who are just barely
> making it--are they struggling for equal rights only out of "middle
> class privilege?" No, they'd see your homophobic faux-class war
> rhetoric for what it is: part of the problem.
Entirely theoretical. Get back to me when you find some real poor people fighting for this issue. Better yet, let us know when the "community" gets a vote on it.
Hey, about 4000 gay couples got married [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/03/12/state1556EST0105.DTL], in a city where a third of so of a populaiton of about 800,000 might be gay. Um..... the masses arent exactly voting affirmative with their feet, are they?
That's not an appeal to popularity argument against gay marriage (which would be a logical fallacy), but rather, I am reduced to relying on inferior evidence that this is not really a high priority for those the leadership claims to ostensibly be serving. It's not like anything even remotely objective like community polling, or voting, was conducted before this campaign was launched. Though we do get to vote for the gay emperor. Go figure. That is a critique, but it only matters insofar as democracy does. And without democracy, what kind of movement is it, hmm?
Your logical fallacy: you (apparently) entirely made up a case, which would be antecdotal anyway, and then tried to use it as proof of some body of opinion somewhere.
> We want equality. You may choose not to get married, but being
> single is not a choice for us as long as we don't have freedom of
> choice in the first place. Which doesn't bother you any,
> apparently, since you only seem to support freedom to choose as
> long as every choice conforms with what YOU would want for
> yourself (and thus for others). And you accuse ME of selfishness?
Straw men are a type for you? I am not dictating your choices, nor did I say I wanted to. I am and do want to question the social basis of the privilege you are apparently insistent on defending at all cost to anyone else. As for the selfishness, that is a social critique of a) those priorities, and b) their social perception, and c) their effects, both direct and "collateral."
Why do you insist on personalizing that?
> You have issues with gays because we don't do any more for the
> homeless than straights do?
Straw man. See above.
> And you would passively aid and
> abet the coercive dissolution of my marriage in order to punish me
> and my spouse for the way half of this city's gay voters went in
> the last election?
Straw man. See above.
> No wonder homelessness is your pet issue--they simply can't
> reject you like I can.
I don't need your acceptance to raise a valid critique. Your public enjoyment of the privilege of accepting or rejecting people speaks volumes about your class bias. Like it or not, that's an issue-- especially when that economic might of yours is used against others, either by you or your leadership. From the same above-cited Chron article:
"On the contrary, Newsom says his decision on gay marriage has actually strengthened his hand in city government. He reorganized the police department command and cut hundreds of city jobs -- decisions that would have been much harder to accomplish without such political cover.
And more tough choices lay ahead -- he may have to reduce city spending by another $300 million or so."
Like the fella said, "Gavin Rules."
> in general, or only this gay one?
As I've said repeatedly, my main issue is with the so-called leadership, and with social hypocrisy. Why do you insist on replacing that with "movement in general"? I believe that's the "straw man" logical fallacy.
> Clearly, you don't support equality for middle class gays, or gays
> who voted for Newsom, or gays period.
Clearly I don't think what's going on is going to achieve it. What I really don't support is the priority, nor do I trust the leadership on this one, again, as I've said repeatedly. And again, you change the issue in order to dodge it. Again, straw man logical fallacy.
> But you are wrong in your
> flimsy reasoning. Two lesbians of color who are just barely
> making it--are they struggling for equal rights only out of "middle
> class privilege?" No, they'd see your homophobic faux-class war
> rhetoric for what it is: part of the problem.
Entirely theoretical. Get back to me when you find some real poor people fighting for this issue. Better yet, let us know when the "community" gets a vote on it.
Hey, about 4000 gay couples got married [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/03/12/state1556EST0105.DTL], in a city where a third of so of a populaiton of about 800,000 might be gay. Um..... the masses arent exactly voting affirmative with their feet, are they?
That's not an appeal to popularity argument against gay marriage (which would be a logical fallacy), but rather, I am reduced to relying on inferior evidence that this is not really a high priority for those the leadership claims to ostensibly be serving. It's not like anything even remotely objective like community polling, or voting, was conducted before this campaign was launched. Though we do get to vote for the gay emperor. Go figure. That is a critique, but it only matters insofar as democracy does. And without democracy, what kind of movement is it, hmm?
Your logical fallacy: you (apparently) entirely made up a case, which would be antecdotal anyway, and then tried to use it as proof of some body of opinion somewhere.
> We want equality. You may choose not to get married, but being
> single is not a choice for us as long as we don't have freedom of
> choice in the first place. Which doesn't bother you any,
> apparently, since you only seem to support freedom to choose as
> long as every choice conforms with what YOU would want for
> yourself (and thus for others). And you accuse ME of selfishness?
Straw men are a type for you? I am not dictating your choices, nor did I say I wanted to. I am and do want to question the social basis of the privilege you are apparently insistent on defending at all cost to anyone else. As for the selfishness, that is a social critique of a) those priorities, and b) their social perception, and c) their effects, both direct and "collateral."
Why do you insist on personalizing that?
> You have issues with gays because we don't do any more for the
> homeless than straights do?
Straw man. See above.
> And you would passively aid and
> abet the coercive dissolution of my marriage in order to punish me
> and my spouse for the way half of this city's gay voters went in
> the last election?
Straw man. See above.
> No wonder homelessness is your pet issue--they simply can't
> reject you like I can.
I don't need your acceptance to raise a valid critique. Your public enjoyment of the privilege of accepting or rejecting people speaks volumes about your class bias. Like it or not, that's an issue-- especially when that economic might of yours is used against others, either by you or your leadership. From the same above-cited Chron article:
"On the contrary, Newsom says his decision on gay marriage has actually strengthened his hand in city government. He reorganized the police department command and cut hundreds of city jobs -- decisions that would have been much harder to accomplish without such political cover.
And more tough choices lay ahead -- he may have to reduce city spending by another $300 million or so."
Like the fella said, "Gavin Rules."
Dear allies & fellow queers,
If anyone cares to present their ideas in a civilized manner, without ridiculing fellow activists, they're invited to do so at the new "SaveFreedom" Yahoogroup.
Even non-members can post.
However, we had to stop allowing attachments; after some homophobe sent an attachment which contained a virus.
Shave Bush in November!
Tortuga Bi LIBERTY
for SUN & for SaveFreedom
Saturday, 13 March 2004
If anyone cares to present their ideas in a civilized manner, without ridiculing fellow activists, they're invited to do so at the new "SaveFreedom" Yahoogroup.
Even non-members can post.
However, we had to stop allowing attachments; after some homophobe sent an attachment which contained a virus.
Shave Bush in November!
Tortuga Bi LIBERTY
for SUN & for SaveFreedom
Saturday, 13 March 2004
For more information:
http://pages.prodigy.net/seniornude
Thank you MHM.
I also get tired of the folks who hide their hatred (and many times self-hatred) of queers behind a thin veil of being more "radical" or more to the "left". The poster with whom you are replying to reminds me of a certain group (or groups) in SF who claim to be radical but whose main actions consist of harrassing and attacking lesbians and gays. It's sad to see so many folks who claim to fight against racial injustice, sexism, classism, poverty, destruction of the environment, cruelty against animals, etc. just turn around and so freely bash lesbians and gays. I don't really think they are the majority in those movements, but I think often times their voice gets heard above the others.
Thank you for being a defender for our rights and for recognizing a queerhater when you see one.
I also get tired of the folks who hide their hatred (and many times self-hatred) of queers behind a thin veil of being more "radical" or more to the "left". The poster with whom you are replying to reminds me of a certain group (or groups) in SF who claim to be radical but whose main actions consist of harrassing and attacking lesbians and gays. It's sad to see so many folks who claim to fight against racial injustice, sexism, classism, poverty, destruction of the environment, cruelty against animals, etc. just turn around and so freely bash lesbians and gays. I don't really think they are the majority in those movements, but I think often times their voice gets heard above the others.
Thank you for being a defender for our rights and for recognizing a queerhater when you see one.
So there are two seperate things I see going on here.
One is that people are attempting to link Newsom and the issue of gay marriage.
People who like Newsom have a semi-legitimate reason to do this since he did go out on a limb by supporting gay marriages and while it helps him politically in local elections it would hurt him if he is aiming for higher office in the near future (although he could be betting it will help in the longer run, that says something positive about Newsom in that he sees gay equality struggle as inevitable because of its moral clarity). But support by Newsom for gay marriage doesnt reflect at all on the morality of his homeless policies, development policies etc... There are many leaders who may have socially liberal policies on one issue but be extremely conservative when it comes to other issues; just look at Tony Blair, Libertarians, or even people like Pim Fortuyn who were racist but for gay rights.
People who oppose Newsom's housing policies are likely to oppose Newsom no matter what he does, so I think some of the flame war like aspects of this debate comes from there. Just because Newsom may not care about teh poor doesnt make gay mariage a middle class issue. Libertarians would be worse when it comes to economic issues than Newsom, but many Libertarians take good stands on things like war, the Patriot Act etc... Just because one doesnt like or trust a person doesnt make everything they do bad.
There is a second issue that seems more open to debate and I can't tell if its being argued here out of principle or just due to the politics surrounding Newsom. Marriage as an institution is problematic and the focus on marriage by the gay rights movement is something certain leaders have chosen as an issue even though for many people there are more pressing issues. From a strictly pragmatic standpoint gay marriage is a human rights issue and not restricted to the middle class. Full marriage rights would bring with it benefits relating to immigration, child custody, and health coverage to partners. These benefits are not restricted to the middle class. But one could come up with similar arguments about gays in the military; the military is very working class, provides economic benefits etc... but its easier to see why people dont want to focus on "gays in the military" as their major gay rights issue of focus when many gay rights activists oppose the actions of the US military. The same problems come up with marriage but they are a little harder for many people to see. Ties between immigration and marriage allows one member of a relationship to have a power over a relationship that can turn opressive ("if you break up with me you will lose your ability to get a green card or citizenship...") Ties between healthcare and marriage only exist because we dont have universal healthcare and also means that a divorce can result in an end to coverage from the more economically disadvantaged member of a relationship. And then there is the issue of marriage in general. The idealization of finding Mr or Mrs Right with a big wedding becoming a goal that can for many be more important than real compatibility, isnt healthy. Much of the promarriage arguments come from the religious right but one now hears repeated by the gay rights movement.
But, even if one disagrees with whether gay marriage should be the main issue of the gay rights movement, that doesnt mean one should dismiss the secondary gains that would come from a win on this issue. Gay marriage is now a test of the clout of the religious right and getting same sex marriages recognized will make a statement about both broader rights for the LGBT community as well as a statement on whether religious fundamentalists should be allowed to dictate laws. If the issue in the papers were adoption by same-sex couples, laws against discrimination based of sexual preference, or even the election of a high level openly gay politician, the gains could easilly just be as high, but gay marriage has now been turned into the main issue by the far right and that makes it the issue that must be won to prevent them from gaining more power.
One is that people are attempting to link Newsom and the issue of gay marriage.
People who like Newsom have a semi-legitimate reason to do this since he did go out on a limb by supporting gay marriages and while it helps him politically in local elections it would hurt him if he is aiming for higher office in the near future (although he could be betting it will help in the longer run, that says something positive about Newsom in that he sees gay equality struggle as inevitable because of its moral clarity). But support by Newsom for gay marriage doesnt reflect at all on the morality of his homeless policies, development policies etc... There are many leaders who may have socially liberal policies on one issue but be extremely conservative when it comes to other issues; just look at Tony Blair, Libertarians, or even people like Pim Fortuyn who were racist but for gay rights.
People who oppose Newsom's housing policies are likely to oppose Newsom no matter what he does, so I think some of the flame war like aspects of this debate comes from there. Just because Newsom may not care about teh poor doesnt make gay mariage a middle class issue. Libertarians would be worse when it comes to economic issues than Newsom, but many Libertarians take good stands on things like war, the Patriot Act etc... Just because one doesnt like or trust a person doesnt make everything they do bad.
There is a second issue that seems more open to debate and I can't tell if its being argued here out of principle or just due to the politics surrounding Newsom. Marriage as an institution is problematic and the focus on marriage by the gay rights movement is something certain leaders have chosen as an issue even though for many people there are more pressing issues. From a strictly pragmatic standpoint gay marriage is a human rights issue and not restricted to the middle class. Full marriage rights would bring with it benefits relating to immigration, child custody, and health coverage to partners. These benefits are not restricted to the middle class. But one could come up with similar arguments about gays in the military; the military is very working class, provides economic benefits etc... but its easier to see why people dont want to focus on "gays in the military" as their major gay rights issue of focus when many gay rights activists oppose the actions of the US military. The same problems come up with marriage but they are a little harder for many people to see. Ties between immigration and marriage allows one member of a relationship to have a power over a relationship that can turn opressive ("if you break up with me you will lose your ability to get a green card or citizenship...") Ties between healthcare and marriage only exist because we dont have universal healthcare and also means that a divorce can result in an end to coverage from the more economically disadvantaged member of a relationship. And then there is the issue of marriage in general. The idealization of finding Mr or Mrs Right with a big wedding becoming a goal that can for many be more important than real compatibility, isnt healthy. Much of the promarriage arguments come from the religious right but one now hears repeated by the gay rights movement.
But, even if one disagrees with whether gay marriage should be the main issue of the gay rights movement, that doesnt mean one should dismiss the secondary gains that would come from a win on this issue. Gay marriage is now a test of the clout of the religious right and getting same sex marriages recognized will make a statement about both broader rights for the LGBT community as well as a statement on whether religious fundamentalists should be allowed to dictate laws. If the issue in the papers were adoption by same-sex couples, laws against discrimination based of sexual preference, or even the election of a high level openly gay politician, the gains could easilly just be as high, but gay marriage has now been turned into the main issue by the far right and that makes it the issue that must be won to prevent them from gaining more power.
I understand that marriage in the past was a far more oppressive institution than it is today. Women basically vowed to obey their husbands, lost their property rights, and even lost their names. It's a mistake to overlook the reforms, however, that have taken place within the institution of marriage itself: no-fault divorce has allowed women the choice to flee abusive and loveless marriage; women can own their own property (making divorce a de facto possibility and not merely a wistful dream); etc.
Consider is this: queers are seeking to reform marriage even further, into a more inclusive institution. And the coming reform isn't only going to take place at the barricades put up to block us from entry--gay marriages are going to be much more equitable, *are* already more equitable, in the division of labor and the diffusion of power. As more straights see equitable gay marriages, it will be harder and harder for a man to demand fealty from his wife because "that's what women are for," or "that's women's work," or whatever trite phrases men have used to press their wives into service in the past. She can simply say "I know men are perfectly capable of an equitable marriage because I see it everyday with that gay couple next door, so get up off your ass and do it yourself!"
The negative aspects of traditional marriage are going to continue to be reformed to suit modern couples, and gay marriage is another reform that is long overdue.
Consider is this: queers are seeking to reform marriage even further, into a more inclusive institution. And the coming reform isn't only going to take place at the barricades put up to block us from entry--gay marriages are going to be much more equitable, *are* already more equitable, in the division of labor and the diffusion of power. As more straights see equitable gay marriages, it will be harder and harder for a man to demand fealty from his wife because "that's what women are for," or "that's women's work," or whatever trite phrases men have used to press their wives into service in the past. She can simply say "I know men are perfectly capable of an equitable marriage because I see it everyday with that gay couple next door, so get up off your ass and do it yourself!"
The negative aspects of traditional marriage are going to continue to be reformed to suit modern couples, and gay marriage is another reform that is long overdue.
[snip]
"Moving out of the runoff, there were expectations that there were going to be hostilities between the board and the mayor. But I think the gay marriage issue has caused some of that factionalism to diminish,'' said pollster David Binder, a veteran observer of San Francisco politics.
Binder said Newsom's actions have caused his onetime critics to rethink his "play it safe, don't take chances, downtown, traditional'' image. "I think the progressives on the board are re-evaluating their relationship with the mayor."
The mayor's move to challenge the state prohibition on same-sex marriages scored points with liberals on the board and helped his public approval rating in the city reach 69 percent, according a recent Binder poll. Newsom won the mayor's race with 53 percent of the vote.
[snip]
On Thursday, the California Supreme Court shut down the wedding march in San Francisco pending further judicial review, moving the debate away from City Hall and into the courthouse.
[snip]
"I assume there are going to be bigger tests to come,'' Binder said.
And one of the biggest will come by June 1, the deadline for Newsom to present his proposed annual budget for board consideration.
Newsom and the board must erase a $300-million-plus deficit while weighing the needs and desires of the business community, organized labor and everyday constituents who use city services. In years past when money was tight, the fights have turned nasty.
Then there's the continuing debate over housing -- where to build it, how to fund it and for whom.
There's the forthcoming supervisors races in which seven of the incumbents will face voters, and Newsom will decide whether to back them or others.
And there's a possible showdown this spring over appointments to the Police Commission, with the board poised for the first time to confirm or reject the mayor's picks.
"We haven't really engaged yet,'' Daly said.
Newsom said he's well aware of that.
"We're entering the third month -- that's it -- not the third year,'' he said of his nascent administration. "This has just begun.''
E-mail Rachel Gordon at rgordon [at] sfchronicle.com.
Page B - 1
©2004 San Francisco Chronicle
full story at:
"Moving out of the runoff, there were expectations that there were going to be hostilities between the board and the mayor. But I think the gay marriage issue has caused some of that factionalism to diminish,'' said pollster David Binder, a veteran observer of San Francisco politics.
Binder said Newsom's actions have caused his onetime critics to rethink his "play it safe, don't take chances, downtown, traditional'' image. "I think the progressives on the board are re-evaluating their relationship with the mayor."
The mayor's move to challenge the state prohibition on same-sex marriages scored points with liberals on the board and helped his public approval rating in the city reach 69 percent, according a recent Binder poll. Newsom won the mayor's race with 53 percent of the vote.
[snip]
On Thursday, the California Supreme Court shut down the wedding march in San Francisco pending further judicial review, moving the debate away from City Hall and into the courthouse.
[snip]
"I assume there are going to be bigger tests to come,'' Binder said.
And one of the biggest will come by June 1, the deadline for Newsom to present his proposed annual budget for board consideration.
Newsom and the board must erase a $300-million-plus deficit while weighing the needs and desires of the business community, organized labor and everyday constituents who use city services. In years past when money was tight, the fights have turned nasty.
Then there's the continuing debate over housing -- where to build it, how to fund it and for whom.
There's the forthcoming supervisors races in which seven of the incumbents will face voters, and Newsom will decide whether to back them or others.
And there's a possible showdown this spring over appointments to the Police Commission, with the board poised for the first time to confirm or reject the mayor's picks.
"We haven't really engaged yet,'' Daly said.
Newsom said he's well aware of that.
"We're entering the third month -- that's it -- not the third year,'' he said of his nascent administration. "This has just begun.''
E-mail Rachel Gordon at rgordon [at] sfchronicle.com.
Page B - 1
©2004 San Francisco Chronicle
full story at:
For more information:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...
the incessant newsom-hating in this thread begs the question: why? is it because he's handsome, popular, surprisingly liberal, and world-famous? is it because his agenda is going forward, as the voters expected it would when they elected him?
is it because he is marsha brady and you're just plain old jan?
is it because he is marsha brady and you're just plain old jan?
people have many different opinions do they not? well i am only a high school student but i strongly support same sex marriages . If any one has any new information about his topic i ask that you please email it to me, you see i writing about this topic in english and any new, news will help... and if i may ask who is GAVIN????
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$75.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network