Mobilize! Stop Anti-Gay Amendment!

[sam7777]

Sheridan: It's hard to be sanguine when you are the one being discriminated against and marginalized.



What can we hope for in 2006: the remaining 29 states voting in anti-gay ammendments. The republicans don't need the FMA at that point.

_____________________

I still see dead lesbian cliches

[TemperedCynic]

Quote:

---

Sooner or later the religious right is going to ask for something that they just can't get, then comes the meltdown.

---

I'll know when the Right starts melting down in this country when I see the individual religions start to turn on each other because their ideas behind salvation are opposing and have been for milennia. Entropy will strike them; in the meantime, we will fight honorably for what we believe.

---

More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly. Woody Allen (1935 - )

[Gatito Grande]

Quote:

---

What can we hope for in 2006: the remaining 29 states voting in anti-gay ammendments. The republicans don't need the FMA at that point.

---

Not true, sam. Federal law (based on the U.S. Constitution) trumps the state laws (or constitutions). Couples have already legally gotten married in Massachusetts (and if NY accepts them, then de facto same-sex marriage will lawful there, too). Only a U.S. Constitutional amendment can stop challenges to the state laws (on behalf of the already married). Ergo: Stop the FMA . . . by any means necessary!



GG I still don't understand how a Constitutional amendment (state or national) would deal w/ the (already) Constitutional ban on "ex post facto" laws (laws after the fact: can a Constitution change "unmarry" the married? This issue may come up in Massachusetts over the next year or two. Out

[Sheridan]

With the election safely over I suspect the FMA will become one of those things that the Republicans let slide, all the while blaming the Democrats of course. After all if they actually passed it what would they yell about next time? If they really want to improve the sanctity of marriage may I suggest a federal law requiring sobriety tests in Las Vegas wedding chapels? Perhaps Britney Spears would be willing to front the campaign to get it passed...

Willow: ...I have to tell you....

Tara: No, I understand you have to be with the person you l-love

Willow: I am

[sam7777]

Sheridan: Unhappily, the FAM is still one of the main things on their agenda: (posted by Kieli in the Politics thread)

Bush to Seek Gay-Marriage Ban in New Term -Aide



I'd recommend boycotting the haters:

Arkansas

Georgia

Kentucky

Louisiana

Missouri

Mississippi

Montana

Michigan

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Utah

Virginia



Take you vacations and money elsewhere. If you have family there, encourage them to visit you instead. Gays need to hurt the homophoes where it counts in their wallets:

Leaving the United States of Medieval

Quote:

---

For years now I have pushed for a class-action lawsuit against the federal government that demands tax-exempt status for gays and lesbians based on taxation without representation. We are discriminated against federally--Defense of Marriage Act, anyone?--and therefore should not have to support the government until it supports us.



But even that may not go far enough. No, given Louisiana’s recent bigoted vote to amend their state constitution to discriminate against same-sex couples, with 11 other states poised to do the same, it’s time to get a big gay caravan going.



Let’s take Louisiana, the sixth fattest state in the land, according to the CDC’s Obesity Trends report, and the 46th smartest, based on 21 factors, from Morgan Quitno’s annual reference book, Education State Rankings, 2004-2005 (with Mississippi, Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico rounding out the dumbest of the dumb in America). These large, undereducated folks found a way to waddle to the polls right after being deluged by a hurricane to make sure them fags and dykes couldn’t get married.



This is the same state that derives millions of dollars in revenue from the debaucheries that are Mardi Gras, Southern Decadence, etc. It’s home to the Big Easy, a city of sin on a par with Babylon. This bastion of morality has decided that gays and lesbians shouldn’t get married. So, should we boycott Louisiana, following the lead of the Boycott for Equality?



Nope, we should leave.



Yup, it’s time to go. Any gay or lesbian living in any state that bans same-sex marriage or doesn’t offer domestic-partner benefits should be preparing to leave: Sell your homes, move your businesses, transfer your jobs. Get out and stop pouring your larger-than-average disposable incomes into that bigoted state.



Why?



Money. States spend millions trying to attract tourists and businesses. Many take out TV and print ads to lure people to their state to spend money and open factories and headquarters. Some cash-strapped state would certainly welcome the money we gays and lesbians have, and they would be willing to allow same-sex marriage in order to get it.



Let the South band together against gays and lesbians and nonmedieval values. We’ll take our money someplace progressive to buy homes, live our lives.



In fact, along those lines, maybe the Civil War wasn’t such a bad idea. Maybe the South just needs to go. Whether it’s the retirees in Florida costing us the election because they can’t figure out a butterfly ballot (with Mother Nature now intent on destroying every Bush precinct in Florida through her relentless series of hurricanes) or Louisiana’s population overwhelmingly voting for bigotry or the antigay laws and politicians of Mississippi, Georgia, Texas—let them all band together and start their own theocratic, backward, ignorant country.



The United States of Medieval. The Theocratic Union. Whatever.



But I grow weary of these fundamentalist Bible-thumping Neanderthals carrying elections, institutionalizing hatred and bigotry in the name of the Lord, and basically refusing to enter the 21st century. Let them bask in an era when barbers were doctors and the Inquisition sorted out the blessed from the doomed so that God wouldn’t have to bother. Let them claim ownership over religion and profess a theocratic view one step short of Jonestown.



But let them do it without our help.



What makes me even more weary are those gays and lesbians, or those nongays with a sense of civil rights and dignity, who choose to stay in these states and support their evil economies.



“Oh, but that’s giving up,” you say. “What’s next—concentration camps?”



No, of course not. But the only thing politicians care about is money. We’ve got plenty of it, as do those who support our causes. We spend it freely. Our houses are nicer, as are our cars and our clothes. We go to upscale restaurants, support the arts, and so much more. Take us out of Atlanta and South Beach and you’re left with a peach-tree-lined sauna and a barren sandbar. Take us out of New Orleans and you’ve got one dull town.



If we fled, states would respond. Economies of states that welcome gays and lesbians instead of discriminating against us would flourish. And the rest of the states would want a piece of the pie. Suddenly equality wouldn’t be so far-fetched when it came to basic decencies like marriage.



It would take time. And unity. But I don’t know how it hasn’t happened already. Why stay where you’re not wanted? Why fight so hard for so long for so little?



It’s time for a new tactic. How about emptying out those nice, newly gentrified neighborhoods, depriving these communities of our property taxes for schools that most of us will never utilize for our children? How about watching fine restaurants close because they can’t get good help, good management, good chefs, or a steady clientele since all the gays skipped town? How about leaving behind all those jobs and showing employers what running a business is like without our help? From administrative assistants to executives, from hairdressers to physicians—whatever the occupation, it’s time to hang our shingles in states that want us there.



The change will come slowly, but it will happen. Right now it would mean that we’d all have to move to Massachusetts. I’ve lived there--not bad. But in California, come January 2005, I’ll have domestic-partnership benefits that are equal to Vermont’s civil unions, and that’s acceptable for now. So, California and Vermont are fine. In fact, Washington and New Jersey are fine too, because at least they’re trying. The other 45? Iffy at best.



But why should you leave your home? Because your home state doesn’t want you, and it’s time to end the abusive, toxic relationship. Gays are the battered spouses of the states in which they live when that state refuses to recognize their right to love and marry whom they please and grant them equal benefits.



Money--not right or wrong, but money. Not moral or principle, money. Not the sanctity of marriage, money is what it’s all about. We’ve got a lot of it. Let’s start taking it to places that value our taxes and acknowledge us by endorsing our relationships.



Boycotting the economy for one day does nothing. Letting states know that we’re ready to take our money elsewhere will. Will there be states full of bigots and hatred, verboten to gays altogether? There already are; we’re just too stupid or in too much denial to admit it. We’re like Log Cabin Republicans, too dumb to know that the people we hang out with don’t want us around or care about our needs, even if they smile politely at us when they have to. We’re always knocking on the door saying, “You’d better pay attention to us or else!”--or else what? Republicans don’t care about gay Republicans, and states with antigay laws won’t care about their gay citizens unless they are forced to by the courts, or by budgets.



Stop attending events in states that don’t support equality. Forget Mardi Gras, forget Southern Decadence, forget this party or that in South Beach. Move those events, and the revenues they generate, to states that support equality. Make the South and other backward regions the culturally and financially bankrupt wastelands that they are. Take our culture, our art, our dedication as employees, our abilities to be good parents and family members, our disposable income, and our good taste--let’s take everything we can offer to where we’re wanted.



It’s time to get out of the courts and start using the power we really have: our purses. Decrease a state’s tax base, its revenue source, its liquid assets--especially in states that are already in financial tatters (with most states already facing huge deficits)--and the battle would suddenly become a lot more winnable.

---

I'm certainly glad I left Florida and moved to California.

_____________________

I still see dead lesbian cliches

Edited by: sam7777  at: 11/7/04 6:15 pm

[xita]

It's funny about that map is that most of the so called blue states are hardly blue, they're mostly purple. I don't think there's a real blue county in California or the east coast. The rest of the country looks pretty purple to me, except Texas and the midwest, that looks far more republican to me. I don't think a boycott would help anything, might as well call for secession. I say we all move to Texas and likely really red places and make a change. Except, I've lived in texas and I didn't like it lol. There must be liberals who love texas and they all can't live in Austin.

- - - - - - - - - - -
"Trust is a risk masquerading as a promise."

Edited by: xita  at: 11/8/04 7:24 am

[maudmac]

I can't say I'll never leave the South. But Karel's classist, elitist, judgmental South-bashing isn't what would convince me to leave. Being ridiculed for being a "culturally bankrupt wasteland" isn't exactly going to endear me or encourage me to listen to good and valid reasons to leave. Never mind the rational voices calling for us to stay, to stay and fight, to be queer here in our homes, amongst people who need to know us.



I'm not blind to our faults as a region. In fact, I'd venture that I know them a good bit better than this guy does.



Has anyone failed to notice the blueness in the South? (See the map.) No Southern state didn't have several counties that went all the way blue and many more that were purple. Yes, there are far bluer and purple-er places in the United States. But there are also far redder places as well.



I'm not sure that emptying out the progressive centers of the South is the answer. To Southerners who are leaving, good for you and I hope you have great lives. I mean that sincerely. (I left once myself.) To Southerners who are staying, good for you, too. Because we have a lot of work to do and we can't do it without you.

---

make some room now dig what you see

[Sheridan]

This Act seems such a minefield I can't see how it could get through. To start with the only grounds for saying marriage should be between a man and a woman are based on religious grounds, kind of tricky to enshrine with that whole 'separation of church and state thing'. Second problem is how will the courts distinguish between 'marriage' and a simple civil contract, especially when so many weddings are thoroughly secular these days? Third hurdle if did get past would be how will they deal with countries where such marriages/unions are legal, including the UK in the near future? How will they deal with child custody and parental rights? Also if they give special status to marriage how long before you get some hetero partner in a merely cohabiting couple trying to wriggle out of palimony or child support on the grounds that relationship had no legal foundation?

Willow: ...I have to tell you....

Tara: No, I understand you have to be with the person you l-love

Willow: I am

[sam7777]

Quote:

---

The only grounds for saying marriage should be between a man and a woman are based on religious grounds, kind of tricky to enshrine with that whole 'separation of church and state thing'. Second problem is how will the courts distinguish between 'marriage' and a simple civil contract, especially when so many weddings are thoroughly secular these days? Third hurdle if did get past would be how will they deal with countries where such marriages/unions are legal, including the UK in the near future?

---

Sheridan: Your arguments have been dealt with by the anti-gay movement. The grounds for defining marriage may be religious but with the president pushing it as a cultural issue, 70% of people in the states that voted for amendments (and I suspect in the nation) support defining marriage religious or not. Second, the idea is not for courts to distinguish between 'marriage' and a simple civil contract but to ban the latter and only make the former legal. 'Marriage' can still be defined as only between a man and a women whether a minister or a Justice of the Peace presides. Third, the way to deal with such marriages/unions from other countries is the same way they are dealing with it from other states. Your marriage in Massachusetts is not legal anywhere else. Your civil union in Vermont or Hawaii is not legal in those states that passed laws against it. Your UK/Canada/wherever marriage/union will simply not be legal or recognized in the US. If you want to take it to court, the bushies are already plotting to change the senate rules to prevent fillibustering judicial appointments. The goal is to pack all the courts even those in "blue" states with 'non-activist' (read homophobic) judges that will make sure that challenges will not get a fair hearing. Want to appeal to the Supreme court? Good luck when Bush packs it with his homophobic appointees.



maudmac: I'm certainly think the Karel's chauvinist attitude towards the south is counterproductive but I also think that GLBT folks need to be prepared to use every tool at their disposal including economic ones to protect their rights.



Economic Boycotts have proven the most effective in recent memory to get your voice heard and initiate change. The Ad boycott of Sinclair Broadcasting forced them to cave and present a more balanced piece than the anti-kerry shit they were planning to air. I'm not sure about emptying out progressive areas in the south but it may come to that if those states pass laws making as they call it "homosexual behavior" illegal as they tried to do in that county in Tennessee. However, I do agree that now that Louisiana has passed an amendment banning gay marriage and civil unions that we should take events like Mardi Gras and Southern Decadence along with our $$$ elsewhere.



GLBT folks in the south especially need to come out so that people can know them as their good neighbors but many of them are pressured to remain closetted and silence by religious and family factors (at least that's what I noticed living in Georgia, South Carolina and Florida). When 70% of the people in your state vote against both marriage and civil unions, who do your hope to reach and convince otherwise? Are folks willing to live as second class citizens until 21% of those people wake up to the bigotry? There is some hope in Oregon where the vote was more evenly split but certainly not much hope in states like Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma and Utah that banned both by margins of 60-70%.

Quote:

---

Not true, sam. Federal law (based on the U.S. Constitution) trumps the state laws (or constitutions). Couples have already legally gotten married in Massachusetts (and if NY accepts them, then de facto same-sex marriage will lawful there, too). Only a U.S. Constitutional amendment can stop challenges to the state laws (on behalf of the already married). Ergo: Stop the FMA . . . by any means necessary!

---

One means that may be necessary is an economic boycott.



GG: You are right and I never disputed that Federal law trumps the state laws. Your de facto same-sex MA marriage will be lawful in New York until NY passes it's own amendment banning it or the FMA passes. Assuming the FMA doesn't pass but all states pass anti-gay amendments, gay marriage would still be be illegal as if the FMA was in force with the only difference being the possibiltiy that it could be trumped by a federal law allowing gay marriage or civil unions. This will never happen while the dems have no convictions on the issues and the republicans stand firmly against it. Maybe we should just wait another 200 years for peoples attitutes to change while folks are married in Canada, Spain and the UK or better yet move to where we can be married now.



The REAL PROBLEM with this now is that other countries are allowing gay marriage now while the US remains a backwards society. If there was no place in the world where gays could marry, staying in the US to agitate for change (for generations) would be the only choice but now there are places where we can have equal rights now. This creates a strong tempation to leave the backward society behind and move to a more progressive one. Ironically this is why many people used to move to the US to experience freedom and rights not available else.



This more than anything else signals to me the end of the american dream.

_____________________

I still see dead lesbian cliches

Edited by: sam7777  at: 11/8/04 5:54 pm

[werewolf123]

It has been about 25 years since i studied constitutional law and this was only a comment made in passing...but it was stated that treaty law is equal to constitutional law.

It was speculated at the time that if the U.S. wanted to modify it constitution it could enter into a treaty with , say east Timor and have the senate rewrite the constitution. I do not know if this "theory" of law has held up or not. If there are those here who are on congress watch they might want to check any new treaties with a little more care over the next four years.

[Gatito Grande]

sam: Prop 2 (marriage-discrimination) passed in Michigan 59-41. I'm obviously not happy it passed, but we did get over 40% to oppose it (only 2% behind Oregon, and Michigan "No on 2" had less money to spend than Oregon did).



Since NY State has issued recommendations about granting spousal benefits for Canadian same-sex marriages, I'd say it's a good bet NY won't be banning it anytime soon (not saying it couldn't happen, but in NY that fight---fighting against a constitutional ban---would be like nothing we've seen thus far: no state that's banned it has a Greenwich Village! )



I would support a travel/discretionary spending boycott, but I think that insisting everybody move (out of discriminatory states) goes too far---especially since the Electoral College isn't going anywhere in the forseeable future. Here's a compromise: if possible, move away except for your voter registration? (in the same way that New Yorkers w/ Florida second-homes were encouraged to vote in the Sunshine State. Didn't work this time, but the principal is a sound one). I put the same challenge to you, sam (or anyone who agrees w/ Karel): find a way to register to vote in a Red State! (relative's/friend's address?)



GG Spent an hour tonight picketing (in the cold ) outside the Detroit RC Cathedral (the Catholic Church spent something like a million dollars to pass Prop 2 ), w/ Soulforce. The vigil drew 3 times as many as the organizer expected: I'm feeling less despairing, and more righteous rage Out

[NS Maestro]

40% may not be enough, but it's always good to remember there ARE people out there who understand. For example, Wil Wheaton worded things better than I ever could.

Quote:

---

Personally, I don't think the government should be involved in marriage in any way. I believe that marriage is between two people who love each other, who wish to make a commitment to stay together through good times and bad. I suppose that it can also be between those people and whatever god they choose to worship, but even then . . . wouldn't it be stupid for the government to tell couples which god can bless their marriage? And who cares what sex they are?



An interesting thing has happened since San Francisco started granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples: my marriage is just fine!



That's right. Even though there are thousands of gay and lesbian couples affirming their love for and commitment to each other, my marriage -- my affirmation of love and commitment to Anne -- isn't threatened at all. As a matter of fact, the only people who can really "threaten" my marriage are . . . well . . . the two of us.

---

[sam7777]

GG: I don't fully agree with Karel except in the efficacy of a financial boycott. As I said, I'm not sure about emptying out progressive areas in the south (prolly counterproductive IMHO)and though it may come to that in future, it certainly hasn't come to that as yet and I hope it never will. Americans just aren't that hateful and against fair play. Karel is being premature. As to registering to vote in a Red State, I'd rather vote in my state at the local level. The real progess gay rights IMHO will come from the bottom up in the Blue states like NY and California. I'd rather work on increasing gay rights here where we can show that gay families should be part of real family values.



In the next four years, we can certainly create a consortium of states that allow civil unions if not marriage and that can recognize each other's civil unions. Promising states are: CA, HI, MA, NY, NJ, VT (help me out here) and possibly OR. I think we should concentrate on getting full marriage rights for civil unions because it will defuse the "marrage" semantic used in criticism and benefits straight folks as much as GLBT ones. We should stress the ability of partner rights to help extend health insurance to the 40 million uninsured in this country. As the FMA is unlikely to pass, we can use the opportunity to make the change at the state level. 13 states voted against us. If we can turn Oregon and get the 6 states above that give us 7 against their 12.



Another thing that we should stress is the horror of having the government legislate what we do in our bedrooms. The attack against privacy should be stressed. The fundies are trying to hurt more than gay people and we shoule let people know that. This appeal would work well in the Western states.



I advocate a liesure travel boycott to states with a bigotted ammendment especially if it includes civil unions until the law is successfully challenged in court or they allow civil unions with all marriage rights. The African American travel boycott of stares with the confederate flag on their state flag was effective in getting the flags changed. We can do the same and should do so IMHO.

_____________________

I still see dead lesbian cliches

Edited by: sam7777  at: 11/10/04 10:21 am

[Sheridan]

Couple of things Sam. Firstly trying to define marriage on a 'cultural' basis is an even more slippery slope. What happens when the first mormon pops up and says 'culturally' polygamy is ok? Secondly it's fine for one state to ignore another within the USA, quite another when they try to ignore the laws of other countries, especially when one of them is about the only friend they've got at the moment. I suspect defining marriage will be about as easy as defining pornography, and as hard to legislate in practice.

Willow: ...I have to tell you....

Tara: No, I understand you have to be with the person you l-love

Willow: I am

[Ben Varkentine]

From Talking Points Memo via Atrios:

Quote:

---

This is pretty stunning. The networks won't run an ad by the UCC which says "like Jesus -- the United Church of Christ seeks to welcome all people, regardless of ability, age, race, economic circumstance or sexual orientation."



And their justification?





"the Executive Branch has recently proposed a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast on the [CBS and UPN] networks"





So, because Bush doesn't want federal or state recognition of marriage, a church can't even advertise that they welcome anyone in their doors?



This is so fucked up.



-Atrios

---

Ben



"One voice is easily ignored or silenced, but when other people add their voices to yours, you become a chorus not easily ignored."--Wil "Just A Geek" Wheaton

Edited by: Ben Varkentine at: 12/1/04 9:29 am

[sam7777]

Anyone who thinks that defeating the FMA is enough hasn't counted on the effect of the anti-gay state ammendments:



Governor pulls same-sex benefits from state worker contracts

Quote:

---

Gov. Jennifer Granholm will remove same-sex partner benefits from contracts negotiated with state workers, said an aide, citing a voter-approved amendment to the Michigan Constitution that bans gay marriage "and similar unions."



Michigan voters approved the amendment Nov. 2.



On Wednesday, Granholm aide David Fink said that negotiated contracts scheduled for adoption by the state Civil Service Commission on Dec. 15 will be stripped of the same-sex domestic partner benefits.



Fink, who holds the title of state employer, said the Granholm administration decided to eliminate the benefits because of the passage of Proposal 2, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman and bans same-sex marriage and "similar unions for any purpose."



"We're about following the law and honoring the intent of the voters," Fink told the Detroit Free Press.



He said the benefits could be restored before the contracts take effect on Oct. 1, 2005 if the courts have resolved the issue by then.



Republican legislators have been pressing the Democratic governor to strip the same-sex benefits from the contracts.



UAW lobbyist Alan Kilar said earlier this week that the union reached an agreement with the state in good faith and expected the state to stick with it.



"They agreed to this," Kilar said. "It's a contract and an agreement is an agreement."

---

Yet another reason that gay republican is an oxymoron.

_____________________

I still see dead lesbian cliches

[Ben Varkentine]

Yesterday I signed a petition asking CBS and NBC to reverse their decision to decline to run the anti-bigotry ad from the United Church of Christ. The UCC ad apparently ran afoul of the CBS policy by promoting the fact that its churches welcome gay and lesbian members as well as members of other minority groups, youth and seniors.



Click here to sign the petition:

www.workingforchange.com/...emid=18182



P.S. Please forward this message to anyone that you know who might be interested.



(cut-and-pasted from the confirmation e-mail they sent out, and slightly edited and rewritten by me)

Ben



"One voice is easily ignored or silenced, but when other people add their voices to yours, you become a chorus not easily ignored."--Wil "Just A Geek" Wheaton

[justin]

This an email I got from the HRC. It seems that people are still trying to push this ammendment forwards.

Quote:

---

Last week we let you know that a number of Republican Senators,

lead by Sen. Wayne Allard(R-CO) began their campaign to write

discrimination into the Constitution once again. Now, the

so-called Marriage Protection Amendment has 26 co-sponsors in

the Senate and there's word that the House of Representatives

will be pushing forward their version of the amendment soon.



With people who are advocating discrimination in charge of the

White House and both houses of Congress, our response against

this amendment must be persistent, powerful and unflinching.

Here's what you can do now:



1) Write your Senators today and urge them to oppose the newly

reintroduced Marriage Protection Amendment and ANY efforts to

put discrimination in our Constitution. Click here to send an

e-mail now: www.hrcactioncenter.org/c...832v57bmj8



2) Be pro-active! Write your Representative today. Although no

legislation has yet been introduced in the House of

Representatives, it is important to e-mail your Congressional

leaders and let them know that they must oppose ANY efforts to

put discrimination in our Constitution. Click here to send an

e-mail now: www.hrcactioncenter.org/c...832v57bmj8



3) Spread the word. Send this message to at least five friends

now -- especially in more conservative states where they need to

hear from fair-minded Americans the most. Click here:

www.hrcactioncenter.org/ct/Pd1Dyz41nmw8/



Thank you for taking action today. Your continued response

against this hurtful amendment is crucial. We're glad you are

with us every step of the way as we move toward equality for ALL

Americans.



Sincerely,



Seth Kilbourn

National Field Director

Human Rights Campaign

---

--

Homer Simpson: When will people learn, democracy just doesn't work.

[Ben Varkentine]

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

Quote:

---

Mayor hosting party on first anniversary of historic weddings

Ilene Lelchuk, Chronicle Staff Writer



Sunday, February 6, 2005



Even in Switzerland, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom couldn't escape the accusation that he, more than any other U.S. politician, handed the Republicans a presidential victory last fall.



It was at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and the mayor was invited to a panel on red states versus blue. And Newsom was defending himself, yet again.



Newsom's decision a year ago this Saturday to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples continues to color his political reputation, even abroad. It also still prompts debate about whether the backlash it engendered ultimately helps or hurts the cause of same-sex marriage. Yet the freshman mayor remains unapologetic and celebratory as the one-year wedding anniversary approaches for almost 4,000 couples.



"I will never regret it," Newsom said in a recent interview with The Chronicle.



Although same-sex marriage is an issue that some fellow Democrats wish would fade into the background, the mayor has invited every gay and lesbian couple married on Feb. 12 to a party at City Hall on Saturday. Newsom also has been asked to deliver a speech Tuesday on civil rights at the John F. JFK School of Government at Harvard University.



Newsom still invites the spotlight, even though the California Supreme Court halted the same-sex nuptials on March 11 and nullified them in August, saying the mayor lacked authority to defy state law that defines marriage as between a man and woman. In turn, the city has sued, challenging the constitutionality of the state ban on same-sex marriage.



Locally, it's no surprise that Newsom's politics remain a big hit in his super-liberal city with a large homosexual population. A recent poll of 500 San Francisco voters found that Newsom enjoys an 81 percent approval rating.



He also has strong support from the leadership of the California Democratic Party. State chairman Art Torres says the party is "100 percent behind him" and predicts he could win a statewide election someday.



But nationally, Newsom can't shake off last year's stinging criticism from party heavyweights Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California and Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who said the mayor hurt his career and his party. Headlines after President Bush won re-election suggested Newsom's bold move, which the president cited as a factor in his decision to support a federal constitutional ban, brought more conservative Bush supporters to the polls in other states.



"That wasn't a good week," Newsom said recently about getting the blame.



A year later, in a town as far away as Davos, he's still hearing about it. The European politicians and business leaders who attended the panel discussion two weeks ago weren't feeling friendly toward Bush, Newsom said. "They were looking for an explanation, an excuse, and I conveniently came up in that context a number of times."



Newsom told them why he thinks Bush really won that election: "The vast majority of pundits now acknowledge (same-sex marriage) wasn't the issue, but at the end of the day it was one issue and one issue only -- security."



Some postelection analysis backs that assertion.



"It's unfair to blame anyone in single-issue politics for losing an election," said Barbara O'Connor, professor of political communication at California State University Sacramento. "All of the polling data postelection showed that liberals turned out in huge numbers, and the youth turned out in huge numbers, and the Christian Coalition people turned out in bigger numbers. I don't believe (same-sex marriage) was their sole impetus for voting. It was one, but they would have turned out anyway."



That's not to say Newsom's actions had no national impact, according to political observers.



"He opened a political space where options like civil unions (which provide fewer rights than marriage) seem very mainstream and respectable," said Rich DeLeon, a San Francisco State University political science professor.



Bush has even said he would endorse civil unions for any state that wants them.



To hear Newsom tell it, he was warmly received at the Davos summit, despite pointed questions about Bush's victory.



"I didn't realize, and I say this hesitantly because I don't want to overstate it, what an impact San Francisco's decision to go forward with marriages last February had around the world -- from Israel to Cambodia," he said. "I was really humbled by how many people came up and said, 'Thank you.' "



Humbled?



"Who the heck does Gavin Newsom think he is?" asked Benjamin Lopez, legislative analyst and lobbyist for the Traditional Values Coalition. "I'm not so sure having the accolades of European leaders is something to brag about, when really the American people are at odds in respect to everything that Gavin Newsom stands for."



Do same-sex marriage opponents wish he'd just shut up? Surprisingly, no.



"The more Gavin Newsom talks about his fantasy of homosexual marriage licenses, the more he invigorates pro-family and conservative citizens and noncitizens," said Randy Thomasson, director of Campaign for California Families, one of the groups that sued to invalidate San Francisco's same-sex marriages.



Newsom has no plans to let up.



"The more I am able to talk about what we did, the more I think people truly understand why it happened," Newsom said.



Stuart Gaffney, 42, and partner John Lewis, 46, who were among the first 10 people married on Feb. 12, are glad Newsom is still speaking out and intend to celebrate with him Saturday at City Hall and later at a gala dinner hosted by Equality California.



The two are plaintiffs in a lawsuit by same-sex couples from San Francisco and Los Angeles who are challenging the state ban on their marriages.



"Taking a stand for equality is not something (Newsom) should apologize for," Gaffney said.



But political setbacks to gay rights across the nation in November have led to soul-searching among some advocacy groups, which are asking if they indeed were pushing for too much too soon.



As recently as Wednesday, the Kansas Legislature voted to place a proposed constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage and civil unions on the state ballot in April.



"I don't think we are going too fast too soon. But we do need to be smart and strategic about how we move forward, and that looks different in different states," said Seth Kilbourn, national field director for the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's leading gay rights organization.



Kilbourn said that means settling, for the time being, for civil unions rather than full marriage rights in certain resistant states where there are constitutional bans.



For Newsom and California, the battle sits in the hands of the courts and the Legislature.



Soon after last year's weddings, City Attorney Dennis Herrera filed the nation's first municipal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of state laws that define marriage as between a man and woman.



The suit is being considered along with challenges by same-sex couples such as Gaffney and Lewis, as well as countersuits by the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund and the Campaign for California Families.



The judge who will decide the constitutionality of California's ban on same-sex marriage, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer, is expected to rule by April.



Meanwhile, Democratic Assemblyman Mark Leno, a San Francisco politician who is gay, has introduced legislation to legalize same-sex marriage.







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One year later

To commemorate the first anniversary of the same-sex marriages performed at San Francisco City Hall, there will be panel discussions and documentaries from noon to 2 p.m. Saturday at the Main Library, Koret Auditorium, 100 Larkin St. Invited speakers include activist/author Betty Berzon, Kate Kendell of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Assemblyman Mark Leno, Molly McKay of Equality California, and Sylvia Rhue of the Freedom to Marry Coalition.







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Same-sex marriage in the United States

-- Massachusetts became the first state, starting in May, to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.



-- For a period of time in early 2004, marriage licenses were issued to same-sex couples in San Francisco; Sandoval County, N.M.; and Multnomah County, Ore.



-- Forty-four states have passed laws or state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage.



-- Lawsuits challenging the denial of marriage equality to same-sex couples have been filed in California, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Washington and Oregon.



-- Vermont licenses civil unions, which provide all of the state-level rights and responsibilities of marriage but no federal protections.



-- Domestic partnership laws have been passed in California, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine and New Jersey.



Source: Human Rights Campaign

---

Ben



"One voice is easily ignored or silenced, but when other people add their voices to yours, you become a chorus not easily ignored."--Wil "Just A Geek" Wheaton

[Gatito Grande]

Here's the text of an email I got today :

Quote:

---

Well, this sounds familiar.



On April 5, the people of Kansas will vote on an amendment to their state constitution that would make families unconstitutional. That's right, yet another anti-marriage amendment.



November hasn't been that long ago. We still taste the bitterness of defeat. With support, though, maybe Kansas families won't have to go through what we [GG: in Michigan] did.



Times are tight for everyone right now, but if you could spare just a little for Kansas families, it would be greatly appreciated.





Go to www.kansansforfairness.org/.





Spread a little hope.

---

GG Help 'em if you can Out



No matter what happens in this (or any given) vote, WE WILL WIN!