GG How much cooler is he than King George the Second we Yanks are stuck with? (But only until next January!
) Out 
by Gatito Grande » Thu Feb 26, 2004 12:35 am
) Out by kpmuse » Thu Feb 26, 2004 9:48 am
by Kieli » Thu Feb 26, 2004 10:20 am
Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.
at: 2/26/04 9:23 amby Kieli » Thu Feb 26, 2004 11:01 am
Quote:
Questions for Kittens --- the mere fact that Pres. Bush wants to federally ban marriage for us seems to imply that our US Constitution already guarantees that we have the right to be married.
Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.
by kpmuse » Thu Feb 26, 2004 11:12 am
Quote:
So, unless state constitutions specifically ban same-sex marriages, the U.S. should allow them to happen.
by Darcy » Thu Feb 26, 2004 12:25 pm
*****************
I don't care if it is an orgy of death, there's still such a thing as a napkin! - Willow in "Superstar"
by Kieli » Thu Feb 26, 2004 1:55 pm
Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.
by Gatito Grande » Fri Feb 27, 2004 12:13 am
Quote:
Bush can’t stop the tide of history
Remember where you heard it:
Legalization of same-sex marriages in America is inevitable, and there’s nothing George W. Bush or Pat Robertson can do to prevent it.
Oh, they may be able to slow the march of gay rights a little, but they and others of their ilk will fail in the end. They apparently don’t recognize that they’re up against the irresistible tide of history.
THE STORY OF AMERICA is a chronicle of liberalism defeating the forces of reaction on virtually every major issue. Check the record. It’s overwhelming.
Conservatives were on the wrong side of the American revolution against British rule, the wrong side of slavery, child labor, women’s rights, labor unions, constraints on trusts and monopolies, consumer protection, civil rights for blacks, Social Security, Medi-care, environmentalism and so on.
Granted, the liberal victories in these matters often have been hard-won and sometimes have taken decades to achieve. In most cases, the fight for what’s right continues. But the scoreboard shows the good guys way ahead, despite occasional slumps and setbacks along the way.
And the trend toward liberalism continues, no matter the occasional election of a Ronald Reagan or a George Bush as president. These men have paid lip service to conservative goals, but they haven’t reversed the nation’s course.
AS GARY BAUER, a right-winger of impeccable credentials, told the Washington Times just last week: “(R)eligious conservatives have been doing politics for 25 years and, on every front, are worse off on things they care about.”
Hooray for that.
In this broad historical context, the issue of gay marriages is analagous to interracial marriages. Some black folks don’t like this comparison, but their objections make it no less appropriate.
Consider, for example, that the arguments against same-sex marriages are much the same as those of a half-century ago against legalizing black-white marriages: It’s immoral, unnatural and defies the dictates of Holy Scripture.
CONSIDER, TOO, THAT when I was a teenager, public distaste for interracial marriages was much stronger than today’s opposition to gay marriages. A 1958 poll on the issue of black-white marriages showed a whopping 94 percent of white people opposed. At that time, no fewer than 16 states had laws against such marriages —and most other states might as well have had the same statutes, considering society’s antipathy toward interracial couples.
By comparison, recent polls show that opposition to legalizing gay marriages is not nearly so broad. And Americans are almost evenly divided on the issue of civil unions for same-sex couples. Of course, public opinion on these matters is volatile and can vary in reaction to events and political rhetoric, but it’s not likely to swing too far to the right.
President Bush came out this week in favor of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages. Big deal. The gesture really has more to do with shoring up his conservative base than with actually changing the national charter.
Much of the public seems reluctant to fiddle with the Constitution on this issue, and some prominent conservative pundits and politicians — George Will, David Brooks, James Sensenbrenner and Bob Barr, to name a few — are flatly opposed.
EVEN HOUSE SPEAKER Dennis Hastert doubts that both houses of Congress can muster the two-thirds majorities required to pass the amendment. And if they did, three-fourths of the state legislatures would have to concur. That’s not going to happen, because it’s not right.
Little by little and state by state, gay marriages will become commonplace in America.
American history marches on — in the same direction it’s always marched.
Pat Cunningham is Page One editor of the Rockford Register Star. His e-mail address is pcunningham@registerstartower.com
Outby JustSkipIt » Fri Feb 27, 2004 6:31 am
---
"Your little will can't do anything. It takes Great Determination. Great Determination doesn't mean just you making an effort. It means the whole universe is behind you and with you - the birds, trees, sky, moon, and ten directions." - Katagiri Roshi
by Karmah » Fri Feb 27, 2004 8:18 am
and my no account Rep one too.by Puff » Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:40 am
Quote:
NEW PALTZ, N.Y. - The young mayor of this college town said he'll perform marriages for up to a dozen same-sex couples Friday, comparing opponents of the idea to "those who would have made Rosa Parks sit in the back of the bus."
Mayor Jason West, who won office last year on the Green Party line, said state law on domestic marriages is gender-neutral and that the state constitution, which he is obligated to uphold, requires equal protection under law.
"We as a society have no right to discriminate in marriage any more than we have the right to discriminate when someone votes or when someone wants to hold office," West, 26, said in a telephone interview.
"The people who would forbid gays from marrying in this country are those who would have made Rosa Parks sit in the back of the bus."
His plans thrust New Paltz — home to 5,400 people and a state university campus 75 miles north of New York City — into a national debate over whether same-sex couples are entitled to marry.
On Thursday, the state Health Department said that New York's domestic relations law does not allow marriage licenses for same-sex couples and that state courts have validated marriages only between a man and a woman.
"A municipal clerk who issues a marriage license outside these guidelines, and any person who solemnizes such a marriage, would be violating state law and subject to the penalties in law," the department said in a statement.
West said he reads the law differently.
"For a marriage to be legal in this state all that's required is for it to be properly solemnized by someone with authority to do so," he told the CNN cable network Friday. "I'm fully able to do that."
Several legal experts also disagreed with the Health Department statement, saying the law does not specifically ban such weddings. New York's attorney general has not issued a ruling on the question.
Vincent Bonventre, a professor at Albany Law School, said nothing in New York law explicitly prohibits same-sex weddings, but that the framers "clearly were contemplating opposite-sex marriages."
Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, applauded the young mayor's move. "It's equal rights for gay couples who should be entitled to equal treatment under the law and to marriage and the protection of the family that heterosexuals have," she said.
Discussion of gay marriage heated up this month after the top Massachusetts court ruled that anything less than full-fledged marriage for gays there would be unconstitutional. Since then, San Francisco officials have begun performing same-sex marriages and have challenged their state law barring such unions. Earlier this week, President Bush (news - web sites) endorsed a movement to amend the Constitution to ban the practice.
A bill in the New York Legislature would ban same-sex marriages. Similar bills have died without action in the past. At least 34 states have enacted so-called defense of marriage laws.
at: 2/27/04 8:43 amby crazyredlizard » Fri Feb 27, 2004 10:43 am
by WebWarlock » Fri Feb 27, 2004 11:21 am
Quote:
Amendment has gay GOP activists set for new fight
By Bob Kemper
Washington Bureau
Published February 27, 2004
WASHINGTON -- Gay activists who helped deliver more than a million votes for George W. Bush in 2000 are so outraged the president endorsed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage that they are setting up organizations and plotting advertising campaigns against the amendment that could undermine Bush's re-election effort.
Two of the largest Republican gay-rights groups, Log Cabin Republicans and the Republican Unity Coalition, have broken with the president, accusing him of turning against gays to rally his conservative supporters.
The potentially vitriolic public debate over the amendment--which activists said is likely to lead to an escalation of violence and hate speech against gays--could turn off moderate voters in states where only a few thousand votes could spell the difference between victory and defeat for Bush.
Log Cabin Republicans, who have remained loyal to Bush since his election, are organizing in states that are a tossup this year, including Wisconsin, New Mexico and Missouri, to oppose the marriage amendment. The group, which has 50 U.S. chapters and is the largest Republican organization on gay issues, plans to begin running television, radio and newspaper ads in the next two weeks.
While they won't specifically target Bush--and conservatives discount the impact that a loss of gay voters would have on the president's campaign--the ads will suggest that by backing the amendment Bush is "someone who divides the public instead of uniting it," said Patrick Guerriero, the group's executive director.
"I guess the message is that if you really want a culture war, you're going to get it," Guerriero said.
Another gay Republican activist said GOP groups, inundated by angry e-mails and phone messages since Bush publicly backed the amendment on Tuesday, are likely to drop their outreach programs to the gay community, essentially giving up hope of garnering gay support this year.
Exit polls from the 2000 election indicated that about 1 million gay people voted for Bush, or about 25 percent of gays who cast ballots.
"Those million gay votes are gone. People are just beside themselves," the activist said. "Those voters in 2000 are dealing with a whole new set of facts now. There is nothing for gays now."
The Republican Unity Coalition issued a statement calling the marriage amendment "a terrible betrayal of conservative principles of federalism and limited government" and said it would "neither support nor defend this action."
The Bush campaign defended the president's decision to support the constitutional amendment, noting that it would still allow state legislatures to legalize "civil unions" for gay couples and to decide what state-level rights and responsibilities to confer on those couples.
"The decision was based on principle, not politics," a Bush campaign aide said.
But gay-rights activists see Bush's backing of the marriage amendment as an attempt to shore up his support with the conservative voters who provide his political base and who long have called for such an amendment. It also marks the end, they said, of Bush's ability to portray himself as a "compassionate conservative" and a "uniter, not a divider."
"Their crass calculus is that a culture war will win them votes," said John Aravosis, one of the leaders of DontAmend.com, an Internet-based movement in support of gay marriage. "He's falling in the polls and this is a last desperate act."
Gary Bauer, who heads the group American Values, dismissed threats from gay activists and said backing the marriage amendment will boost Bush's chances for re-election. Refusing to endorse the amendment when courts are chipping away at marriage as a heterosexual-only institution would have been "inexplicable and ultimately a political disaster," Bauer said.
"There are many more voters in the country who feel marriage should remain between a man and a woman who are likely to vote for him than there are gay activists who are going to vote against him," Bauer said.
Gay-rights activists bolting from the Republican ticket will not immediately line up behind the likely Democratic nominee, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), who also opposes gay marriage but does not support the constitutional amendment. But they may sit out an election that Bush's strategists believe will be extraordinarily close, activists said.
"Our job is not to hurt the party or the president," said Guerriero. "But there has to be a price to pay when you push . . . a wedge issue like this."
Protests by gay activists within the Republican Party will help underscore the anti-Bush message that larger, better-financed gay-rights groups, unaffiliated with the party, were already planning to spread in opposition to the constitutional amendment.
The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay-rights group, is launching a comprehensive offensive that ranges from lobbying members of Congress to defeat the amendment to the group's first effort to turn out voters in states where the presidential vote is expected to be close. The group also has $1.4 million to support congressional candidates opposed to the amendment.
"It's a unique time in the [gay] community when we're all working together," said Winnie Stachelberg, the group's political director. "This is a fight we cannot afford to lose."
One of the biggest pushes against the constitutional amendment is expected to come around May 17, when Massachusetts, under court order, may have to start issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.
But it also is the 50th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brown vs. Board of Education. Gay activists say the 1954 ruling, which ordered integration of schools, stands as a repudiation of a marriage amendment that seeks to restrict the rights of a minority group.
-----
Web Warlock
Coming Soon to The Other Side, The Netbook of Shadows: A Book of Spells for d20 Witches
"Razzle, dazzle, drazzle, drone, time for this one to come home." - The Replacements, "Hold My Life"
by Gatito Grande » Fri Feb 27, 2004 2:32 pm
OutQuote:
State Justices Give S.F. Week to Make Case
The state Supreme Court refuses to immediately halt the city's same-sex marriages. But it signals that it will decide quickly on taking up the legal issues.
By Maura Dolan, Times Staff Writer
SAN FRANCISCO — The California Supreme Court refused to immediately halt this city's same-sex marriages on Friday but decided that it would swiftly consider whether to review the legal challenges to those nuptials.
The state's highest court gave San Francisco seven days to present arguments to the judges why they should not immediately order the city to stop marrying gay couples and invalidate the 3,400 licenses already issued.
The city also plans to ask the court to determine whether the state Constitution protects same-sex unions.
Under state law, marriage is defined as between "a man and a woman." The city argues that the state Constitution, however, protects against discrimination and therefore, allows the same-sex marriages.
The court issued two orders in the same-sex marriage dispute Friday afternoon after Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer filed a lengthy petition asking the court to intervene immediately.
His petition argued that the marriage licenses violate state law and have caused conflict and uncertainty within various government agencies.
One of those conflicts involved the Social Security Administration, which Friday ordered its offices nationwide not to accept San Francisco marriage licenses as proof of identification for name-change requests on Social Security cards.
In his petition, Lockyer had asked the state high court to decide the constitutional questions immediately.
"Peaceful civil disobedience may have its place in an open society, but there are usually consequences for such disobedience," Lockyer said.
He said San Francisco had refused to respond to a directive issued by the California Department of Health Services to stop issuing licenses other than those approved by the state.
The city changed the wording on the standard marriage licenses Feb. 12 to accommodate same-sex couples.
Lockyer, asked at a news conference in Anaheim why he had not acted earlier, said his petition had been contemplated for "many, many" days.
"Some politicians have opinions in 10 seconds," Lockyer said, "but when you do legal work, you like to have it right before you go to court. We wanted to act thoughtfully and judiciously ."
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last week sent a strongly worded letter to Lockyer ordering him to take immediate action to stop the marriages.
The attorney general responded that he was already anticipating going to court and that the governor did not have the authority to order him to act.
Lockyer, a liberal Democrat who has support from backers of gay marriage, described San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's decision to marry gays as a "principled stand," but added, "There's a way they could have done it without all the drama" by going to court first.
Instead, San Francisco's decision to issue same-sex marriage licenses has "created a situation of extreme public significance," Lockyer said.
"The recognition of marital status carries with it too many legal consequences to be determined on a county-by-county basis in each of California's 58 jurisdictions."
The state Supreme Court directed San Francisco to respond both to Lockyer's petition and to a more narrow request filed with the court Wednesday by a group opposed to gay marriage.
"What the court is saying is, we want to take another look at both sides of the issue before we decide whether or not to hear the case," said Lynn Holton, a spokeswoman for the court.
Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen, an expert on the state high court, said the judges' orders Friday "suggest that if they are going to hear the case, they are going to rule very quickly."
"And it also may suggest that there are a number of justices who are leaning toward hearing it," he said.
The court has asked for written arguments in the past on emergency petitions that have bypassed lower courts. But it is rare for the court to grant such petitions and intervene before lower courts have ruled. The court generally prefers to review a case only after a full factual record has been developed. Judges in San Francisco Superior Court have postponed a hearing on the marriages until March 29.
But retired state Supreme Court Justice Edward A. Panelli said a factual record in the same-sex marriage case is not particularly important because the key question to resolve is constitutional.
"This is strictly a legal, constitutional issue that they will ultimately have to decide," said Panelli, who predicts the high court will intervene.
San Francisco contends that the state Constitution's equal protection clause makes state marriage laws unconstitutional. The high court has the final say in interpreting the state Constitution.
"Since it is such a pressing issue, why wait two years to decide it?" said Panelli, who remembered the court granting one or two such petitions during his eight-year tenure. "I feel pretty confident they will."
The fact that the court did not summarily reject the petitions Friday also "obviously indicates some interest in hearing what the parties have to say," Panelli said.
Benjamin Bull, general counsel for one of the groups that also asked the state high court to intervene, said he was encouraged by the court's orders.
"Most extraordinary writ applications are rejected out of hand the vast majority of time," Bull said. "When they ask for responsive briefing and set a certain date, it means they are probably going to rule on it."
He said he was pleased that the court was moving quickly. "We were celebrating in our office when we saw that order, " Bull said.
But Matt Dorsey, a spokesman for San Francisco's City Atty. Dennis Herrera, said the city was pleased that the court did not agree to the petitioners' request for an immediate halt to the marriages.
"By inviting opposition briefs from the city attorney next week, the Supreme Court has already tacitly rejected pleas that same-sex marriages in San Francisco be halted immediately," Dorsey said.
Lockyer said that the controversy had prompted the Social Security Administration to ask the state to help it determine whether marriage licenses issued in San Francisco were valid. Married couples present their licenses to the federal agency when asking for name changes.
The new Social Security policy applies to all marriage licenses — not just the same-sex ones — issued in the city since Feb. 12. The move drew strong criticism from Mayor Newsom.
Times staff writer David Haldane and the Associated Press contributed to this report.
by Repost Moderator » Sun Feb 29, 2004 6:40 pm
by kpmuse » Mon Mar 01, 2004 11:21 am
by Ben Varkentine » Tue Mar 02, 2004 2:42 pm
Quote:
Cold reception for gay wedding ban
Teen 'legislators' echo poll showing younger people support same-sex marriages.
By Ed Fletcher -- Bee Capitol Bureau
Published 2:15 a.m. PST Sunday, February 29, 2004
Pete Knight, 74, knew he was headed into the briar patch.
The state senator's mission: convince a crowded roomful of teenagers that same-sex marriage should remain illegal.
The Palmdale Republican wasn't successful. The group of teens, in Sacramento last weekend to simulate state and federal government, voted overwhelmingly in support of a measure doing just the opposite.
"We are more accepting because we are younger," said Brad Speers, a San Jose high school senior serving as governor of Northern California Junior State.
A week before the Junior State vote, delegates to the YMCA's Youth and Government Model Legislature and Court, also visiting the Capitol, took similar action - voting to legalize same-sex marriage.
While the votes won't affect California public policy today, demographic experts say young people's views may well reframe public debate on this issue tomorrow.
A statewide Field Poll released Wednesday illustrates the trend: The younger voters are, the more likely they are to support allowing same-sex marriage.
The Field Poll showed that 58 percent of 18-to 29-year-olds supported same-sex marriage, compared to 26 percent of those over 65. Overall, 44 percent of the respondents supported same-sex marriage.
Given the age breakdown, poll director Mark DiCamillo said that over time, those supporting gay marriage likely will outnumber those in opposition.
"It really is a matter of time as the demographic shift occurs," said Assemblyman Mark Leno. "It is the future."
The San Francisco Democrat's bill redefining marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between two persons" was at the center of the two recent youth conventions.
Leno spoke to the Junior State delegates a day before Knight and received a far warmer reception.
Kai Lukoff, the Junior State lieutenant governor, sat at the dais as Knight addressed the 550 delegates.
"The only way I can describe it, sitting up there (is as) emotionally intense and heated," Lukoff said.
But while Lukoff said he respected Knight for delivering his message to a sometimes hostile audience, Speers said Knight's message just didn't make sense to most of the young people there.
Knight and many social conservatives believe that homosexuality is an immoral lifestyle choice and therefore shouldn't be encouraged by allowing gays to marry.
Knight said he knew the young people might be a tough crowd.
"I've talked to schools before, and I had a hunch this might be the same," said Knight, who wrote Proposition 22 - passed by California voters in 2000 to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
"You have to put your case forward, and hopefully it is a case that holds water," he said.
Those watching cultural trends, however, say other forces also are at work. Young people today increasingly are exposed to gay musicians, actors and television characters.
"We just can't imagine growing up where every other TV show has a gay character," said Stephen T. Russell, a professor of human development at the University of California, Davis.
Speers said having gays in young people's everyday lives makes the idea of allowing them to marry easier to accept.
"Our gut reaction is to say, 'Go for it,' " Speers said. "We know so many people in California who are out, and we know they are not deviant."
Knight said schools, television and popular culture are to blame for young people's views toward gay marriage, but he has not lost hope for this generation.
He argues they don't yet see the full picture.
"I suspect that as they get older, their views will change," said Knight.
Karen Hanretty, a spokeswoman for the California Republican Party, also predicts young people's values will change as they age.
"The reality is that opinions and values develop over time," Hanretty said. "I do not think the opinion of high school kids necessarily reflects the options they will have as voters later in life."
While DiCamillo agreed that many people become more conservative on financial issues as they age, he doesn't foresee many young people shifting on gay marriage. The pollster said the issue is closer in opinion-research terms to interracial marriage than to taxes.
"Those kinds of values determinations are more likely to be fixed and stay with someone throughout their lives," DiCamillo said.
Katie Fleming, who helped push legislation in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage at the YMCA event, is one of those who said she doesn't see a downside to such unions.
"I don't think that there is any reason why not to," said Fleming, a San Francisco high school senior.
Lukoff is proud his generation is trailblazing.
"The debate does hinge around tradition," Lukoff said. "We are redefining society as we go."
Ben
"Never be discouraged from being an activist because people tell you that you'll not succeed. You have already succeeded if you're out there representing truth or justice or compassion or fairness or love."
-- Doris 'Granny D' Haddock
by WTJunkie » Tue Mar 02, 2004 4:08 pm
by Darcy » Tue Mar 02, 2004 9:26 pm
*****************
I don't care if it is an orgy of death, there's still such a thing as a napkin! - Willow in "Superstar"
by tyche » Wed Mar 03, 2004 1:31 pm
Quote:
www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-03-03-ny-gay-marriage_x.htm?csp=24
Oregon gay marriages begin; New York calls vows illegal
By Jim McKnight, AP
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — Gay and lesbian couples started tying the knot in Portland on Wednesday after the county issued same-sex marriage licenses, joining the rapidly spreading national movement from San Francisco to upstate New York.
About 50 people lined up for a sudden chance to wed after a Multnomah County commissioner said she would begin issuing the licenses to same-sex couples.
An ebullient Mary Li held up the very first certificate — showing her and her partner's name under the Oregon seal.
"I can't describe how great it feels," Li said. She and her partner Rebecca JFK were also the first to be married, by a county judge.
Gay bar owners handed out free glasses of champagne and many couples carried bouquets of roses.
Meanwhile, New York's attorney general joined the national debate, saying current law prohibits same-sex weddings but that he would leave it to the courts to decide if the law is constitutional.
"I personally would like to see the law changed, but must respect the law as it now stands," Spitzer said in a statement obtained by The Associated Press.
Both sides of the polarizing issue have been waiting for Spitzer's opinion since last Friday when the mayor of New Paltz, a small college town 75 miles north of Manhattan, married 25 same-sex couples without licenses. Village Mayor Jason West now faces 19 criminal counts and could face jail time.
On Wednesday, Nyack, N.Y. Mayor John Shields said he would also start marrying gay couples and planned to seek a license himself to marry his same-sex partner.
However, Spitzer said Wednesday that New York's law contains references to "bride and groom" and "husband and wife" and does not authorize same-sex marriage.
Spitzer last week refused a request from the state health department for an injunction stopping the gay weddings. New York Gov. George Pataki has said that performing gay marriages is illegal, and affirmed that position on Wednesday.
"Marriage under New York State law is and has been for over 200 years between a man and a woman. And we have to uphold that law," he said.
Shields said he would go ahead with his plan despite Spitzer's opinion.
"What do you do when you're faced with injustice?" he said. "What did the women do in the suffrage movement? They marched. They were arrested. They did what they had to do to get their rights."
In Washington, D.C., lawmakers debated same-sex marriages, with Republican senators such as Majority Leader Bill Frist asking Congress to embrace a constitutional amendment banning them. (Related story: Sen. Frist backs U.S. amendment)
"Same sex marriage is likely to spread through all 50 states in the coming years," Frist said. "It is becoming increasingly clear that Congress must act."
West married 25 gay couples on Friday, making New Paltz another flash point in the national debate over gay marriage. More than 3,400 couples have been married in San Francisco; West now has about 1,000 couples on a waiting list.
In Massachusetts, same-sex marriages have the approval of the state's highest court — but the state-sanctioned marriages will not start until May.
New York and Oregon are among 12 states without laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Oregon state law defines marriage as a "civil contract entered into in person by males at least 17 years of age and females at least 17 years of age."
On Tuesday, Multnomah County Chair Diane Linn directed the county to begin issuing same-sex wedding licenses after consulting with the county attorney, but without an official vote from the four other county commissioners. Three other commissioners affirmed her decision Wednesday.
"We will not allow discrimination to continue when the Constitution of the state of Oregon grants privileges equally to all citizens," Naito said.
Portland has long been viewed as a bastion of liberalism, but opposition from Oregon's Republican leadership was swift.
"I'm very upset that this travesty is taking place in Oregon. It definitely is an insult to the voters and to the people," said Kevin Mannix, chairman of the Oregon Republican Party, who called for the attorney general to put a halt to the marriages immediately.
Two protesters yelled at the couples across a yellow police tape as officers kept watch.
Marriage ceremonies were planned late Wednesday at a downtown hotel, hosted by Basic Rights Oregon and the Oregon chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Among those in line early Wednesday was Christine Tanner, who won a landmark Oregon Court of Appeals ruling in 1998 requiring all state and local governments to offer spousal benefits to the same-sex domestic partners of their employees.
"There are only so many big events in people's lives — birth, marriage and death," said Tanner, who waited overnight to wed her partner of 19 years. "It's a big deal. For us, this is symbolic."
In New York, West, 26, said he was motivated by civil rights and "common decency" to join the vanguard of the growing gay marriage movement, along with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom.
West was to be in court Wednesday night to answer charges that he married 19 couples knowing they did not have marriage licenses, a violation of the state's domestic relations law. He planned to plead innocent.
"I don't plan to spend time in jail," the Green Party mayor said on NBC's Today Show. "I think that the judge before whom this case will be heard will see that the constitution is clear on this, will see that our laws are clear on this and will see that these marriages are in fact legal."
If convicted, West could face from a $25 to $500 fine or jail time. Ulster County District Attorney Donald Williams said a jail term wasn't being contemplated at this point.
by Diebrock » Wed Mar 03, 2004 2:14 pm
Quote:
I've fantasized about leaving this country since I was 12 years old, but never more desperately than last Tuesday, when the president announced that my gay family should be banned by the U.S. Constitution. Suddenly, expatriation stopped being about wool berets and red wine at lunch. My loved ones and I were standing at the wrong end of a government's gun—not literally, of course, but in a way that threatens our deepest understanding of our lives. Our hopes for a happy, loving, ordinary marriage had become a national threat. George Bush had called for an amendment against same-sex marriage.
"Can we just go to Canada now?" I asked my wife, knowing the answer. We argue remarkably little for people who have a toddler and spend every possible moment together. Except we do have this one running debate at the breakfast table, which starts with me saying we could get legally married, right now, north of the border. Sarah holds up the weather page and says, "Hey, that cold air out there? It came from Canada, and it got warmer on the way."
It's warm in Vancouver, I say.
And we could be freer there. But she's not going, for reasons beyond the mercury. She wants to live as an American—more specifically, as a New Yorker—regardless of whether this America wants her. She wants our son to grow up an American, even if it means he'll lack the protections of the kid next door. Being American matters to her, and that means it matters to me. Four years ago this fall, we stood before an Episcopal priest and were pronounced married for life, for better, for worse. "Those whom God has joined together," the priest warned, "let no one put asunder." I won't leave her, Mr. Bush, not even on account of you.
But, oh, the siren call of liberty. Blame my parents for making me rootless by moving too often. Blame me for believing any place with equal rights and a bookstore is good enough. I can accept exile, but I cannot accept less than fair. I want to be a full citizen, with this woman, today. I want to do whatever it takes, sacrifice whatever is necessary, go wherever I have to, for that to be so.
I want to be taxed equally. I want my Social Security benefits to go somewhere besides down the drain. I want the Fifth Amendment right not to testify against Sarah, and to protect our private correspondence from subpoena, the same as other spouses. Couples like us don't have that right. Surprised? Rosie O'Donnell and her wife were, when the lawyers came after them.
I want our politicians and religious leaders to stop going on television and suggesting that legalizing marriage for us would be like legalizing sex with dogs. My wife, in my arms? They are talking about my wife, in my arms. Do they know, do they care, how much that hurts? Where must we run to be safe from them?
I want my wife not to feel such pressure and fear that she curls up in bed at night and cries. On the night of Wednesday, February 25, a woman in Brooklyn lay crying because she can't understand why people would hate her so, why they'd have to denigrate a beautiful and private part of her life with the most heinous rhetoric. Think about that. My wife lay in tears because strangers are clamoring for the power to decide whether she belongs, whether the American promise should hold true for her—as if there were any question which way they'd vote.
What stands between us and them? A couple dozen senators, and some of those are on the fence. Where is our right to a meaningful marriage, to the honest pursuit of happiness? We want our justice and "domestic tranquility." Whose country is this, anymore? Someone tell me. I get the feeling it's no longer mine.
For me, one of parenting's most profound lessons is that I am supposed to take care of Sarah and the baby, collectively, as a unit. It's not like she's a helpless damsel and I'm a butch knight—if anyone's the tough guy around here, it's her. Rather, I believe all mothers need protecting so they can get on with the open-hearted business of mothering. What works for me is to have Sarah come first, and with Sarah comes the baby. If there are two seats on the life raft, I'm drowning. House fire, I'm first in for the kid. Not enough food, I'm hungry, not her and not him.
Now comes an enemy who outweighs me, outnumbers me, corners me at will. And you know how I can really tell I'm overmatched? I wish it away. I say to Sarah, they'll never get this marriage amendment out of the Senate. They may get it out of the House, but never the Senate. This blustering of mine is worth only so much. We each know the amendment would likely pass in the states—it would need approval from 38, and that many already have statutes against gay marriage. Would Sarah leave then? She says maybe.
I look for example to older African Americans, though many of them don't want us, either. Not wanting to offend, I silently think of the children marching into the fire hoses of Birmingham, the adults who sat at segregated lunch counters while mobs poured ketchup on their heads. Some mothers and fathers back then asked their kids to be first through the schoolhouse door, rocks and bullets and all. Others left for the relative tolerance up North in places like Chicago and Harlem, unwilling to make an existence of waiting. I know what's happening to us isn't the same as that, exactly, but it requires of me the same kind of courage. You just hope the breakthrough happens in your lifetime.
The privacy of this struggle may be the worst part, the continued aloneness of being. So many people don't get it. They say things to us like "Being married isn't all it's cracked up to be"—as if we weren't religiously married already, as if being blocked from the city clerk's door were great fun. They say, "Wouldn't civil unions be enough?" or, now that gay couples are marrying out West, "I'd hate for this marriage thing to win Bush the election." They say, "You really have to pay taxes like that?" and "Being domestic partners doesn't help you?" and "You should see the marriage penalty we pay." They say, "Oh, I wish it were different for you." They say, "Come to our wedding! We're getting married!"
Sometimes I think the greatest hindrance to our cause is the sheer force of the American legend. So strongly do people believe this country stands for freedom that they can't fathom it's ever otherwise. Sign a few contracts, the well-intentioned advise, and you'll get all the same rights as straight couples—that's an outrageous fiction, but not as outrageous as the notion that being almost equal under the law is good enough.
For now, we can't get even that far, with leaders like Bush smirking at this thing Sarah and I call marriage. Should he need proof of the moral weight of our vows, I'd ask him to consider this: If it weren't for the true marriage I'm in, and the needs of the wife I've pledged to love, I would flee this America to fulfill my own dream of equality. Instead, with no small sum of fear, I will stay with her and fight.
_________________
Independence is my happiness, and I view things as they are, without regard to place or person; my country is the world, and my religion is to do good.
I've kissed her best friend. I've reached into her best friend's pocket and fished around for keys. And I gave her best friend my number. I must be doing something totally, totally wrong... - TBSOL by Dreams
by urnofosiris » Wed Mar 03, 2004 2:45 pm
by BytrSuite » Wed Mar 03, 2004 5:02 pm
________
"...the sharks got smarter."
by maudmac » Wed Mar 03, 2004 5:48 pm
I have no professional training. I already gave my best. I have no regrets at all.
by cattwoman98111 » Wed Mar 03, 2004 6:13 pm
Your smile got stuck in my eyes and your mouth makes me forget what i'm saying and your lips make me wonder if your taken, so tell me, are you taken?
by Puff » Wed Mar 03, 2004 6:17 pm
by Tiggrscorpio » Wed Mar 03, 2004 6:53 pm
by Alia16 » Wed Mar 03, 2004 9:01 pm
by Gatito Grande » Wed Mar 03, 2004 9:42 pm
) by sprhrgrl » Thu Mar 04, 2004 2:04 am
Sweetie, I'm a fag. I been there. - Tara (Dead Things shooting script)
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests