Same-Sex Couples Wed in Valentine's Spree (MEGA BARF ALERT!)

Yahoo via AP ^ | Feb 15, 2004 | Tami Min

[Houmatt]

SAN FRANCISCO - Gay and lesbian couples from across the country answered this city's Valentine's Day invitation to wed in an unprecedented spree of same-sex marriages that has challenged California law and sent conservative groups scrambling for court intervention.

Hundreds of people lined up Saturday outside City Hall to secure marriage licenses — and then take each other as "spouse for life" in brief vows that have given San Francisco's seat of government the feel of a Las Vegas wedding chapel.

As passing drivers honked and strangers passed out roses, those waiting hours in line cheered couples who emerged from the ornate building clutching the controversial marriage licenses.

"It's finally somebody saying, 'Yes, you can do this,'" said Peter Subers, 57, of Washington County, N.Y., as he stood in line with husband-to-be Rob Bauer, 63.

They already had plans to head to Northern California, but decided Friday on the flight west to marry. Saturday was their 34th anniversary.

It was the third straight day that officials issued the licenses to hundreds of gay and lesbian couples. The response has been so overwhelming that nearly 200 city officials, led by newly elected Mayor Gavin Newsom, have volunteered to pitch in, from sheriff's deputies providing security to clerks processing the licenses.

Rodney Vonjaeger and his partner John Kussmann, both 37, drove overnight from San Diego and arrived at 3 a.m. Saturday.

"We decided if there was ever an opportunity we would do it, so the drive wasn't even a consideration," Vonjaeger said as he waited in line Saturday. They set the hotel alarm for 8 a.m., "but we were up at 7 because of the excitement."

Across the country, other gay couples didn't wait for a marriage license. About three dozen same-sex couples exchanged vows at Philadelphia's LOVE Park on Saturday as part of a "mass commitment ceremony" organized by a gay-friendly church.

Led by a minister, the couples gathered in front of Robert Indiana's famed "LOVE" sculpture — a rainbow flag draped under it — and repeated their vows.

"If they're not going to let us get married, we're going to do it anyway," said Dan Farley, shortly after exchanging silver rings with his partner, John McCann.

Despite legal challenges from advocates of traditional marriage, San Francisco's wedding march is expected to continue throughout the long holiday weekend. By late Saturday, the city had performed over 900 same-sex marriages since the weddings began Thursday.

San Francisco officials said they expected to hand out about 600 licenses Saturday, and by late afternoon had already recorded 270 same-sex weddings.

City officials said they would welcome license applications on Saturday, Sunday and Monday — President's Day — to accommodate couples that have flocked here from places including Oregon, Minnesota, New York and Seattle.

On Friday, a judge denied a petition to block more licenses from being granted. One group of opponents was asked to return Tuesday for a hearing; another group was told to return Tuesday to properly make their request to block the licenses.

"No one made the mayor of San Francisco king; he can't play God. He cannot trash the vote of the people," Randy Thomasson, director of the Campaign for California Families, said at a news conference in Los Angeles.

Aside from the lawsuits, the newly married couples may face other obstacles. After a marriage license is recorded by county officials, it is sent to the state Office of Vital Records. A ballot initiative approved by voters in 2000 said the state would only recognize marriages between a man and a woman.

San Francisco officials have insisted the licenses they have handed out are legally binding, although they are revised to be "gender-neutral." But a deputy city attorney acknowledged that the state may not accept them.

San Francisco appears to be the first city in the nation to officially support same-sex marriage licenses; city clerks in Arizona and Colorado in 1975 issued licenses to gay and lesbian couples that were later revoked or declared void.

Emboldened by the prospect of the nation's first legal same-sex marriages in Massachusetts, gay couples went to courthouses around the nation Thursday and Friday to demand the right to marry. They were quickly turned away.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled that it is unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage. Under the decision, the nation's first legally sanctioned gay marriages are scheduled to begin in mid-May.

Lawmakers are proposing a constitutional amendment that would define marriage a union between one man and one woman, and the Legislature resumes its deliberations of amendments on March 11.

Some American couples headed to Toronto Saturday, where gay marriage is legal.

"Canada as a country is more accepting and tolerant, we didn't give it a second thought," said Robin Hanson, a St. Louis doctoral student who was marrying her girlfriend Susan Levin.

[frossca]

I still don't understand what the big deal is. By California law, these "marriages" are NOT LEGAL. All these ceremonies amount to mass mutal mental masturbation. It feels good, but signifies nothing. These unions have the same power as would swearing in all the members of the SF Council as President of the United States.

[Viking2002]

Now I suppose they'll all want a lab to create little stem-cell queers they can call their own.....*BARF* *HEAVE* *YAK* *PUUUUUKE* *RETCH*

[breakem]

My experience is that we know 5 homosexuals. They are all over 35. 4 of them are monogamous and 1 dates and has a different person every year or so. And then we have many hetero friends who are not monogamous and one of them is married. I still think marriage settles people down or is it aging?

[breakem]

PS, three of our friends were not molested as children. The other two, I don't know and the subject has not come up.

[Salman]

OK, whose egg and womb did these two men hijack?

I keep saying on these gay threads, but comments like this keep coming up.

Yes it may be as you say, but most "gay" people have normal sex sometime in their lives, and many have children the normal way. Then "discovered" that being is "gay". Or "came out".

Very likely one of these men is really the boy's father.

The recent notorious bishop, actor Danny Kaye, and Oscar Wilde were all "gay" but at some point married with children.

There is also adoption and reproductive technologies, but that's a sensational side issue to the insidious family destroying power of real parents being "gay".

[Skooz]

Same-Sex Couples Wed ...

No, they didn't.

[Types_with_Fist]

Innovative, how the Bay Area has determined to fight for what they believe in...gay marriage, restricted types of abortions, etc...just "ignore the law." I guess that's different from "breaking the law." Just ignore it. Innovative. < /sarcasm>

[Houmatt]

PS, three of our friends were not molested as children.

This just means they chose to go into the homosexual lifestyle, because they sure as hell weren't born that way.

[breakem]

and......................

[RightWingAtheist]

I agree that we should at least encourage monogamous and stable relationships among everyone, heterosexual and homosexual. Like it or not, there will always be gay people, and while you shouldn't be forced to accept or respect homosexuality, we should at least try to be respectful of people. To use an analogy: I hate black licorice. I resent the fact that because some 5-10% of the population likes black licorice, I have to hand-pick out licorice candies out of the box. But I'm not about to insist that black licorice be banned just because myself and the vast majority of people find it disgusting, and I'm not going to treat people like dirt if they do like it.

And to be perfectly frank and upfront, I've had numerous gay friends, all of them monogamous, and none with HIV or VD, as far as I know. My best friend throughout high school and college was FLAMINGLY gay-and more flaming and he would explode like a Spinal Tap drummer. But he was and still is even more conservative than I am (except on abortion). He's currently a pre-med student, and is always writing letters criticizing Canada's socialist health policy to newspapers. My MA advisor was a lesbian, and I remain in touch with both her and her partner. They're a truly lovely couple who have always accepted my politics, which are very different from theirs, and I've always been grateful for their enormous amount of help in getting me into a first-rate Ph.d program.

[RightWingAtheist]

"breaking the law."

Funny you should mention that. Did you hear the recent news about the drummer from Judas Priest?

[breakem]

There's a lot of ignorance and phony science on these hate-the-home threads. After pointing out some of it, I realized I was talking to zealots. I would argue more and point out the crap, but zealots are not swayed by logic and talk of freedom and liberty. I will join in a fight to protect children, but those who foam at the mouth about adult rights and behavior can pound sand.

On my way to the airport. Best wishes.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping.

I predict that this busy list is going to get even busier, as the the very busy homosexual activists and their handmaidens in the media intensify their attempt to turn the USA into their private homosexual playland-dominion.

If anyone wants off or on this list, pingify me.

[little jeremiah]

Here's what homosexual spokespeople actually think of homosexual marriage:


Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994) :

"A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake --and one that would perhaps benefit all of society--is to transform the notion of family entirely." "Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us."

Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.

Crain writes: "...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn't deserve the position." (Washington Blade, August, 2003).

Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater "understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." He notes: "The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness." (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)

Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said: "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality." (partially quoted in "Beyond Gay Marriage," Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)

Evan Wolfson has stated: "Isn't having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? . marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. "(quoted in "What Marriage Is For," by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)

Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says: "Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I'd be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of 'till death do us part' and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play." (quoted in "Now Free To Marry, Canada's Gays Say, 'Do I?'" by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)

1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: "Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit."

[This Platforma also demanded the elimination of ALL age of consent laws!]

[Alouette]

Very likely one of these men is really the boy's father.

Very UNLIKELY the other one is really the boy's mother. Does the real mother have joint custody or did she sign away the rights to her own child?

There is also adoption and reproductive technologies

Which can not alter the fact that third party participation or "rights" to claim other people's children is required in order for "gays" to become parents.

[Egg]

We sure have come a long way since our founding fathers (who would have no chance of getting elected to the offices they helped create were they alive to run for office today) began this nation with a determined reliance on God and the Bible. Today, no one seems interested in consulting God's Word on how He would have us run our society. I suppose we think that we can take it from here--thanks, God, for some 150-200 years of divine wisdom and help.

Isn't it funny how that our failure to honor God's laws is mirrored in our elected officials' failure to honor our own laws? Indeed, from our Supreme Court down to the mayors of major cities, law has become an inconvenience to be trampled upon should it contradict personal feelings of what should be versus what is. It's no wonder that Jesus, on that last day, will say "Depart from me, lawless ones, for I never knew you."

[tuesday afternoon]

So I am the only one who's homosexual friends fit all the stereotypes of promiscuity?

I forgot to mention that my one friend who has AIDS contracted hepatitis recently. I assume that's because he wasn't practicing safe-sex with other men who had AIDS.

[tuesday afternoon]

Thanks for the quotes.

[little jeremiah]

The poster whose "gay" friends are all emblems of moral rectitude always supports the "gay" agenda to the hilt. As if every "gay" person (or normal, for that matter) always tells every single detail of their sex lives to everyone.

Especially if those details involve, shall we say, unsavory details?

[Salman]

Me: Very likely one of these men is really the boy's father.

Alouette: Very UNLIKELY the other one is really the boy's mother. Does the real mother have joint custody or did she sign away the rights to her own child?

Me, Answering: Of course your first sentence is a rhetorical understatement. I don't know the specifics of the particular case, so I don't know what the deal is with the mother. I do know that custody cases are getting hideously flaky when it comes to "gay" custody.

Please don't think I'm trying to justify these creeps' arrangement. Living as you do as a member of a religious community you have the right instincts, but you haven't seen the full horror.

Me: There is also adoption and reproductive technologies

Alouette: Which can not alter the fact that third party participation or "rights" to claim other people's children is required in order for "gays" to become parents.

Me, answering: Sometimes this is true, but most "gay" parents became parents precisely the same way you did, and then left their spouse and family to be "gay". Please understand I am not disparaging traditional morals in any way. I am only pointing out that those who hold such morals do not always understand the scope of the problem.