Posted on 02/15/2004 9:21:34 AM PST by 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.
IF the government is in the business of giving licenses then it must determine why some taxpayers are left out and not provided equal opportunity under the law. There is no right to marry, as far as I can determine. But the government has an obligation under the constitution to provide equal protection under the law and that means not affording separate opportunites to different taxpayers.
You did not answer my question about the support of the agenda and why you misrepresented my position, so I will not be answering your new question. I realize you just shot first without aiming. Just admit your mistake and we'll move on to the next question. It is the honorable thing to do.
tm, this is the guy you're supporting? LOL!
As do I. But I also understand what those rights are, and what they are not.
Speech, religion, owning firearms and a fair trial are all rights. Marriage, adoption and killing the unborn in the name of convenience are not.
Can you see and understand the difference?
I included child molestation as a "right" some people would like to have - along with polygamy and incest. You seem to like to ignore the point of a post and use your own interpretation. Since child molestation is so inarguably heinous, you are trying to use it as a way to make my post seem controversial.
Why is there no freedom for child molestation, as opposed to Canada where the age of consent is 14, or Amsterdam where it is 12? Because we as a majority have determined that to do otherwise is immoral. How do we know activist judges won't soon find a "right" to sexual behavior for minors? This is already the goal of many UN NGO's who are attempting to use international "soft laws" to overturn sovereign laws. International laws were cited in the Goodridge decision.
Yesterday a guest on O'Reilly, Al Rantel, a homosexual man, stated that he totally disagrees with the homosexual agenda re: marriage. He argued it is not the redefinition of marriage but the deconstruction of marriage.
I hope you and Al Rantal live a happy life. I don't get my opinions from talk show hosts. I get them by reading, listening to a variety of sources, and by thinking. Turn off the radio and give it a try.
What? A marriage license is a contract? Would you be so kind as explain how you came up with this idea?
And while you are at it, could you also tell us how homosexuals are being discriminated against? Homosexuals can marry if they so desire, as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex.
But what you fail to understand is, the state does not have to allow anyone to marry if they don't want to. You see, marriage is not a right. It is not mentioned in the Constitution. In fact, it was left up to the States to decide, if you have read the Tenth Amendment. Furthermore, in 38 states, there is now a Defense of Marriage Act in place that firmly establishes the definition of marriage as being a legal union between one man and one woman. To date, this has not been challenged by anyone, in any of the 38 states, because of the aforementioned fact.
What the Mayor of San Francisco is doing is in clear violation of state law. He knows it, we know it, and those marriage certificates he has been handing out are not worth the paper they are printed on anywhere outside of the city.
What's your point?
What Al Rantel did was affirm that homosexuals are not interested in marriage except to further their own agenda. He said he spoke from an insider's perspective and proved the opinions expressed here by homosexual activists are actually mainstream within the homosexual community.
Goodridge was not decided on equal protection but "rational basis." You are echoing the Mayor of San Francisco's arguments, and he, at this point, is a lawbreaker.
I told you about my neighbors marriage and so what, you would have me throw out what I know from direct observation because Al Rantal has a different opinion. I hope all doesn't tell you to become homosexual, you will implode. LOL!
No, I don't. You seem to, however. And you have not told me how you came up with such a silly conclusion.
Of course, that is not the only thing you have intentionally ignored:
But what you fail to understand is, the state does not have to allow anyone to marry if they don't want to. You see, marriage is not a right. It is not mentioned in the Constitution. In fact, it was left up to the States to decide, if you have read the Tenth Amendment. Furthermore, in 38 states, there is now a Defense of Marriage Act in place that firmly establishes the definition of marriage as being a legal union between one man and one woman. To date, this has not been challenged by anyone, in any of the 38 states, because of the aforementioned fact.
Now, if there is any part of this you do not understand, (and it is obvious you don't understand any of it, since you ignored it) please re-read the United States Constitution.
I will not spend one minute explaining marriage contract to you. You can ignore the legal and vivil aspects of state marriages all you want, that won't make it go away.
Please re-read #75.
I will not spend one minute explaining marriage contract to you.
That's because you can't. As with the above issue, you have no idea what you are talking about.
My first post was that the homosexuals I know, male and female, have neither long-term nor monogomaus relationships. The male homosexuals were especially promiscuous and involved in all kinds of sexually aberrant behavior. The lesbians may have been quieter about it but were supportive of such behavior.
Al Rantel must have the courage of his convictions to come out against the homosexual party line.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.