Gay Marriage Anarchy in San Francisco

OpinionEditorials.com ^ | 18 February 2004 | Cinnamon Stillwell

[MegaSilver]

One of the conditions of living in the People’s Republic of San Francisco is a constant feeling of isolation from the rest of the state and country. Indeed, San Franciscans often joke about seceding from the union, when for all intents and purposes, they already have. For years, the city’s government has refused to comply with a variety of federal and state laws, including immigration, national security, and drug enforcement. So when San Francisco’s new mayor Gavin Newsom decreed this past week that gay marriage would now be legal, it shouldn’t have come as much of a surprise.

Newsom’s announcement was the catalyst for hundreds of gay couples from all over the country to rush to San Francisco and get hitched. And an obliging staff kept city hall doors open over the three-day weekend, just to accommodate the stampede. Reportedly, marriage forms were altered for the occasion as well. What was once “bride” and “groom” or “husband” and “wife,” became “applicant number one” and “applicant number two,” or the equally romantic “spouse for life.”

Indeed, it may only be a matter of time before the PC Police decide that all people wishing to get married must use these generic terms, in order to avoid offending the sensibilities of gay couples. If this extends to parenthood, will mothers and fathers then be reduced to “guardian number one” and “guardian number two”? Only time will tell, but the precedent being set by San Francisco will certainly reverberate for years to come.

Meanwhile there’s the small matter of gay marriage being against state law. California voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 22 in 2000, which defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. Despite this, gay activists such as California Assemblymember Mark Leno have been attempting to impose their agenda on the voters of the state ever since. It was of course Leno who counseled Newsom with his decision. And later he presided over some of the first same-sex weddings at city hall.

To be sure, the gay marriage debate currently taking place in Massachusetts must have influenced Newsom’s sudden decision. But when asked, Newsom explained that it was President Bush’s State of the Union Address that inspired him. In it, Bush expressed concern for maintaining the “sanctity of marriage” between a man and a woman, although he avoided mention of a rumored constitutional amendment to that effect. But apparently that was all the prodding Newsom needed to take drastic action. And that he did. Newsom defied the will of the majority in favor of a vocal minority and so far, he does not appear to be backing down.

Strangely enough, Newsom was voted into office based largely on his moderate credentials. But after his abrupt left turn on gay marriage, many of the conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans who helped vote him into office are now ruing their choice. Once seen as a rising young star in the Democratic Party, Gavin Newsom has now ensured his place amidst the luminaries of the fringe left. While he may have locked up the gay San Francisco vote with this decision, his state and national aspirations may not be so assured.

The Democratic Party itself is divided on gay marriage and even presidential candidate frontrunner John Kerry has been reluctant to alienate his moderate base by supporting gay marriage. Instead, he’s taken the safe route by making lip service to civil unions. Supposedly, he is none too thrilled about Newsom’s actions, because they may very well catapult the losing issue of gay marriage into the presidential race. It’s likely that Newsom will make more enemies than friends with this decision, even among his own party.

While Newsom has succeeded in putting San Francisco on the forefront of the gay marriage debate, he has done so at the expense of California’s voters. The question is, how much longer will his blatant disregard for state law go unpunished? It remains to be seen whether attorney general Bill Lockyer will do his job and enforce the laws of the state, while celebrity governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has yet to comment publicly on the turn of events. San Francisco’s gay marriages could be declared invalid, not to mention the question of how those marriages conflict with domestic partner status. Whatever happens, this is an issue whose time has come.

Cinnamon Stillwell is a contributing editor to ChronWatch.com, where this article first appeared. She lives in San Francisco and can be reached at: cinnamons@sbcglobal.net

[jimt]

Read it how you want...He dont support homos marrying...

His quote about marrying -

"In my culture, marriage is a man-woman relationship."

But also -

Later, in an appearance at Holy Cross Church in Worcester, Jackson made sure others knew that he did support some rights for same-sex couples, noting "Gays deserve the right of choice to choose their own partners."

"If you don't agree, don't participate and don't perform the service," he said, according to the Associated Press.

He has not repudiated "gay rights".

[society-by-contract]

Gay Marriage Anarchy in San Francisco

Comparing San Francisco Ordinances with anarchy isn't fair to anarchists.

[smith288]

He is speaking of the "right" to be gay... Do you think being gay should be illegal?

[Kirkwood]

When I was in SF last year I was attacked from behind by a panhandling homeless bum when I ignored him. This was in the business district in the middle of the day. Fortunately I caught his moving toward me out of the corner of my eye and was able to react in time. I wasn't hurt, but the potential was there if he had been quicker and used a knife instead of a bottle. The next day I say the peace activists riot and try to overturn cable cars with children in them. More riots the following day, but it was generally covered up by the news media. I have no plans to be returning anytime soon.

[Bean Counter]

Pray for the big one.

Magnitude 12+ on the richter scale.

Break California off at the San Andreas and dump it into the Pacific.

Bay Area Freepers, leave now. Head East and get ready to set up the new West Coast.

[jimt]

He is speaking of the "right" to be gay... Do you think being gay should be illegal?

Of course not. But I'm tired of paying for it, and I refuse to "celebrate" it or even approve of it. Neither do I go out of my way to offensively condemn it. Unless it's shoved in my face...

[sheik yerbouty]

I'm sure the issue will soon be behind him.

[philetus]

"The line between Rats and the GOP gets wider and brighter every day."


Looks can be deceiving, time will tell.

[reagandemocrat]

Prediction: California votes Bush 2004

[Middle Man]

"The line between Rats and the GOP gets wider and brighter every day."

I would love to believe that, but they both spend taxpayers' money like drunken sailors. This fall, whaddaya got? Skull & Bones I or Skull & Bones II.

[SeenTheLight]

ping

[mvpel]

I had a bottle thrown at me after refusing panhandlers outside a movie theater. I was armed, fortunately it didn't come to anything more serious.

[Kirkwood]

I've never experienced a problem with the homeless on any other occasion, but I think SF has a greater share of the psycho homeless who have had their brains fried by drugs.

[RipSawyer]

Careful, if you force people to smell the stench from the pretty white striped kittycat they will scold you incessantly. Altogether now, Freedom is Slavery, or is it Slavery is Freedom?

[mvpel]

SF offers cash payouts to bums, so naturally bums from all over the Bay Area, and the rest of the country for that matter, flock to the city.

[Guillermo]

I would not oppose the anti-sodomy laws that were in place in each of the 13 original states at the time the Constitution was ratified.

As a matter of fact, they should all be re-implemented ASAP.

The homosexual agenda is running rampant, and not a single politician cares, or is doing anything about it.

The next logical steps is criminalizing any speech that opposes homosexuality. It's already happening in the UK and Canada.

[salinger79]

It's sad. I have never thought very much of republicans but I do remember a time when at the very least they were consistent. You know, the old fashioned reganite types that believed in smaller government, little to no social programs to help the less fortunate, no enviornmental regulations on businesses, tax cuts for the wealthy and all that jazz but fundamentally they were about keeping government off your back and strict constructionts of the constitution. Where does it say in the constitution that marriage is a fundamental right between a man and a woman or even hint that it is a major concern. Remember in the 1980's the repubs defeated the Equal rights Amendment which would have just enshrined a statement that women should be given all the equal rights of men. Maybey we didn't need that amendment because it had already happened, I don't really know and I don't care since that battle is lost. More importantly though when did the repubs give up on the idea of individual liberty? If you don't agree with it then don't do it. You used to always talk about smaller government, I guess what you all meant is that you wanted to make govt. just small enough to fit into ordinary Americans bedrooms. Gay people serve in the army, pay taxes, and work just like everyone else. Personally I don't give a damn what they want to do with eachother. God Save the U.S. from those that would limit the freedom of others and God Bless San Francisco.

[muleskinner]

and God Bless San Francisco

Yes, God bless the worlds largest outdoor insane asylum.

[smith288]

God Save the U.S. from those that would limit the freedom of others and God Bless San Francisco.

Gob blesses those who praise his name...San Fran is not one of those places.