Same-sex marriage yields 'protest burnout'

Contra Costa Times ^ | 3/5/8 | John Simerman

[SmithL]

SAN FRANCISCO -- In his right hand, Luke Otterstad held a pole attached to a big yellow sign that read "Re-Criminalize Sodomy." In his left, he held a bullhorn that never touched his lips.

"I haven't used it at all," said Otterstad, 22, who drove down from Placerville, prepped for a booming rhetorical showdown with same-sex marriage advocates Tuesday outside the California Supreme Court. "I expected a mob. Maybe it's too early in the morning."

Or too late in the game.

As lawyers on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate argued before the state's highest court and hundreds of people packed into viewing theaters around Civic Center Plaza, barely a murmur arose outside.

A cadre of police officers on guard for a major protest dwindled to a lonely few by the 9 a.m. start of the hearing. A smattering of same-sex marriage opponents baked under a warming sun. Their signs were bigger. And they dominated the rival faction in numbers, by a 12-3 margin.

Make that 12-3, total.

"You would have thought ..." said Mark Williamson, 51, a gay San Francisco man whose partner had to work and couldn't make it out. "There may be a little protest burnout. I guess it's easy to let the court make the decision."

In a city well known for mass demonstrations and feisty civil disobedience around liberal causes, the scene for perhaps the nation's most galvanizing debate was astonishing for its tranquillity.

The action was livelier out on the park lawn, among the older women practicing tai chi dance. The homeless slept easily on the grass. Frisbees flew freely.

As many TV cameras turned out as protesters. More, even. Every protester had a platform, and at least one lens.

The contrast with four years ago, when thousands swarmed on City Hall as gay couples dove into marital union en masse, wasn't lost on the men with the signs who traded scripture-inspired barbs from either side of a yawning social divide.

Asked if he was disappointed, Williamson equivocated.

"Yes, because I would have expected a little motivation," he said. "No, because we're the ones getting on the news."

They weren't the only ones.

Mayor Gavin Newsom, who sparked this legal conflict in 2004 with his decision to order up same-sex marriages, emerged into the sun from City Hall.

But not, ostensibly, to talk about same-sex marriage. He was promoting a pledge by San Francisco and other cities to buy only 100 percent recycled paper, talking all about carbon taxes and "zero waste" goals.

He stood in a white shirt before big white bundles of paper scraps in a news conference scheduled smack in the middle of the three-plus-hour court hearing.

Afterward, Newsom looked over toward the Supreme Court building, catawampus across the plaza from City Hall, saying the lack of demonstrators was a good sign, a signal of "how far we've come in a few years."

"Today's not about protests," he said. "It's about making a legal case."

Back inside City Hall, it was business as usual.

Under the rotunda, minutes after they exchanged vows, John Burnett, 35, stood with his new wife, Jasminda, saying he only learned about the court hearing Tuesday morning. They worried about crowds. They needn't have.

As for same-sex marriage, he said: "We're a little more old-fashioned."

Theirs was among three "old-fashioned," opposite-sex wedding ceremonies that had taken place by 11 a.m., with five marriage licenses issued to couples, said Gerardo Romo, the deputy city clerk.

Five more ceremonies were scheduled for the noon hour.

"Tuesdays," said Romo, "are very slow."

[SmithL]

[edcoil]

PROP 22 put in the California Constitution that marriage was between a man and a women. The judges have no recourse. What the "gay" community can do is have the people change the Constitution but judges, cannot change the Constitution.

[Carry_Okie]

PROP 22 put in the California Constitution that marriage was between a man and a women.

False. It was an initiative statute, not a Constitutional amendment.

[Always Right]

Perhaps after spending a couple weeks with the same guy, gays have figured out this gay marriage deal ain’t all what it is cracked up to be.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

When you are born on an old but sturdy bridge, you take the supports for granted. You don't necessarily even think about how the supports got there or what makes them work so well. Ah, but the bridge attacker studies up on what makes the bridge stand, for his goal is to destroy it. So he little by little knocks out the key points of support until the whole thing is ready to colapse.

That is my example of what has happened with the marriage debate. We were all born into a world that took this basic social structure for granted. Those who have sought to destroy it have studied long on hard about how best to bring this social structure down. Is it too late to save the structure? Probably in California and some other blue states. Maybe not in the rest of the nation, though there are not many promising signs that people have the will or the wisdom to do what is necessary to save it. Thoughts all go to protecting the surface so that we at least have the appearance of the thing. Few seem to understand how quickly that is lost when you lose the supports, the foundational principles and arguments that make your structure stand.

[edcoil]

You are wrong. It was a Constitutional change. Judges and legislators cannot change it. Only votes. Read below.

“Central to many subsequent disputes over Prop 22’s effect is a distinction between statutes enacted by the legislature and initiative statutes enacted directly by the electorate. The legislature is free to amend or rescind its own enactments, but voters must approve any attempt by the legislature to amend or repeal an initiative statute.”

[Carry_Okie]

From FindLaw: Limit on Marriages. Initiative Statute.

[Carry_Okie]

You are wrong. It [Proposition 22] was a Constitutional change. Judges and legislators cannot change it. Only votes. Read below.

So, if Proposition 22 had amended the California Constitution to constrain marriage only to a man and a woman, what would be the purpose of phone call I got five minutes ago asking me to sign a petition (that I signed last Saturday) proposing to put an initiative Constitutional amendment on the ballot to make marriage exclusively heterosexual?

So, if FindLaw says Proposistion 22 was an initiative statute that amended Section 308.5 of the California Family Code, how am I wrong?

[edcoil]

Because it takes a vote of the people not the courts or legislature to check the law.

I have seen those emails and calls and there is actually no need to waste your time or money - someone is just as ill informed as many so money can be made.

[Carry_Okie]

Because it takes a vote of the people not the courts or legislature to check the law.

If that were true, Proposition 187 would be in force.

It's not.

I have seen those emails and calls and there is actually no need to waste your time or money - someone is just as ill informed as many so money can be made.

I see, you are not only so you are not only ignorant, but stubbornly so. Please show me where Proposition 22 is in the California Constitution.

You see, I read the law and gave you a link to prove it.

[No Dems 2004]

It’s hard to say how the judges will rule, but it seems form the oral arguments (which I listened to) that 3 of the 7 justices (at least) will side with Prop 22 and the California government. Let’s pray that the California Supreme Court does the right thing and leaves it to the democratic process.

[manc]

why do gays and the wacky left think if you are against queer marriage then you must be religious

I am not neither are all the people who I know yet we are against queer marriage

Just shows how out of touch these weird sexual perverted weirdos are

[Dilbert San Diego]

It’s unlikely that the court will rule for same sex marriage. But look for another initiative vote to repeal Prop. 22 if the court decides to uphold it.