Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

First same sex couple officially married in US

21:41 / 15.02.04

why isn't this being talked about? EVERYWHERE?!?!

History was made at 11:06 a.m. today at San Francisco City Hall when Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon took their wedding vows, becoming the first same-sex couple to be officially married in the United States.

there are some details here about how it came about.

It was only his 12th day as mayor of San Francisco, but Gavin Newsom decided that night -- the very night he attended President Bush's State of the Union address in Washington, D.C. -- that he was going to defy California law.

And turn the nation on its ear.

Attending the president's Jan. 20 speech as a guest of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Newsom listened closely as Bush voiced his strong support for outlawing same-sex marriage -- with a constitutional amendment, if necessary.

Not long after the speech, Newsom called his chief of staff, Steve Kawa, a gay man who was at home with his partner and their two children. "He told me that he wanted to do something,'' Kawa said.

Two weeks later, during a staff meeting, Newsom dropped the bombshell on his top aides: He wanted them to explore how the city could start issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.

as you can imagine, san francisco's city hall is receiving such a massive response for the ceremonies, they've already had to turn a hell of a lot of people away, even though city hall has even stayed open an extra day (sunday) to provide services.

so for those of you who are more politically savvy, what's the next step? can opponents reject the legality of these weddings? is this going to be the start of a massive wave of changes? is this newsom guy going to get himself in trouble? what can we do, us little folks 3,000 miles or so away from san fransisco, do to show our JOYOUS support?

and for those of you who understand the media a bit - why the hell isn't this EVERYWHERE? I saw 1000% more coverage (pardon the pun) on janet's nipple, for christ's sake! do you think this is deliberately being ignored, or do people genuinely not care? does it not serve the media to snap this up? admittedly, I don't watch much television or read the paper, but I spend some time online every day. so what the hell?

my toes are curling in anticipation of your input. no, really.

22:46 / 15.02.04

I meant to link here, too, but forgot in my small yap dog like excitement. more on the specific political aspects.

here's what they're saying:

Social conservatives argue that nothing short of a constitutional amendment can stop the courts from ultimately overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, which excludes gay couples from federal benefits tied to marriage, such as citizenship for immigrant partners, and allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

bush is quoted as saying:

"If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people..."

tee hee! no he did not!

02:20 / 16.02.04

Dahlia Lithwick had a very succinct and spot-on article at Slate last week about this:

"It's a truism to say that one of the great beauties of federalism is that states can act as mini-social-laboratories. If Massachusetts wants to recognize gay marriage, let 'em. If Ohio wants to ban them, have at it. It's precisely because marriage has always been reserved to the states to regulate differently that a federal constitutional amendment is so silly. But it's even sillier for the president to make a fool of himself by amending a document that mostly gives him what he wants already—a way to keep one state from foisting its will on the others.

To amend the Constitution before the courts have even ruled on DOMA is to give in to pre-emptive hysteria. It's a hedge against a hole in an escape hatch. It calls out only one signal: that even one gay marriage in one small state is too many. That's not statesmanship, and it's not political policy. It's bigotry."

Goodness Gracious Meme

15:52 / 16.02.04

thanks for posting this BK. Can only say on the media point that this has been all over queer media/newsgroups/social circles for ages. More later when i'm less 'blurhghl'.

Goodness Gracious Meme

15:54 / 16.02.04

Also this is the latest i think:

More than 1,600 same-sex marraiges performed

13:03 / 17.02.04

I feel really stupid saying it was ignored, especially after being informed that cnn has been playing the story pretty much on a "constant loop". comes of not watching enough teevee!

still, I find it very exciting. I think it's amazing that this guy who is seemingly just getting his feet wet politically is willing to push things for change. some say he's pushing his luck and it might not even do any good in the end - doesn't that just floor you? he took a risk, everyone did. I mean, you get to the point where you're really cynical about the intentions and limitations of politicians, and then suddenly someone just up and does something. and all these people backed him, kept it secret, all these people on different levels of the system making it happen. obviously not everyone "in charge" has the same bigoted views as our president and his many outspoken cronies, and that gives me some hope

I also feel like maybe this will serve as the spark that sets off major changes in this country's attitude - maybe we can start seeing marriage and (to me at least, more importantly) the accompanying benefits as a right, rather than some religious institution. it's a BIG maybe, but it's something

and you gotta love seeing people get what they really want, and should have been able to have all along.

maybe I'm getting way ahead of myself, but hell - isn't it all so cool?

16:45 / 17.02.04

yeah its way cool.

im in the process of constructing a website that will involve among other things . . .facts on same-sex marrage and other arrangements.

im not a great web designer at all, but it should be up a week from saturday. i'll post the url then.

i'd really appreciate it if you guys could give me any feedback on the content. . .when it does come out.

22:21 / 17.02.04

The judge has put off hearing the case until Friday, meaning the weddings will continue all week:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Gay-Marriage.html?hp

Have to say, I'm loving this. Although I voted for Newsom's opponent in the recent SF mayoral election, this has quite eliminated any lingering regrets I might have had about my guy losing the race.

02:06 / 18.02.04

It is really fucking cool. A friend and I went down to City Hall yesterday and passed out slices of cake to couples as they came out with their licenses - everybody deserves wedding cake when they get married!!

06:23 / 18.02.04

If history's being made, shouldn't it be courtesy of better looking people ? I mean for fuck's sake... Thank holy Christ, anyway, that they'll never have kids.
And if that seems a bit much...
Well yeah, fair enough, I suppose it is a bit really, but if that was a straight couple, we'd all be sitting round laughing our asses off generally...

Regrettable Juvenilia

07:53 / 18.02.04

Alex, as your friendly local neighbourhood moderator I should point out that the extent to which you are attracted to these people is probably not a relevant issue. You also might want to think for a moment about whether it is in fact completely out of the question that these people will "have" kids, and explain why you think that would be a bad thing. Or you can just delete your nasty little post altogether, it's all the same to me.

Scrubb is on a downward spiral

15:42 / 18.02.04

Alex - what Flyboy said.

Also - dude, probably the reason why history is being made with them was that they've been together for 50 years. And are thus about 80 years old, and therefore not exactly Britney'n'Xtina (unless they were 80 too).

09:38 / 20.02.04

Er... sorry ? I was just being negative for the sake of it really, didn't mean to be taken sriously

10:25 / 20.02.04

Old or not... it's still a cute picture.

Did they appeal this, though? I heard the other day that the oposition did a speedy appeal and the mayor of San Fran ordered all the court houses to stay open until midnight so as many people as possible could get married because this probably wasn't going to last. There were huge lines. I hope it does last... any body got current news on this?

15:11 / 20.02.04

I haven't looked at googlenews yet this morning, but the two appeals got postponed/stymied until at least today. And, the city attorney is suing the state of California on the grounds that the law the city is breaking is contrary to the state's constitution on several points.

Meanwhile, the Mayor of Chicago looks like he might be following suit. A lovely quote from the mayor:

"'A lot of people are opposed to it. So be it,' Daley said. 'But again, you have to point out the strength of this community -- they're your doctors, your lawyers, your journalists, politicians. They're someone's son or daughter, they're someone's mother or father. They're parents. And I have been with them, they've adopted children, they have wonderful children. And to me, we have to understand this is part and parcel of our families and extended families. ... They love each other just as much as anyone else. They believe that the benefits that they don't have, they should have. And so I have a very open mind on it.'"

Another lovely quote, from a newletter I get regularly, talking about how this just isn't going well for Bush:

...those "activist judges" in Massachusetts (who were mostly Republicans, by the way) were going to impose gay marriage on us against our will. Then a few weeks later, the Massachusetts legislature wasn't able to agree on banning gay marriage, and the White House complained about the legislature not doing its job. Then SF starting issuing marriage licenses, and that became a rationale for the White House pushing the amendment. Next came Mayor Daley in Chicago and the City of Chicago Human Rights Commission, both of whom oppose the amendment and support gay marriage, and I'll bet the White House will try to use that as justification too. And finally, the Maine House of Representatives this week also refused to pass a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Cheap. Easy. Cruel.

17:02 / 20.02.04

I have been following this pretty closely. There is currently a rather nasty debate raging in my states legislative branch on this very subject. I think that this issue is shaping up to be the litmus test for the coming presidential election.

14:58 / 22.02.04

It's always interesting to find out why people are opposed to gay marriage, which seems like such a 'gimme'. This from my conversation with my grandmother (note: my Farsi is very weak so I had to keep my arguments very basic):

G. Marriage means a man and a woman.
f. No it doesn't, it means tax benefits and the right to visit your ill partner in the hospital. Why shouldn't gays be allowed to have that?
G. It's not about taxes, it's historically a man and a woman.
f. No, if you go back into history, it's about politics and treating women like property.
G. Well back in the old days, there were never so many of these gays anyway. It's a fad, it's chic now. Men can't find wives, so they tell themselves, wives are costly anyway, so I'll just resign myself to ass.
f. (nearly in tears from laughter) So they're not really gay? They've just resigned themselves to ass?
G. Yes, they've resigned themselves to ass.

I mean, there's really no arguing with somebody who can come up with a phrase like that.

Arnold Schwarzenegger has come out in staunch opposition. Go figure.

You know what would be really great? If this issue were to somehow form the nucleus of a social movement that reinvigorated the left. I can't think of an issue that makes the opposition look worse, more petty and nasty.

I'm Rick Jones, bitch

16:29 / 22.02.04

This is beautiful. I'm really happy for all the couples, and I'm quite insanely gratified that this is making Bush and all his homophobe buddies look like arseholes.