Gay Pride celebrating marriage

Photo source

Time to celebrate! Gay Pride events this weekend will commemorate the march toward equality perhaps most remarkably in San Francisco:

Given San Francisco's sizable role in initiating the lawsuits that led California's highest court to strike down the state's bans on same-sex marriage, the city's 38th annual gay pride festival and parade is likely to draw huge crowds this weekend, tourism officials say.

"It's really going to be a Pride like none other," said Joe D'Alessandro, president of the San Francisco Convention and Visitors Bureau. "I have never seen so many rainbow flags in this city, along Market Street, on shops, on homes. It's really a situation where the people are celebrating and the city is in a very festive mood."

With 259 marriage license appointments and 284 reservations for wedding ceremonies scheduled at the San Francisco county clerk's office, Friday was on pace to be the city's busiest day for weddings since gay marriage became legal earlier this month. There were 202 license appointments and 115 weddings performed on June 17, the first full day that gay and lesbian couples could get married in California.

Although City Hall will be closed over the weekend, organizers of the weekend's official pride festivities are putting up a wedding pavilion across the street where couples can get information about tying the knot or celebrate newly sanctioned unions.

Gay rights advocates also plan to use the occasion to build support for their campaign to defeat a ballot initiative that would overturn the state Supreme Court's decision by amending the California Constitution to again ban same-sex marriage.

The theme for Sunday's pride parade — "United by Pride, Bound for Equality" — was selected before the state's high court handed down its ruling on May 15....

The SFO Chronicle reported on Thursday:

Already, the same-sex pairs have come from all corners of the United States, including liberal places like Seattle and New York City and conservative bastions such as South Carolina, Kentucky and Kansas.

They've come from other countries, too: England, France, Norway, Sweden, Australia, Canada, Singapore and Hong Kong. And instead of running off to Vegas to tie the knot, one couple from there came to San Francisco to do just that....

...It's up to individual states to determine whether they will recognize the California marriage licenses. New York Gov. David Paterson recently directed all state agencies to recognize same-sex weddings performed elsewhere, but the California licenses will mean nothing in the vast majority of states....

...David Whatley, 31, and Michael Potts, 34, live in Atlanta and know Georgia won't recognize their marriage anytime soon. But when they saw the California weddings on the news June 17, they bought their plane tickets immediately. They purchased wedding rings two days later, arrived at SFO last Friday morning and were married within hours - with a stranger serving as their witness.

"We figured we couldn't wait for Georgia to get onboard. We had to come across the country to do it instead," Whatley said. "We're tired of intolerance. San Francisco's a very forward-looking city, and we're glad to be a part of it."

Tolerance also brings a financial windfall. SFO's "controller's office estimated this week the weddings will add $19.8 million to the city economy by the end of July 2010" and "researchers at UCLA's Williams Institute, reported that residents, non-California couples and their wedding guests could spend a combined $684 million in the state over the next three years."

Gay Pride parades began in 1970 as a homage to the weekend of June 27-29 in 1969, a turning point in LGBTQ history when the Stonewall riots ignited (no pun intended) the liberation movement. Archival footage of the first 1970 march with "commentary by lesbian and gay elders" and other history-makers through 2008 are available at Out at the Center. Description of the film:

Hosted by Laverne Cox, The Center's half-hour show debuts never before seen personal archival footage of the first Christopher Street Gay Liberation Day March up Sixth Avenue to the Sheep Meadow with commentary by lesbian and gay elders who were on the scene; the alumni of Gay and Lesbian Youth of New York talk about their experiences organizing as youth in the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s and giving back to the youth of today; former Center board president David Nimmons and artist Gary Speziale recall the installation of The Center Show in 1989; writers Amy Hoffman and Stefanie Grant read from their work; Gay City News reporter Sam Oglesby talks to journalist Michael Luongo about his travels as a gay man in the Muslim world and volunteers from Team Center highlight the AIDS Walk of 2008.

Sexocrites strike a blow for irony

A pair of wingnut weasels:

Two United States Senators implicated in extramarital sexual activity have named themselves as co-sponsors of S. J. RES. 43, dubbed the Marriage Protection Amendment. If ratified, the bill would amend the United States Constitution to state that marriage "shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."

Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), who was arrested June 11, 2007 on charges of lewd conduct in a Minneapolis airport terminal, is co-sponsoring the amendment along with Sen. David Vitter (R-LA).

Craig, who entered a guilty plea to a reduced charge of disorderly conduct, was detained and charged for attempting to engage in sexual activity with a male undercover police officer. His arrest and plea became public two months later. At that time, Craig attempted to withdraw his plea and enter a new plea of not guilty. To date, his efforts have been denied by the courts.

In July of 2007, Vitter was identified as a client of a prostitution firm owned by the late Deborah Jeane Palfrey, commonly known as The DC Madam.

With a Democratic controlled Congress it is unlikely the bill will be brought up for a vote in either the Senate or House of Representatives.

Craig and Vitter mocked their marriages so natch these compulsive sexocrites need a scapegoat. Attacking same-sex marriage--attempting to ban it by codifying discrimination into the Constitution--is such a tired, very tired, old flim-flam and quite telling about who is undermining the sanctity of marriage. It's as if rabid homophobes wear signs around their necks that beg, "Investigate me! I've got a secret sex scandal."

What's outrageous is that these two bozos named the bill the Marriage Protection Amendment. If I didn't know better, I would swear the story hailed from The Onion.

Hat tip to egalia who wrote of the "lusty senators"...

Suffice it to say, the Marriage Protection Amendment does not read: Thou shalt not publicly humiliate your wife by coveting another man in a bathroom stall. Nor does it read: Thou shalt not publicly humiliate your wife by fooling around with prostitutes....

...Apparently, the senate bad boyz want to return to the days when they were the laughingstock of the nation.

Obama and same-sex marriage

I wanted to get this posted on Sunday but life intervened with my blogging. The nerve!

Sapphocrat at Lavender Newswire announced in her headline that "Obama still thinks he’s more equal than I am. Only now he’s saying it out loud." She quoted a June 20 Advocate article by Kerry Eleveld that stated:

Sen. Obama reminded us this week that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, something LGBT people might have easily forgotten over the course of the primary. …

...More precisely, Sen. Obama said, “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman,” shortly after being asked if he opposed same-sex marriage, to which he responded, “Yes.” This positioning is not new for Sen. Obama. He has uttered those words plenty — during a debate with Alan Keyes in 2004, on the Senate floor in 2006, even in his 2007 Human Rights Campaign candidate questionnaire.

But if LGBT people across the country bristled at the one-man, one-woman construction, they can be forgiven. After scouring the web, drawing upon memory and scanning my notes, this reporter cannot remember the senator using those words during the entire primary season from January right through until Sen. Hillary Clinton conceded the race to Obama on June 7. In fact, I don’t believe he has used them in any one of the 20-some Democratic debates.

Why now? Welcome to the general election say the pundits. One Democratic strategist and TV pundit who agreed to speak on the condition of anonymity said the language is intended to send a signal to swing state voters that Sen. Obama isn’t the crazy liberal they’ve been told he is. … [Emphasis added.]

I don't know if the anonymous Democratic teevee pundit (Is that you, Donna Brazile?) is correct in her/his explanation but Sapphocrat pointed out that there are already married same-sex couples in Massachusetts and California. "Sen. Obama, marriage is no longer simply between a man and a woman. At least, ours isn’t.” Does Obama oppose these marriages? Does he consider them inferior to hetero marriages? WTF is his position?

In April, The Advocate asked Obama:

Do you think it’s possible to get full repeal of DOMA? As you know, Senator Clinton is only looking at repealing the plank of DOMA that prohibits the federal government from recognizing state-sanctioned unions.

To which Obama replied:

I don’t know. But my commitment is to try to make sure that we are moving in the direction of full equality, and I think the federal government historically has led on civil rights -- I’d like to see us lead here too.

DOMA, if you have forgotten, defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman and prohibits the federal government from treating same-sex unions as marriages even if a state codifies them as such. DOMA also permits states or U.S. political subdivisions (D.C., Indian reservations, territories, etc.) to disregard same-sex marriages from other states. And for people flirting with the idea of voting for Libertarian candidate Bob Barr for president, he introduced DOMA in the House when he was a Georgia congressman.

I'm also aware of Hillary's position on same-sex marriage but she hasn't pandered to homophobes like Obama has, a deal-breaker for me, and she "openly declared her support for LBGT equal rights including a repeal of sections two and three of DOMA" among other actions. As Sapphocrat and my friend Rev. Irene Monroe have reiterated, former presidential candidate Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) has without hesitation consistently championed full equality for LGBTs including marriage.

When choices dwindled to Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, I supported Hillary, who has personally marched in Gay Pride parades and wasn't afraid to openly court our votes in Texas or a swing state like Pennsylvania. I had other reasons to support Clinton over Obama. However, my partner of 13+ years and I consider LGBT equality including marriage extremely important. Obama's waffling on our rights as equal citizens heightens our reasons among many to abstain from voting for him in November.

The Washington Blade reported June 13:

Obama, in his letter, says he hopes he and his supporters can work inclusively to secure equal rights for gay Americans.

“I will never compromise on my commitment to equal rights for all LGBT Americans,” he said in the letter. “But neither will I close my ears to the voices of those who still need to be convinced. That is the work we must do to move forward together. It is difficult. It is challenging. And it is necessary.”

Obama affirms that he continues to “support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act,” which allows states to ignore same-sex marriages performed beyond their borders and prevents the federal government from recognizing such unions. [Emphasis added.]

Now he affirms he opposes same-sex marriage. Who is Obama playing as chumps? Gays and lesbians? Swing state voters? Who?

M'yeah, I know. Politicians say the darnedest things to get elected but trusting Obama to keep his promises? Don't make me laugh. He "will never compromise" his "commitment to equal rights for all LGBT Americans" but he's going to listen to opponents of our equality. I understand from a political vantage point about examining the opposition's arguments to develop counter measures to defeat advocates of discrimination and bigotry. What will Obama decide? What will the constitutional scholar do? Will he capitulate to their positions? His rhetoric and actions have already demonstrated that his new kind of politics is a sham. Look at his dishonest campaign tactics in his okey doke on NAFTA. And Obama's support for the FISA "compromise."

So what's next after Obama's unequivocal opposition to same-sex marriage? Kerry Eleveld of The Advocate speculated:

Surely, the LGBT folks associated with the campaign are working feverishly behind the scenes to find a work-around for that phrase — one with the added benefit of being accurate. Only time will tell whether they prevail. …

To which Sapphocrat replied:

AFAIC, there’s nothing worse than selling out your own rights. Well, I’ll leave that to the LGBTs collecting a paycheck from Obama to work against their own self-interest — and mine. My conscience is clear.

One good thing about this article: At least The Advocate finally seems to be coming out of its Obama-induced stupor.

Obama himself, however, remains comatose on the issue of equality.

M'yeah. Persona non grata.

Same-sex couples have right to marry

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images -- Gay and Lesbian couples hold a California flag
in front of the California Supreme Court in San Francisco. (LATimes)

UPDATED BELOW

In a decision 4-3, the California Supreme Court ruled that gays and lesbians have the right to marry. SFO Chronicle:

...the justices said the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates the "fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship." The ruling is likely to flood county courthouses with applications from couples newly eligible to marry when the decision takes effect in 30 days.

"The California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote in the majority opinion.

Allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry "will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage," George said.

In addition, he said, the current state law discriminates against same-sex couples on the basis of their sexual orientation - discrimination that the court, for the first time, put in the same legal category as racial or gender bias.

The ruling set off a celebration at San Francisco City Hall, where nearly 4,000 same-sex weddings were performed in 2004 before the state high court put a halt to the marriages while challenges to the California law worked their way through the courts. Today's ruling has no effect on those annulments.

Outside the city clerk's office, three opposite-sex couples were waiting at 10 a.m. for marriage certificates. City officials had prepared for a possible rush on certificates by same-sex couples, but hadn't yet changed the forms that ask couples to fill out the name of the "bride" and "groom."

City officials say they'll probably be unable to marry the same-sex couples for another 30 days when the decision fully goes into effect. But they're making appointments for those weddings now.

Oh, but wait. The forces against equality and freedom have mobilized for a ballot measure to amend California's state constitution:

The court's decision could be overturned in November, when Californians are likely to vote on a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages. Conservative religious organizations have submitted more than 1.1 million signatures on initiative petitions, and officials are working to determine if at least 694,354 of them are valid.

If the measure qualifies for the ballot and voters approve it, it will supersede today's ruling. The initiative does not say whether it would apply retroactively to annul marriages performed before November, an omission that would wind up before the courts.

Liberty Counsel, which represented the group Campaign for California Families before the court in arguing for the state law, denounced the ruling and said it would ask the justices to stay its effect until after the November election.

Chief Justice Ronald George "was joined in the majority by Justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar and Carlos Moreno." Dissenting justices included Marvin Baxter, Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan. However, Corrigan wrote, "Californians should allow our gay and lesbian neighbors to call their unions marriages." Baxter and Chin "accused the court majority of substituting 'by judicial fiat its own social policy views for those expressed by the people' " in which they noted that "California voters reaffirmed the state's ban on same-sex marriage in a 2000 ballot initiative."

The court "does not have the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice," Baxter said.

But George, in a 121-page opinion, said California has already recognized, in its laws and public policy, that gays and lesbians are entitled to equal treatment in every legal area except marriage. He also noted that state laws and traditions banned interracial marriage until the California Supreme Court, in 1948, became the first court in the nation to overturn such a law.

"Even the most familiar and generally accepted of social policies and traditions often mask an unfairness and inequality that frequently is not recognized or appreciated by those not directly harmed," the chief justice wrote.

The legal case dates back to February 2004, when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered the city clerk to start issuing marriage licenses to couples regardless of their gender, saying he doubted the constitutionality of the state marriage law.

Gov. Schwarzenegger responded to the court's ruling by saying, "I respect the court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling." He also expressed his "opposition to the constitutional amendment that is likely to be on the November ballot."

The California Supreme Court's ruling is available as a PDF.

UPDATE: Sapphocrat's jubilant headline: "We won! WE WON! Marriage in California!" Celebrating with you and for y'all! Woo hoo!

UPDATE II: Just ran across an insightful post at The Confluence by garychapelhill who, in celebrating the CA court decision, reminded us why Hillary "gets" the LGBT community and Obama doesn't. And he's right. Just as I've argued here over Obama's mealy-mouthed interview with The Advocate, or his disconnect with our community, our press, and our clergy, and his association with homophobes. Hillary "gets" us and I affirmed my support for her because--in addition to her being the most qualified candidate--she understands LGBTs:

I solidly support Hillary who has marched in Gay Pride parades and openly declared her support for equal rights including a repeal of sections two and three of DOMA [cached text if the site won't load]. She's not a perfect candidate, but on LGBT rights coupled with women's issues among other positions, she eclipses Obama. [Emphasis added.]

Another mark against Obama was his introduction of a religion-based bigoted frame--like some GOP wingnut--to same-sex marriage as if our unions aren't equally sacred as those between a man and a woman.

Seriously, Obama doesn't get us. But Hillary does. Well said, Gary.

Wacky doodle Democrats who voted for FMA

The Federal Marriage Amendment that would have codified discrimination into the U.S. Constitution failed to get the two-thirds vote needed to pass the House of Representatives. Twenty-seven Republicans crossed over to vote, nay. The bad news for progressives is that 34 wacky doodle Democrats voted for the constitutional marriage abomination. Compiled from Roll Call 378 and the Office of the Clerk, they are:

John Barrow (GA-12th)
Marion Berry (AR-1st)
Sanford D. Bishop, Jr. (GA-2nd)
Dan Boren (OK-2nd)
Rick Boucher (VA-9th)
Allen Boyd (FL-2nd)
Ben Chandler (KY-6th)
Jim Cooper (TN-5th)
Jerry F. Costello (IL-12th)
Robert E. (Bud) Cramer, Jr. (AL-5th)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28th)
Artur Davis (AL-7th)
Lincoln Davis (TN-4th)
Chet Edwards (TX-17th)
Bob Etheridge (NC-2nd)
Harold E. Ford, Jr. (TN-9th)
Bart Gordon (TN-6th)
Stephanie Herseth (SD-At Large)
Tim Holden (PA-17th)
William J. Jefferson (LA-2nd)
Mike McIntyre (NC-7th)
Jim Marshall (GA-3rd)
Jim Matheson (UT-2nd)
Charlie Melancon (LA-3rd)
Solomon P. Ortiz (TX-27th)
Collin C. Peterson (MN-7th)
Nick J. Rahall, II (WV-3rd)
Mike Ross (AR-4th)
David Scott (GA-13th)
Ike Skelton (MO-4th)
John M. Spratt, Jr. (SC-5th)
John S. Tanner (TN-8th)
Gene Taylor (MS-4th)
Bennie G. Thompson (MS-2nd)

With some non-southern exceptions, this troupe of wingnut wannabes seem to be a-carryin' on the tradition of the ol' Dixiecrats, the clowns who took their romp with bigotry so seriously that they defected from the Democratic Party to join the GOP. Have these wacky doodle Democrats ever hear of the politics of discrimination or civil rights? Coretta Scott King understood civil rights included everyone. So does the NAACP. Ah, but understanding. That would entail thinking compassionately, honestly, without bigotry, and with integrity. What about constitutionality? States' rights? The role of the third branch of government in striking down bad laws? Ha! Did you think this was America, land of the free, home of the brave?

Listen to this... Same-sex marriage... Boo! Did you hear those squeals of irrational panic and gasps over the decay of hetero marriage as if magic fairy dust can dissolve an institution already under assault from chiseling the working class? Don't expect congressional enlightenment from a bunch of shame-based bozos gobsmacked by malignant absurdity.

NOTE: Blogger has been acting screwy today so this post would have published earlier. But alas, the database gods were busy elsewhere.

Wacky-doodle Dobson

Bless his heart. Dobson doesn't think all that clearly:

In a June 28 guest commentary posted on CNN.com, Focus on the Family founder and chairman James C. Dobson mischaracterized the same-sex marriage debate to baselessly suggest that there is strong public support for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Criticizing senators who voted against the constitutional amendment for "turn[ing] their backs" on the "most basic social institution" of marriage, Dobson disputed the significance of "trumped-up polls" from the "liberal press" showing public opposition to the amendment by touting "the 19 states in which voters overwhelmingly defined marriage as being between a man and a woman." In fact, while some recent polls indicate that a majority of Americans believe same sex marriage should be illegal, that was not the issue before Congress. Rather, Congress specifically faced the question of whether to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would ban same-sex marriage. Contrary to Dobson's claim, on that issue, the most recent polls show that a majority of Americans agree with those senators who voted against the constitutional amendment.

In a fit of what I suspect was dementia, Dobson compared banning gay marriage (less freedom) to ending slavery (more freedom). Can you believe it?! Po' widdle wing'ut. Such strange values.

As June polls have demonstrated, Dobson couldn't be more wrong about the U.S. Constitution and the anti-gay marriage amendment:

• 48% favor letting states decide, 38% favor the feds, and 13% don't know (Fox News, June 13-14)

• 51% say states should decide, 42% favor a constitutional amendment (ABCNews, June 5)

Poor thing also thinks gay unions will pave the way for "group marriage," "marriage between daddies and little girls," or "marriage between a man and his donkey." See? He's so befuddled, he confused a naturally occurring biological trait with acquired illnesses. Maybe Dobson is the source of Atlanta Braves pitcher, John Smoltz, wacky-doodle reasoning, "What's next? Marrying an animal?"

Who knew? Malignant absurdity was contagious.