View Full Version : San Francisco is considering legalizing Gay marriages
Melonie
02-16-2004, 05:19 AM
I'm not at all against this- I'm already forced to grab my ankles for the unemployed, the disabled, the retired and whatnot. Part of being liberally minded is the notion that we have to take care of our own, being fair, and trying to do the right thing.
The part that frustrates me is this action was taken outside of the ballot. It's not what I consider acceptable behavior from an elected official to express cowboy politics- we get enough of this in Washington, we don't need it here.
Moreover, I don't know a single fellow local resident that would have voted no on such a directive. To have been given the ability to express solidarity and voter support in this measure would yield MUCH more firepower on the obvious and expected recoil of this action which is surely to follow. How is San Francisco supposed to lead by example if such things can quickly be dismissed as the personal vendetta of one official?
Thank you for expressing the "bottom line" on this issue (no pun intended) much better than I have been able to so far. Is it the "right thing to do" - probably. Will a majority of the citizens of the state of California vote for such a measure if informed with some idea of the additional costs - probably. Will the majority of citizens of Massachusetts vote for such a measure in their state ? - doubtful. Will the majority of citizens in the other 48 states vote for such a measure ? - extremely doubtful (well it might have a chance of passage in NY).
Yet once this starts happening legally in one state, the "full faith and credit" clause of the constitution will arguably allow recognition of gay marriage, employer benefit coverage for spouses of gay employees, and the resulting financial consequences to spread to every state. Taxation without representation is indeed the core issue, with the California and Massachusetts gay marriage initiative effectively being forced down the throats and wallets of the other 48 states without even asking those voters/taxpayers their opinion on the issue.
montythegeek
02-16-2004, 07:19 AM
Melonie's comments about "connections" and the "full faith and credit" clause in the constituton are directly to the point. A legal marriage is a contract, recognized by the state and granting certain rights. I care not a whit who sleeps with whom, and marriage is not what happens in the bedroom, but what happens OUTSIDE the bedroom which matters.
My concern is that one of the unintended consequences of potentially adding up to 10% to defined benefit costs of employers is that it will tip employers over the edge. 10% on top of medical cost inflation of double digit proportions will move employers to say "I will give each employee $300 a month toward their health insurance, and you pay the rest, whether married, with children, or single."
This is all possible now with medical savings accounts allowed to pass these benefits tax free to the employee and the employees payments being with pre-tax dollars. With employers in a better bargaining position vs labor due to the unemployment rate, this is possible.
The end result would be a massive number of people with no or little insurance and a massive number of labor disruptions like the California grocery store situation. Both are undesireable results which could only serve to make it cheaper for businesses to flee the US for abroad where they do not face those costs. Do you have to give spousal benefits and medical to people in China, NO plus they make less per hour.
So you have a lot of people with no job and no medical so we put in a Government program which costs trillions and raises taxes and drives more jobs abroad. Sure it is an exagerated outcome which has mitigating forces, but I would rather not go through the process over an "invented right" by 4 judges in Massachusetts rather than a social consensus of an affirmative action by elected representatives.
Farrah_Holiday
02-16-2004, 09:55 AM
Wow,
Its great to see all of you voicing your opinions ! Democracy is never free. Which is why we as tax payers shell out billions in "homeland" security. Having said that I am going to now address. The issues at hand.
JimLovesJazz
02-16-2004, 10:55 AM
There are other things besides health insurance that are denied to same sex couples. Some that bothers me in particular is the right to Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner ; Visitation of Partner in Hospital; Burial Determination and Certain Property Rights.
Does anyone care to explain why a homosexual is not entitled to give permission to operate on their partner of 25 years simply because they are of the same sex? And yet an opposite sex couple together only 2 months is entitled to make those decisions?
The part that frustrates me is this action was taken outside of the ballot. It's not what I consider acceptable behavior from an elected official to express cowboy politics-
But if this is the cost of doing what's right, we'll deal.
I fully agree- and it is the cost of doing what's right
montythegeek
02-16-2004, 11:15 AM
JLJ,
There is a thing known as a medical power of attorney. The form is available at any hospital or lawyer's office. In fact for most elective surgery people are "forced" to fill them out before any procedure. They cost nothing! In fact there presence is question number 2 in most hospitals after if you have insurance. I cut my finger 3 months ago and was asked about it in the ER 3 hours before I saw a doctor.
Half truths are the stock-and-trade of political debate. During the debate in Mass. during the recent constitutional convention, a person stood up and decried how they were denied access to their adopted child in the hospital when the child was injured that day. The truth: the other partner had not listed them on the form at the hospital as a parent, so the hospital did not know them from Adam.
Melonie
02-16-2004, 11:43 AM
So you have a lot of people with no job and no medical so we put in a Government program which costs trillions and raises taxes and drives more jobs abroad. Sure it is an exagerated outcome which has mitigating forces, but I would rather not go through the process over an "invented right" by 4 judges in Massachusetts rather than a social consensus of an affirmative action by elected representatives.
I'm assuming that you're talking about "trillions" being spent on introducing a new national health insurance program in the USA, after US employers start dumping private health insurance benefits for employees ?
Can I also assume that you're tiptoeing around the issue of the law actually requiring a constitutional amendment redefining "marriage" at a federal level to include gays for gay marriages to be legalized, which would have to be organized by gays in every state and which would then require the approval by voters in at least 35 states to be ratified before gay marriage would be recognized in any state ?
montythegeek
02-16-2004, 12:30 PM
Actually, Melonie, what I am saying is gradual change and evolution is less traumatic for a society than civil war. Take a fundamental change in society like female suffrage. Wyoming passed it and it applied only to voters in Wyoming and 20 years later the constitution was amended to make it national. That is slow evolution. The corresponding change would be domestic partners with limited impact now and evolution.
The fast change is unfolding in Massachusetts now. Judicial rule followed by constitutional amedment against which also bans domestic partners. Not just a state constitution but a Federal amendment unfolding and a "hot button" issue which could cost the Democrats 6-8 seats in the Senate since they have more to lose this year than the Republicans. This raises the possibility of a veto proof Senate and no ability to filibuster. I am cynical enough that I want no one to have that much power.
Slow change can come faster than reversing a spasm of change and a counter reaction. If the change is going to come in redefining marriage, rather than 20 years from now, it has been moved to 50 years.
Meanwhile, the society has an incentive to avoid the risk of extra costs--move offshore or discriminate. I like neither of those options.
JimLovesJazz
02-16-2004, 02:05 PM
the issue of the law actually requiring a constitutional amendment redefining "marriage" at a federal level to include gays for gay marriages to be legalized, which would have to be organized by gays in every state and which would then require the approval by voters in at least 35 states to be ratified before gay marriage would be recognized in any state ?
This is what needs to occur just as it did for the suffrage movement and I truly believe it will happen and sooner that 20 or 50 years. My guess is 10 years.
As the youth of this country grow old enough to vote (or for the ones old enough now become more aware that their votes are important) and the senior citizens (who do the majority of voting now and maintain usually the most ignorant beliefs in discrimination) pass away things will change.
I have faith that the people of this country will in fact do what is right and give same sex couples equal treatment as they absolutely deserve.
Farrah_Holiday
02-17-2004, 09:55 AM
Gay Marriage Foes to Appear in Court
48 minutes ago Listen to Audio
By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer
SAN FRANCISCO - Their wedding march on City Hall produced marriage licenses in the hundreds, but gay and lesbian couples who took part may not even finish opening gifts before their nuptials are null and void.
Opponents of Mayor Gavin Newsom's decision to defy state law and have marriage licenses issued to gay and lesbian couples were to have their day in court Tuesday, with hearings scheduled on the petitions of two groups.
By Monday night, 2,340 same-sex couples had taken their vows at City Hall since the county clerk, under Newsom's directions, started issuing "gender-neutral" marriage licenses Thursday.
Hundreds of couples, aware their opportunity may be fleeting, spent a rainy Monday in a three-block-long line outside the ornate building waiting for the historic chance to wed with the city's blessing.
"We really felt that if we didn't make it by today that we wouldn't be able to," said Deb Agarwal, 40, after she and her partner of six years, Diane Pizza, 55, were married by an elected city supervisor, one of the dozens of city officials deputized to officiate at the nonstop nuptials.
In a brief submitted for a court hearing Tuesday, lawyers for one of the groups seeking to block gay weddings said Newsom was in blatant violation of state law when he ordered marriage licenses for gay couples.
Newsom has argued that the equal protection clause of the California Constitution makes denying marriage licenses to gay couples illegal. But lawyers for a group formed to defend Proposition 22 _ a 2000 ballot initiative that says the state will recognize only marriages between a man and woman as valid _ contend the mayor lacks the authority to make that decision.
"What the mayor and his cronies have attempted to do is short-circuit the legal process by being both judge and jury themselves," said Alliance Defense Fund attorney Benjamin Bull.
Another group, the Campaign for California Families, has a hearing scheduled before a different judge Tuesday. It wants an injunction to keep the city from issuing any more licenses to same-sex couples, and a declaration that the ones already granted are invalid.
The city's lawyers said they will argue that local government agencies or officials are not barred from advancing their own interpretations of the state constitution. They also claim the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that continuing to issue licenses for same-sex couples would cause the irreparable harm necessary to obtain a court stay.
"Same-sex couples denied the right to marry face far greater harm than the petitioners here," stated a legal brief filed by the city Monday.
Most of the gay couples getting married at City Hall are from the Bay Area but about 50 are from other states, including New York, Georgia, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and South Carolina, Assessor Mabel Teng said.
Many of the city workers who helped process the licenses during the holiday weekend were volunteering their time, Teng said.
The city will continue issuing marriage licenses on Tuesday "unless told otherwise by the city attorney," she said. But she added that the city will be able to issue only about 30 to 50 licenses a day starting Tuesday because the volunteers will have to return to their regular jobs.
The looming legal showdown didn't deter thousands of people from gathering at City Hall on Monday, either to get married themselves or to cheer on beaming newlyweds.
The steps in front of city hall resembled a raucous wedding reception as newlyweds leaving the building hand-in-hand were greeted with applause and trumpet fanfare. Other couples drove by, honking their horns and waving their freshly minted marriage certificates.
"It doesn't matter even if it's a one-day thing because of the precedent," said Tom O'Brien, of Redwood City, who returned to City Hall for the second day in a row so he could wed his partner of four years, Sathit Sapprasert. "It's important that we stand up. Whether this survives the scrutiny is another question."
Farrah_Holiday
02-17-2004, 10:06 AM
Now the backlash is beginning over this weekend's Gay "marriages".
I was very surprised to learn that 50 of the "newlyweds" are from other states. Even from your home state Melonie. It will be interesting to see what these newly "married" couples do with their pieces of paper and what type of reaction they get from their home states. Our California Supreme Court is extremely liberal, this could really go either way. We just got finished
having a recall of Govenor Davis. Then surprisingly elected the "Govenator" , whom I didn't vote for. California is such an unpredictable state, I am curious to see what the outcome will be.
I for one, I am a supporter of Gay marriages.
Melonie
02-17-2004, 02:36 PM
I was very surprised to learn that 50 of the "newlyweds" are from other states. Even from your home state Melonie. It will be interesting to see what these newly "married" couples do with their pieces of paper and what type of reaction they get from their home states.
Well for residents of states besides California and Massachusetts, this has been the real issue all along. I'm sure that the first thing that will happen when the NY couple returns from their San Francisco wedding trip will be to try and sign the "spouse" up for benefits. This will almost certainly be met by a refusal on the part of the NY employer. This in turn will wind up going to the NY labor board, and in turn to NY courts. In order to resolve the issue, it must ultimately wind up before the US supreme court for an interpretation of NY's obligation to honor a California contract for gay marriage.
As this process will take years, the REAL question will come down to whether or not NY businesses can refuse to recognize the California gay marriage contract, or whether NY businesses must provide benefits to gay spouses at their expense in the interim because it must honor the California gay marriage contract under the "full faith and credit" clause of the US constitution ! Of course, if some NY state court or NY labor board rules that gay spouse benefits must be provided by NY employers until some other court decides otherwise, it then will become virtually impossible to deny future benefits later to a gay spouse who has been receiving these benefits in the interim.
If gay spouse benefits must be granted in the interim, then every gay couple anywhere in the country is then likely to travel to California to get married. This would then achieve a de-facto state of legal gay marriage for every US gay resident in every state, for the price of a trip to San Francisco. However, these other states do not have a way to send San Francisco the bill for the extra benefit costs their gay marriage contracts will have foisted on the other states and employers located in them ... well not at the moment anyhow. That would be a really interesting possibility though, 48 other states and about 48 million employers suing the city of San Francisco for billions of dollars!
Farrah_Holiday
02-17-2004, 03:11 PM
I was very surprised to learn that 50 of the "newlyweds" are from other states. Even from your home state Melonie. It will be interesting to see what these newly "married" couples do with their pieces of paper and what type of reaction they get from their home states.
Well for residents of states besides California and Massachusetts, this has been the real issue all along. I'm sure that the first thing that will happen when the NY couple returns from their San Francisco wedding trip will be to try and sign the "spouse" up for benefits. This will almost certainly be met by a refusal on the part of the NY employer. This in turn will wind up going to the NY labor board, and in turn to NY courts. In order to resolve the issue, it must ultimately wind up before the US supreme court for an interpretation of NY's obligation to honor a California contract for gay marriage.
As this process will take years, the REAL question will come down to whether or not NY businesses can refuse to recognize the California gay marriage contract, or whether NY businesses must provide benefits to gay spouses at their expense in the interim because it must honor the California gay marriage contract under the "full faith and credit" clause of the US constitution ! Of course, if some NY state court or NY labor board rules that gay spouse benefits must be provided by NY employers until some other court decides otherwise, it then will become virtually impossible to deny future benefits later to a gay spouse who has been receiving these benefits in the interim.
If gay spouse benefits must be granted in the interim, then every gay couple anywhere in the country is then likely to travel to California to get married. This would then achieve a de-facto state of legal gay marriage for every US gay resident in every state, for the price of a trip to San Francisco. However, these other states do not have a way to send San Francisco the bill for the extra benefit costs their gay marriage contracts will have foisted on the other states and employers located in them ... well not at the moment anyhow. That would be a really interesting possibility though, 48 other states and about 48 million employers suing the city of San Francisco for billions of dollars!
Yep you're right !! It will be so interesting see what happens. This is an election year for Bush and he is a "strong" religious type. I am going to enjoy watching this all transpire. Anyway it goes Bush is going to be the one to watch.
montythegeek
02-17-2004, 05:48 PM
A judge would have to stand on his/her head to validate a claim based on a marriage license issued in direct defiance of California state law and state constitution. More likely the claimant would be countersued for fraud. The same is not true, however, if the SJC of Mass forces an official issuance of a license in this state. Then all hell would break loose and 30+ states would adopt a US constitutional amendment in months.
J.F. Kerry would be crucified on a cross of gay rights by his historical hypocrisy on the issue in a manner making Willie Horton look like a day at the park. I can write the ad now that you will be seeing between September and November 1000 times-- "Which John Kerry is running for President? Wanna find out after the next terrorist attack."
Farrah_Holiday
02-17-2004, 05:58 PM
Judge Delays Ruling on Gay Marriage
1 hour ago Listen to Audio
By DAVID KRAVETS and LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writers
SAN FRANCISCO - Conservatives went to court Tuesday and argued that San Francisco flagrantly violated the constitution by issuing same-sex marriage licenses, but wedding bells continued to ring for dozens more gay couples.
A judge in one case delayed until at least Friday a ruling on whether to block the marriages _ more than 2,300 of which have taken place since last Thursday. Another judge was scheduled to hear a similar case in the afternoon.
Newly elected Mayor Gavin Newsom's decision to allow same-sex marriages remains legally unsettled but has intensified the national debate over whether gay couples should be allowed to marry.
Conservative groups want to block new licenses and revoke those already issued. They note that California voters in 2000 expressly limited marriages recognized in the state to unions between a man and a woman.
San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Ronald Quidachay told lawyers for the Campaign for California Families that they had not given the city enough notice to obtain an emergency injunction.
"The court itself is not prepared to hear the matter," Quidachay said in a heavily crowded courtroom across the street from City Hall, where hundreds have lined up for the marriage certificates.
A similar request for an emergency stay filed by another group, the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund, was to be taken up at the afternoon hearing.
Peter Ragone, a spokesman for the mayor, said the city would continue issuing licenses until it knew the outcome of the second court hearing.
Campaign for California Families said state law explicitly defines marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman."
"If the mayor can't read the law, we're hoping a judge can read it for him," said Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for California Families.
Newsom has argued that the equal protection clause of the California Constitution makes denying marriage licenses to gay couples illegal.
"What trumps any proposition is the California constitution," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera.
Whatever the outcome of Tuesday's hearings, the final judicial decision on the matter is expected to come later from the California Supreme Court, because both sides have promised to appeal.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in November ruled that the state's constitution permits gay marriages. Lawmakers there are debating a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages.
In Virginia, gay rights proponents scored victories in the conservative-leaning House of Delegates on measures involving access to health insurance and home loans.
The House, which last week passed a bill reaffirming the state's ban on gay marriage, narrowly passed legislation Monday that would allow employers to offer group insurance benefits to gay partners who live together. It rejected a measure seeking to make state mortgage loans available only to married heterosexuals or blood relatives.
By Monday night, 2,340 same-sex couples had taken their vows at San Francisco's ornate City Hall since the county clerk started issuing "gender-neutral" marriage licenses last week.
After a weekend rush in which many city workers volunteered to help issue hundreds of licenses a day, the rate of marriages was expected to drop off to roughly 50 a day beginning Tuesday.
Farrah_Holiday
02-17-2004, 06:00 PM
Well the fall out has begun...
I can't believe more than 2,300 "marriages" have taken place!
Melonie
02-17-2004, 06:17 PM
This judge's postponement is virtually guaranteed to open the floodgates for out-of-state gay couples from all over the country to start heading to San Francisco. Obviously the judge in question is waiting to see which way the political wind is blowing ! I suspect that Gov. Schwarzenegger and California's attorney general are doing the same.
I heard on radio news an hour ago that a hastily taken Savage poll of California residents (statewide) showed an 85% disapproval rate for legalizing gay marriages. I also heard on radio news that there are active calls to have San Francisco's mayor thrown in jail for violating state laws. However, the news media in general is salivating over which public figure will be the first to call for the stoppage of San Francisco's issuance of gay marriage licenses - so he can be crucified !
In the meantime, the number of gay marriages continues to rise exponentially. I also heard on radio news that the demand is so great that the San Francisco city clerk has actually deputized some of the California gays who were married over the weekend to perform additional gay marriages themselves so that more gay marriage licenses and marriages can be processed to meet the incredible demand ! I'm sure the premise behind this is that the more gay couples who are granted marriage licenses, the higher the outrage when those marriage licenses are officially declared to be illegal.
Farrah_Holiday
02-17-2004, 08:21 PM
This judge's postponement is virtually guaranteed to open the floodgates for out-of-state gay couples from all over the country to start heading to San Francisco. Obviously the judge in question is waiting to see which way the political wind is blowing ! I suspect that Gov. Schwarzenegger and California's attorney general are doing the same.
Yes..Mayor Newson has opened Pandora's box and really put a lot of our politicians on the spot..Now lets see where they go with it and what their responses will be. I am also curious to see how the public responds to whats going on..
Farrah_Holiday
02-18-2004, 01:20 AM
Judge Says Gay Weddings Might Violate Law
3 hours ago Listen to Audio
By DAVID KRAVETS and LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writers
SAN FRANCISCO - A judge said San Francisco might be violating the law by issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples, but he declined Tuesday to order an immediate halt and the mayor said the weddings would continue.
A conservative group had asked Judge James Warren to immediately stop the weddings and void the 2,636 same-sex marriages performed at City Hall since Thursday. Instead, Warren told the city to "cease and desist" or return to court March 29 to explain why they haven't.
The nonbinding order frustrated conservatives who also failed earlier in the day to persuade another judge to halt the weddings as part of a separate challenge, which was filed by the Campaign for California Families. Judge Ronald Quidachay said he was not prepared to rule and told that group to return on Friday for another hearing.
Mayor Gavin Newsom said the city had no plans to stop the marriages.
"We will continue to do what we've done," he said. "There was nothing particularly compelling after today that makes me think that we should back off. In fact quite the contrary. After three hearings, I now feel more resolved."
The Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund had asked Warren, a San Francisco Superior Court judge, to issue an order commanding the city to stop issuing the licenses.
Warren's decision was "not 100 percent of what we were looking for," acknowledged Robert Tyler, a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, which argued the case on behalf of the Proposition 22 group. Still, Tyler said he was pleased.
"The judge would not issue a cease and desist order unless the judge made a determination that the mayor is in violation," Tyler said.
Erwin Chemerinsky, a University of Southern California legal scholar, called the ruling a short-term victory for the city but said the ultimate decision would be made by a higher court.
"This is an issue that is going to be decided by the California Supreme Court," Chemerinsky said. "These are just the early stages of what's going to be a long legal battle."
Gay couples from as far as Europe have been lining up outside City Hall since Thursday, when city officials decided to begin marrying same-sex couples in a collective act of official civil disobedience.
Newsom has said the city will pursue a constitutional challenge through the courts. Newsom says the equal protection clause of the California Constitution makes denying marriage licenses to gay couples illegal.
"What trumps any proposition is the California Constitution," City Attorney Dennis Herrerra said Tuesday.
The conservatives want the courts to nullify the marriages and block the city from granting any more "gender-neutral" licenses.
The newly elected mayor's decision to permit gay marriages, while still legally unsettled, has intensified the national debate over whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry and enjoy the many benefits only married couples receive.
The Campaign for California Families said state law explicitly defines marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman." The group also argues that San Francisco is violating a ballot measure approved by California voters in 2000 that said only marriages between a man and woman are valid.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger urged city officials to stop the same-sex weddings.
"I support all of California's existing laws that provide domestic partnership benefits and protections," Schwarzenegger said in a statement. "However, Californians spoke on the issue of same-sex marriage when they overwhelmingly approved California's law that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman."
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in November ruled that its state constitution permits gay marriages. Lawmakers there are debating a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages.
In Virginia, gay rights proponents scored victories in the conservative-leaning House of Delegates on measures involving access to health insurance and home loans.
The House, which last week passed a bill reaffirming the state's ban on gay marriage, narrowly passed legislation Monday that would allow employers to offer group insurance benefits to gay partners who live together. It rejected a measure seeking to make state mortgage loans available only to married heterosexuals or blood relatives.
cinammonkisses
02-18-2004, 08:51 AM
Well the fall out has begun...
I can't believe more than 2,300 "marriages" have taken place!
LOL, well lady, you better believe it! Just think of how many people in this country have had a partner in there life for 10+ years?? For something of this calibur to come about, it's AWESOME! There are so many people in this world (let alone the US) who are gay/lesbian. I think it's a sign of the times that better things will continue to come about. At one time in life, having a partner of the same sex was a big NO-NO! Let alone, going to clubs specially formulated for your "lifestyle" I think that CA is about to get an overwhelming population boost of gay/lesbian couples now!
Farrah_Holiday
02-18-2004, 09:05 AM
Well the fall out has begun...
I can't believe more than 2,300 "marriages" have taken place!
LOL, well lady, you better believe it! Just think of how many people in this country have had a partner in there life for 10+ years?? For something of this calibur to come about, it's AWESOME! There are so many people in this world (let alone the US) who are gay/lesbian. I think it's a sign of the times that better things will continue to come about. At one time in life, having a partner of the same sex was a big NO-NO! Let alone, going to clubs specially formulated for your "lifestyle" I think that CA is about to get an overwhelming population boost of gay/lesbian couples now!
You said it CK..I am so overwhelmed by the outpour from the Gay community to show their love for each other and finally have the opportunity to get married to their SO...Its great :10:
Farrah_Holiday
02-18-2004, 01:57 PM
The First Lady speaks..
Farrah_Holiday
02-18-2004, 01:57 PM
Laura Bush Says Gay Marriage 'Shocking'
38 minutes ago Add White House - AP to My Yahoo!
By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer
SANTA MONICA, Calif. - Laura Bush says gay marriages are "a very, very shocking issue" for some people, a subject that should be debated by Americans rather than settled by a Massachusetts court or the mayor of San Francisco.
AP Photo
Asked how she feels about the issue personally, Mrs. Bush replies: "Let's just leave it at that."
In an Associated Press interview, Mrs. Bush also endorsed sexual abstinence programs for teens, which are slated to get double their current funding under the president's latest budget proposal.
Abstinence should be extensively discussed alongside contraception, she said. "We know it works. It's 100 percent fail-safe."
Mrs. Bush discussed her views as she flew across the country at the start of a three-day trip to raise re-election cash for her husband's campaign and to talk about education.
The trip took her to California where gay couples have been lining up to get marriage licenses in San Francisco. On the East Coast, Massachusetts' highest court recently ruled that the state constitution permits gay marriages.
At the White House on Wednesday, President Bush (news - web sites) said, "I'm troubled by what I've seen" in Boston and San Francisco. But he declined to say if he would support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages, as conservative supporters expect him to do.
While declining to express her own opinions about gay marriages, Mrs. Bush said, "It's an issue that people want to talk about and not want the Massachusetts Supreme Court, or the mayor of San Francisco to make their choice for them. I know that's what the president thinks.
"I think people ought to have that opportunity to debate it, to think about it, to see what the American people really want to do about the issue."
Mrs. Bush's demeanor is quiet and matter-off-fact, yet she sometimes serves as the president's flak jacket when she's on the road, especially now as his approval ratings are drooping amid Democratic attacks during the primaries.
She defended her husband's credibility and took a shot at Democrats who allege he skipped out on his National Guard duty. "I think it's a political, you know, witch hunt, actually, on the part of Democrats," she said.
The president served honorably in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War and did report for duty in Alabama where he was briefly assigned, she said.
"He knows that he served honorably," she said. "He knows that he showed up the whole time."
She says she has been hurt by allegations that he lied to the American people about his Guard duty, and by contentions that he misled the public about the extent of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s weapons when U.S.-led troops went to war in Iraq (news - web sites).
"Nobody likes that part of campaigning — the personal attacks," Mrs. Bush said, sitting on a couch in the private section of her plane. "I certainly don't like it."
On another political subject, asked whether the president's brother, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, will ever run for president, she replied, "I doubt it, but I have no idea."
Mrs. Bush said she and the president have been feeling a bit "nostalgic" as they watch the Democratic candidates campaigning in the snows of New Hampshire and Iowa.
"That's a much more upclose and personal campaign because you get to actually be with so many of the voters," she said. "We both miss that."
And she said that despite the lack of privacy that comes with being first lady — a title she finds "too artificial" — she doesn't feel as if she must constantly bite her tongue to keep her opinions to herself.
"I'm actually very disciplined," she said. "I don't really have to watch everything I say because I'm pretty well-behaved."
At Limerick Elementary School in Canoga Park, Calif., on Wednesday where she was promoting reading, Mrs. Bush said it appears that Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) will be the Democratic presidential nominee. "I assume he will be," she said.
"They've had a big primary," she said about the Democratic candidates. "They've spent $100 million dollars — all of them together — campaigning around the United States running ads. In general, I think they campaigned against my husband rather than each other."
kryssy
02-18-2004, 03:39 PM
in my opionin i dont see why a person who is gay does not have the right to be happy. "Straight couples" have the right to be married and i believe that should not be any different if you are gay. if my husband has the right to add me to his insurance why should it be any different for a gay couple. "Gay people" has the right to adopt and raise a child than why not allow them to marry. if they are happy than leave it alone. Its just my 2 cents though
Farrah_Holiday
02-19-2004, 04:15 PM
S.F. to Sue State Over Gay Marriage Ban
2 hours ago
By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer
SAN FRANCISCO - After sanctioning more than 2,700 gay marriages in the past week, the city said Thursday it is suing the state of California, challenging its ban on same-sex marriages on constitutional grounds.
City Attorney Dennis Herrera planned to file the suit in the afternoon, said his spokesman, Matt Dorsey.
Two judges already are considering challenges from conservative groups seeking to halt the marriage spree that began last Thursday. The city's lawsuit asks that those cases be consolidated into one case.
The city is asking Superior Court Judge James Warren to declare unconstitutional two sections of the California Family Code that define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
City officials want the judge to determine if restricting same-sex couples from marrying violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the California Constitution.
On Tuesday, Warren gave the city the choice of ending the same-sex wedding march or returning to court in late March to show why the process has not been halted. The city said it would continue issuing such licenses until forced to stop.
Melonie
02-19-2004, 04:33 PM
in my opionin i dont see why a person who is gay does not have the right to be happy. "Straight couples" have the right to be married and i believe that should not be any different if you are gay. if my husband has the right to add me to his insurance why should it be any different for a gay couple. "Gay people" has the right to adopt and raise a child than why not allow them to marry. if they are happy than leave it alone. Its just my 2 cents though
Actually, many of the legislators and judges have considered this issue on the basis of possible discrimination. The conclusion is that gay men and lesbian women have the same right to marry as "straight" men and women. If a gay guy wants to marry the girl of his choice, or if a lesbian woman wants to marry the man of her choice, they are completely free to do so! This is not a joke, it is the unspoken but "official" position of many state legislatures and courts.
In many states, gay and lesbian partners have the ability to enter into civil unions, which allow people of the same sex to provide the same shared rights and responsibilities as marriage provides for "straight" couples. This means that gay and lesbian couples have a legal mechanism available to them that provides the same legal rights and priveleges as the marriage contract, such as joint custody of children, the ability to make medical decisions for each other and for children, inheritances, joint loans, mortgages, and bank accounts etc. Because of the availability of civil unions, same sex couples can achieve every "right" that straight couples receive under a marriage contract. Nobody is objecting to the principle of civil unions.
Farrah_Holiday
02-19-2004, 04:39 PM
These legislators and judges need some sense beat into them!! This is one of the most stupidest things I have ever heard :beat: :beat: :beat: :laughing:
(this is just a joke, I would never suggest using actual violence)
montythegeek
02-19-2004, 06:03 PM
Although I do not buy the argument Melonie described, the task of decideding what is equal is often not easy. Take taxation. What is equal? Paying the same thing, paying the same percentage, paying the same percentage after "stuff" is adjusted for, paying different percentages and the mess we have because Congress voted it.
If you throw out the first and say throw out the second somehow what about giving deductions to the blind and over 65, for kids, for adoption, for medical expenses, mortgage interest. You end up at the last and complain about how complicated it is.
Take a "nonequal" condition which would still remain, one of the parties less than a state-determined age, say 17 (this is going to vary by state so you have a built in inequality). But you can't vote until 18 or drink until 21. So do we make it legal by changing the consent age to 21 or are we constrained to the age-lowest-common-denominator--you get a birth certificate at 1/365th year age so anyone over 1 day old can marry. Are all the things "rights" in the first place? This stuff is messy.
As for "beating" legislators, I have long thought NO terrorist would ever attack a legislature because they cause enough confusion and disarray as organized alrready.
bambiblue
02-22-2004, 07:15 PM
I think the government doesn't have a right to tell us who we can and can't love. This law should have been passed a long time ago and really shows how hypocritical our judicial system really is. Even though I'm not gay, I still think they should be entitled to the same rights that a man and a women are.
Optimist
02-23-2004, 12:02 AM
Gay men and women should be able to marry. Atheists can marry so all religious arguements against it are moot. Straights have a divorce rate in the 50% range so half of them certainly aren't experts so they should not have legal standing as arbiters on the subject. That 50% is living 'the social impact' of untraditional coupling. And that crap about gays scamming the government for undeserved benefits is a screen for the real drain on our society...corporate America. The have no real allegiance or sense of responsibility to our country. They just suck our government dry through subsidies or 'corporate welfare' and send our politicians out like hell-hounds to attack any group that might take away some their money. That's why our president wants to revive the old-style marriage half of us run from.
Farrah_Holiday
02-27-2004, 06:55 PM
Calif. Court Won't Stop Gay Marriages
The California Supreme Court declined a request by the state attorney general Friday to immediately shut down San Francisco's gay weddings and nullify the nearly 3,500 marriages already performed.
parsifal
02-28-2004, 02:31 AM
montythegeek
"Although I do not buy the argument Melonie described, the task of decideding what is equal is often not easy. Take taxation. What is equal? Paying the same thing, paying the same percentage, paying the same percentage after "stuff" is adjusted for, paying different percentages and the mess we have because Congress voted it."
Look at it as getting a room at the Waldorf-Astoria. You can pay $300 for a closet or $10000 for a big suite. If you are living on the low end of the scale you should not be paying as large a percentage as the person making $250M a year. That person gets a lot more benefits from this country that you or I do. They should pay more for it.
And how dare anyone take home $100M or $200M a year. That is just vulgar.
Guess you know who I'm NOT voting for.
parsifal
montythegeek
02-28-2004, 09:01 AM
Parsifal,
You make my point. You think you know what is the correct way to tax folks, and so do the other 300 million souls in the country. The political process sorts it all out with something messy that 300 million people can live with.
The point about "equality" and taxes is not to argue a point but to show there are competing versions of what the word means. As for "vulgar". If I were a millionaire and believe what a person does making $15K were vulgar too, does that mean I can refuse to pay taxes?
The point of democracy is to collectively determine what we all can tolerate from the others. The process ain't pretty.
Melonie
02-28-2004, 10:59 AM
The point of democracy is to collectively determine what we all can tolerate from the others. The process ain't pretty.
So true! However, there has been no democracy whatsoever involved in the legalized gay marriage issue which is exactly why the vast majority of states and registered voters do not support it. If there was democracy, the defeat of the 2000 gay marriage initiative on the California ballot would have put an end to it then and there. If there was democracy, the Massachusetts judges' order to force the Massachusetts legislature to write a new law that the democratically elected legislators do not want to write would not apply.
Granted there are occasions in this country when the "will of the people" was/is unfair and wrong. This was definitely the case with slavery in the 18th century. This may also be the case with legalized gay marriage. But a handful of activists bypassing the democratic process to achieve their desired result by "underhanded means", after previous attempts using the democratic process have failed, doesn't sit well.
After all the issue of slavery was finally resolved by a democratic process ... albeit a bloody process of revolution on the part of the Confederate states, and their eventual defeat. Perhaps the gay activists can convince enough people in California such that the state will secede from the Union over the Gay marriage issue. However, if that were to happen, I seriously doubt whether there would much interest on the part of the other 49 states to want California back ! But secession would definitely solve the problem of the peripheral costs created by California gay marriages having to be paid by businesses and governments in the other 49 states !
Secession would also address a number of other peripheral cost problems stemming outward from California to the residents of other states, like electricity, water, federal tax dollars ... but that's a whole 'nuther discussion.
montythegeek
02-28-2004, 01:44 PM
Doesn't affect you?
Now Social Security is not recognizing ANY new San Francisco marriages.
http://kevxml2a.verizon.net/_1_J5KTO104YD938G__vzn.isp/apnws/story.htm?kcfg=apart&sin=D810F55G1&qcat=usnews&ran=6233&passqi=&feed=ap&top=1
see last paragraph
Melonie
02-28-2004, 04:37 PM
Doesn't affect you?
Now Social Security is not recognizing ANY new San Francisco marriages
Yes, the Federal Government is already on record that no Federal agency may recognize gay marriages. This includes not only the Social Security administration but also the IRS and every other Federal agency.
This gives rise to the next big battleground - April 15th 2005. It's illegal for a person to file a federal tax return with a different tax status (single, married, head of household) than the status filed on a state tax return. This question has already come up and a California gay rights organization is recommending that gay couples who received marriage licenses in San Francisco file both single and married tax returns, pay the higher of the two taxes, and attach a letter of explanation besides. More big legal fees for those trial lawyers (the vast majority of whom are liberal) and for federal and state governments.
Will the US Supreme Court force the Social Security administration to recognize gay marriages, to pay gay spouses Social Security benefits, and to increase Social Security tax rates for everybody to cover the additional costs ? Will the US Supreme Court force the IRS to abandon the married filing jointly tax status, thus increasing the tax burden for millions of hetero married couples across the country ? Will Gavin Newsom be elected the next Governor of California ? Stay tuned !