Wedding bells chime for California same-sex couples

[Lisa]

Same Sex Marriage In California

SAN FRANCISCO, California (CNN) -- California officials began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples Monday evening after a state Supreme Court ruling legalizing the ceremonies took effect.
art.same.sex.ap.jpg


The May 15 ruling took effect at 5:01 p.m. (8:01 p.m. ET) Monday. Gay and lesbian couples had lined up for hours outside county clerk's offices in anticipation of the decision coming into force.

Lesbian rights activists Del Martin, 87, and Phyllis Lyon, 84, were the first same-sex couple to receive a marriage license in San Francisco on Monday, with Mayor Gavin Newsom presiding over their wedding ceremony.

"This is an extraordinary moment in history," Newsom told a cheering, standing-room-only crowd at City Hall. "I think today, marriage as an institution has been strengthened."

The high-profile mayor heated up the debate on same-sex marriages in February 2004, when he ordered city officials to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. Martin and Lyon were the first to exchange wedding vows after the order, only to see the ceremony voided later. iReport.com: Share your feelings, photos and videos

"I think it's a wonderful day and I have to thank our mayor for most of it," Lyon said. "I'm very happy and very grateful for all of you."

Clerks expect a much larger number of couples to show up Tuesday morning to complete marriage-license applications that replace "Bride" and "Groom" with "Partner A" and "Partner B." Video Watch as longtime lesbian couple emerges from wedding »

The decision makes California the nation's second state, after Massachusetts, to legalize same-sex marriage. Four other states allow civil unions.

Robin Tyler and Diane Olson, one of the first couples to obtain a marriage license Monday evening, rushed outside the courthouse in Beverly Hills for their Jewish wedding ceremony. There, they were greeted by a crowd of family, friends, supporters -- and a few opponents protesting the same-sex marriages with signs reading "repent."

"It's not about us," Tyler said. "It's about the entire movement that helped make this day possible."

Critics of the ruling have talked about staging protests against same-sex marriages this week.

Opponents say they've collected enough signatures to call for a statewide vote on a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between a man and woman. The California secretary of state must verify the signatures before a November vote can be held on the proposed amendment.

Though the law affects only California, it has national implications. "Because we're in a presidential campaign right now, it's going to be a real flash point for the electorate to come together and say this really matters to us," said Charmaine Yoest of the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian group based in Washington that opposes gay marriage.

Meanwhile, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, California, issued a statement on behalf of seven bishops Monday, saying the Catholic Church "cannot approve of redefining marriage."

Marriage "has a unique place in God's creation, joining a man and a woman in a committed relationship in order to nurture and support the new life for which marriage is intended," the statement said. "The meaning of marriage is deeply rooted in history and culture, and has been shaped considerably by Christian tradition. Its meaning is given, not constructed."
advertisement

Newsom said the issue "is about civil marriages, not about religious marriages. ... We're not telling religious institutions what to do. They can continue to do what they've done."

In the May 15 ruling, the California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional. The ruling surprised legal experts because the court has a conservative reputation. Six of its seven judges are Republican appointees.

No surprise that California did it. When Texas or North Dakota do it then I'll be surprised.

[Lisa]

ugh some one fix my link please.

[Shinova]

I think they're having a referendum in November or something.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Link fixed.

Robin Tyler and Diane Olson, one of the first couples to obtain a marriage license Monday evening, rushed outside the courthouse in Beverly Hills for their Jewish wedding ceremony. There, they were greeted by a crowd of family, friends, supporters -- and a few opponents protesting the same-sex marriages with signs reading "repent."

"It's not about us," Tyler said. "It's about the entire movement that helped make this day possible."

Critics of the ruling have talked about staging protests against same-sex marriages this week.

Real fucking nice. Family values indeed.

[Darth Wong]

Link fixed.

Robin Tyler and Diane Olson, one of the first couples to obtain a marriage license Monday evening, rushed outside the courthouse in Beverly Hills for their Jewish wedding ceremony. There, they were greeted by a crowd of family, friends, supporters -- and a few opponents protesting the same-sex marriages with signs reading "repent."

"It's not about us," Tyler said. "It's about the entire movement that helped make this day possible."

Critics of the ruling have talked about staging protests against same-sex marriages this week.

Real fucking nice. Family values indeed.

Meanwhile, when convicted pedophiles get married, there is not a protester to be found, as long as they're marrying someone of the opposite sex.

[Kitsune]

I think they're having a referendum in November or something.

I thought Arnold was going to block any constitutional amendment.....

Also, Virginia is just as bad as Texas...remember Loving vs Virginia

[Questor]

I think they're having a referendum in November or something.

I thought Arnold was going to block any constitutional amendment.....

In CA, we can get a constitutional amendment without the legislature, through a ballot proposition. We've been through this before here, I doubt it will pass, to much going on politically for either party to let this become a major partisan issue. The budget mess is getting worse, not better.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Link fixed.

Robin Tyler and Diane Olson, one of the first couples to obtain a marriage license Monday evening, rushed outside the courthouse in Beverly Hills for their Jewish wedding ceremony. There, they were greeted by a crowd of family, friends, supporters -- and a few opponents protesting the same-sex marriages with signs reading "repent."

"It's not about us," Tyler said. "It's about the entire movement that helped make this day possible."

Critics of the ruling have talked about staging protests against same-sex marriages this week.

Real fucking nice. Family values indeed.

Meanwhile, when convicted pedophiles get married, there is not a protester to be found, as long as they're marrying someone of the opposite sex.

Nevermind that the person they marry has kids, kids that will probably be abused...

But remember. Family values are not about love, or kindness, or respect. They are all about orthodoxy, obligation, and fear.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I think they're having a referendum in November or something.

I thought Arnold was going to block any constitutional amendment.....

In CA, we can get a constitutional amendment without the legislature, through a ballot proposition. We've been through this before here, I doubt it will pass, to much going on politically for either party to let this become a major partisan issue. The budget mess is getting worse, not better.

Well, it requires 60% of the electorate to be in favour, right? It does up here in Washington, which is why nobody has ever even tried to get a constitutional amendment passed banning gay marriage up here, though here it would have to pass the legislature as well--50% vote in each chamber, governor's signature, and then it goes to the people and 60% of them have to approve it.

I've never gotten how frighteningly easy it is to amend the constitution in many other states.

[SirNitram]

Remember, two people of the same gender who love and will stay true to one another is far more of a debasement of marriage than 'Covenant marriages', which are state-enforced to present additional roadblocks to what is apparently inevitable divorce.

For those who are wondering WTF I'm railing against, Link to the bizarrity. Remember! Just because Southern conservative states full of Evangelicals are the sites of oddly high divorce rates, it's those liberal hellpits of Massachusetts and California, where divorce is much lower, that are where marriage is falling apart(Massachusetts has the lowest national divorce rate, California has a fraction of a percent less than average, and Arkansas sits above exactly one state.. Nevada.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Well, it requires 60% of the electorate to be in favour, right? It does up here in Washington, which is why nobody has ever even tried to get a constitutional amendment passed banning gay marriage up here, though here it would have to pass the legislature as well--50% vote in each chamber, governor's signature, and then it goes to the people and 60% of them have to approve it.

I've never gotten how frighteningly easy it is to amend the constitution in many other states.

Unfortunately, initiatives in California only require a simple 50% majority to get passed. It's notoriously easy to amend the California constitution. You don't even need a million signatures to get one on the ballot.

[SirNitram]

The referendum will likely wilt as it's been uncovered and published that the way it was written would outlaw and effectively undo all existing marriage in the state.

Why? The court made two rulings: Same-sex couples cannot be legally treated differently from opposite-sex couples, and then that same-sex marriage is legal. The referendum approaches only the latter.

Making same-sex marriage illegal while demanding equal legal treatment means no marriage for anyone.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Well, it requires 60% of the electorate to be in favour, right? It does up here in Washington, which is why nobody has ever even tried to get a constitutional amendment passed banning gay marriage up here, though here it would have to pass the legislature as well--50% vote in each chamber, governor's signature, and then it goes to the people and 60% of them have to approve it.

I've never gotten how frighteningly easy it is to amend the constitution in many other states.

Unfortunately, initiatives in California only require a simple 50% majority to get passed. It's notoriously easy to amend the California constitution. You don't even need a million signatures to get one on the ballot.

What the hell? It's not a normal law, it's a constitutional amendment. I can't fathom whomever was stupid enough to allow a constitution to be amended that easily. You might as well not have one.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Ah, here we go, I had the supermajorities reversed:

SECTION 1 HOW MADE. Any amendment or amendments to this Constitution may be proposed in either branch of the legislature; and if the same shall be agreed to by two-thirds of the members elected to each of the two houses, such proposed amendment or amendments shall be entered on their journals, with the ayes and noes thereon, and be submitted to the qualified electors of the state for their approval, at the next general election; and if the people approve and ratify such amendment or amendments, by a majority of the electors voting thereon, the same shall become part of this Constitution, and proclamation thereof shall be made by the governor: Provided, That if more than one amendment be submitted, they shall be submitted in such a manner that the people may vote for or against such amendments separately. The legislature shall also cause notice of the amendments that are to be submitted to the people to be published at least four times during the four weeks next preceding the election in every legal newspaper in the state: Provided, That failure of any newspaper to publish this notice shall not be interpreted as affecting the outcome of the election. [AMENDMENT 37, 1961 Senate Joint Resolution No. 25, p 2753. Approved November, 1962.]

The Washington State Constitution requires that the State House and State Senate both in full vote 2/3rds in favour of legislation amending the constitution and it is then sent to the people who must approve it by majority vote. Which is why the idea of amending the state constitution to ban Gay Marriage here is a dead letter--but since our State Supreme Court ruled against it being part of the constitution (either way), legalization would have to come through the legislature, which so far hasn't tried to touch the issue despite huge democratic majorities, which did pass domestic partnership law.

[Broomstick]

I thought Arnold was going to block any constitutional amendment.....

In CA, we can get a constitutional amendment without the legislature, through a ballot proposition. We've been through this before here, I doubt it will pass, to much going on politically for either party to let this become a major partisan issue. The budget mess is getting worse, not better.

Well, it requires 60% of the electorate to be in favour, right?

In California all that is needed is a simple majority - 50% of the vote, +1

[Alerik the Fortunate]

The referendum will likely wilt as it's been uncovered and published that the way it was written would outlaw and effectively undo all existing marriage in the state.

Why? The court made two rulings: Same-sex couples cannot be legally treated differently from opposite-sex couples, and then that same-sex marriage is legal. The referendum approaches only the latter.

Making same-sex marriage illegal while demanding equal legal treatment means no marriage for anyone.

Actually, Kern county has gone that route. In order to avoid the expected "deluge" of weddings, the county clerk, upon being informed that it would not be possible to select which weddings would be performed, has put an end to all civil ceremonies performed under the auspices of Kern County.

[Questor]

Actually, Kern county has gone that route. In order to avoid the expected "deluge" of weddings, the county clerk, upon being informed that it would not be possible to select which weddings would be performed, has put an end to all civil ceremonies performed under the auspices of Kern County.

I'm actually surprised that the Orange County Clerk hasn't tried the same thing. Probably thinks that there is too much of a chance of litigation here.

[Adrian Laguna]

Remember! Just because Southern conservative states full of Evangelicals are the sites of oddly high divorce rates, it's those liberal hellpits of Massachusetts and California, where divorce is much lower, that are where marriage is falling apart(Massachusetts has the lowest national divorce rate, California has a fraction of a percent less than average, and Arkansas sits above exactly one state.. Nevada.

Oh wow, I didn't know Massachusetts had the lowest divorce rate in the nation. I should throw that at the "sanctity of marriage" idiots.

[UCBooties]

Rather than start a new thread I though I would post this here. Mostly interesting for some quotes I have bolded, also explains why the reactions to this have been pretty muted.

linky linky

Opponents of gay marriage stay mostly quiet -- for now
Groups opposing same-sex marriage say they will focus on an amendment to the California constitution in November rather than protest today.
By Cara Mia DiMassa and Jessica Garrison
Los Angeles Times Staff Writers

June 18, 2008

Opponents of gay marriage made a pointed effort today to keep a low profile on the first full day of same-sex ceremonies in California.

Ron Prentice, chairman of ProtectMarriage.com, wrote in an e-mail to supporters that they will battle in November with a constitutional amendment to outlaw same-sex marriage.

Prentice had a cautionary message for those protesting Tuesday's ceremonies. Media outlets, he warned, "would love to see us engage in fierce protests and hostile demonstrations of outrage. . . . We must not fall into this trap."

There were only a scattering of isolated protests around the state.

A few people carried placards at the county facilities in Norwalk and Santa Ana. In San Diego, a lone protester stood on the sidewalk and cried out a message against same-sex marriage.

"It's just not right for a man to marry a man; it's just not normal," said the protester, Dennis Agajanian, a member of Bikers for Christ.

But his protest was largely drowned out by supporters and well-wishers. "Love is in the air today," said Margaux Lanoie, a volunteer with the Equality for All Campaign.

At the Glendale studios of KRLA-AM (870), conservative radio talk-show host Dennis Prager fielded questions on same-sex marriage throughout the morning and argued that its legality undermined the will of California voters.

He described marriage as "the central institution of Western civilization" and said he believed "the cavalier treatment of it will come to haunt us."

"If love is your criterion, why do you have the chutzpah to ban polygamy?" he asked a caller.

Randy Thomasson, the founder of the Campaign for Children and Families, said one reason why there was no organized opposition to the marriages Tuesday was that the spectacle of men marrying men and women marrying women needed no elaboration.

"If someone is singing a good song, you don't go and try to interrupt it," he said.

Political strategists said the decision not to have organized protests was a good one.

Rob Stutzman, who ran the successful state ballot initiative in 2000 that defined marriage as between a man and a woman, said that the anti-gsame-sex-marriage side had to be careful not to alienate voters by appearing right-wing. "These campaigns should be seeking to run their messaging as mainstream as possible," he said.

Still, ProtectMarriage.com did take advantage of the political spotlight to send out a fundraising appeal Tuesday. Saying that the debate about same-sex marriage "is not over," Prentice asked supporters to help fund television and radio advertisements in support of a November ballot initiative that would define marriage in the state as a union between a man and a woman.

The group, a coalition of conservative organizations and churches, including Focus on the Family, submitted 1.1 million signatures earlier this year for the ballot measure, which would amend the state Constitution. If the initiative passes, it would undo the California Supreme Court ruling that found that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was unconstitutional and which allowed same-sex couples to marry, starting Tuesday. It is unclear how that initiative would affect same-sex couples married before November.

"Our purpose is to reaffirm the traditional definition of marriage," Prentice said.

Jeff Flint, the spokesman and strategist for the campaign to amend the Constitution, said his group would not be protesting because it did not want the campaign to be about the weddings taking place this week. As he saw it, the campaign is about whether marriage should be defined as only between a man and a woman. "We don't need to complicate it," he said before the weddings began.

Frank Schubert, campaign manager for the initiative, said he wasn't surprised by the subdued level of protests around the state. He said he had fielded about 200 news media calls today and mostly found himself repeating the same thing.

"We certainly have urged people on our side to keep their powder dry," Schubert said. "Today is not a day to win or lose our campaign."

Asked about his reaction to the day's events, he said that "it focuses us on the task at hand. [/b]Our beef is not with the people who are having civil marriage ceremonies. Our beef is with the Supreme Court and how they have interpreted California law. And we are going to fix that . . . ."[/b]

Rosalyn Strode was one of those who heeded the advice of the initiative's organizers.

"We are silent today," said Strode, 71, head of a group called Bakersfield Citizens Opposed to Obscenity and Lewdness, "but we're just biding our time. "We'll have our say in November."

Instead, Strode spent the day sending an e-mail alert to more than 300 pastors in the Bakersfield area, asking them to support a proposed ordinance banning gay marriage in Kern County.

"Let the people of Bakersfield see the disgusting results of them getting married. Men kissing men. Ewwww," she said. "Then everyone will make up their minds on what they want to do about it."

Proponents of same-sex marriage also used the day's festivities, to raise funds for the political campaign to defeat the proposed same-sex marriage amendment.

Geoff Kors, the executive director of Equality California, estimated that the pro-same-sex-marriage side may need to raise more than $20 million for the November ballot initiative. That is the amount needed to match the other side, he said.

On Tuesday, after returning from a wedding celebration, Kors sent an e-mail to his organization's supporters warning them that the conservative Colorado-based Focus on the Family had contributed $250,000 to an anti-gay-marriage Political Action Committee. He asked supporters to send in their own donations to counter that money.

In an interview, Kors noted that his organization and several others have set up registries on their websites. Similar to the department store programs where newlywed couples can register for gifts, the site allows newly married couples to instead direct political contributions to various PACs that will support same-sex marriage.

It was a theme many couples had come up with on their own.

In Norwalk on Tuesday morning, Adam Pearson, 32, and Matt Armendariz, 38, of Long Beach wiped away tears of joy over being married and said they were not going to be having a reception. Instead, they said, they might have a benefit to raise money for the political campaign.

The small protests that did occur today generated little excitement.

"They're saying, 'I'm for Jesus.' But nobody's really responding," said Eileen Shea, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles Registrar-Recorder in Norwalk. "It was a very happy day for lots of folks. I think it's going to take a lot to take the cheer out of the atmosphere for these folks."

In Lancaster, officials said that up to 10 people gathered to protest gay marriage at a county building but were gone by lunchtime.

"We were notified of it. We went over there," said Los Angeles County Sheriff's Sgt. David Chambers in Lancaster. "They didn't cause any problems. We didn't have to kick anybody out."

Chambers said he thought their choice of locale was odd.

"We don't have marriages" there, he said. "But that's OK; they can protest."

cara.dimassaATlatimesdotcom

jessica.garrisonATlatimesdotcom

Times staff writers Christopher Goffard, Evelyn Larrubia, Tony Perry and Catherine Saillant contributed to this report

Of special interest is the quote where the anti-gay organizer says they don't want to be seen as right-wing... I'm sorry what? What the fuck else is anyone going to think?

[Mayabird]

Rather than start a new thread I though I would post this here. Mostly interesting for some quotes I have bolded, also explains why the reactions to this have been pretty muted.

*snip*

Wow, that's incredibly mature of the protesters, and by "mature" I mean I was past that stupidity when I was...actually, I was never that stupid. "It's ICKY! EWWW!" I wonder if they'd have a heart attack if they visited a country where men regularly kiss each other as greetings.

Also, those "Homo sex is sin" protesters once showed up at a football game I was playing at. I wonder if they have day jobs or just live off welfare and hate.


Also, it totally doesn't surprise me that Massachusetts has a lower divorce rate. The average age of first marriage is probably higher (you know, more than 18 or so) and because more people are going to be using birth control, there'll be less people getting shacked up because one of them got knocked up. Probably other factors too. Lack of sexual repression due to loony religious beliefs, for one.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

I'm actually surprised that the Orange County Clerk hasn't tried the same thing. Probably thinks that there is too much of a chance of litigation here.

Orange county may have a lot of conservatives, but it also has a lot of support for the ruling against the ban. Keep in mind that there are a lot of university students and progressives who throw their weight around here, and recently convinced a few cities in OC not to adopt "In God We Trust" as a city slogan (a trend which is spiraling out of control in central CA, I'm told). There's also the huge libertarian streak in a lot of OC, too...

If the OC county clerk tried something like this, he would be met with a lot of opposition and quite likely lose his job.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

Oh, yes. I think "In God We Trust" or something similar has just been put up over the city council chambers, and I overheard leaders at a city prayer meeting stating "The purpose of the City of Lancaster is to glorify the lord Jesus Christ." Technically we're part of Los Angeles county, but we're right on the border with Kern.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Well, it requires 60% of the electorate to be in favour, right? It does up here in Washington, which is why nobody has ever even tried to get a constitutional amendment passed banning gay marriage up here, though here it would have to pass the legislature as well--50% vote in each chamber, governor's signature, and then it goes to the people and 60% of them have to approve it.

I've never gotten how frighteningly easy it is to amend the constitution in many other states.

Unfortunately, initiatives in California only require a simple 50% majority to get passed. It's notoriously easy to amend the California constitution. You don't even need a million signatures to get one on the ballot.

yeah, welcome to the people's anarchy of the great bear state....

and you wonder why I hate CA politics soooo much.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

I was wondering... couldn't it work the other way as well. Considering that acceptance of same-sex marriage is slowly growing, couldn't gay right groups easily get enough signatures to push a ballot to overturn the previous amendment and get it to pass with a steadily growing majority?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I was wondering... couldn't it work the other way as well. Considering that acceptance of same-sex marriage is slowly growing, couldn't gay right groups easily get enough signatures to push a ballot to overturn the previous amendment and get it to pass with a steadily growing majority?

That means getting 50% + 1 of people in California to support actively legalizing gay marriage. That would be much harder to do, as there's a large number of people who might vote against this initiative who simply wouldn't show up or couldn't be bothered to vote for one legalizing marriage, and also people who'd vote against it because it involves change, whereas here they won't vote for or against it because it seems like a status quo that's none of their business, since they're not worked up over it enough to actively try and ban it.

In short, if but three more people vote for this than voted against it, to reverse the decision you'd probably need thirty thousand more supporters..

IF you want gay marriage to be legal in California anytime in the next 15 - 20 years, you have to defeat this.