SOIN - Live Issues

County commission OKs gay marriage
Recommendation moves forward to Board of Supervisors
By Justine DaCosta, Staff Writer

In 1973, Robin Barnett packed up her car and drove 3,000 miles to San Francisco in hopes of finding a place she could call home.

As a lesbian, she found that most of the country was not open to the idea of homosexuality, but when she arrived in the Bay Area she felt a sense of acceptance she never had before.

A few years later, Barnett fell in love, and like many young women, dreamed of having a traditional wedding. But unlike most brides, Barnett was in love with another woman and didn't know how to begin planning a same-sex Jewish ceremony.

Her family, too, was unsure of how to approach the idea, and her brother even went to a gay bookstore in hopes of finding a book of toasts for same-sex Jewish weddings.

Once the fear of the unknown subsided, Barnett's family helped her plan for what would be the best day of her life. Marriage is about family and love, she said.

"The important thing is that two people find each other," said Barnett, who now lives in Oakland with her wife, Janet.

But because same-sex marriage is not recognized in California, the couple is not legally married, and can be viewed as no more than partners by the state.

They are not alone, and Alameda County residents Wednesday let their views be known at a community forum led by the Alameda County Human Resources Commission.

The commission voted 7 to 5 Wednesday in support of a resolution advocating gay marriage in the county.

The forum - which was scheduled after last month's meeting on the same topic drew only nine constituents - brought together more than 50 community members who spoke out against and in support of same-sex marriages.

Gay Marriage Bill Expected to Die in Assembly
Democratic lawmakers say they plan to revive the measure in 2005, after state courts have had time to rule on pending cases.

SACRAMENTO - As attention turns this week to marriages for gays and lesbians in Massachusetts, Democratic lawmakers in California who back the concept have all but abandoned their efforts - for now.

Election-year politics and the skittishness of a handful of Assembly members is stalling a measure to grant marriage rights to same-gender couples. Some lawmakers say they would rather wait until cases pending in the California courts are resolved.

This week, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D-Los Angeles) is expected to announce his support - in 2005 - for a bill legalizing unions for gays and lesbians. But he is allowing the issue to die this year, postponing one of the only legislative efforts in the nation on the issue.

"We're disappointed the leadership hasn't made this a priority bill," said Geoffrey Kors, executive director of Equality California, who helped draft this year's legislation. "On the other hand, we appreciate that the leadership has done more to move this forward than in any other state legislature in the country."

Gay rights groups view the California legislation as part of a strategy that emerged when San Francisco began granting marriage licenses three months ago. Now, court cases are pending in New Jersey, Washington, Oregon, New York and California, and a federal constitutional amendment is up for debate in Washington, D.C.

Gay and lesbian activists believe that the public, while still skeptical, is slowly embracing the concept of marriage for same-sex couples. A recent Los Angeles Times poll showed that slightly less than a third of Californians favored expanding marriage, compared with a fourth of U.S. residents in a national poll last month.

"It's a public conversation in all those arenas," said Jennifer Pizer, senior staff attorney with the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund in Los Angeles. "In California, we have the particularly poignant example of couples who married in San Francisco. We have the Legislature doing its job and public opinion moving steadily toward equality."

Cal. Supremes to Rule on Gay Marriage
High court decision will determine whether litigation or constitutionality validates San Fran weddings

As gays and lesbians continue to get married across the nation, and other local officials follow San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s lead, the legal battle over San Francisco’s gay marriages is headed for a showdown in California’s Supreme Court.

Bowing to pressure from Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, California’s Democratic attorney general, Bill Lockyer, asked the state Supreme Court on February 27 to step in immediately and stop the weddings. The City of San Francisco filed a rebuttal on March 5, but the court has remained mum.

Now, newly-married couples, as well as same-sex marriage opponents, await the high court’s answer to Lockyer’s petition. Some legal observers predict the justices will issue a ruling this week.

The court has a wide constitutional prerogative, ranging from issuing an immediate injunction to stop the same-sex marriages, and by so doing declaring those licenses issued in San Francisco invalid, to allowing the matter to be heard in a lower trial court before litigation wends its way through the appellate system—a process that could take years before the Supreme Court resolves the matter.

At the current wedding pace, tens of thousands of gays and lesbians could be married by then.

A ruling by the high court will determine whether justices will directly hear the case, which is atypical, or wait for the appellate process to take its course. The last time the court directly intervened on a case of tremendous urgency was last fall when plaintiffs asked to postpone the recall election of former Gov. Gray Davis.

San Francisco Chronicle,
March 9, 2004
State lawmaker joins S.F.'s gay wedding waltz
Republicans demand Newsom halt same-sex marriages and focus on city's 'critical issues'

To the cheers of her family, friends and political allies, California Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg joined the same-sex wedding march at San Francisco City Hall on Monday.

Meanwhile, the city's Republican leadership demanded that Mayor Gavin Newsom put an immediate halt to the gay and lesbian weddings and focus on the "critical issues" he was elected to tackle.

It was just another day in the battle over same-sex marriage, which exploded nearly one month ago when Newsom gave the go-ahead to issue marriage licenses to gays and lesbians. Since Feb. 12, more than 3,600 couples have taken their vows in San Francisco, with more same-sex weddings performed in Oregon, New York and New Mexico - prompting a flurry of lawsuits and legislative fights.

"There will be fits and starts. It's not going to be a smooth ride," said Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, who was on hand to witness the marriage of Goldberg, his Democratic colleague from Los Angeles. "This is how social change happens."

But the local GOP doesn't like how it's happening, and it issued a statement condemning the mayor.

Gay Conservatives Fight Bush on Wedding Vow
A key GOP group plans a campaign against the proposed constitutional amendment in several states crucial to the president's reelection.
By Johanna Neuman, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON - Angered by President Bush's endorsement of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as solely the union of a man and a woman, gay conservatives are laying the groundwork for a campaign against the proposal in swing states, such as Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Ohio, that are critical to the president's reelection.

Log Cabin Republicans, the largest GOP organization on gay issues, is exploring options from grass-roots voter mobilization efforts to television and radio ads - all designed to convince fellow conservatives, as well as moderates and independents, that the White House is "playing politics" with the Constitution.

"A constitutional amendment is a call to arms for gay conservatives," said Patrick Guerriero, executive director of the group, which is planning its annual convention in Palm Springs in April. "A lot of gay conservatives who have been extraordinarily loyal will not remain silent. This is a breach."

In the last few months, Guerriero has visited Missouri and Ohio to assess the political climate and talk to activists. In the last year he has traveled to 26 states and 87 cities to prepare for the largest presence ever of gay conservatives and their allies at the Republican National Convention, which will be in New York this year.

He said that since Bush's announcement on Tuesday embracing the amendment proposed by Rep. Marilyn N. Musgrave (R-Colo.), anger among gay conservatives was boiling over.

"The feeling is, if you want a cultural war, you'll get it," he said Wednesday in an interview. "We don't want history to record that we stood silent when our president and our party tried to write discrimination into the U.S. Constitution."

Some gay conservatives who work in the Bush administration or who hold political office say they feel a special sense of betrayal, and they share a conviction that the White House has miscalculated the political fallout.

Recalling the 2000 campaign, when Bush met with gay activists and vice presidential candidate Dick Cheney - who has an openly lesbian daughter - talked of leaving this issue to the states, some gay Republicans are vowing to vote Democratic for the first time, while others are pledging to stay in the party and fight.

For the White House, the issue of same-sex marriage is a dicey political issue, pitting key constituencies - evangelical Christians and social conservatives - against an activist group of gay Republicans and their allies among Libertarians and moderate Republicans. In exit polls from the 2000 election, about 4 million Americans identified themselves as gay or lesbian; of those, about a quarter said they voted for Bush. Gay Republicans say, however, that it is not only their support Bush is risking, but that of their families and friends and like-minded conservatives.

"The day word came out that he was going to support a constitutional amendment, my phone was ringing off the hook, with straight Republican friends saying, 'He just lost my vote,'" said Rebecca Maestri, a lesbian activist who works on Iraqi redevelopment issues for the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Proponents of both sides of the debate on legalizing same-sex marriage presented their cases before a full house at the UCLA School of Law on Monday in a forum that included a surprise change of speakers.

About 200 people attended the event and heard three guests speak for and against the topic recently thrust into national spotlight.

A Nov. 18 ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court sparked debates nationwide after saying the state could not prohibit same-sex marriages. The Massachusetts House of Representatives is considering legislation that would allow for civil unions instead of marriage.

The Charles R. Williams Project on Sexual Orientation Law, an organization dedicated to furthering the rights of homosexual couples, funded the debate. One student said she was impressed by the Williams Project's ability to host a two-sided debate despite its position in favor of same-sex marriages.

The speakers included nationally syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher and the moderator, UCLA Law Professor William Rubenstein, who joined the debate about halfway through to replace a speaker who did not come.

The speakers addressed issues such as the right to marry and historical court rulings that outlawed marriage discrimination.

The speakers also debated whether prohibiting same-sex marriage was gender discrimination.

"A person in a same-sex relationship cannot marry strictly because of his/her sex," said Erwin Chemerinsky, a USC law professor. "That is, by definition, gender discrimination."

Using innocent terms to hide intolerance and discrimination, the religious right and the Bush administration are campaigning to attack the progress of civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

"Marriage Protection Week" is just the latest from the deceptive campaign against equal rights for LGBT people.

What exactly is Marriage Protection Week? On Friday, Oct. 3, 2003, President Bush signed a proclamation which officially declared October 12-18, 2003 as "Marriage Protection Week." In the proclamation, he says he wants to build "strong and healthy marriages in America."

It sounds like a noble cause, doesn't it? However, if you read the actual text of the proclamation, you will see that the real intention of the proclamation is to bar the recognition of same-sex marriages. The proclamation states that "marriage is a union between a man and a woman."

Tracking the history of the proclamation reveals even more. One day before Bush's proclamation, on Oct. 2, the Family Research Council, along with 22 other ultra-conservative groups, held a press conference in Washington, D.C., to announce the so-called "Marriage Protection Week."

Obviously, Bush's proclamation is nothing more than endorsing the movement of the extreme right.

To justify the proclamation, Bush claims that "research has shown that, on average, children raised in households headed by married parents fare better than children who grow up in other family structures." However, this argument seeks to muddle the issue by combining the welfare of children from single-parent families that have lower household incomes with the welfare of children raised by same-sex couples.

Bush seeks to hide the truth that research on same-sex parenting has shown that children raised by same-sex parents can have the same advantages and expectations of health, adjustment and development as children raised by heterosexual couples. The American Academy of Pediatricians and the American Academy of Family Physicians recognize this body of research and have advocated for equal rights for same-sex parents.

"Marriage Protection Week" is not about protecting children. It's not even about protecting marriage. It's about denying LGBT people the right to marriage.


	County commission OKs gay marriage Alameda Times-Star, May 22, 2004 Gay Marriage Bill Expected to Die in Assembly Los Angeles Times, May 18, 2004 Cal. Supremes to Rule on Gay Marriage Gay City News, March 11-17, 2004 State lawmaker joins S.F.'s gay wedding waltz San Francisco Chronicle, March 9, 2004 Why San Francisco's brash mayor is taking on Schwarzenegger and Bush over gay marriage TIME, March 1, 2004 Gay Conservatives Fight Bush on Wedding Vow Los Angeles Times, February 26, 2004 'Marriage Protection' is not protective at all Daily Trojan, October 20, 2003 Suggest examples of coverage to raarons@aol.com Please include all necessary links in your e-mail.				Alameda Times-Star, May 22, 2004 County commission OKs gay marriage Recommendation moves forward to Board of Supervisors By Justine DaCosta, Staff Writer In 1973, Robin Barnett packed up her car and drove 3,000 miles to San Francisco in hopes of finding a place she could call home. As a lesbian, she found that most of the country was not open to the idea of homosexuality, but when she arrived in the Bay Area she felt a sense of acceptance she never had before. A few years later, Barnett fell in love, and like many young women, dreamed of having a traditional wedding. But unlike most brides, Barnett was in love with another woman and didn't know how to begin planning a same-sex Jewish ceremony. Her family, too, was unsure of how to approach the idea, and her brother even went to a gay bookstore in hopes of finding a book of toasts for same-sex Jewish weddings. Once the fear of the unknown subsided, Barnett's family helped her plan for what would be the best day of her life. Marriage is about family and love, she said. "The important thing is that two people find each other," said Barnett, who now lives in Oakland with her wife, Janet. But because same-sex marriage is not recognized in California, the couple is not legally married, and can be viewed as no more than partners by the state. They are not alone, and Alameda County residents Wednesday let their views be known at a community forum led by the Alameda County Human Resources Commission. The commission voted 7 to 5 Wednesday in support of a resolution advocating gay marriage in the county. The forum - which was scheduled after last month's meeting on the same topic drew only nine constituents - brought together more than 50 community members who spoke out against and in support of same-sex marriages. Click here for the full-length story [back to the top] Los Angeles Times, May 18, 2004 Gay Marriage Bill Expected to Die in Assembly Democratic lawmakers say they plan to revive the measure in 2005, after state courts have had time to rule on pending cases. By Robert Salladay, Times Staff Writer SACRAMENTO - As attention turns this week to marriages for gays and lesbians in Massachusetts, Democratic lawmakers in California who back the concept have all but abandoned their efforts - for now. Election-year politics and the skittishness of a handful of Assembly members is stalling a measure to grant marriage rights to same-gender couples. Some lawmakers say they would rather wait until cases pending in the California courts are resolved. This week, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D-Los Angeles) is expected to announce his support - in 2005 - for a bill legalizing unions for gays and lesbians. But he is allowing the issue to die this year, postponing one of the only legislative efforts in the nation on the issue. "We're disappointed the leadership hasn't made this a priority bill," said Geoffrey Kors, executive director of Equality California, who helped draft this year's legislation. "On the other hand, we appreciate that the leadership has done more to move this forward than in any other state legislature in the country." Gay rights groups view the California legislation as part of a strategy that emerged when San Francisco began granting marriage licenses three months ago. Now, court cases are pending in New Jersey, Washington, Oregon, New York and California, and a federal constitutional amendment is up for debate in Washington, D.C. Gay and lesbian activists believe that the public, while still skeptical, is slowly embracing the concept of marriage for same-sex couples. A recent Los Angeles Times poll showed that slightly less than a third of Californians favored expanding marriage, compared with a fourth of U.S. residents in a national poll last month. "It's a public conversation in all those arenas," said Jennifer Pizer, senior staff attorney with the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund in Los Angeles. "In California, we have the particularly poignant example of couples who married in San Francisco. We have the Legislature doing its job and public opinion moving steadily toward equality." Click here for the full-length story [back to the top] Gay City News, March 11-17, 2004 Cal. Supremes to Rule on Gay Marriage High court decision will determine whether litigation or constitutionality validates San Fran weddings By JOE DIGNAN As gays and lesbians continue to get married across the nation, and other local officials follow San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s lead, the legal battle over San Francisco’s gay marriages is headed for a showdown in California’s Supreme Court. Bowing to pressure from Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, California’s Democratic attorney general, Bill Lockyer, asked the state Supreme Court on February 27 to step in immediately and stop the weddings. The City of San Francisco filed a rebuttal on March 5, but the court has remained mum. Now, newly-married couples, as well as same-sex marriage opponents, await the high court’s answer to Lockyer’s petition. Some legal observers predict the justices will issue a ruling this week. The court has a wide constitutional prerogative, ranging from issuing an immediate injunction to stop the same-sex marriages, and by so doing declaring those licenses issued in San Francisco invalid, to allowing the matter to be heard in a lower trial court before litigation wends its way through the appellate system—a process that could take years before the Supreme Court resolves the matter. At the current wedding pace, tens of thousands of gays and lesbians could be married by then. A ruling by the high court will determine whether justices will directly hear the case, which is atypical, or wait for the appellate process to take its course. The last time the court directly intervened on a case of tremendous urgency was last fall when plaintiffs asked to postpone the recall election of former Gov. Gray Davis. Click here for the full-length story [back to the top] San Francisco Chronicle, March 9, 2004 State lawmaker joins S.F.'s gay wedding waltz Republicans demand Newsom halt same-sex marriages and focus on city's 'critical issues' Rachel Gordon, Chronicle Staff Writer To the cheers of her family, friends and political allies, California Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg joined the same-sex wedding march at San Francisco City Hall on Monday. Meanwhile, the city's Republican leadership demanded that Mayor Gavin Newsom put an immediate halt to the gay and lesbian weddings and focus on the "critical issues" he was elected to tackle. It was just another day in the battle over same-sex marriage, which exploded nearly one month ago when Newsom gave the go-ahead to issue marriage licenses to gays and lesbians. Since Feb. 12, more than 3,600 couples have taken their vows in San Francisco, with more same-sex weddings performed in Oregon, New York and New Mexico - prompting a flurry of lawsuits and legislative fights. "There will be fits and starts. It's not going to be a smooth ride," said Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, who was on hand to witness the marriage of Goldberg, his Democratic colleague from Los Angeles. "This is how social change happens." But the local GOP doesn't like how it's happening, and it issued a statement condemning the mayor. Click here for the full-length story [back to the top] Los Angeles Times, February 26, 2004 Gay Conservatives Fight Bush on Wedding Vow A key GOP group plans a campaign against the proposed constitutional amendment in several states crucial to the president's reelection. By Johanna Neuman, Times Staff Writer WASHINGTON - Angered by President Bush's endorsement of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as solely the union of a man and a woman, gay conservatives are laying the groundwork for a campaign against the proposal in swing states, such as Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Ohio, that are critical to the president's reelection. Log Cabin Republicans, the largest GOP organization on gay issues, is exploring options from grass-roots voter mobilization efforts to television and radio ads - all designed to convince fellow conservatives, as well as moderates and independents, that the White House is "playing politics" with the Constitution. "A constitutional amendment is a call to arms for gay conservatives," said Patrick Guerriero, executive director of the group, which is planning its annual convention in Palm Springs in April. "A lot of gay conservatives who have been extraordinarily loyal will not remain silent. This is a breach." In the last few months, Guerriero has visited Missouri and Ohio to assess the political climate and talk to activists. In the last year he has traveled to 26 states and 87 cities to prepare for the largest presence ever of gay conservatives and their allies at the Republican National Convention, which will be in New York this year. He said that since Bush's announcement on Tuesday embracing the amendment proposed by Rep. Marilyn N. Musgrave (R-Colo.), anger among gay conservatives was boiling over. "The feeling is, if you want a cultural war, you'll get it," he said Wednesday in an interview. "We don't want history to record that we stood silent when our president and our party tried to write discrimination into the U.S. Constitution." Some gay conservatives who work in the Bush administration or who hold political office say they feel a special sense of betrayal, and they share a conviction that the White House has miscalculated the political fallout. Recalling the 2000 campaign, when Bush met with gay activists and vice presidential candidate Dick Cheney - who has an openly lesbian daughter - talked of leaving this issue to the states, some gay Republicans are vowing to vote Democratic for the first time, while others are pledging to stay in the party and fight. For the White House, the issue of same-sex marriage is a dicey political issue, pitting key constituencies - evangelical Christians and social conservatives - against an activist group of gay Republicans and their allies among Libertarians and moderate Republicans. In exit polls from the 2000 election, about 4 million Americans identified themselves as gay or lesbian; of those, about a quarter said they voted for Bush. Gay Republicans say, however, that it is not only their support Bush is risking, but that of their families and friends and like-minded conservatives. "The day word came out that he was going to support a constitutional amendment, my phone was ringing off the hook, with straight Republican friends saying, 'He just lost my vote,'" said Rebecca Maestri, a lesbian activist who works on Iraqi redevelopment issues for the U.S. Agency for International Development. Click here for the full-length story [back to the top] Daily Bruin (UCLA), December 4, 2003 Speakers debate same-sex marriage Panel addresses historical court decisions, gender discrimination By Jennifer Murphy, Daily Bruin Contributor, jmurphy@media.ucla.edu Proponents of both sides of the debate on legalizing same-sex marriage presented their cases before a full house at the UCLA School of Law on Monday in a forum that included a surprise change of speakers. About 200 people attended the event and heard three guests speak for and against the topic recently thrust into national spotlight. A Nov. 18 ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court sparked debates nationwide after saying the state could not prohibit same-sex marriages. The Massachusetts House of Representatives is considering legislation that would allow for civil unions instead of marriage. The Charles R. Williams Project on Sexual Orientation Law, an organization dedicated to furthering the rights of homosexual couples, funded the debate. One student said she was impressed by the Williams Project's ability to host a two-sided debate despite its position in favor of same-sex marriages. The speakers included nationally syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher and the moderator, UCLA Law Professor William Rubenstein, who joined the debate about halfway through to replace a speaker who did not come. The speakers addressed issues such as the right to marry and historical court rulings that outlawed marriage discrimination. The speakers also debated whether prohibiting same-sex marriage was gender discrimination. "A person in a same-sex relationship cannot marry strictly because of his/her sex," said Erwin Chemerinsky, a USC law professor. "That is, by definition, gender discrimination." Click here for the full-length story [back to the top] Daily Trojan, October 20, 2003 'Marriage Protection' is not protective at all Harvey Villarica Using innocent terms to hide intolerance and discrimination, the religious right and the Bush administration are campaigning to attack the progress of civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. "Marriage Protection Week" is just the latest from the deceptive campaign against equal rights for LGBT people. What exactly is Marriage Protection Week? On Friday, Oct. 3, 2003, President Bush signed a proclamation which officially declared October 12-18, 2003 as "Marriage Protection Week." In the proclamation, he says he wants to build "strong and healthy marriages in America." It sounds like a noble cause, doesn't it? However, if you read the actual text of the proclamation, you will see that the real intention of the proclamation is to bar the recognition of same-sex marriages. The proclamation states that "marriage is a union between a man and a woman." Tracking the history of the proclamation reveals even more. One day before Bush's proclamation, on Oct. 2, the Family Research Council, along with 22 other ultra-conservative groups, held a press conference in Washington, D.C., to announce the so-called "Marriage Protection Week." Obviously, Bush's proclamation is nothing more than endorsing the movement of the extreme right. To justify the proclamation, Bush claims that "research has shown that, on average, children raised in households headed by married parents fare better than children who grow up in other family structures." However, this argument seeks to muddle the issue by combining the welfare of children from single-parent families that have lower household incomes with the welfare of children raised by same-sex couples. Bush seeks to hide the truth that research on same-sex parenting has shown that children raised by same-sex parents can have the same advantages and expectations of health, adjustment and development as children raised by heterosexual couples. The American Academy of Pediatricians and the American Academy of Family Physicians recognize this body of research and have advocated for equal rights for same-sex parents. "Marriage Protection Week" is not about protecting children. It's not even about protecting marriage. It's about denying LGBT people the right to marriage. Click here for the full-length story [back to the top]


					[back to the top]


	home · who we are · enhancing curriculum · research · get involved · live issues · workshops