Cheers filled San Francisco’s City Hall shortly after 5 p.m., Monday night, as longtime lesbian activists Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, partners for more than 50 years, began their second wedding – and their first legal union.
Lyon, 83, and Martin, 87, were the first couple married four years ago when Newsom told the county clerk’s office to start offering marriage certificates to same-sex couples. Eventually more than 4,000 same-sex couples were married in San Francisco that year, but those unions were later nullified by the court. Today, the couple, and dozens of others, had their first chance to make their unions truly legal…
“This is an extraordinary moment in history and extraordinary moment in time” Newsom said to the crowd. “They are extraordinary people who have lived extraordinary lives and spent half a century fighting for justice and equality…”
Luong Do, who said he drove up from San Jose, held a giant sign that read, “homo sex is a threat to national security.”
Others were there to support the pending nuptials. One man strummed a guitar and sang “Going to the Chapel,” while Kathryn Werhane threw rose petals on some of the protesters.
Of course, there still are those who think second-class citizenship is OK – for someone else. Someday, their children and grandchildren may forgive them. It’s the “Christian” thing to do. Right?
“This is an extraordinary moment in history and extraordinary moment in time” /// No it isn’t. Few things we do are. I’d say completing the Human Genome was the last extraordinary event.
Given their age, I would bet they don’t divorce though. Would that also be extraordinary for these hero’s in the human struggle for equality?
#1 bobbo
Heroes? You are certainly being loose with the meaning of that word.
Kudos to all married couples. And I mean all.
i strongly support gay marriage and actually convinced my super conservative grandfather to agree that is should be allowed with this little nugget of information.
if all of the people that are against gay marriage oppose it to protect “the sanctity of marriage” shouldn’t they be working to outlaw divorce?
he was like, you know I never thought of it that way. he then stated that there will always be people in the world that dont one thing or another and as long it doesnt have an impact on me or my family then i guess i really couldnt care less what they do.
#2–Dr D==so calm. Can’t really tell if that is good or bad.
Read my post until you can understand how pretty obviously it was sarcasm? Not irony or satire, but sarcasm. If you work on it and still don’t get it, I’d get myself a brain scan and check for other dead areas of the brain.
#4–Master==too bad your grandfather couldn’t have said “if if and and’s were pots and pans, the world would be a kitchen.”
Protecting marriage is nonsense. Protecting the democratic process from judicial activism would be a stronger position.
In the end it doesn’t much matter. Democracies fail when they vote themselves in a whole range of rights and the society becomes corrupts and fails. Courts are supposed to help stop that rather than encourage it.
The downward spiral continues.
Didn’t you think of Commander Sulu though when you first saw the headline?
Part of me hopes marriage for gays will be come more acepted. But I don’t feel it’s necessary for a couple that truely loves eachother. Gay or straight. Look at Gene Simmons and Shannon Tweed. I can only hope that by the time i die, more places in the US will offer gay marriages. My partner and I hav only been together 10 years.. but considering considering many straight marriages fail in no time, I’m confident we’ll be together for the remainder of our lives together..
But it is annoying not being able to have both our names on or mortgage when I pay half of it each month. I think that’s a big sticking point… the mortgage was decided based on his income, instead of our combined. And as far as anyone is concerned, i’m basically renting. and not a homeowner. And when forms ask about marital status, i always spend a couple of minutes on the question before finally indicating “Single”
Annoying.
>>Protecting the democratic process from
>>judicial activism would be a stronger position.
Oh Christ, Bobster, will you knock it off already with that tired old battle cry of “judicial activism” and “legislating from the bench”?
Haven’t you been thrashed enough for your hatemongering views?
The default status of all people, under the US Constitution, is “equal”.
Laws imposing inequality, without good reason (and not some bullshit like “the sanctity of hetero marriage) are therefore deemed unconstitutional by Constitution-abiding judges.
Get over it. Gay marriage will be coming soon to your town. And the Founding Fathers would have applauded.
Communication that conveys humor, sarcasm and irony can be difficult in text only media such as email or comments.
When I see someone’s posting that didn’t seem to grasp the idea I was trying to deliver in my message, I try to rephrase my response, expand or discover what aspect of the message was not understood.
I avoid trying to insult – that would only generate a negative effect on educating the person that took time to post a comment.
#7–Mustard, you didn’t detect the subtle shift/addition to my position? Well, I’ll take your inattention as a mark of your commitment to the issue. Anyone that thinks the Founding Fathers would applaud same sex marriage is beyond reasoning with.
#6–Daniel==I don’t want to start a tiff in your happy household but why didn’t you take title as joint tenants with right of survival just like married people do?
#7 You are clearly delusional. I’m with Bobbo on this one. This is Judicial Activism at its worst. (Why am I thinking only in California? or Hawaii, or Massachusetts) If Gay Marriage is to be a reality it should be by law through the state legislature.
If that can’t pass in Calif. Doesn’t that actually tell you something?? These people, as people, are equal.
The founding fathers also gave us the permission to throw ourselves and the constitution over the cliff. Doesn’t mean it should be done.
I think its cute that the poster of the article thinks that religion is gonna go away in less then 50 years even though its lasted over 2000. and don’t worry, I plan to vote yes, to the constitution amendment banning gay marriage in Ca. I think it will pass 50.5% to 49.5%
#8–dugger==how often do you start a new game and find yourself an instant expert?
Now, start referencing what/who you are responding to. You can do that via my excellent example also followed by most on this thread, or slip on a mustard spill and post as an ineffective anarchistic iconoclast as does the yellow peril.
Anyhoo, you may wish to hold your judgment until you have discussed a few issues with Dr. D. Or not, and join him?
#12 bobbo
Sarcasm. Now that’s a pitch I didn’t think you could throw. Looks like I’m going to have to update the scouting report on you.
Thank you for your feedback Bobbo.
Indeed I was ineffective at referencing my post. I wrote it towards comment #5.
I don’t claim to be an expert on communication. I was attempting to offer a constructive critique using techniques that have worked for me in dealings with patients in my clinic and in my job as a scout leader with youth.
If nothing else, you have to admire anyone who can persevere through half a century of being called “unnatural” and even much worse.
#13–Dr D, such a thing to say. I’m shocked. While I often try to identify the line between civil discourse and challenging personal innuendo, I hope I don’t take others as collateral damage. You don’t strike me as that way however. Talk to Mustard, he has the 911 on this, as does the Urban Dictionary?
#14–dugger==indeed, a lack of expertise is apparent. How many boy scouts do you think post to DU on a thread about gay marriage?
#15 Kinda like the joke about the devil being persistant??
#15–Gary–the couple is living out their lives the best they can in San Francisco, same as everyone else. I wouldn’t post on such a point except it keys right into my “heros” comment.
What makes them admirable, and what have the persevered in? – – in San Francisco I would think its the increase in the homeless sleeping on the streets, not living your life quietly and privately?
#9: I’d agree with Bobbo hear in saying, I strongly doubt the fathers would have applauded such a resolution. Then, I also think some of them would have very vocally scorned the idea of educated, free minorities.
#5: If it weren’t for activist judges, we wouldn’t have interacial marriage or women’s and black’s suffrage. While you’re right, it’s not for the court to design law, it is for them to exact justice as interpreted by the Consitution, and interpreting the Constitution tends to require a lot of imaginative reading between the lines in many cases, both in favor and in objection to a clause. That being said, a lot of civil liberties begin at the court level, since domacracy can not always prevail in a nation full of a disproportionally vocal minority of biggots and hate mongers. At least “activist” judges get the ball rolling.
This is wrong.
#18 bobbo, they’ve persevered in never succumbing to the peer pressure of a society, influenced by religion, that told them they were wrong. In their hearts they knew that they were right, and they stuck to their guns. Do I really have to go into my Public Service Announcement about the value of resisting peer pressure?
#19–Crimson==I wonder what you are thinking of?
The supreme court has used activism for increasing several civil rights, but in the main, they are noted for NOT doing so.
In the main, it took Constitutional Amendments to free the blacks and to give the blacks and women voting rights.
The whole point of spotting judicial activism is to be consistent. I don’t like activism because California approved medical marijuana but the SCt struck it down as impacting interstate commerce–an activist interpretation. The fact that I might like gays being able to marry does not mean I lose my ability to objectively analyze what the Court is doing. Same with Bush v Gore==how do you like the SCt appointing your President instead of following the law and the constitution?
It is still cute, if not anachronistic , to see the usual crowd of breast-beaters for “freedom and liberty” – trot out the centuries-old range of excuses for 2nd-class citizenship.
You clowns should just join the KKK and admit your bigotry.
No one will condemn you for telling the truth for a change instead of hiding behind pathetic rationales.
#21–Gary==yes, get on that soapbox because you’re not making any sense.
The couple is gay. They are living their lives with the feelings and emotions of who they are. No different than a miser saving money, or an evangelical preaching his faith. Peer pressure rarely gets anyone to “change” their basic nature.
Peer pressure has no role other than encouraging them to get married?
Many arguments cut both ways.
So sorry you were unable to make any sense of my explanation, bobbo.
#25–Gary==I asked to hear the soapbox speech. All you did was assume all sorts of stuff that is not indicated==or do you know this couple? Have you lived in San Francisco? How hard is it to resist a moral value that you don’t hold yourself?
Easier to dismiss a superior argument than contest against it. But that would be my own soapbox more appropriate for a different thread.
#22: Well, freedom of slavery started as an amendment, but I’m fairly sure universal suffrage started at a state level, similar to what we’re seeing with the gay marriage thing. Could be mistaken there. I understand what you mean. My point was merely to point out that activism in the court has its advantages. It’s not about liking one thing or another, it’s about accepting that you can’t have it both ways. The courts have generally done a good job of fighting for public rights up until now, better than many lobbyists or evangelicals anyway, and yes they make decisions that always end in controversy. If it weren’t controversial, it probably wouldn’t even be up to them. Still, I think it’s a very important power for them to have, and if taken away, it would just lead to more corruption or at least stagnation on many important topics.
#26 wrote “All you did was assume all sorts of stuff that is not indicated”
bobbo, the article referred to the couple as “longtime lesbian activists,” which indicates to me that not only were they working on their own behalf, but they were working to change attitudes and laws in ways that might make life happier for others as well. I don’t think that involves a huge leap beyond what the article says.
The biggest assumption I’m making is that what they stand for will eventually benefit society by according equal legal status to people I believe have been improperly discriminated against.
Quick question: are all the enlightened folks who are name-calling and flinging hyperbole on this issue (Eidard, #7 and #23, I’m looking in your direction) going to go argue at anyone opposed to polygamy, too?
Check out this article:
[edit: pls learn to use tinyurl}
http://tinyurl.com/6kf5ty
Here’s the money quote, from that article (words of the prosecutor in the case):
“the degree of harm, social harm resulting from polygamy per se – not just in Bountiful – is such that criminalizing it is justifiable in a free and democratic society.”
Clue: “polygamy” and “same-sex marriage” can be used interchangeably in any argument for or against either that I’ve ever heard.
Anybody going to hurry over and call that prosecutor a hatemonger and a bigot?
If not, why not?
If so, well, then, I at least admire your intellectual integrity.
-Zirbert
You guys are right! Gary and Crimson. Why did I see it!!! But why stop there, surely there are more people for you to emancipate.
Why not Polygamy, or a 3-way marriage. If you really wanted to go all the way why not get NAMBLA legalized as well? There have been long time activitsts working there too.