Arnie Urges End To Same-sex Marriages

[mrentoul]

Schwarzenegger Seeks Stop to Gay Unions

BURLINGAME, Calif. - After a judge Friday declined to put an immediate end to same-sex marriages in San Francisco, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (news - web sites) ordered California's attorney general Friday to "take immediate steps" to get a court ruling to make the city stop.

Schwarzenegger's directive to Attorney General Bill Lockyer was prompted in part by the judge's decision not to impose a temporary restraining order that would have halted San Francisco's weeklong parade of 3,175 same-sex weddings, said Rob Stutzman, Schwarzenegger's communications director.

"Our civilized society and legal system is based upon a respect for and adherence to the rule of law," Schwarzenegger wrote in a letter to Lockyer. "The City and County of San Francisco's unfortunate choice to disregard state law and grant marriage certificates to gay couples directly undermines this fundamental guarantee."

The Republican governor "feels that we've come to a point where we're starting down a dangerous path and it leads to anarchy at some point," Stutzman said. "It's time for this to end."

Lockyer, an elected Democrat who is a potential candidate in the 2006 governor's race, has said he plans to vigorously defend state laws barring gay marriage.

Judge Ronald Evans Quidachay denied the Campaign for California Families' request for a temporary restraining order Friday, saying conservative groups failed to prove same-sex weddings would cause irreparable harm. In a separate case, another judge declined to order an immediate stop to the marriages Tuesday.

The conservative group argued that the weddings harmed all the Californians who voted in 2000 for Proposition 22, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

The judge suggested that the rights of the gay and lesbian couples appeared to be more substantial.

"If the court has to weigh rights here, on the one hand you are talking about voting rights, and on the other you are talking about equal rights," Quidachay said.

Quidachay consolidated the Campaign for California Families' lawsuit against the city with one filed by another conservative group, and told lawyers for both sides to work out between themselves when the next hearing would be held.

Peter Ragone, spokesman for San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, scoffed at Schwarzenegger's directive.

"The truth is, thousands of people are involved in loving relationships and having them recognized for the first time," Ragone said. "We urge the governor to meet with some of the couples because what's happening is both lawful and loving."

Mathew Staver, a lawyer representing the Campaign for California Families, said he believes the court ultimately will find that Newsom acted illegally when he began allowing gay marriages last week.

"He can't decide to grant same-sex marriage licenses any more than he can declare war against a foreign country," Staver said.

But chief deputy city attorney Therese Stewart said the failure of conservative opponents to win emergency injunctions demonstrates that the city has a strong case.

"Both judges really recognized there is nobody who is hurt by allowing gay people to marry," Stewart said.

Newsom remained defiant before the ruling, officiating at the wedding of one of California's most prominent lesbian politicians inside his offices at City Hall.

A crowd of politicians and lawyers celebrated that wedding as other gays and lesbians prepared to join the more than 3,000 same-sex couples allowed to marry so far.

About 25 anti-gay-marriage protesters later blocked the door of the county clerk's office, lying down in front of the line and singing religious songs. Gays and lesbians responded by belting out "The Star-Spangled Banner" until sheriff's deputies escorted the protesters out. No arrests were made.

Most Americans remain opposed to same-sex marriages. A poll out Friday indicated that 50 percent of Californians remain opposed, but that sympathy for allowing gays and lesbians to marry has risen by 6 percentage points over the last four years, to 44 percent.

In the San Francisco Bay area, 58 percent of all respondents support gay marriage, according to the Public Policy Institute of California poll, which was based on a statewide survey taken Feb. 8-16 and has a margin of error of 2 percentage points.

While defending its new marriage policy in court, the city also is suing the state, challenging its gay-marriage ban. The city contends the ban violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution.

(ends)

[mrmnp]

Mrentoul, many thanks for the comprehensive update.

It seems to be that Schwarznegger is playing politics by ordering Bill Lockyer, the Califonria Attorney General, to do something he has already said he had to do because of his official duties. Lockyer, a former state senator of many years, is in his first statewide office. Lockyer opined, when he made his earlier announcment of representing the state agains the City of San Francisco, that he was just doing his duty and that he personally felt same-sex marriage should be the law.

He also may be playing politics as "govenor in waiting".

Schwarzneggers statements, on the other hand, are easily abandoned when the political climate changes as I read them. His statements basically say he must enforce the law on the books and that the acts of the Mayor of San Francisco are civil disobedience that must be stopped. He doesn't say what his personal position is, which if I recall correctly from the campaign, were pro-gay.

Mrentoul, what do you think about the above?

[Deadcert]

As I remember it he is pro gay but not pro gay marriage, which he says is a for a man & a woman. I would guess this has lost him many gay fans.

Personally I would choose to avoid marriage and go for a civil ceremony that gave gay people the same rights. BUT we should live in a world where EVERYONE regardless of sexual orientation should be treated equally, I am shocked that in the 21st century we should even need to address this issue. What ever happened to tolerance.

I am suprised that gay men and women would want to embrace a religion that wants to exclude them so completely. Let them get on with I say, if they think this unfair treatment of minorities will reserve their place in Heaven, I think they might be in for a surprise.

[impy_la_blimpy]

My friends, if ever there was a reason to oppose Bush in the forth coming elections [and I can think of many!] this is indeed one.

Following an e-mail from one of my politically active gay female friends in New York, I was urged to write to the Senator herself - Hilary Clinton, to address the issues of Bush's proposed constitutional changes re same sex marriage and to guage her stance on the matter. Her reply was as follows:

"Thank you for writing to share with me your thoughts regarding

the President's support of a Constitutional amendment on

marriage. I have heard from many New Yorkers on this subject

and, as always, welcome the comments of my constituents.

I do no support amending the Constitution to address this issue.

The Constitution is a sacred document and should not be used to

divide the American people. Please be assured that I am

monitoring this situation very carefully.

Again, thank you for taking the time to write. Please check my

website at http://clinton.senate.gov for updates on this and other

important issues being debated before the United States Senate.

Sincerely yours,

Hillary Rodham Clinton"

Not only is the woman gonna be the 1st female president of the United States, but she is indeed a God. In my humble opinion, love and let live people . . . .a partnership - gay or straight - is sacred, we should embrace and celebrate this as a race!

Peace y'all

Imp

[mrmnp]

This is the hotest political issue in the U.S. and with the election, the politicians, including Hillary are treating it with asbestos gloves. Those politicians who really care about civil rights are being forced to use the "don't amend the Constitution" approach to opposing Bush, since a bare majority of Americans still "feel" that same-sex mariage is a bad idea, without really thinking it though.

As with the very contentious civil rights issues in the past, including inter-racial marriage, it will take the courts to change it all as the politicians are ruled by expediency, and at the moment, the majority rules.

Religion has no place in government and that is were the no same-sex marriage proponents are coming from

A legal "union" between ALL persons is the only legitimate interest of the government. Leave "marriage" to the churches. Same-sex partners, once having obtained their "union or joinder" papers from the local government, are free to seek the church of their choice to obtain their "marriage" just as straights are.

Such a plan would certainly have satisfied the Massachusetts Supreme Court, had the Massachusetts legislature so advanced it.

[mrmnp]

"Arno", as he is called by Thais has now slithered into a more favorable position politically on teh Tonight Show with Jay Leno. When asked if he opposed gay marriage, Arnie said he "had no problem with it" if the people or the courts so decided to legalize it.

Since it is clear that the courts will ultimately deside the issue, Arnie can maintain his law and order image, backing the State Supreme Court or "the people" if Proposition 22 is upheld by the Supreme Court as being constitutional, limiting marriage to a man and a woman.

Where he has clearly separated himself from Bush's losing proposition that the Constitution should be ammended, a week before Bush campaigns in Califonria, Arnie has come out against the Constitutional ammendment approach championed by Bush.

[mouse]

I like that darned Kraut but see that he is becoming what I feared "A real politician" always going for the votes and swaying to the republican music. Then again the difference between him and the other alleged politicians in Washington and elsewhere is that he admits that he is a professional actor.

[mrmnp]

mouse: A kraut? or a "strudel", after all he is Austrian by birth.

[Jeepz]

I think this must be one of those To-MATE-oh / To-MAHT-oh things. Austrian or German, it all sounds too too teutonic to me. "Nicht marry der zame zex until ve zay zo!" Actually, many governmental types across the US have been coming out in support of the gay wedlock.

Where I live they started issuing marriage licenses after three county commissioners held an "almost" secret meeting and ordered the county to start issuing licenses. If it sticks that's great, but I doubt it will. One of the commissioners has major reputation problems with the public to start with and since she is seen as the leader of this change, it is tainted by her previous faux pas's.

I did listen to the conservatives and christians that are starting law suits to stop the licenses from being issued and to recall some of those involved. What I heard plays directly to the discussion mrmnp and I had earlier. They would start out arguing about it being illegal to issue the permits, but someplace in their sound clip, they would almost always say, "Marriage is a sacred bond..." etc etc etc.

I don't have a problem with that. I don't think that the state has any more business regulating marriages than they do baptisms. Civil unions, however, is where the state gets involved, who can, how to divorce if necessary, and so forth.

The Catholic church doesn't recognize a divorce by the state unless the church has approved it. Sounds like they look at marriage as their turf and divorce should be too. Okay, if I was Catholic I might just acknowledge that. If I want their blessing, I have to play by their rules.

But civil unions are not their turf. Want a wedding? Get a license, go to an official that is empowered to perform a wedding, and do it. Get the church out of it and make it a civil matter in a secular society. The church can have marriage, control the sacred aspects of it, and preach to their flock as they see fit.

And that day is coming.

Jeepz

[Guest IT Manager]

Small aside for Ladies particularly, the new club on Chiang Mai Land, in Chiang Mai, can organise Civil ceremonies for you.

It's called La Femme Fatale and they have a website under construction here.

I suspect a bit of support would go a long way.

[mrmnp]

Jeepz, were on th same page at long last. A civil "joinder" license avalable to all who qualify in accordance with legitimate governmental issues as to health, age, etc. Then a subsequent "marriage" in a church of your own choice.

If you decline to get "married" in a church, you would still have the option of having a governmental official soleminize your "joinder" in a civil ceremony that would not carry the label "marriage". Let the churches have full sway as to who they would marry or not as their dogma dictates.

A legal AND political solution to this devisive issue, Jeepz, do you agree?

I think it will take a U.S. Supreme Court decision to declare DOMA unconstitutional.

I don't see elected representatives doing it as they didn't with the inter-racial mariage issue. I recently read where polls taken in the year the Supreme Court struck down laws preventing inter-racial marriage were 80% against and that was 17 years after California made its landmark decision.

The poll split on the same-sex marriage issue is presently between 50-60 percent against. Perhaps it won't take as long this time for the Supreme Court to act. As soon as a Massachusetts same-sex married couple is denied "full faith and credit" my another DOMA state, the court may well take it up on certiorari and put the issue to bed once and for all.

Or if they beg off because it is a "states rights" issue, then they will still have to decide the lawsuit where a Massachusetts same-sex couple sues the federal government becasue the Feds won't recognize their marital status and thereby deny them benefits provided to all other married copuples, when their marriage is defined in Massachusetts as being legal. After all, each state has the right to determine who is married and who is not and I can't see how the Feds can determine the issue separately from a given state, since the Feds long ago considered it a "state's right" to define the rules on marriage.

[Jeepz]

mrmnp~

Right, and looking over the available terms, I like "wedlock" for a civil union. It does not have the religious overtones that "marriage" does. Or at least doesn't appear to, coming from old english and being based on a word that means "pledge" which is apropos to the circumstance regardless of the sexes involved.

So wedding and wedlock seems okay to me. But I suppose some folks might not see it quite so.

I do see your point about the fact that it took an active court to bring about mixed marriages on the racial front. You may well be correct that there will be less intolerance on the same sex marriage/civil union/wedlock issue than there was during and following the extension of rights to mixed couples.

One gay couple I know hasn't bothered to get a license, even though they are (or seem to be) a very committed couple. They have powers of attorney in place to handle most things, and one of them said, "It will likely get overturned, so why bother?"

Their life is in place already, they have made provisions for each other and don't seem to concerned which way it works out, at least on the short term.

Jeepz

[cdnvic]

Considering California's divorce rate I would think Arnie would just sit back and let them destruct naturally.

Despite being strongly in favour of legal gay marriage, I hope the amendment against it goes through. My home city's tourist industry is flourishing with with the amount of weddings by gay American couples coming up there to tie the knot.

cv

[et33.com]

ah......

besides money

love and hate

makes the world goes round

the worst religion is hate

of which the likes of bush and blair is promoting

the time has come to have

a religion of love

all kinds of love

any love

any form as long as it's love

who cares if it can last

the world needs more love now now now

and when man discover the power of love

it will be like the discovery of ""fire""

and bring true peace to a weary world...

[mrmnp]

Jeepz: More of your thought is needed on terminology. I don't like the sound of "We are wedlocked" However, "we are weded" doesn't sound so bad for those who don't go the church route.

Having said that, I suspect the vast majority of same-sex couples will have church weddings anyway, as do herterosexual couples now, and can use the term "marriage" under our solution.

Take a look at the op/ed section of the nytimes.com for their all encompassing editorial on this issue.published yesterday It seems very balanced, as you appear to be, and I would be interested in whether you disagree with any portion of it. I would copy it to here but it is not short.

et33.com You are so right, right, right.

cdnvc. Hooray for Toronto, your home province certainly deserves the credit for being first in the Americas to give a new definition to civil rights. Toronto and Niagra Falls offers a wonderful retro combination for those who can't marry elsewhere.

FAQ: 2000 U.S. census reports 27% of same-sex couples have children living in the home. Fully a third of all children born are born out of wedlock although I am not sure that stat comes from the census.

Unlike Massachusetts which has a law that nulifies a their marriages if they are not legal in ones home state, Canada has no such restriction in those provinces that permit same-sex marriage. However, they are a little stricter in proving divorce as a pre-requisite to a license if previously married. They require a certified copy of the divorce decree and an opionion letter of a Canadian attorney that your are indeed divorced. A month or more is required to accomplish this, while there is no residency or waiting period required for the previously unmarried.

[mrentoul]

The case for gay marriage

It rests on equality, liberty and even society

The Economist Feb 26

SO AT last it is official: George Bush is in favour of unequal rights, big-government intrusiveness and federal power rather than devolution to the states. That is the implication of his announcement this week that he will support efforts to pass a constitutional amendment in America banning gay marriage. Some have sought to explain this action away simply as cynical politics, an effort to motivate his core conservative supporters to turn out to vote for him in November or to put his likely “Massachusetts liberal” opponent, John Kerry, in an awkward spot. Yet to call for a constitutional amendment is such a difficult, drastic and draconian move that cynicism is too weak an explanation. No, it must be worse than that: Mr Bush must actually believe in what he is doing.

Mr Bush says that he is acting to protect “the most fundamental institution of civilisation” from what he sees as “activist judges” who in Massachusetts early this month confirmed an earlier ruling that banning gay marriage is contrary to their state constitution. The city of San Francisco, gay capital of America, has been issuing thousands of marriage licences to homosexual couples, in apparent contradiction to state and even federal laws. It can only be a matter of time before this issue arrives at the federal Supreme Court. And those “activist judges”, who, by the way, gave Mr Bush his job in 2000, might well take the same view of the federal constitution as their Massachusetts equivalents did of their state code: that the constitution demands equality of treatment. Last June, in Lawrence v Texas, they ruled that state anti-sodomy laws violated the constitutional right of adults to choose how to conduct their private lives with regard to sex, saying further that “the Court's obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate its own moral code”. That obligation could well lead the justices to uphold the right of gays to marry.

That idea remains shocking to many people. So far, only two countries—Belgium and the Netherlands—have given full legal status to same-sex unions, though Canada has backed the idea in principle and others have conferred almost-equal rights on such partnerships. The sight of homosexual men and women having wedding days just like those enjoyed for thousands of years by heterosexuals is unsettling, just as, for some people, is the sight of them holding hands or kissing. When The Economist first argued in favour of legalising gay marriage eight years ago (“Let them wed”, January 6th 1996) it shocked many of our readers, though fewer than it would have shocked eight years earlier and more than it will shock today. That is why we argued that such a radical change should not be pushed along precipitously. But nor should it be blocked precipitously.

The case for allowing gays to marry begins with equality, pure and simple. Why should one set of loving, consenting adults be denied a right that other such adults have and which, if exercised, will do no damage to anyone else? Not just because they have always lacked that right in the past, for sure: until the late 1960s, in some American states it was illegal for black adults to marry white ones, but precious few would defend that ban now on grounds that it was “traditional”. Another argument is rooted in semantics: marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and so cannot be extended to same-sex couples. They may live together and love one another, but cannot, on this argument, be “married”. But that is to dodge the real question—why not?—and to obscure the real nature of marriage, which is a binding commitment, at once legal, social and personal, between two people to take on special obligations to one another. If homosexuals want to make such marital commitments to one another, and to society, then why should they be prevented from doing so while other adults, equivalent in all other ways, are allowed to do so?

Civil unions are not enough

The reason, according to Mr Bush, is that this would damage an important social institution. Yet the reverse is surely true. Gays want to marry precisely because they see marriage as important: they want the symbolism that marriage brings, the extra sense of obligation and commitment, as well as the social recognition. Allowing gays to marry would, if anything, add to social stability, for it would increase the number of couples that take on real, rather than simply passing, commitments. The weakening of marriage has been heterosexuals' doing, not gays', for it is their infidelity, divorce rates and single-parent families that have wrought social damage.

But marriage is about children, say some: to which the answer is, it often is, but not always, and permitting gay marriage would not alter that. Or it is a religious act, say others: to which the answer is, yes, you may believe that, but if so it is no business of the state to impose a religious choice. Indeed, in America the constitution expressly bans the involvement of the state in religious matters, so it would be especially outrageous if the constitution were now to be used for religious ends.

The importance of marriage for society's general health and stability also explains why the commonly mooted alternative to gay marriage—a so-called civil union—is not enough. Vermont has created this notion, of a legally registered contract between a couple that cannot, however, be called a “marriage”. Some European countries, by legislating for equal legal rights for gay partnerships, have moved in the same direction (Britain is contemplating just such a move, and even the opposition Conservative leader, Michael Howard, says he would support it). Some gays think it would be better to limit their ambitions to that, rather than seeking full social equality, for fear of provoking a backlash—of the sort perhaps epitomised by Mr Bush this week.

Yet that would be both wrong in principle and damaging for society. Marriage, as it is commonly viewed in society, is more than just a legal contract. Moreover, to establish something short of real marriage for some adults would tend to undermine the notion for all. Why shouldn't everyone, in time, downgrade to civil unions? Now that really would threaten a fundamental institution of civilisation.

[mrentoul]

New fuel for the culture wars

Feb 26th 2004 | WASHINGTON, DC

From The Economist print edition

The proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage adds thorny legal and political questions to a troublesome moral debate

AT A speech to the Republican Governors' Association on February 23rd, George Bush argued that voters face a stark choice between “two visions of government”: one (his) that encourages individual freedom, the other (the Democrats') that “takes your money and makes your choices”. Twelve hours later, he presented Americans with an equally stark question: do you want a constitutional ban on gay marriage? By any measure, this would take away gay Americans' choice. By supporting the proposed ban, President Bush has re-ignited the culture wars, given a new, possibly nastier character to the presidential race and committed America to a long, maybe unresolvable, debate about fundamental mores.

America's culture wars have the virtue of ventilating profound questions of personal behaviour and responsibility. Their drawback is that they are sometimes poisoned by majoritarian actions. So it may be this time. The underlying issue of gay marriage turns on basic attitudes towards sexuality, on the extent to which marriage should be buttressed by law, and on whether gay marriage would undermine the institution itself. But the particular form in which the issue is now being presented—as a proposed amendment to the federal constitution—raises questions about who should make decisions like this and what is the proper role of the state and federal governments.

Supporters of a constitutional ban want to stop gay marriages everywhere, of course. But in practice they focus on a slightly different issue: how to stop gay marriage spreading from state to state through a clause in the constitution that says “full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state.” The fear is that, as the president put it, “some activist judges and local officials” will permit gay marriage in one place. Gays from all over the country will then rush to marry, return home and sue in their home state's courts to have their marriage contract recognised. In support of this view, proponents of the ban point out that, in practice, states always recognise each other's marriage laws. Gay marriage would be no exception.

They point out that the federal government has twice stepped in to strike down marriage laws deemed acceptable in one state but not elsewhere. In both cases, this involved polygamy among Mormons, first when Lincoln banned bigamy in 1862 (the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act) and again in 1890 when the federal government insisted Utah outlaw polygamy as a condition of becoming a state. If the feds can ban polygamy, why not gay marriage too?

Lastly, they argue, a constitutional ban would stop only marriage among homosexuals, not civil unions. States could still, they claim, write their own laws granting gays some legal rights short of marriage, as Vermont has done.

Opponents of the ban reject these arguments one by one. Most important, they say, proponents are factually and legally wrong about the constitution's “full faith and credit” clause. It has long been established in law that if an issue comes within the purview of states, and if states have their own public policy on that issue, then they do not have to recognise another state's law. This exception is essential to the operation of the federal system itself, which would otherwise be rendered meaningless.

There is no doubt that marriage is a matter for the states, not the federal government. It has been so for centuries. There is no doubt that many states have their own policy, since 38 have passed “defence of marriage acts” defining marriage as the union of a man and woman. It is true, opponents concede, that states have always recognised each other's marriage laws. But that was because there was consensus. Now that the consensus is fraying, Texas (say) will not be required to recognise a gay marriage made in Massachusetts. The result will be messy, but that is the price of federalism.

Moreover, opponents of a ban point out, the “full faith and credit” clause gives Congress a role in deciding “the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be provided”. Congress made clear its view by passing, in 1996, its own Defence of Marriage Act. In sum, opponents say, the constitutional defences against extending gay marriage by judicial activism are strong.

Lastly, they claim, proponents of a constitutional ban are plain wrong—or lying—when they say their amendment would permit civil unions. As it stands, the proposal before Congress would prevent “marital status or the legal incidents thereof [being] conferred upon unmarried couples or groups”. If the phrase “legal incidents thereof” means anything, it must refer to civil unions. These would be banned.

Could such an amendment pass? Since the Bill of Rights, there have been only 16 amendments in 200 years. Most guarantee or extend the operation of democracy (such as women's suffrage), rather than defend social norms (such as Prohibition). Any amendment requires the approval of three-quarters of the states, plus a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress.

This looks hard, but is not out of the question. Three-quarters of the states have passed laws banning gay marriage, though some might vote against an amendment on states'-rights grounds. The decisive factor, though, will be public opinion.

It is often said that Americans disapprove of gay marriage but support civil unions. Not so. Gay marriage is more unpopular than unions (about 60% dislike the former), but, depending on how the question is asked, a small majority disapproves of civil unions too. That suggests that public pressure on legislators could be strong.

But opinion is fluid. It is sensitive to news. Support for an amendment rose when the Supreme Court struck down Texas's sodomy law last year. It shifts depending on how the debate is framed: the more you talk about equal rights under the law, the greater the support for civil unions. And there is a yawning generation gap: 55% of 18-29-year-olds support gay marriage, but only 21% of those over 65.

Mr Bush may therefore be taking a bigger political gamble than is apparent on the surface. Democrats complain that by supporting a constitutional ban he is seeking a “wedge issue” for the election (something that splits Democrats but unites Republicans). And it is true that Republican-voting evangelicals strongly support a ban, and may well turn out in even greater numbers as a result. But Republicans too are split on the ban. Libertarians dislike legislating on sexual behaviour. Federalists deplore the proposed overriding of a core competence of states. Around 1m gays voted Republican in 2000.

So there are costs as well as benefits for the president. And those costs may spread to the country as a whole. In Roe v Wade in 1973, the Supreme Court imposed a uniform law on a country divided and in flux on abortion. The issue still splits the nation. A constitutional amendment would stop state experimentation and impose a national norm on a country divided and in flux about gay marriage. Debate could fester for years.