Goin' To The Chapel: The Lesbian, Gay & T/S Marriage Topic

Wow! I have not heard of amending the constitution in recent history.I have large gaps of memory missing regarding that sort of thing. Does the straight and narrow minded fear us that much? If Mike B. is not down with us then I would be the first one to throw a pink brick through the punks window. And then a bunch of band-aids but you get my point!

xoxo
Lady King

It takes a Lady to know a Lady.

[This message was edited by Lady King on 02-16-04 at 06:49 PM.]

I have never thought I want to be married in that conventional sense of the word, but last week's editorial in Time by Andrew Sullivan (full disclosure- not many times do I agree with what he rights) really made a lot of sense.

Why the M Word Matters to Me

Separate by "equal" has not worked historically in our country, and at this point I think that ALL men and women deserve the right to get married, and all the trimmings that go with that. History is going to play out over the next year over this issue, so we shall see what happens.

50 orgainized religonists are trying to keep 5000 homosexauls from marrying? and they think they have the right to take others rights away and represent so few people?

separate has been designed not to be equal throughout history. it is an intentional device to keep people from being equal. and yes hatches, it was never a major issue here either. it's just that seeing how designed all this legal mumbo jumbo is. how intentionally discriminatory all this stuff is..... it makes one want to find the loop holes in the laws and use them to laugh.

bush has signed christian discrimination into law, which allows organizations to discriminate against anyone they choose while taking federal dollars for their social programs.

I have enough trust in the essential genius of the Constitution to believe that President Bush will NEVER be allowed to amend the Constitution to create a second-class citizenship. He's grand-standing, but it's good because it's getting our dander up. This is as well a separation of Church and State issue. Just on that score they CANNOT go there.

I know what you mean Randella, the institution of marriage has never appealed to me, but I'm ready to fly to San Francisco, propose to the first girl I see, and storm City Hall myself.

Another battle won. But the outcome of the war is far from over .....

quote:

---

Judge Leaves City's Approval of Gay Marriage Intact For Now
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: February 17, 2004
Filed at 3:06 p.m. ET

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- In the first of two such hearings, a state judge delayed until at least Friday a ruling on whether to block San Francisco from continuing to issue same-sex marriage licenses.

San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Ronald Quidachay said Tuesday morning he was not prepared to rule on a lawsuit to block the marriages, more than 2,300 of which have taken place since last Thursday.

Another judge was scheduled to hear a similar case Tuesday afternoon. Peter Ragone, a spokesman for Mayor Gavin Newsom, said the city would continue to issue licenses until it knew the outcome of the second court hearing.

Opponents are seeking to nullify the marriages and block the city from continuing to distribute the licenses that began last week under an order from Newsom. The newly elected mayor's decision to permit gay marriages, while still legally unsettled, has intensified the national debate over whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

In a heavily crowded courtroom across the street from City Hall, where hundreds have lined up for the marriage certificates, Quidachay told lawyers for the Campaign for California Families that they had not given the city enough notice to obtain an emergency injunction.

``The court itself is not prepared to hear the matter,'' Quidachay said.

Campaign for California Families, a conservative group, said California voters in 2000 espressly limited marriages recognized in the state to unions between a man and a woman. The group also said state law defines marriage as ``a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman'' and that the mayor lacks the authority to amend the California Family Code.

Newsom has argued that the equal protection clause of the California Constitution makes denying marriage licenses to gay couples illegal.

Whatever the outcome of Tuesday's court cases, the final judicial decision on the matter is expected to come later from the California Supreme Court as both sides have promised to appeal.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in November ruled that that state's constitution permits gay marriages. Lawmakers there are debating a constitutional amendment to ban them.

---

This has turned into a gorgeous bit of civil disobedience! Can anyone tell me when a mayor, a city, and a county have done something like this before? Certainly, some Southern states & municipalities individually tried something similar regarding desegregation in the 1960s (and that was really a dispute between the Feds vs. the states,) but never all three at once, and in collusion.

The ADF (Alliance Defense Fund) was simply asking the judge for an injunction against any further same-sex marriages while he considered their contention: that SF was performing these marriages illegally, in violation of the state law.
San Francisco's case is quite brilliant, stating that denying same-sex marriages is in violation of the state constitution's equal protection clause. They also claim that:

-"Local officials are not barred from advancing their own interpretations of the state constitution..."

-"That the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that continuing to issue licenses for same-sex couples would cause the irreparable harm necessary to obtain a court stay..."

and,

-"That denying same-sex couples the right to marry would cause a greater harm."

Astoundingly, not a peep has been heard yet from Sacramento concerning this issue!

"This page fully supports the right of gay men and lesbians to marry, and we believe that in time they will have this right across the nation. But we also see a practical value in how the issue is currently unfolding. Louis Brandeis, the great Supreme Court justice, said he believed that the states should serve as social laboratories for the nation. Massachusetts and California "” and Vermont, before them, with its civil unions law "” are fulfilling that role right now. They have already started a national discussion of gay marriage, a very healthy thing in itself. If gay marriage takes hold in Massachusetts or California "” in both states, the issue is still up in the air "” it will allow the residents of slower-moving states to observe the experiment in action.

"Opponents of gay marriage have been loudly calling for a constitutional amendment prohibiting any state from recognizing gay marriages. Despite the parade of horribles they haul out, their greatest fear appears to be that giving gay men and women the right to join legally and permanently with the ones they love will work out just fine, and that the American people will see that the fears being foisted on them are unfounded."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/18/opinion/18WED1.html?th

Schwarzenegger urged to arrest S.F. mayor
Group says Newsom should face prison for false marriage licenses

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 17, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern



© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

A Christian legal group wants California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to arrest the mayor of San Francisco for issuing nearly 2,000 marriage licenses to homosexual couples in defiance of state law.

The American Family Association Center for Law and Policy called Mayor Gavin Newsom's decision to oversee the nation's first officially sanctioned same-sex weddings Thursday "an arrogant stunt" proving "the radical homosexual movement will trample the rights of all who stand in their way."

The AFA's law center wrote Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Bill Lockyer Friday insisting the mayor not only violated civil law, but criminal law as well.

Schwarzenegger and other state officials have remained silent on the issue.

The letter cites California's penal code Section 115, which "prohibits the knowing procurement of any false or forged instrument to be filed or recorded in any public office."

The penalty for the felony, the letter notes, is up to three years in prison. The AFA says this means three years for each false certificate issued.

With the clerk's office kept open over the weekend, more than 1,700 same-sex couples have been issued licenses since Thursday, when the city became the site of the first officially sanctioned "gay marriage" in American history.

Opponents of same-sex marriage are confident they will convince San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ronald Quidachay to issue a temporary restraining order after a hearing this morning.

The motion filed on behalf of the pro-family lobby group Campaign for California Families by the public-interest firms Lively & Ackerman and Liberty Counsel presents an "irrefutable argument" that Newsom and Clerk Nancy Alfaro had no authority to redefine marriage in direct conflict with California law, asserted the group's president and general counsel Mathew Staver.

"The rule of law will be restored in California," Staver said. "The mayor and the clerk have no right to act as tyrants, ruling San Francisco as their personal dictatorship."

The Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund sought an emergency hearing Friday afternoon but was rejected for failing to give defendants the 24-hours notice required by law.

A hearing in ADF's lawsuit also will be held today.

Newsom argues homosexuals should be able to marry based on the California Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law. The 36-year-old mayor, who began his term Jan. 8, insists he merely is fulfilling his duty.

"I'm not interested as a mayor in moving forward with a separate but unequal process for people to engage in marriages," Newsom said Friday on ABC's "Good Morning America." "The people of this city and certainly around the state are feeling that separate but unequal doesn't make sense."

But the Alliance Defense Fund – representing state Sen. William Knight, author of a successful state ballot-measure that limited marriage to a man and a woman – argues the San Francisco County Clerk has no authority under the state's constitution to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

"This isn't civil disobedience on the mayor's part; its sheer unfettered anarchy and complete disdain for the rule of law," ADF chief counsel Benjamin Bull said. "No mayor, not even the mayor of San Francisco, has the authority to defy the laws of the state in which they reside."

The statutes under the family code specify marriage is reserved to a man and a woman, and Bull points out no court has declared that section to be unconstitutional.

"Officials charged with solemnizing marriages must enforce those statutes on constitutional grounds when issuing marriage licenses, regardless of what [Mayor] Newsom orders them to do," said Bull.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37153

and the sad truth is his statements are no worse than those of our own Democratic presidential candidates, Kerry and Edwards. You should have heard Kerry on Sunday night's debate, giving the whole "marriage is between a man and a woman" schtick and all the hockey about civil unions and actually hedging on whether he'd support a constitutional ban. It was really sad. Personally I think San Fran's mayor deserves the Nobel Peace Prize and a Medal of Valor for being so bold. He's not gay, but he's courageous and moral enough to be on our side and telling the naysayers to just get over it. I wish more politicians were like him.

quote:

---

ARNIE URGES END TO GAY-WED BLITZ
The New York Post

February 18, 2004 -- California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last night called for San Francisco to terminate its ongoing gay-marriage marathon.

"Californians spoke on the issue of same-sex marriage when they overwhelmingly approved California's law that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. I support that law, and I encourage San Francisco officials to obey that law," the former actor said.

It was the first time Schwarzenegger weighed in on the controversy since San Francisco's new mayor last week ordered city officials to lift the ban on gay marriages there, a move that openly defies the state's Proposition 22.

Schwarzenegger has said he opposes gay marriage but supports domestic partnerships.

Conservatives have gone to court to argue that San Francisco is violating the state's constitution. A judge yesterday delayed ruling on the case until at least Friday.

---

Like the civil rights protestors getting hosed down in the 60s. Eventually the anti-gay marriage crowd is going to end up looking very bad and the govenrnment is going to have to give us rights.

Chicago Mayor Richard Daley enters the gay marriage debate. It's hot !!!

quote:

---

Will Chicago be next city to issue gay wedding licenses?

Mayor: 'Marriage has been undermined by divorce, so don't tell me about marriage. Don't blame the gay and lesbian community.'

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
February 19, 2004

CHICAGO "” Mayor Richard Daley said he would have "no problem" with Cook County issuing marriage licenses to gay couples in Chicago, the nation's third largest city.

Entering a national debate over gay marriage, Daley urged sympathy for same-sex couples because "they love each other just as much as anyone else."

Daley also dismissed a suggestion Wednesday that marriage between gay couples would undermine the institution.

"Marriage has been undermined by divorce, so don't tell me about marriage," he said. "Don't blame the gay and lesbian, transgender and transsexual community."

Daley said only the county clerk's office can issue marriage licenses, and he stopped short of saying he would follow San Francisco's Mayor Gavin Newsom by approving marriage licenses for same-sex couples.

County Clerk David Orr said he was "game to looking at options," but only if a consensus could be built between Daley, city and county government and advocacy groups.

"I'm fed up with people being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation," Orr said. "(But) whatever you do when it comes to challenging laws, you want it to be effective and not knee-jerk."

Last fall the county board authorized Orr to issue certificates of domestic partnership that carry no legal rights.

Rick Garcia, political director for the gay rights group Equality Illinois, welcomed Daley's comments, saying they represent "another step in the right direction."

At least 38 states, including Illinois, and the federal government have approved laws or amendments barring the recognition of gay marriage. Meanwhile, gay and lesbian couples from more than 20 states and Europe have flocked to San Francisco since city officials decided to begin marrying same-sex couples last week.

Massachusetts' highest court also recently ruled that its state constitution allows gay marriages.

---

This in The Daily News from our buddy in the State Assembly.



By LAWRENCE C. MOSS

Acting to further the equal protection and nondiscrimination provisions of the California Constitution, San Francisco officials went beyond the "man and a woman" definition of marriage in state law last week by issuing licenses to same-sex couples.
On the same day, the New York City clerk disregarded not only constitutional principles, but also existing state statutes by refusing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Unlike California law, New York's matrimonial law does not restrict marriage licenses to persons of the opposite sex, in the view of leading legal authorities.

A 1997 report published jointly by three committees of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York and endorsed by the association's committee on matrimonial law concluded that New York's current domestic relations law is gender neutral. The association concluded that marriage licenses can and should be issued now to same-sex couples under existing law. A supplemental joint committee report by the association in 2001 reaffirmed this conclusion.

The report states: "Nowhere in Article 3, which sets out the requirements and procedures for entering into a marriage, is there any requirement that applicants for a marriage license be of the opposite sex. Nor are same-sex marriages among the categories of marriage that are void or voidable."

In Massachusetts, Hawaii, Vermont, Ontario and British Columbia, courts have found state or provincial marriage laws unconstitutional for failing to offer equal rights to same-sex couples. But no such court action is necessary in New York. Local licensing authorities can simply follow the words of the statute and issue licenses to all couples regardless of gender who meet age, health and contractual capacity requirements.

Denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples denies their right to equality under New York law, while simply following the statute honors those rights. Local authorities can abide by both the constitutional principle of equality and the plain wording of the statute by issuing licenses now.

Understanding this point is crucial, since there is little likelihood, given the seemingly permanent control of the state Senate by Republicans, that New York will amend its domestic relations law to explicitly permit issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

On the other hand, it is equally unlikely that once marriage licenses are issued that the Legislature would act to ban them. The New York State Democratic Party, in resolution adopted last September, has committed itself to supporting full marriage rights for same-sex couples. Given this official party position, the Democratically controlled Assembly should be able to resist any pressure to amend the law.

New York City has adopted an admirable domestic partnership law, but so far neither the mayor nor the City Council have called upon the city clerk to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Unlike San Francisco, New York would be acting in accordance with current state law and constitutional principles by issuing marriage licenses to qualified same-sex couples. It is high time we do so.

Moss is a lawyer in Manhattan and chairman of the Reform Caucus of the New York State Democratic Committee.

The situation outside San Francisco's City Hall escalates as gay marriage opponents begin passionate protests. San Francisco (which is both a city and a county) has now stepped up the battle with a lawsuit of its own against California state. What's fierce to me in all of this is how many of the local and even state officials, most of them heterosexual, are in favor of Mayor Newsom's decision. Even if all these gay marriages happening now are later invalidated, this historic event has begun to wake up the general public to the fact that the gay marriage issue is really about equal rights and human rights.

quote:

---

San Francisco Sues State Over Same-Sex Weddings
By DEAN E. MURPHY
Published: February 20, 2004
The New York Times

SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. 19 "” Officials here moved on Thursday to force a constitutional showdown with opponents of same-sex marriage by suing the State of California over state laws that define marriage as between a man and a woman.

The lawsuit backs the core assertion by Mayor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, that marriage definitions in the state's family code violate the State Constitution. It was also certain to inflame tensions further over Mr. Newsom's directive last week to issue same-sex marriage licenses, which has already led to two legal challenges by conservative and religious groups.

"The City and County of San Francisco is going on offense today in protecting the mayor's action," City Attorney Dennis Herrera said. "Mayor Newsom took a bold step last week, and we fully agree with him that his position is justified and that the California Constitution provides that there should be equal opportunity under the law, and not just for straight people but for gay and lesbian people as well."

The state attorney general, Bill Lockyer, who had been silent about the same-sex marriages, said in a statement that "it is the duty of my office to defend" the state against the lawsuit. The city contends in the suit that the state family code violates both the Constitution's equal protection clause and its due process clause by not giving equal opportunity to same-sex couples.

"The issue of whether state statutes prohibiting same-sex marriages violate constitutional protections is emerging as one of the great legal and civil rights issues of our day, and the question must be answered by our courts," Mr. Lockyer said.

Mr. Lockyer, a Democrat, also offered a hint of the political minefield that Mr. Newsom seems to have laid by making a personal observation that sounded a lot like an endorsement of the mayor.

"As a lifelong defender of civil rights, due process and equal protection for all," Mr. Lockyer said, "I do not personally support policies that give lesser legal rights and responsibilities to committed same-sex couples than those provided to heterosexual couples."

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, said Mr. Lockyer "has assured me that he will vigorously defend the constitutionality of the law." The governor also said that the altered marriage licenses in San Francisco, which must be filed with the State Department of Health Services, "fail to meet legal standards."

"I will abide by the oath I took when I was sworn in to uphold California laws," Mr. Schwarzenegger said in a statement.

The lawsuit, which was filed in San Francisco Superior Court, also named two conservative groups that last week sued to block the same-sex marriage policy. By including the groups in the lawsuit, the city wanted to make sure that any court decisions in those cases took into consideration the city's constitutional arguments.

"What we are doing is trying to ensure that the constitutional issue is addressed," Mr. Herrera said. "It's doing what any good lawyer would do and ensure that you are protecting your client's position on all available fronts."

Lawyers for the groups that filed the lawsuits against the city said the city's new legal offensive was an acknowledgment that Mr. Newsom's case was weak.

"They are in a defensive posture, and frankly I think it's an admission that they didn't do things in the right way in the first place," said Richard D. Ackerman, a lawyer for one of the groups, Campaign for California Families.

Another group, the Alliance Defense Fund, which represents backers of Proposition 22, a ballot measure opposed to same-sex marriages that passed in 2000, said in a statement that the new lawsuit was "an implicit concession that the city lacks legal authority" to issue the same-sex marriage licenses.

"It is trying to retroactively validate its lawless activity," the statement said.

Mr. Newsom's directive on Feb. 12 set off a blitz of gay weddings, numbering more than 3,000 by the close of business on Thursday. People waiting in line for a license applauded the city's new legal move, but in a sign of the growing rancor surrounding the marriages, opponents began picketing outside City Hall.

Several people carried posters, including one that said "Homosexuality is sin," while others used megaphones to issue dire warnings to the couples waiting in line on the sidewalk. "You don't have to go to hell," one protester shouted.

Mr. Newsom, who had called a news conference to announce several changes in the top echelons of the Police Department, was bombarded with questions from reporters about the new lawsuit and the growing turmoil over his marriage policy.

"I think what we have done, is we have affirmed marriage in San Francisco," Mr. Newsom said. "We have affirmed it because we're celebrating people coming together in their unions. I feel affirmed as a married man by what's happened here in San Francisco."

---

By broadcasting the images from SF City Hall, the media have given same-sex marriages "a human face." No longer can the religious right claim that gay relationships are solely based on "lust" when it has been noted that these couples have been together for up to 50+ years.
And President Bush will continue to make himself look bad if he continues to speak out against these unions. An overwhelming majority of Americans view marriage as the sole domain of the states, and resent the Feds getting involved to any degree.

we are watching history in the making. the best predictor of the future is the past. last century we saw women fight for suffrage and then later for the right to choose, the civil rights movement bring equality for african americans, and now look how far the gay rights movement has come in 30+ years- from out, loud & proud to now wanting equality in the institution of marriage.

of course Bush is "troubled" (that one is ripe fodder for comedians all around) about 1000s of couples getting married, because Hattie you said it, there is now a human face to gay marriages. the PR fallout from invalidation of these marriages could be devastating for Bush, and he even brought his milktoast librarian wife into the picture by having her comment on the issue.

it will be very interesting to see how this plays out within the context of the coming election because it is an issue the candidates have to address. the legal battles between cities, states, and the nation will most likely end up with cases going to the Supreme Court, which could be a scary thing depending on who the judges are sitting up there, and the next president most likely will place one or two judges on the bench tipping the delicate balance between conservative & liberal.

approximately 60% of americans polled though are against gay marriages, but when it was happening in history, how many were in support of women's suffrage? or for equality for african americans?

I just found this article. It has tomorrow's date on it but whatever. Take that, Mrs. Bush!

quote:

---

Dozens line up for gay weddings in New Mexico county
By Susan Montoya Bryan
The Associated Press
Saturday, February 21, 2004 - The Denver Post

BERNALILLO, N.M. "” Gay and lesbian couples lined up to tie the knot today in this northern New Mexico town after the county clerk agreed to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, joining San Francisco.

Roughly 15 couples had been granted licenses by late morning, the Sandoval County clerk's office said. A sign-up list for applications had grown to 38 couples. Outside the courthouse, two ministers conducted impromptu marriage ceremonies.

Meanwhile, two state senators and the county commissioner called for a quick opinion from the attorney general on whether the licenses were legal.

New Mexico law defines marriage as a civil contract between contracting parties but it does not mention gender.

Among the first to get their license were two women who got married in a brief ceremony in front of the courthouse.

"When we heard the news this morning, we knew we couldn't wait. We had to come down here," Jenifer Albright said after she and Anne Schultz, 34, both of Albuquerque, exchanged vows in front of the courthouse.

James Walker and Michael Palmer took extended lunch breaks from work for a moment they said they'd waited 26 years for. The men were married in Toronto last year, but that didn't give them rights in the United States. Walker said a marriage certificate from Sandoval County "would give us a lot of rights and benefits that have been denied us as a couple, including the rights associated with property ownership and the rights associated with medical decisions."

"Look at the sincerity here," pointing to a pair of women holding hands and exchanging vows, said the Rev. Pearl Gabaldon, who was conducting ceremonies.

County Clerk Victoria Dunlap, a Republican, said Thursday that she knew of no laws prohibiting licenses from being issued for same-sex couples. She said she sought an opinion from her county attorney after she got a call earlier this week from someone asking about same-sex ceremonies.

"This has nothing to do with politics or morals," she told the Albuquerque Journal. "If there are no legal grounds that say this should be prohibited, I can't withhold it ... This office won't say no until shown it's not permissible."

She said County Attorney David Mathews told her that New Mexico law is unclear on the issue.

Republican state Sen. Steve Komadina, R-Corrales, criticized Dunlap's decision and urged state Attorney General Patricia Madrid to issue a prompt opinion. Sandoval County Commission Chairman Daymon Ely also sought a legal opinion.

A spokeswoman for Madrid said an opinion could be issued next week. Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democrat, has said he opposes same-sex marriages.

"I feel badly that action was taken before an answer was obtained," Kominda said. "That was very irresponsible and will cause heartache to people on all sides of the question."

The clerk's decision came as a surprise to Linda Siegle, a lobbyist representing the Coalition for Equality in New Mexico, a gay rights group.

Siegle said she assumes Dunlap was trying to force a decision on gay marriage in New Mexico.
"It's not our primary issue right now but it has to become one of our primary issues," Siegle said.

Melinda Foster, a clerk's administrative assistant, said people have been calling from across New Mexico, interested in filing. Dunlap was not immediately available for comment today.

To get an application, would-be married couples had to show up with a photo ID, social security card and $25 to receive an application. In getting their stamped licenses, they were handed pink "newlywed bags" with coupons and other items.

On Thursday, Mathews said he was concerned that refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples could open the county to legal liability.

The only New Mexico law that mentions gender is a 1961 statute that created the form used for marriage licenses and which asks for information about the male and female applicants.

But the Equal Rights Act of 1973 outlaws discrimination based on sex, Mathews said.

Dunlap said she would issue marriage licenses to same-sex applicants until Sandoval County receives a legal opinion from the attorney general.

Mathews said he did not want Sandoval County to become a test case for same-sex marriage in New Mexico and that the county does not have a position on the issue.

"This is a statewide issue, and we need some guidance," he said.

Clerks in nearby Santa Fe and Bernalillo County said they would not issue same-sex marriage licenses.

"My position is I took an oath to uphold the law, not change the law," said Rebecca Bustamante, Santa Fe County clerk. "I wouldn't do it because I just don't think I can."

Mary Herrera, Bernalillo County clerk, said she has no plans to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. She cited the 1961 law.

San Francisco has sanctioned about 3,000 gay unions since it began defying a California law banning same-sex marriages.

Even before the San Francisco weddings, gay marriage had emerged as a volatile election-year topic, largely because of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's ruling last year that the state must start recognizing gay marriages as of May 17.

---

quote:

---

Cambodian king says gays should be allowed to marry

Friday, February 20, 2004
©2004 Associated Press

(02-20) 13:11 PST PHNOM PENH, Cambodia (AP) --

After watching TV images of gay weddings in San Francisco, Cambodia's King Norodom Sihanouk said Friday that homosexual couples should be allowed to get married.

Since the Cambodian government chose in 1993 to be a "liberal democracy," it should allow "marriage between man and man ... or between woman and woman," the king said in a signed statement in French posted on his Web site.

The king, currently on a medical visit to Beijing, also said that transvestites should be "accepted and well-treated in our national community."

Sihanouk is a constitutional monarch with no executive powers but is highly respected in his country. Gay couples are not allowed to marry in Cambodia.

San Francisco has issued more than 2,800 marriage licenses to gay couples in the past week, amid a growing debate in the United States over whether such unions should be allowed. Sihanouk said in his Web site statement that he saw TV footage of gay weddings there.

---

Unfortunately Sandoval County, New Mexico has now ceased to issue same-sex marriage licenses after receiving a letter from the NM Attorney General stating, "It appears that the present policy of New Mexico is to limit marriage to a man and a woman." The letter also invalidated the previously issued licenses.
It remains to be seen if this ruling will be challenged in court. It is not clear whether this decision stems from actual state law or is simply a matter of NM public policy.
State Senator Ramsey Gorham has said that she will ask NM Governor to call a special session to put a referendum on gay marriages on the ballot in November.

So we have it: Massachusetts, San Francisco, New Mexico,the mayors of Chicago and Salt Lake City speaking out in favor of same-sex unions-- and New York City, with the largest Gay & Lesbian population in the US, remains glaringly silent on the issue.
I would like to know-- where does Mayor Bloomberg stand concerning same-sex marriages?

Courtesy of editorials.com:

"In response to Governor Schwarzenegger's directive to him that he take immediate action to stop the San Francisco Mayor's issuing of marriage licenses in violation of state law, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer stated the following: "The governor can direct the Highway Patrol. He can direct the next 'Terminator 4' movie if he chooses. But he can't direct the attorney general in the way he's attempted to do."