By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer

"SAN FRANCISCO - City officials have issued marriage licenses to nearly 100 same-sex couples and could unite scores more while opponents are in court Friday seeking to block the nationally unprecedented nuptials.


While the practical value of the marriage licenses remains unclear, their symbolism was evident — especially on a day when lawmakers in Massachusetts debated a constitutional amendment that would strip gays and lesbians of court-ordered marriage rights. As mandated, they adjourned shortly after midnight Friday — but without reaching a consensus.


San Francisco's newly elected mayor, Gavin Newsom, directed the county clerk to accept applications from gay and lesbian partners for the first time Thursday — an act of political and legal defiance aimed at challenging California's ban on same-sex marriages.


So many couples took the city up on its surprise offer that, by late afternoon, overwhelmed officials told new applicants to return Friday. In all, the clerk's office issued 95 marriage licenses to same-sex partners Thursday, and 87 couples took their vows on the spot.


"Even people who are anti-gay marriage might shift their thinking now and realize it's most harmful to take something away when someone already has it," said Virginia Garcia, 40, after wedding Sheila Sernovitz, 50, her partner of 14 years.


The city's bold move, however, caused an outcry from elected officials and groups opposed to marriage rights for same-sex couples.


One group, Campaign for California Families, said it would ask a Superior Court judge Friday for a temporary restraining order that would enjoin the city from granting any more licenses. The organization is also seeking a ruling from the court declaring the city's actions illegal.


"Those who received the marriage licenses need to know that they are worthless," said Mathew Staver, whose Florida-based law firm, Liberty Counsel, is representing the plaintiffs. "We are confident that they will be invalidated as soon as a judge is able to issue an order."


It was because of a court order that the Massachusetts Legislature convened its constitutional convention, which began Wednesday. The state's Supreme Judicial Court in November ruled it was unconstitutional to ban gay marriage.


Gay and lesbian advocates see the lawmakers' failure to pass an amendment approving civil unions as at least a temporary victory. They condemned the idea of civil unions, arguing it would revert gay people to second-class citizenship after a hard-won court victory.


"We've beaten back three amendments to discriminate," said Sen. Jarrett Barrios, an openly gay Democrat from Cambridge. "We'll see what comes next."


Like their counterparts on the West Coast, conservatives in Massachusetts stood firm.


"The democratic process has been stymied," said Gerald D'Avolio, executive director of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference. "The people at this point have no way to respond to the (court) decision. We had a lot of people who wanted this Legislature, this convention, to give them something to vote on, and that was marriage between a man and a woman."


San Francisco officials tried to keep the first marriage — between longtime lesbian activists Phyllis Lyon, 79, and Del Martin, 83 — confidential so they could complete it before any court intervention. The pair, who will celebrate 51 years together on Valentine's Day (news - web sites), were wed by San Francisco Assessor Mabel Teng at 11:10 a.m. in a closed-door ceremony.


The secrecy that surrounded the Lyon-Martin wedding ended up being unnecessary since California courts were closed in observance of Lincoln's Birthday. It also meant that many couples started their days with no idea they would wed by evening.


As word spread, they rushed to City Hall, most dressed casually in jeans with hastily assembled witnesses, and holding hands as they waited in a long line to pay their $82 license fee. The marble passages beneath City Hall's ornate golden dome echoed with applause as jubilant couples breezed through brief ceremonies, promising to be "spouses for life" instead of husband and wife.


"There is a part that doesn't feel romantic at all, but obviously it feels historic," said Guillermo Guerra, 29, who married Andrew Parsons, 39, his partner of eight years.





San Francisco officials acknowledged they might have a long court fight ahead of them, but insisted that the licenses were legally binding, saying they would immediately confer new benefits in areas ranging from health coverage to funeral arrangements. At the same time, the freshly revised marriage applications they issued encouraged "same-gender couples" to "seek legal advice regarding the effect of entering into marriage."

"Marriage of lesbian and gay couples may not be recognized as valid by any jurisdiction other than San Francisco, and may not be recognized as valid by any employer," the disclaimer said.

Assemblyman Mark Leno, who shared officiating duties at City Hall with the assessor and four of her deputies, formally introduced legislation that would legalize same-sex marriage throughout California. "It is a tandem challenge," said Leno, a Democrat from San Francisco. "One will be heard in a judicial setting, and the other in a legislative setting."

Other state officials, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (news - web sites), shied away from commenting on the events. Attorney General Bill Lockyer said through a spokeswoman he hasn't been asked to issue an opinion on the legality of same-sex marriages under California law.

But Lockyer has asked his civil rights enforcement section to review how Massachusetts' legal debate might apply to California law.

"California's constitution provides broader equal protection rights than other states," spokeswoman Hallye Jordan said.

The Massachusetts Legislature, to undo the high court ruling by rewriting the state constitution, must pass an amendment with at least 101 votes in two consecutive legislative sessions — this year and in 2005-06 — before it winds up on the ballot before voters in November 2006.

Thirty-eight states and the federal government have approved laws or amendments barring the recognition of gay marriage."

Yeah!! I aplaud my hometown! Maybe someday Linda and I can do this. But, what ever the outcome of the legal battle our hearts are one and the same. That is the only thing that matters!


Patti

I hope that since so many couples have married that it will show everyone how important it is to so many people. Maybe someday the people creating the laws will realize that gay and lesbian people are people also. In today's society people do not discriminate against other races and sexes, so why is it okay to discriminate against someone because of who they love?

It's fantastic! Excellent news and it's about time.

This is a personal perspective.... not intended to offend...

In my opinion what we have to move past is involving the word 'marriage' as 'marriage' is the age old coupling of a man and a woman before God to procreate. (OK, this is a very crude definition.)

In the Old Testament, marriage is most frequently treated as a patriarchal institution for the perpetuation of the tribe. However, late in the history of Israel, we can see signs of a growing sacramental awareness in the creation stories of Genesis and in the prophetic literature, (understood of course, in the broader notion of sacra mentality). Many biblical scholars see in Genesis (1:27):

God created man in the image of Himself,
In the image of God He created him,
Male and female He created them,

a perception of God's presence in the relationship between a man and woman. The prophetic literature beginning with Hosea, uses the marriage relationship as a symbol of God's covenantal love for Israel. Such a metaphor for God's love presupposes an appreciation for the covenantal dimensions of the marriage relationship.

http://www.stcatherine.org/marriage.html


Today many heterosexual couples truly stand before God (with religious commitment) when they say their marriage vows - but I would venture to say that just as many without religious commitment utter their vows in the presence of a religious figure and God. Does this make a ‘marriage’?

I don’t want to start a debate here - I more want to state a position and leave the audience to think about these concepts – especially if you are not in support of Same Sex Unions.

From MY perspective – I am not looking for the mass public to allow me to ‘marry’ my same sex Partner. For me, religion does not come into the equation. (Don’t get me wrong – I believe in God, and consider myself to be a practicing Christian.) I am however looking for the mass public to allow me to obtain the same legal rights that every other ‘marrying’ couple receives.

Most of all we want to obtain the ‘recognition’ as the FULL and GOVERNING Partner that a heterosexual marriage Partner receives. We want the right to visit in prisons, hospitals, and to make critical health decisions for the Partner that we choose to be with in love. We want the financial rights and tax rights that a ‘married’ couple naturally has and wants. We want the health benefits extended to us through our Partner and our employing companies to recognize this. We want immigration and emigration rights based on our union to each other. We want the tax deduction for our Partner if they are physically/financially dependent on us. We just want to be equal under the law.

Again, from MY perspective – religion does not come into this. No where does this interfere or challenge the ‘heterosexual family unit’ or religion. This is not a question as to whether homosexuality is right or wrong, but a right for two people that have decided to share their lives together to be recognized as a legal entity just as their heterosexual counterparts.

I will challenge this line of thought a bit further… Imagine this….

“Marriage” as we know it is no longer the standard phrase…

All couples hetero/homosexual apply for a license for a civil union… still have a ‘ceremony’ and reception/party if they want it but it is not a religious ceremony – it is a ceremony to celebrate the legal contract entered into by two individuals… (I know this sounds cold, but think about it… Today – you get divorced… where is the religion? What comes from a divorce? The breaking of a legal contract – so what has ‘marriage’ become? A legal contract.)

If you choose to include a religious element to your union then you add the ‘marriage’ part and that will be acknowledged by the church and if the church acknowledges your union then you are set… The church may even impose requirements to add the ‘marriage’ part to your civil union.

What I am suggesting here is to break ‘church and state’ and separate the ‘legal’ from the ‘religious’. The two are very different arguments.

Imagine taking this a step further – this has been openly discussed in Canadian circles… How many ‘sisters’ or ‘brothers’ end up living together late in life because their husbands/wives have died? How many men/women have taken in a single parent in old age? How many friends are living together out of financial need? How many of these ‘living situations’ are long term and potential for acknowledgement under the law? How many of these relationships are ‘dependent’ and would benefit from legal/financial recognition as a union? Many… (Civil Unions do NOT have to imply sexual involvement.)

What has been suggested is a complete overhaul of the definition of ‘marriage’ and a new perspective given to those that are not a round peg and don’t fit in the traditional round hole? It is my opinion as well as others, that for too long the heterosexual community has had a monopoly on rights and benefits that are truly and legitimately due to other segments of society. “Marriage” is certainly a wonderful thing but many are penalized because they are not married. I am not talking about JUST homosexuals here – there are many other segments of society that have for centuries been refused privileges and rights because they either do not choose to marry or their relationship does not fit a commonly accepted definition.

All I ask is that anyone that is looking at this or any information about same sex ‘marriage’ have an open mind and look past the label that is often associated with the concept. Please also look past the sensationalism of the media and politicians that are looking for ratings and votes. Look to the grass roots and look to the individual PEOPLE that are at the heart of the matter. These are the ones affected.

I'm not sure if I'm looking for an answer or if I need to vent. Maybe both. I've watched this San Francisco thing on the news over and over and each time it bothers me more and more. The part that bothers me is that guy (cant remember his name) who says that marriage is only meant for a man and a woman in front of god. He also goes on to say that two people only living together is better then a gay couple getting married. My first problem is why does religion even have to be an issue. There are married people who DONT believe in god who are allowed to get married. I'm not saying that gays dont believe so dont misread that. Is what bothers me is when some people get married their religion is never brought up. Then when I understood that man to say two people living together out of wedlock is more accepted then gay people getting married I about fell over. I was raised christian, but I dont go to church and read the bible so correct me if I'm wrong. Isn't living with another and not being married a sin in the bible? What about having kids without being married? I dont see those poloticians knocking on my door.

So what if your gay and dont believe there is a god? Since religion is your freedom then why cant you get married. I guess that is what my biggest problem is. These people are sayign that you have to believe what they believe rather you choose to or not. I believe thats a violation of constitutional rights.

I will keep it short and just do a big SHOUT OUT to mayor Newsom of San Francisco. Also, I agree 100% with what Teb said. Since I don't want to make this about my politics, I will just remind everyone once again to sign the petition in support of gay marriage, if they haven't yet.

So what if your gay and dont believe there is a god? Since religion is your freedom then why cant you get married. I guess that is what my biggest problem is. These people are sayign that you have to believe what they believe rather you choose to or not. I believe thats a violation of constitutional rights.

Tanya, this is really the root of what I was trying to get across... Today marriage does not necessarily have anything to do with God... For some it does and for some it does not - that is why I suggest - remove the word 'marriage' from the equation.

It has been suggested that Bush is against Gay 'marriage' but is not necessarily against Gay Civil Union and will wait to bring that opinion forward! There is no difference except for the 'label' that is given here...

Your question however is "So what if your gay and don't believe there is a god?" I would come back and ask - What if you are Gay and DO believe there is a God? I know and hang out with many Gay people that practice the Christian religion - go to church weekly - very active in the chruch community... Again - it is not about religion - it is about rights under the constitution.

I agree with you 100%. Maybe my questions was more about if your anyone who doesnt' believe in god. Does that mean those people aren't allowed to get married? Like you said this should have nothing to do with religion. Rather your gay or not you can still love your god just the same. I dont see how your prefferance has anything to do with that. I find these political monsters to be hypocrits (sp) of the biggest kind. I'm still trying to figure out how they say I can live with another and not be married and thats fine. I'm pretty sure the bible doesnt' say thats ok. And thats my point their own rules are differant for everyone.

I guess I'm one of those who gets so so frusterated with the way the world spins. I have a huge issue with people that are hypocrits and it just makes me want to be able to change the world. My problem is I'm a "little people" and have no idea where to start. I could debate with them all day and would probably leave even more frusterated then I started because they would never see my point of view.

For all the "sanctity of marriage" crap we hear, why don't politicians complain about TV shows such as "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire" and celebrities who divorce 5 seconds after they marry? It's ironic that for some reason, this gets ignored, even though it's a very blatant disrespect to the concept of marriage.

Yay for my town! I belive that same-sex marriage should be legalized. The govt's idea of marriage is based upon christianity, which in and of itself is a violation of the separation of church and state. Conservatives will say that only het couples should be allowed to marry so that they can procreate. Well, I am a het woman and I never want kids and neither does my fiance. We want to marry because we love each other and so we can have rights such as insurance benefits, power of attorney, execution of a will and so-on. Since I don't want to reproduce, should my right to marry be denied too?

Well, the govt. has denied my marriage, albeit for different reasons that it denies gays and lesbians, but govt intrusion is govt intrusion. My experience with trying to marry an inmate has made me an even stronger believer in same-sex marriage, simply because I don't think the govt has any business telling us who we can and can't decide to love and spend our lives with.

Blueviolet

I'm not into religion nor do I believe, yet I think I should be allowed to marry whoever I wish. A marriage should be based upon love and commitment, not upon religion.

Bravo Mr Newsom !!!!!

Phil

I like the idea of civil unions for anyone who so chooses. If people want to get married and do a religious or spiritual ceremony then let them do it with their church person or spiritual advisor...

We are all adults and I really get upset when some think they need to say how all should live and what choices they should have....

Hurrah for this mayor! San Francisco sounds like it would be the place to live... They do sounds very liberal... I wonder how they treat prisoners and ex-cons though?

Deb

very happy to see all these open minded people supporting san francisco! right wing religious fanatics be damned. this is an issue of constitutional equality for all!

I'm not into religion nor do I believe, yet I think I should be allowed to marry whoever I wish. A marriage should be based upon love and commitment, not upon religion.

Bravo Mr Newsom !!!!!

Phil


I agree!!!! I also agree with whoever said they need to focus on people who are making a joke out of marriage. Rather your religious or not your vows are supposed to be serious. In my personal opinion gays would and do take their vows and commitment much more serious then people such as Britney Spears of Jennifer Lopez or any of those TV shows that degrade the meaning of marriage. If these politicians are trying to "protect" the meaning of marriage then they are looking in the wrong place.

Now, That's San Francisco
Nothing like a few thousand gay marriage ceremonies to reignite your urban pride
By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
©2004 SF Gate


URL: sfgate.com/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2004/02/18/notes021804.DTL

Friendly sex shops. Peet's. Dog parks. Stellar restaurants. Superlative tattoo artists. Fabulous weather. Unparalleled natural beauty. Organic foods. Fewer SUVs, more Priuses. Mission burritos. An overwhelming anti-Schwarzenegger sentiment. Sushi. Bush never visits.

There are things that make you happy to live in San Francisco, truly grateful, along with plenty of things that make you hyper-aware that you live in the country's most progressive open-minded convoluted messed-up liberal bubble, for both good and ill.

But few are the things that transcend mere gratitude, things that our struggling budget-strapped modern metropolis has offered of late that makes you say, oh my God, I am right now so incredibly proud to say I live here, I mean just look what we're doing, look what ground we are breaking, what stagnant trends we are blasting, what history we are making.

But for the moment, that's all changed. There is one astounding beacon of political and social (and romantic) action about which San Franciscans can be truly emboldened: The move to legalize same-sex marriage, to hold genuine same-sex wedding ceremonies, this should make any progressive soul proud to live in this amazing city. Deeply, genuinely, thoroughly.

Here's why: No matter what the final outcome, this past week will go down as one of those defining moments, a seminal point in American history. It hearkens back to the civil rights movement and to women's suffrage, though with less screaming chanting effigy-burning marches and beatings by angry cops, and more roses and warm-hearted grins and life-affirming smooches on the steps of city hall.

It was a delicious and heartwarming historic spectacle indeed, and there was simply no way for any person of any elevated consciousness or spiritual awareness -- anyone with any heart whatsoever -- to witness the huge line of happy, eager same-sex couples snaking around city hall and not be deeply moved, profoundly touched.

I was there. I saw the lines, the smiles, felt the intense emotional energy. It was simply irrefutable: These are people in love. These are couples who have been together for years, decades, who have started families and raised children and set up homes replete with dogs and dinner parties and antiques and regular shopping excursions to Safeway and the mall. You know, just like "real" Americans.

These are couples who are willing to go the distance, to commit and connect, and who are eager to prove to themselves and the world that their love is something true and real and momentous, something that, in truth, can only serve to reignite and reunite our stagnant, fractured, contentious, 50 percent-divorce-rate nation. Hey, we need all the help we can get.

And one other thing was very apparent: It was a situation in which you simply could not imagine anyone hurling gobs of intolerant hate at it. It would have required a serious amount of nasty, inbred ignorance and appalling nerve to march up to any of the passionate and committed couples waiting patiently in line for their marriage ceremony and say, you know, God hates you for this, you immoral disgusting sodomites, and it's intolerable and unacceptable that you wish to love and honor each other till death do you part.

Which, yes indeed, is exactly what a great many antigay groups are doing, in effect, right now.

But here's the best part: The City's brave move was not merely a giant well-manicured middle finger to the Christian Right and indignant homophobic conservatives everywhere.

Nor was it just an audacious act of civil disobedience, guaranteed to raise the ire of Bible thumpers and so-called pro-family groups hailing everywhere from Orange County to Colorado Springs. That's just a nice bonus.

It was, more than anything, an incredible celebration of love. The more than 2,600 wedding ceremonies performed so far were the purest evidence, an irrefutable outpouring of the most wondrous and messy and baffling and orgasmic and desperately needed of human emotions, the air electric and warm, the ceremonies themselves radiant and poignant and genuinely tearful.

And no question became so clear, so obvious, as the one being asked by same-sex-marriage advocates around the world: What, really, is so wrong about this? What is the horrible threat about two adults who love each other so intensely, so purely, that they're willing to commit to a lifetime of being together and sleeping together and arguing over who controls the remote? And what government body dares to claim a right to legislate against it?

It is a question no group, no homophobic senator, no piece of antigay legislation, no BushCo stump speech, no Bible-humping pastor has been able to answer with any clarity or conviction.

They can only mumble about immorality and quote some vague Scripture about sodomy that makes them all tingly, as wary biblical scholars all over the world roll their eyes and point to a thousand proofs that demonstrate, over and over again, how the Bible is basically a reinterpreted regurgitated piece of classic patriarchal misogynistic mythmaking that says exactly what the church rewrote it to say.

But I might have part of an answer. From what I can glean from some of my hate mail and the general conservative outcry, here is what the homophobes fear about same-sex marriage: bestiality.

That is, they are utterly terrified that same-sex marriage is a slippery slope of permissive debauchery that will lead to the utter breakdown of social rules and sexual mores, to people being allowed to marry their dogs, or their own dead grandmothers, or chairs, or three hairy men from Miami Beach.

In short, to the neocon Right, a nation that allows gays to marry is a nation with no boundaries and no condoms and where all sorts of illicit disgusting behaviors will soon be legal and be forced upon them, a horrific tribal wasteland full of leeches and flying bugs and scary sex acts they only read about in chat rooms and their beloved "Left Behind" series of cute apocalypse-porn books.

You know, just like how giving blacks the right to own their own land meant we had to give the same rights to house plants and power tools, or how granting women the right to vote meant it was a slippery slope until we gave suffrage to feral cats and sea slugs and rusty hubcaps.

This, then, is why it is a time to be incredibly proud. San Francisco is slapping this moronic worldview back to the dank basement of subhuman intellect, where it belongs. We have broken the taboo, challenged the ignorant and the easily terrified, made it beautifully clear that what matters most in a modern society is not unfounded, naive fears, not uptight religious puling, but a humane and equal, joyous sense of love for all.

The war is far from over. It will be a brutal battle, with much hate yet to be spewed, much Bible waving and law mangling accompanying what will undoubtedly be a slow, painful sea change for a very uptight, easily terrified American society.

But S.F. has taken the lead, has sounded the battle cry, has defined itself anew. And for that, more than any other of its wonders, I am incredibly proud that I live in San Francisco, the best city in the whole goddamn world -- gay, straight or anywhere in between. [U]

Wow BrotherInPrison !! Thanks for sharing this article !! :)

Hummm, I must think of going back to SF one of those days !!!

Thanks again
Phil

Powerful!

I believe marriage should be for anyone male/female,male/male,female/female.I personally know a few couples who have went to SF to get married and it makes me happy! I only hope one day it can happen everywhere and be legal.
We are all the SAME no matter what are sexual preferences are and should have the same rights.

BrotherinPrison,

I have always been incredibly proud to call San Francisco home, this article you posted adds to that pride. I may live a continent away now, but the spirit of "our city" is always in my heart.

Teb said it best "Powerful!"

Patti

Love is love, no matter who you are with, its happiness and quality of life that is most important, we might only get one chance at this, who knows. Religion and politics shouldnt be allowed to rule the world and make decisions. I am like Phil, I have a faith, but nothing against christian people that I respect, I personally do not follow the bible. Why shouldnt 2 people in love be allowed to get married. I would stand proud of who I was, and beat the system. Its not up to us to judge, we know that, thats why we are all here on PTO, cause of some pathetic judge.
Phil, you need to come to Sydney not SanFran.... lol nothing against SanFrancisco. Our gay communites party on the street, and are so proud of who they are. It is very accepted, and the "Anglican Church" has actually accepted gay marriages here, and also adoption agencies have accepted it.

I just wish people would learn that love is love....it's all the same thing....I've been married for 21 yrs. and I love my husband with all my heart....I also was with a female for 4 years before I meet my husband....I don't see in sexes...It's just not a part of love to care what sex they are....I always heard love was blind...if it is why is it that people can't just see another person who they love instead of what sex they are....Our goverment is dang nosey and should stay out of our personal lives and fix the problems they do have...lets see wars, no food, no homes, health care...hummmmm...do ya think they need to get their ducks in a row....Pam....Matt & Shanes Mom