San Francisco mayor: 'Defeating gay marriage is literally the Bush agenda'

From his second-floor office inside San Francisco City Hall, Mayor Gavin Newsom heard the commotion every few minutes just below his window: yet another newly married same-sex couple laughing their way down the structure’s ornate stone front steps.

“All of them,” he said, “are cheers of joy.”

In 2004, Newsom kicked off the so-called “Winter of Love” when he oversaw the marriage of thousands of gay and lesbian couples at City Hall, only to see them overturned by the courts. Four years later, in light of the recent state Supreme Court ruling lifting the ban on same-sex unions, Newsom says he hopes the marriages this time will be recognized by the nation and the world.

But along with the joy has come the jeering: Those against same-sex unions have picketed outside City Hall. Newsom said he was particularly offended at one sign that referred to gays as “fags.”

“That is such a schoolyard slang term,” he said. “It’s understandable with a 6-year-old who knows no better, but to have an adult use that word in this day and age is unbelievable.”

He urged state voters not to be duped by what he called a conservative agenda put forth by President Bush.

“Defeating gay marriage is literally the Bush agenda -- being carried out by his surrogates in California,” Newsom said. “I don’t want to see Bush’s legacy carried out in our state. Voters are smarter than that in California."

For Newsom, Tuesday was an emotional as well as a political day. While performing the wedding of two women, one with advanced breast cancer, Newsom said he choked back so much emotion he could barely speak.

“These are the moments that put life into perspective,” said the mayor, who lost his own mother to the disease.

But Newsom said he didn’t have time to celebrate after officiating at one of the state’s first gay marriages on Monday night.

“I had to work on the budget,” he said. "Just my luck -- the hearings started this week. So I was multi-tasking. I call it a reality check.”

-- John M. Glionna

Photo: AP

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, left, poses for pictures with same-sex couple Ronald McCullough, center, and Charles Hogan, of Fremont, Calif., after they were married at City Hall in San Francisco.

Comments

[David]

God bless Gavin Newsome for his visionary courage in allowing gay/lesbian citizens in committed relationships to marry. He took a big risk politically to do the morally right thing, even though it might not win in the opinion polls. He is to be commended. Gavin for Gov!

[Carson]

Good grief "S. O'Malley" are you kidding me?

If you're going to start quoting history and religion, get it right.....or at least include everything, not just select pieces you deem appropriate.

Historically, all the way back to the dawn of time (and religion), marriage has been about "property", NOT LOVE....and yes, it was about family, preserving that family's place in the community, or improving it by adding new famly members and the property ("riches") that come with HER.

It's also interesting how a text (that was written how many years ago?) can be interpreted to suit anyone's position. The bible and scripture also said that servitude was also acceptable and right, as well as a number of other things that we know today to be wrong. Scripture was written in the language of the time, to meet the people's needs of the times. Yes, basic messages exist that are timeless, but the words should never be quibbled over.

Funny how some religious people believe that their interpretations and scriptures are correct, and like to say that every religion agrees with them....when this isn't the case. The United Church of Christ, the Metropolitan Community Church, Unitarian Universalist, and many others all preach that everyone is loved by God and Christ, and that being gay is not a sin, nor perversion, or anything else touted by critics. God is the one who made us who we are, and subsequently is the only authority who can judge us....remember Judge Not Lest Thee Be Judged!

Carson

[S. O'Malley]

All of you brain dead bloggers that believe that marriage is a right bestowed upon people by legal or political means, do not know what marriage is! Marriage is not something that man can change or define because it is not his creation. You see marriage is a covenant relationship created and defined by God. It is God who gave the woman to the man and made them one. The physical expression of the two becoming one takes place in the birth of a child. It is God who blessed that union by saying “be fruitful and multiply”. Same-sex couples cannot be fruitful or multiply. You see, marriage is about becoming a family. Not a family the way man defines it, but a family the way God defines it. Now, God could never say “be fruitful and multiply” to a union which He calls an abomination. So, if homosexuals want to have legally binding relationships, they have to call them something else. Marriage already exists and has existed since the beginning of mankind. Marriage has already been defined by its creator. Until God changes the definition of marriage, it stays the way it has always been. It is not a matter of civil rights, or homophobia, or discrimination, or anything like that. It is God creation. So if you don’t like it, take it up with God!

[Dave]

All the opposition to marriage equality has to lean on is the bible, a collection of fairy tales and myth. Given the amount of magic described in its pages, one might as well put their faith in Harry Potter.
Please keep your ignorant beliefs in your churches. Your mythic babeling has no relevance.

[Bob]

"Hey Bob...

If the majority votes to make same-sex marriage unconstitutional you won't be able to say that what they want doesn't matter.A lot of us DO have a problem with wrong choices being declared "equal" to right ones."

Quite correct: if the California State Constitution is amended, then that will be the final word in California. For now, the law that was voted on was deemed unconstitutional in California.

I'm disappointed that it only takes a simple majority (please correct me if I'm wrong here) to amend California's constitution. Seems the bar should be higher, otherwise the state can fall prey to a "tyranny of the majority", something the Founders of our country were quite aware could happen. That's why the bar for amending the US Constitution is so high.

But that's the current law there, so that's what the citizens of California must live under. It will certainly be interesting to see how the vote goes.

[Anonymous]

I have to say that I do not agree with this ruling of same-sex marriage. As a born again christian I cannot go against the standards and laws left by God in the bible. However I denounce any person harboring hate towards homosexual individuals, and any use of slang terms or other denounciations. This goes against the very teachings of Christ and it does not convey the love and compassion that Christ has for us. I wish of nothing bad to come to homosexuals I just do not agree with what they are doing and I hope that they would see the error of their ways. I just hope they realize all will bow before God one day and give an account of their life and sin no matter how big or small will keep them out of Heaven. So thats my thoughts on all this. We are each entitled to our own so I appreciate your time and patience.

[EricT]

"A muslims reason and rational:
homosexuality is counter productive for any society...if you have a 100% homosexual country..it means the death of such a country and its society"

That's an absurd rational. Homosexually occurs in the same small percentages in EVERY population, regardless of race, population density, level of tolerance in the culture, or anything else. Allowing gays to marry does not create more gays.

"Homosexuality is not natural."

Of course it is. It occurs in all mammals. How is it not natural?

It may not necessarily be *adaptive*, like color blindness, or deafness, etc. -- but you can't even be sure of that. We don't know enough about the evolution of society to know if having homosexuals in the population provides some adapted purpose. But even if it's not adaptive, it doesn't mean they should be denied rights.

There are people who are born infertile, too. That's not adaptive either. Would you outlaw them from having sex or getting married? No. The fact is, it's none of your business if someone has sex for reproduction, or as an expression of love, or purely for entertainment. NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. The rational that it's going to wipe out the human race is completely bogus.

[EricT]

Louis: "Failing to require that sex partners be of opposite sexes is the other unreasonable extreme."

How is it an 'unreasonable extreme'? What gives you the right to say who people can love, how they have sex, what they eat, what they think, or anything else, as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else? It's none of your damn business.

The point is that sexual attraction is biological, you don't have any more control over the sex you are romantically and physically attracted to than you do the SPECIES you are attracted to. It's apparent at a very early age, and becomes overwhelming in puberty. You have no choice in the matter.

It's not exactly convenient to be born with the wrong sex organs, is it? Gay kids hide it, are ashamed of it, they suffer from depression and commit suicide in greater numbers than their peers, in large part because of ignorant bigots like yourself. The ones who do manage to come to terms with it, have to find... novel... ways of having sex. Instead of having a little understanding for their predicament, you would have them live out their entire lives without ever experiencing the physical intimacy of sex you're able to enjoy. Your lack of compassion is staggering.

I'm a heterosexual man, and if I woke up in a woman's body tomorrow, there is no amount of social pressure that could make me be attracted to a man's hairy but. I couldn't "choose" to not be attracted to woman. It's wiring. So I would be lesbian, and have to deal with judgment from assholes like yourself.

[David]

Why does whom someone loves draw such an immature, fearful response from some people? Is it merely "change" that is so frightening to them? These people getting married are threatening no one. I am hetero, but am not offended by others' love for one another. Hatred (for anyone) concerns me infinitely more than does love.

[Louis]

EricTetz:
Requiring that all sex be reproductive is one unreasonable extreme.

Failing to require that sex partners be of opposite sexes is the other unreasonable extreme.

Common sense lies in the middle.

That something occurs in nature doesn't mean reasoning beings should regard it as immune from criticism.

[ronyc]

I find it very interesting how the people whom champion diversity and accept this abomination are the same people who call those who disagree that this is a healthy lifestyle bigots, haters and the homophobes. This coming from the champions of diversity. Diversity means diversity, not just what you decide it means. This is one of the most amusing facts that one can come to the conclusion about you diversity promoters. You should step back and see how stupid you sound shouting for diversity while calling those with diverse opinions the names your vile mouths spew out. Oh, and by the way Judy...It isn't that WE think this is how the world should work, It is how God says it should work. We humans are just passing through HIS world. If you don't like it, then don't go to Iran, as some moron suggested, go create your own world a make your own rules. It is not OUR world. It is HIS!!!!! If you don't believe in God, that is YOUR problem, not ours. And...That is the logical point Bob. Problem is, logical points don't register to idiots who are bent on their own destruction through human justification. Human justification in acceptance of gay anything is only deceiving yourself. The Bush administration is 100% right in holding up progress on this issue. You and your kind are the ones who are in violation of God's laws. But...you don't agree with God's law do you, you bunch of left wing haters of all that is good and decent!

[photty]

It seems that most of these pro-gay 'marriage' proponents would also support someone who proposed marriage your horse or maybe some 14-yesr old. Yes we would all have freedom and liberty, but without rules, liberty becomes anarchy. This is a really sick society, these 'united' states.

[Lauren]

The deciding vote on that "kangaroo court" was a staunch, midde-aged, white conservative. Please have a clue before you post.

The courts had to lead when voters tried to prevent interracial marriages. This is no different. Vote all you want, bigoted Californians. The same conservative SCOTUS that just found Guananamo Bay detentions a violation of habeas corpus will have the final say, and I'm suddenly optimistic they'll do the right thing.

[Fred S.]

I have been married by a minister to the same man for 16 years. I never thought I would live to see the day where we could could get married legally. The Bible does not say marriage is only for a man and a woman. Many people wrongfully use the Bible to justify anything. Jesus loved everbody.

[Nicole Marie]

I stopped subscribing to the myth of organized religion years ago, but for those of you who claim the faith and talk about "the Wrath of God", I am truly embarrassed for you. Anyone who has extensively studied the personality of Christ would realize that it was the identifying mark of his character to befriend and protect the supposed "moral lepers" of society.
Christ was also consistently passionate about exposing hatred under the guise of piety. How do you think the Christ of the New Testament would respond to this hypocrisy and judgment coming from the mouths of people that claim to be his followers?
My sad little money-changers, your tables would be turned.

[Louis]

Hey Bob...

If the majority votes to make same-sex marriage unconstitutional you won't be able to say that what they want doesn't matter.A lot of us DO have a problem with wrong choices being declared "equal" to right ones.

[Nicole Marie]

None of us will be free until we learn to make a habit of liberating the oppressed in our midst.

[Zapp]

The real question for all the "Christians" posting their opposition and Old Testament comparisons is:

What does any of it have to do with you?

Stay in your religious community and practice whatever you like within the boundaries of law. You shouldn't be worried about state-sanctioned gay marriage any more than you should be worried about my beliefs. I assure you that I am not worried about yours, until they impede my way of life.

I can't believe in the presence of a space fairy that has nothing better to do than monitor who I have sex with. You can't accept the possibility that when we die, nothing special happens. We're different. Who cares.

The only marginally defensible argument against gay marriage is the potential abuse of it for tax/other purposes. To make that argument you have to assume that somehow people are more willing to defraud the government with a homosexual marriage than they are with a heterosexual one. If that were really the case, why not just abuse existing marriage law?

If you really believe in God, no doubt you have faith that it will all be sorted out when we die. So let it go.

[Mitch Foy]

First of all, my apologies for an earlier comment to those right wing bigots who are not Bush supporters as it would be remiss of me not to include you in my distain. Same old story: Substitute fear, slogans and bible thumping for reason. My God, not a cogent thought among you.

The House legislates, the Governor ratifies and the Courts interpret. This is our system. We call it Democracy and God bless America, the system works…Eventually.

All my best to you and yours.

[EricTetz]

Loius: "I consider a homosexual's refusal to remain celibate no more worthy of respect than an alcoholic's refusal to remain sober"

What?

Homosexuality is natural, biological, occurring in all mammal population, not just humans. It serves no reproductive purpose, but it is entirely natural.

Celibacy is NOT natural, it occurs nowhere in the animal kingdom (other than, say, microscopic Bdelloids), other than those rare cases among humans (see: Catholic priests).

So why would you fail to respect someone for following perfectly natural impulses to love and share physical intimacy? It certainly doesn't hurt anybody. Because it doesn't produce offspring? Would you outlaw childless heterosexual marriages for the same reason? What about post-menopausal woman, or people who have had mastectomies/vasectomies? Should they all abstain from sex, because it serves no reproductive purpose? Should we outlaw birth control? After all, it's only purpose is to allow sex without reproduction.

The idea that one should reserve sex for reproduction only is not just archaic and desperately unrealistic, in my opinion, it's barbaric, inhuman.

[mflyx]

A reply to Grfgf:
Its already happened, moron.
Have you heard about the heterosexual "men" at the polygamist compound in Texas who take very young girls (some pre-pubescent) as "wives"?
Curious that not one of the "'sanctity of marriage" hysterics has said
a word about it.
Talk about hypocrites!

[muslim]

A muslims reason and rational:
homosexuality is counter productive for any society...if you have a 100% homosexual country..it means the death of such a country and its society.reality is that 100% homosexual country has no future.
a nations failure can be witnessed with even a 40% homosexual society or a slight majority.
even to do adoption it is necessary to have heterosexual families to have those kids .
others will claim trough insemination but isn't that heterosexual in nature. it could be seen as only mothers bringing up a child yet the semen would be that of the father .it defeats the entire purpose of homosexuality because at certain point .man will need woman and woman will need man in order for a tribe to survive. so we need heterosexuality for humanity to live so it is our natural and only way of survival.

homosexuality will lead to gender imbalance and also genderism
hate among men to woman and vice verse will increase
The feminism and chauvinistic movements have many links to gay organizations since they prefer only one kind and have been key to these movements .
homosexuality has the majority of all Aids and sexual transmitted diseases.Most homosexual couples only exist for 1 to 3 year.

The effects of homosexuality on woman will be disastrous many are not aware .a big problem for females is homosexuality if they think carefully.
imagine that all men take interest only in men this could have a very negative impact on females and children in the general society.
Most here will probably accept 1% homosexuality ..but don't
understand that accepting 1% is accepting 100% aswell

Bisexuals are the second version of homosexuals .they simply are homosexual aswell but with a added twist of adultery

Homosexuality is not natural..humans have many urges and are attracted to many things even crime can seem attractive we can even love gold or stones .we can be attracted to many vulgar sexual urges .but in the end of the day using our minds and restraining ourself is also part of a upbringing we simply cant do everything that pops up in our minds .
imagine you have the urge to bite someone ...reality will always say that you are wrong if you did .so restraint is necessary

blatant Education of children - its advertising and lobbying
are very condemnable because every child that becomes homosexual has been in practicality "sterilized" by its teachers ..

marriage between male and female keeps the bonds between both strong and lasting relationship between the two genders and has constructive value to the future it also provides healthy children that respect both and also a stable family .because what a father lacks a mother has in personality and vice versa.
it has been the reason of humanities growth.
anything else is counterproductive

[Chris]

I'm a straight male, who believes that civil rights should apply to all minorities, including homosexuals.

[Tom In El Paso]

To ola who said: >

What ever happened with: "Judge not lest Ye be judged"? You're in BIG trouble!

[Homie 1]

That's pretty gay

[Tom in California]

It's a great day for California! Prouder than ever before of being a Californian!

[Marko]

This is not about homosexuals having equal rights at all. It is about discrediting hetero marriage as a symbol of tradition, religion and the past. This is obvious otherwise a term civil union would be enough in terms of equal rights.
If gay people should be given the right to "marry" than a new term must be created to define the marriage between a man and a woman!

[Roslan bin Mohd Noor]

Since the beginning, GOD have created Man and Woman to share their relationship(GIFT OF GOD). We are all the products of that sharing. Without our parents or great grandparents long ago we might have not existed TODAY.
So I personally think that this is a new revolution of Mankind. The expansion of human production will STOP now. As a Malaysian by nationality, I had observed the deterioration of family bonding and morality is at its awful ending.
As to that I had come to a conclusions, that this OUTBREAK of same-sex marriages is POSITiVE WAY OF LIFE to America. WHY !
Simply because the world can no longer satisfy our needs.
- shortage of food globally
- food have becoming expansives
- rise of oil/gas prise
- rise of CRIME in america
- law into their own judgements,
- etc ,etc, etc
So isnt it a positive and friendly Outbreak to the nations of AMERICA !
STOP THE PRODUCTIONS OF BABIES ! NO RELIGIONS ! NO OPPOSITIONS !
CONGRATULATIONS SAME-SEX MARRIAGES !
INVITATIONS TO AMERICANS TO MALAYSIA ONLY TO SEEK THE TRUE BONDING OF MARRIAGE ! MAN AND WOMAN we with open heart accepts you

[Restricted]

I like how Steve Niesch implies no one knows who they are (I agree with you by the way - but one correction). Some of us have the necessary software, online tools, wherewithal, knowledge and ability to "uncover" any of these fools who believe they can remain "unknown". Make no mistake, there IS NO anonymity online anymore, and I for one for a fair price will be willing to OUT any one of them.

You have IP addresses identifying you , people - today's tools will literally plot the street address which can one Google Street View (tm) for honed precision...

S-1-5-12

[ricecake]

Single people also entitle to marriage tax break. The next step is legalization of Single's Self marriage.

[EricTetz]

Dave: "I just do not understand why gays and lesbians cannot be satisfied with what they have and not keep pushing for more and more."

They are not trying to get special treatment, they are trying to END special treatment. They want EQUAL treatment. Why shouldn't they push for that?

A study published just yesterday showed that the brains of homosexuals are structurally similar to that of the opposite sex. In other words, a gay man -- biologically, and not just metaphorically -- is a female mind trapped in a man's body. It's as much beyond his control as his skin color.

Denying gays the the right to marry is no different than denying black people the right to marry. It's bigotry, pure an simple. The "solution" of allowing civil unions is just another flavor of "separate but equal".

Divorce statistics aside, Americas have deeply romantic notions about marriage. It's our cultural heritage. It's in our books, our movies, in the stories we tell our children. It's the fairly tale ending, it's the ring presented on bended knee, "Will you marry me?"

"Will you be my domestic partner?", is NOT THE SAME, culturally, romantically, or anything else. So of course gays don't want it, any more than they want their own section of the bus, their own drinking fountains, or their own schools. They just want equality.

[art]

California, the new Sodom & Gomorrah

[Bob]

To Sasha:

A person's comments appear ABOVE their name, not below. :)

-Bob (just in case :) )

[Bob]

"I do thiink that gay 'marriage' is a bad idea, simply because it redefines an essential element in society to an almost meaningless one."

So now your marriage is "almost meaningless"? What does that say about your marriage?

"...and for what ?"

Liberty. You got a problem with that?

[ola]

to see this happen,is so digusting,how on earth are people allow to desend this low,even the so called animals dont behave the way we are behaving,how on earth can a man marry a man,God will surely desend on california for this,you wll not escape God's wrath.

[SpiritsofVengence]

Davie:
1)If it deals with marriage, you CAN take sex out of the equation. Duh. Many couple will tell you, you don't have to have sex to get married.
2)The US is a secular state. It was NOT delusional "Christians" who primarily brought notions of chivalry, equality, tolerence, and forgiveness to the world's collective conscience. You know, there are many places in the world where Christianity doesn't exist, who STILL express chivalry, equality, tolerence, and forgiveness is all about. It was Christianity that brought the Dark Ages, the Crusades and witch burning to the world. You can add calling gays an abdomination to the list.
3)Let the courts and the experts who interpret the constitution decide, not the lay people.

Embarrassment or not, at least California did what was right. This measure cannot be shot down, at least not permanently.

[gabe]

This is what the US is all about, freedom. Those who would take those freedoms away don't understand what our ancestors fought for, and instead carry on the same old bigoted ideology from the people of yesteryear.
God Bless the USA and EVERYONE who lives here

[Mouhaha]

Funny to read all these pitiful comments from the usual bigots and zealots. If god exist it will send them directly to hell, asap. Jesus preached love and compassion, not hatred, the latter was added by your religious sect.

[xxx]

Hey Missy - who wrote this, remember itsnt long before blacks and white couldn't marry even if they were opposite sex... were droppedon ur head as a child?
"Males and females have *always* had the right to marry--so long as it is someone of the opposite sex.

That is what marriage is all about--the ability to procreate under a sacred union.

This decision by the Cal S. Ct. is a blow in the face to the sanctity of the institution of marriage.

Ok, so I'm in love with my dog. And I want to marry the dog. Won't be long before the S. Ct. says ok to that too!"

What a bunch of kangaroo morons on that Court. Well 5 of them anyway

[Sasha]

To Bob:
"God took the rib from Adam's body and created EVE not Steve.
That Mayor must be gay himself or bi . You guy's need to read
your BIBLES more. That is an abomination before God."
I have read the Bible. It's a nice bunch of bronze aged myths and fairy tales. Using a rib from a man to make a woman? The universe in six days, noah fitting a zoo in a boat, and man falling cause a talking snake convinced a teenaged girl to eat a fruit? LOL. You need to read about evolution and science more.

To Jeff C:
"What would your Mother say?"
She would say this is great. Love and laugther is what the world needs more of, not hate.

"Have we become so unable to distinguish right from wrong?"
As we become more educated and have a better grasps of ethics, we know allowing to couples to marry, of whatever gender, is RIGHT.

"Is not one reason for marriage to procreate? How can same sex partnerships procreate?"
Marriage to procreate is one reason, but not the only reason. You do not need to procreate to marry. Just ask the thousands married heterosexual couples who marry but intend to stay childless.

"Even nature does not enter into same sex unions. Should we as the dominating species be any less?"
Examples of homosexuality can be found everywhere in nature. Some birds have expressed homosexual behavior, for example. Again, pick up a science book, they are fascinating.

"Mother says,use your head children,where is common reasoning? Where is civility?"
Exactly. Common reasoning attests that we should allow two adult people who love each other to marry and share the love and laughter of the experience.

Congrats California, and New York for recognizing. I am married, heterosexual, and very happy. This experience should not be denied to anyone. I feel sorry for the haters who wish to deny this to other couples. These haters probably never experienced a joyful marriage themselves and want to spread their misery. May these new couples have many years of love and laugther.

[meakre]

CONGRATS TOALL NEWLEYWEDS

This is a great day fo society.

To all of you oppossed based on your reigion, remember I have the right to mine. I am agnostice,and the God I beleve in is rejoicing along with all GLBT and their friends and family today.

[teh lauar]

I really wish people would stop talking about the Supreme Court decision as if it somehow usurped the power of the people. Yes, the ban was voter-approved (8 years ago), but the court found it to be unconstitutional. Sorry, it just wasn't fair, voted for or not. This is why we have constitutions: a set of principles that provide guidelines for the drafting of just laws. We'll just have to wait and see how this amendment thing pans out. I certainly hope it fails. It's worth noting that the quashing of human rights by a vote is essentially tyranny by majority. Thankfully, our country has a history of the (rational-thinking) many stepping up to give a voice to the downtrodden few.

I'm glad the court had the balls to do what's right. Yay California.

[photty]

I do thiink that gay "marriage' is a bad idea, simply because it redefines an essential element in society to an almost meaningless one. I suppose we will be redefining 'Mother' and 'Father' next to which ever 'gay' ( usually rather sad, not gay) wants to play Mummy. And then we will overlook all sexual biological differences and start sharing toilets. Personally I dont care if consenting adults live together, although Im not happy with the more limited remaining sexual options they get up to. Also blurring the barriers between the sexes makes for more promiscuity and less long term fidelty. A giant step backwards....and for what ?

[Joe]

I wish Mayor Newsom would shut the hell up. How can any self-respecting citizen of San Francisco vote for this brainless clod?

[Bob]

It doesn't matter what the majority wants if it's unconstitutional.

It doesn't matter what the majority wants if it's unconstitutional.

It doesn't matter what the majority wants if it's unconstitutional.

It doesn't matter what the majority wants if it's unconstitutional.

It doesn't matter what the majority wants if it's unconstitutional.

Repeated several times because some of you just don't seem to get it. Think slavery, women's suffrage or inter-racial marriage. The majority would have voted NOT to change the laws regarding those three things, but that doesn't change their legality under the constitution.

PLEASE learn about how your country's legal system works, folks!

[caseinpoint]

What happens when someone screws one lightbub into another lightbulb?

Nothing.

[Solamigo2]

Civil Unions are fine and intended for everyone.. Divorced people often prefer the Registry Office. Marriage is a religious(Most Religions!) union of two people with the intention of procreaction. The marriage of man and woman was designed for the protection of family unity and offspring.Civil Law introduced divorce. Let's face it! If a couple of queers divorce, does it make any difference if the got married? Discounting social and monetary benefits of course.. Some people express the opinion that if they love each other, why shouldn't they? Conversely, if they love each other enough, why do they need to ? Never mind conjugal rights, let's establish monetary rights.
As someone has already commented(more or less!)-For Christ's sake, sod that and bugger off!

Solamigo.

[Grfgf]

This is fantastic! How much longer until we recognized an 8 year-old's right to choose her mate and get married to a 40-year old man?

Only in that day will there be true equal rights! Everyone who disagrees is a right-wing ignorant pig who should kill themselves because they hate true love!

[Taki]

The voters of Califirnia did say what they thought by voting for the amendment and a liberal Judge with his own agenda threw it out so the voters are left holding the bag agin. I am happy I am 3000 miles away from California and by the way GET OVER HATING BUSH!!!!!

[Louis]

I am a largely liberal Democrat and have never been religious (I am no atheist but don't believe God writes books or has an official fan club).

I consider a homosexual's refusal to remain celibate no more worthy of respect than an alcoholic's refusal to remain sober,and any government that does not grant explicitly superior treatment to opposite-sex relationships over same-sex relationships is failing in its responsibility to the general welfare.People in same-sex relationships need (whether or not they want) help getting OUT of those relationships.Only opposite-sex relationships convey a benefit to society worth reciprocating with recognition as a marriage.

I am pro-choice on abortion,I utterly despise capital punishment,I want strict gun control and comprehensive national health insurance...but on THIS issue liberal orthodoxy has betrayed the enlightenment that gave it life,in favor of the gratification of irresponsible desires on the part of a self-righteous lobby,and I hope that the amendment passes even as the Republicans lose the White House.

[James]

The fact that the judge would enforce this demanding that it happen before the people vote for it shows a conflict of interest toward supporting the voice of the people over his own personal interests. He wants to be the superhero for a day, but really, he just used the constitution as toilet paper after dropping a giant turd on the system of checks and balances -- and the loudmouthed minorities lawd him for it.

[Mitch Foy]

Anyone else notice that the Bush supporters can't spell or construct a simple sentence? Looks like "No Child Left Behind" worked after all.

Please.

[Mary]

Jill: "The first couple he married were a pair of lesbians in their 80's, one of them in a wheelchair: if he could be any more of a Photo Op hound, I don't know how"

Wow. These ladies have been together FIFTY YEARS. They should be able to have their diamond anniversary now, but for small-minded bigots like you. They have been activists most of their lives.

So Jill, to whom have you comitted yourself to for fifty years? What have you done lately?

[Davie]

Sara:
1.) If it deals with marriage, you can't take sex out of the equation...That's supposed to be the point of marriage (we could argue about this one for days).
2.) The US is a secular state founded primarily by Christians, and it was primarily "CHRISTIAN BIGOTS" who brought such notions of chivalry, equality, tolerence, and forgiveness to the world's collective conscience. Just because you don't agree with certain Christian beleifs, doesn't mean YOU get to be the bigot. Face it, you ARE prejudiced toward Christians (and possibly those of other religious beleifs). Bottom line, they don't have to agree with you, and you don't have to agree with them, but don't think for a second that there is some magical barrier between your bias and any other kind.
3.) If put to a popular vote, America would vote against same-sex marriage. That is why people are trying to push it toward courts and activist judges - They know they can't get it through with the democratic way...

How much of an embarrassment will this mayor be if this issue gets shot down in November's election?

[Converse02]

Congrats to California. May those couples live together in love and happiness.
Marriage to the person you love is truly a wonderful experience.

I am heterosexual, married, and lend my support.

I cannot fathom why there are people against love and laughter, who seek to place loving couples in distress and prevent their union. These couples have done nothing to harm these anti-gay protesters. They protestors should just leave these couples alone.

[L.T.]

"Fag" may be a shcoolyard term in Hizzoner's opinion, but if we can't stand up and say it in public without fear for retribution, or the PC Police indignation, then what has this country come to?

A country where some people are more equal than others, I guess.

[Chcuk Warren]

It never ceases to amaze me how stupid "progressives" in this state really are. The gay and lesbian community should run in terror from this judicial 5-4 fiat. It only serves to engergize and enthuse the multitudes of knuckle-dragging neanderthals out there. True progress can *only* be instituted by elected representatives, NOT judges. Now the path forward is almost a foregone conclusion. In November, the progressive "glass house" will come crashing to pieces as 60% of voters reject the justices' descision. Then what? Like I said, stupid.

[Romy]

To Bob on your response to Hank,

You hit the nail right on the head. Bigots are constitutionally entitled to their beliefs, but that should not interfere with the constitutional rights of others to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I have the feeling that if Hank lived in a previous era he would have been one of the ones protesting womens' right to vote, or he would have been one of the ones holdings the fire houses on African-Americans in Birmingham.

[John G]

What would your Mother say?

Have we become so unable to distinguish right from wrong? Is not one reason for marriage to procreate? How can same sex partnerships procreate? Even nature does not enter into same sex unions. Should we as the dominating species be any less?
Mother says,use your head children,where is common reasoning? Where is civility? Are we so turned upside down that we don't know what is right .
Pity the person who only follows their base instincts and will not listen to reason. And pity the government leaders that are appointed and ordained to watch over us as a people. We are all to be pitied because our world has gone the way of ancient Rome. Great as she was, she is no more.

Come let us reason together,though our sins be as scarlet they shall be whiter than snow. We all need to fall at the feet of our maker and beg forgiveness.

[Jeff C.]

Bigoted heterosexuals do not want gays to have equal rights because they feel they would lose power over that class of people. It is the same reason as racial bigotry. That power-loss makes them afraid and fanatical.
I think it's awesome that gay people, young or old, can now live the dream of getting married, once thought of as an impossibility.

[mwf]

I think the spouses of the anti-gay commentors above should be concerned.

What "heterosexual" bothers to take the time to comment about an issue that has absolutely NO impact on their lives?

Let's ask Ted Haggard and all the closeted Republicans caught in gay-sex scandals what they think.

[Starri Nites]

God took the rib from Adam's body and created EVE not Steve.
That Mayor must be gay himself or bi . You guy's need to read
your BIBLES more. That is an abomination before God.

[Bob]

Fred sed:

"This is a typical california kangaroo court of 9 people voting to overide the millions of California citizens whom already voted. But alas, isn't that the liberal creed - don't ask the people what they want, we know what is best for them..."

Sir, you display a stunning ignorance of how our Constitutional Republic functions. Just because the majority wants it does not mean that it is legal under the Constitution. Bear in mind, also, that 3 of the justices in favor were appointed by Republican governors, which pretty much destroys your bleating about "liberals".

" Who would have ever thought that the goverment would officially sanction buggering..."

The government isn't "officially sanctioning buggering", the California Supreme Court struck down a law it deemed unconstitutional. You would do well to educate yourself on the details of our legal process, sir.

Also interesting to me that anti-gay-marriage zealots seem to focus so much on anal sex in this issue.

[Rick Smith]

I do not oppose gays or gay civil unions and legal rights.
Marriage is inherently a religious ceremony however and will never
be the same for gays - period. There needs to be a legal solution
that is not called marriage.

[Ludacris_isnt_just_a_rapper?]

A long time ago people thought it was absurd to let women vote. Or that it was right to enslave someone based on the color of their skin.

Although completely unrelated, it is still is an example of some minority of our country calling out for equal rights. 30 years from now we'll all look back on this and laugh at our absurdity.

[Seven Jones]

Males and females have *always* had the right to marry--so long as it is someone of the opposite sex.

That is what marriage is all about--the ability to procreate under a sacred union.

This decision by the Cal S. Ct. is a blow in the face to the sanctity of the institution of marriage.

Ok, so I'm in love with my dog. And I want to marry the dog. Won't be long before the S. Ct. says ok to that too!

What a bunch of kangaroo morons on that Court. Well 5 of them anyway.

[ntd]

I can't wait for the big one when all you freaks slide off into the ocean.

ntd
Texas

[Realist]

Darn, if gays are stupid enough to want to get married then have at it. It's truly a hellhole of higher taxes, fewer rights, increased responsibilities, and a bunch of new societal pressures they probably haven't even realized yet. And sorry to say, those who don't accept you now never will regardless of what it's called.

Better idea... Forget trying to get society's approval and create virtually all the same benefits through contracts and legal agreements, as smart gays have been doing for years.

Of course, you can't say you are "married," but who in their right mind would want to anyway;)

[Mark]

As a Canadian heterosexual, living in Toronto, I think it's a good thing that our U.S. neighbors are catching up with the rest of western civilizations when it comes to what I consider basic human rights. The new Canadian federal law on marriage that includes same-sex couples has only reinforced the strength of Canadian society.

In light of poor US economy, weak US dollar, floods, and raging war in Iraq,
it is solidarity among US citizens regardless of race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation that should be the central point. Citizens should keep finding ways to coexist, in light of today's social dynamics, rather the breeding hostility against each other.

If heterosexuals in US are afraid that gay marriages will ruin their relationships, then there is something fundamentally wrong with such relationships in the first place; pointing fingers to same-sex couples will not save the day.

I hope that US will enter a new age once they elect Barack Obama as the new president.

And I hope that catholic church in the US will focus on resolving problems in their own back yard such as pedophilia cases, rather then hypocritical bickering about gay-marriages. Ever wondered how many Californians could have been provided with health insurance with the 600 million dollar settlement in recent catholic church pedophilia case?

[nlbknitter]

I keep hearing from the foes of gay marriage that it is a threat to the institution of marriage. For the life of me I can't see how. I really wish someone would explain that logic to me.

Perhaps we should consider that, since marriage is a sacrament, it should only be performed in places of religion. The state should only deal with "civil unions", which is what we have been calling marriage. These civil unions would be the same regardless of who was getting married.

If there must be a constitutional amendment regarding marriage it should be that "marriage is the union of two consenting adult humans." That takes care of any notions of polygamy or bestiality. No, you can't marry your cat. You are only allowed one spouse at a time. Oops, forgot incest. Anyone have any ideas on language to address that bugaboo?

N.

[john]

Bush's agenda? No, it's God's agenda.

[thomas Alex]

10,500 Gay marriages have been performed in Massachusetts's since 2004. Only 48 of those have ended in divorce. That is a %.4 divorce rate. Marriage has nothing to do with benefits or tax breaks. Its based on love and the strong connection between two people.

[Lorelei]

Yay!!!!

[ronyc]

The Mayor made the comment that he didn't want to see the "Bush agenda" happen in California, followed by saying that voters were smarter than that. Uh...hello? Wake up Mayor Newsom. The voters aleady voted gay marriage down overwhelmingly in California. Wake up and put your brain in gear. It is not the buz word "Bush agenda" that you are seeing moron. It is the will of the people who voted already and got their damned votes turned over by seven judges. Seven judges. Seven judges overturned a vote'Of the people, By the people and For the people'. If anything is unconstitutional, it is the will of the people to make law being overturned by those idiots on the Supreme court who are legislating from the bench!!!!!!!

[Lorin]

We remember where Newsome was when the bay was trashed a few months ago, safe in Hawaii without a care for his city.

[Steve Nesich]

Notice how the haters and the homophobes spread their vile poison and vicious words online, where no one knows who they are. They are not only sad and pathetic human beings, filled with hatred and rage, they are also cowards.

This is a great day for California, the United States of America and all of humanity. The icing on the cake will be when this hate-filled initiative goes down to defeat in November and we celebrate the victory of President Barack Obama.

For those of you who still use "religion" as a reason to hate other human beings, I invite you to rethink things and join the rest of us. We're going to shine the light so brightly that even you won't be able to look away.

[Mark F. Malan]

I am all for protecting the sanctity of marriage. What we need to do is outlaw divorce. I mean, how do we truly value something if we let more than half of them disintigrate. Perhaps if heterosexuals could no longer divorce, they might take who they choose to marry more seriously, rather than the current haphazard way of just picking someone and then changing your mind later on. Protect Marriage! Outlaw divorce! Oh, and adultery should be punishable with life in prison. I can think of no more dispicable way to show total disdain for the sanctity of marriage than having a sexual relationship with someone outside the marriage. Protect Marriage!
If you don't believe in protecting marriage to this same degree, then clearly you are just interested in protecting the use of the word "marriage" which would indicate your concern for the use of the English language. Maybe you should donate money to your local school district. They are all underfunded anyway.

[NoFear]

Marriage is a secular contract between two people and the state. There's no 21st-century reason that contract can't be between people of the same gender. The fact that there are a lot of people out there with prejudices left over from Roman times is not a reason to ban same-gender couples from marrying.

The anti-gay-marriage amendment amounts to establishing a state religion (there's no secular reason to ban it) and that is unconstitutional under the First Amendment. I hope some brave lawyer takes that to the Supreme Court and gets all the anti-gay-marriage laws thrown out.

[Jen]

About damn time.

[Mitch Foy]

“All of them,” he said, “are cheers of joy.” Sounds like Mr Newsom has his priorities in order to me. Much better than the tears of those wounded or killed in Mr. Bush's war. To those four or five fools still supporting the Bush agenda, remember this date: 1/20/09 his last day in office. Nothing can change that...

Oh, since it seems important to some close minded posters... I'm straight and I vote. Gavin for Governor? Works.

To echo one post: Hooray for love and laughter! A great day.

Truly.

[Fred]

1. The people of the state of california voted against Gay marriage. This is a typical california kangaroo court of 9 people voting to overide the millions of California citizens whom already voted. But alas, isn't that the liberal creed - don't ask the people what they want, we know what is best for them..... and

2. Who would have ever thought that the goverment would officially sanction buggering - let alone give out Marriage certificates for it. The once great state of California started going down hill a long time ago. It is still a great place to live - you just have to remember that in places like San francisco - you're living in a freakish deviant aberation.
Hey, perhaps we could have a San Francisco reality TV show - now that would be funny.

[Laura]

In response to Karen's "Gays want to marry for the benefits, not for love. If one were to remove the benefits, gays would not marry. Interesting that many gays who married, are already separated or divorced. What's beneficial about that?"

If gay/lesbian couples wanted to marry simply for the benefits, they would be satisfied with Civil Unions. And your simply moronic statement about how many gay marriages have been divorced/seperated... Were you dropped on your head as a child? That statement does very little for your cause. Infact, if that is the way you choose to look at it.. MANY more divorced/seperated couples are hetetorsexual than homosexual. I hope you don't have children, or ever get the chance to have them, last thing the earth needs is more people with an IQ in the single digits.

About time CA, many congratulations to the happy couples getting married in CA!!!

[Carlos]

I am a heterosexual man who has been married for 13 years to the same woman and I don't see what all the fuss is all about. What the State of California acknowledged was marriage in a legal sense so that gay couples can enjoy the same legal rights that other married couples have under the law, such as access to health insurance under their spouse's employment plan, inheritance rights, etc. What this does not do is recognize gay marriage in a religious sense and it does not force any church or individual to recognize gay marriage from a religious point of view. Homosexuality has existed since the dawn of human civilization and it is foolish not to recognize its existence and it is cruel to continue to legally discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation. If one is against state recognized gay marriage because of religious grounds, they shouldn't be able to impose their religious point of view on the rest of California society who have no problem with it.

[The Captain]

DunThinkSo - politicians are supposed to represent their constituents' interests and beliefs to the best of their ability. Given the demographics of San Francisco, I fail to see how what he did in this instance is incorrect. His future political aspirations are mutually exclusive from the fact that he did the right thing for the people who live in his city. How can it be bad that he helped a large number of people in a variety of ways from taxes to healthcare benefits? Not to mention the morale boost it was for this group of people to finally have their voices heard. This country needs positive things and progress to cling to in times when discontent run rampant, such as now.

volunteer - Perhaps the Bush comment was in poor taste and if I were a politician I probably would not have made that remark. However, can you honestly say that Bush and his administration is not at least partially responsible for holding back social progress on this issue? I do not particularly care if you call it a marriage, civil union, or anything else for that matter, the point is that same-sex couples were not being allowed their full Constitutional rights as an American because they were not being treated equally in the eyes of the government. That is one of the United States' most fundamental principles.

[Bob]

Hank sed:

"If one were to remove the benefits, gays would not marry."

How do you presume to know the minds of gays and lesbians, sir? I have a very good gay friend who got married here in the Seattle area some years back even though it wasn't legally recognized. They did it purely because they loved each other.

"Interesting that many gays who married, are already separated or divorced."

Interestingly, my above reference friend has since been divorced, just like ~50 percent of all straight marriages. So?

"What's beneficial about that?'

A better question is, "How is that any different from heterosexual marriages?"

Get back to us when you have an actual logical point, mmm-kay?

[Sara]

LARRY cLIFTON, you need to take sex out of the equation for a moment; this is simply about people who love each other wanting to be married. The strict religious opposition of gay marriage is so hung up on "sodomy" that I often wonder why they're so obsessed with sex. The US is secular, and was NOT founded in Christianity (remember the Treaty of Tripoli in 1797?), so please remember to keep your religious bigotry out of California's constitution! Besides, you are saying "America" is against gay marriage. You are ONE PERSON; you cannot speak for all Americans. We are a diverse population, and while you have every right to be a bigot, your bigotry should not limit the freedoms of other Americans.

[Rachel]

What a wonderful day . We're one (albeit, small) step closer to full civil rights for all Americans. Congratulations to all the newlyweds!

[Dave]

Why are some heterosexuals so frightened of marriage for homosexuals? Because if the word "marriage" applies equally to hetero- and homosexual couples, then homosexuals truly are the same as heterosexuals. And the converse follows - that heterosexuals are now no different than homosexuals. That must be a scary, scary thought to some - they are now just the same as their homosexual fellow citizens.

[Morro]

DunThinkSo hit it on the head. Not all gays are infavor of this dreadful decision by the California Supreme Court (I remember Rose Bird). The November Contitusional Amendment initiative MAY pass and settle the issue in California. I sincerely hope so.

I don't wish ill for anyone or any class, but marriage is marriage and dependent partners is dependent partners. I just do not understand why gays and lesbians cannot be satisfied with what they have and not keep pushing for more and more. They may push so hard that a United States Constitutional Amendment may do them in.

Morro

[A. Lloyd Flanagan]

Hank:

People want to marry for the benefits, not for love. If one were to remove the benefits, people would not marry. Interesting that many people who married, are already separated or divorced. What's beneficial about that?

Works just as well.

And by the way, what's wrong with wanting the same benefits everybody else in the country has access to?

[John Turnbull]

How Queer,

Mayor Newmen thinks six year olds should know the difference between FAG, Slag, and Homosexual. Whatever next!!! Thank goodness Wall Mart withdrew the Tampax Starter Kits for 7 year olds!!!!!

John T.

[Paul Murch]

Major Newsome, you stated: “Defeating gay marriage is literally the Bush agenda -- being carried out by his surrogates in California. I don’t want to see Bush’s legacy carried out in our state. Voters are smarter than that in California."

Hello Newsome... I seem to remember that the last time the "voters" actually had a say in this matter, they voted 61% against legalizing Gay Marriage. Your current euphoria is the result of a 5 to 4 vote by the California Supreme Court, not the people. The next vote you need to watch out for is your reelection. My guess is... Bye-bye!

[jill]

I'm not taking a position on gay "marriage," but as a civil union, allowing them to inherit each other's fortunes, stay at bedsides as family etc., are overdue. The ceremonial aspect is great for California business, for the hotels/ restaurants/ caterers/ florists/ clothing shops etc. etc.

But Gavin Newsom is a pandering fool, no way would we want him as Governor! The first couple he married were a pair of lesbians in their 80's, one of them in a wheelchair: if he could be any more of a Photo Op hound, I don't know how. His city is a financial mess, while he's just obsessed with himself, and approves PC bills that raise taxes -- he personally and how he's run San Francisco are NOT what mainstream California wants.

[jill]

I'm not taking a position on gay "marriage," but as a civil union, allowing them to inherit each other's fortunes, stay at bedsides as family etc., are overdue. The ceremonial aspect is great for California business, for the hotels/ restaurants/ caterers/ florists/ clothing shops etc. etc.

But Gavin Newsom is a pandering fool, no way would we want him as Governor! The first couple he married were a pair of lesbians in their 80's, one of them in a wheelchair: if he could be any more of a Photo Op hound, I don't know how. His city is a financial mess, while he's just obsessed with himself, and approves PC bills that raise taxes -- he personally and how he's run San Francisco are NOT what mainstream California wants.

[pwhited]

I really don't care if gays can marry or not, doesn't bother me either way. I've got better things to do with my life than worry about what others do with theirs.

However, as Richard Jeni said, "gay people have the same right to lose half their sh*t as anyone else!"

[Judy]

Well...uh...yeah... it IS the Bush agenda, you can't argue with that. Along with a lot of other frightened folks who somehow think only they have the Right Ideas as to how the world should work.

[Lynn]

I believe that gay and lesbian couples should have all the same rights as male/female marriages.
My brother has been with the same partner for 26 years now. They have been together longer than anyone I know except my grandparents.
I would like to congratulate every single couple in California that is finally able to marry the love of their lives. May you all live a long and happy life together.
Let this be a sign to all in America that indeed everyone is indeed created equal.

[Mel]

People may not agree on politics, but giving equal rights to all people has nothing to do with politics. It's about time this gets settled once and for all, not just in state courts.

[John Smith]

Americans who don't like gays should consider moving to Iran where they can stone them legally to death.

[brian]

Gayvin...that's stunningly witty and original.

So how exactly is it pandering to believe that everybody in this country deserves the same rights?