|
 |
February 20, 2004 GAY MARRIAGE EVERYWHERE!....Vermont has civil unions, of course, and we all know that the Massachussetts Supreme Court recently ruled that gay marriage was legal there too. Now it's snowballing. San Francisco has issued thousands of marriage certificates to gay couples and is challenging California's law against gay marriage in court. Then Chicago Mayor Richard Daley suggested that Cook County ought to perform a few gay marriages, and now, via Atrios, it looks like a county clerk in New Mexico plans to issue a few licenses as well. Amazing how this stuff becomes a firestorm so quickly, isn't it? All it takes is one county clerk in each state and pretty soon we'll have legal battles going in every state in the union. Should be fun. And speaking of gay marriage, how are things going in Canada? Has the institution of marriage completely disintegrated yet? Just wondering. UPDATE: Looks like New Mexico is doing more than planning: licenses have now been issued and marriages performed. Let the court case commence! UPDATE 2: And here are some pictures of the happy couples courtesy of The Coyote's Bark, a New Mexico blog. Posted by Kevin Drum at February 20, 2004 02:27 PM | TrackBackComments
I used to always make fun of people for having bumper stickers on their cars in support of "X FOR COUNTY CLERK!" or "Y FOR REGISTER OF PROBATE!"....little did I know. When's one of the NYC boroughs going to get into the act? Posted by: Katherine at February 20, 2004 02:30 PM | PERMALINKAh, the county clerks. Truly gods among men. :) Posted by: Irrational Bush Hatred at February 20, 2004 02:31 PM | PERMALINKAmazing how this stuff becomes a firestorm so quickly, isn't it? All it takes is one county clerk in each state and pretty soon we'll have legal battles going in every state in the union. Should be fun. It must be that the increase comes of the inborn human instinct to imitate--that and man's commenest weakness, his aversion to being unpleasantly conspicuous, pointed at, shunned, as being on the unpopular side. Its other name is Moral Cowardice, and is the commanding feature of the make-up of 9,999 men in the 10,000. I am not offering this as a discovery; privately the dullest of us knows it to be true. History will not allow us to forget or ignore this supreme trait of our character. It persistently and sardonically reminds us that from the beginning of the world no revolt against a public infamy or oppression has ever been begun but by the one daring man in the 10,000, the rest timidly waiting, and slowly and reluctantly joining, under the influence of that man and his fellows from the other ten thousands. The abolitionists remember. Privately the public feeling was with them early, but each man was afraid to speak out until he got some hint that his neighbor was privately as he privately felt himself. Then the boom followed. It always does. Boom.
And while were at it, let's ignore some of the other laws that are out there that we don't like. First up, Prop. 209. Posted by: Ugh at February 20, 2004 02:35 PM | PERMALINKSound like Bush should learn from this not to issue challenges when he's not in a position to win them. Posted by: bubba at February 20, 2004 02:38 PM | PERMALINKAnd while were at it, let's ignore some of the other laws that are out there that we don't like. Thanks! Don't mind if I do. ::spark:: Proposition 209 is not a law. It is a constitutional amendment. In fact, it is under the section of the constitution added by Prop 209 that Mayor Newsom is claiming obligation to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Posted by: neil at February 20, 2004 02:42 PM | PERMALINKThe Canadian divorce rate has doubled in less than a month. It is the end of marriage. Posted by: Yukoner at February 20, 2004 02:43 PM | PERMALINKDismal Science Interlude. Love and happiness, wonderful. A little partying, absolutely. Positive media coverage, excellent. But let's also keep an eye on the long game. We're gonna get pushed back. The SF marriages WILL be found illegal, whether or not SF's suit against Prop 22 eventually prevails. The hate groups will whip the NM Legislature into line double quick. The media -- fickle whores that they are -- could easily turn this into a "circus" of "lawbreaking" and "anarchy," tut-tut-tut. And the backlash, from the hate groups AND the Bush administration, is going to be ugly. Barbara Boxer and Barney Frank, neither exactly paleo-conservatives, are playing the issue down, and for good reason. We'll win this in the long run. But in the short run, we need to defeat the Bush machine, and this is not the issue that's gonna do it. Posted by: bleh at February 20, 2004 02:43 PM | PERMALINKHow's Bloomberg on gay issues? It would be great to have some gay marriages happening in NYC during the Republican convention, all with the blessing of the city's Republican mayor. Posted by: Andrew at February 20, 2004 02:43 PM | PERMALINKYou know, I still don't understand the basis of arguments against gay marriage. Exactly what, first off, is the trouble? It's not like they'll breed and we'll be teeming with more gays. People tend to be gay or not, wether it's genetic or whatever. Secondly, while I feel like I understand some public health issues, but isn't crazy-ass het sex just as responsible for sex diseases? unsafe behavior is unsafe behavior if it's with the same sex, the opposite sex, or whatever other thing you stick your thing in or on. What are people afraid of? Why the big freakout? How is it their business who you get married to? Also: Does the government have a single compelling reason to be involved with marriage at all? Is there a single downside to getting all governments completely out of marriage forever? I don't see one. What do we lose? Just mean-spirited exclusion of others. I have a lot of questions Posted by: garth at February 20, 2004 02:45 PM | PERMALINKAnd don't forget Cambodia, where the King announced he now supports same-sex marriages, too. Here's the report from the BBC: "Cambodian king backs gay marriage King Sihanouk said he respected gays and lesbians Cambodia's King Norodom Sihanouk has shown that advancing years are no barrier to an open mind After watching television images of gay marriages in San Francisco,
the 81-year-old monarch has decided that single sex weddings should be He expressed his views in a hand written message on his website which has proved extremely popular in Cambodia. The king said that as a "liberal democracy", Cambodia should allow "marriage between man and man... or between woman and woman." He said he had respect for homosexual and lesbians and said they were as they were because God loved a "wide range of tastes." Here's the link to the original document -- in French. http://www.norodomsihanouk.info/mes%2004/fev%2004/2002txt2.htm My boyfriend and I will take another Molson's....eh. Posted by: Keith G at February 20, 2004 02:45 PM | PERMALINKMayor Newsom is asserting that what he's doing is perfectly legal. That's very different from acting against the law. The Mayor is
acting within the law, and it's up to others to demonstrate otherwise
through the courts. I have clear memories of the collapse of the Soviet Union, starting with the fall of the Berlin Wall and ending with the Gorbachev dissolving the Soviet Union. (yes, the memories may be false, but they are clear. let me get to the point.) And I remember thinking that we were living in extraordinary days. I remember the end of apartheid South Africa, and thinking that we were living in extraordinary days. I am proud beyond measure that the love which used to be unable to speak its name can now express itself equally with the rest of society. Once again, we must remember that THESE are EXTRAORDINARY days. To Beth Robinson (who I vaguely knew at Dartmouth) who fought so hard for gay marriage in Vermont, and lost. To the plaintiffs in the Massachusetts litigation. To the Mayors of San Francisco and Chicago. To Sandoval County Clerk Victoria Dunlap. And to all the homosexual couples who are willing to stand up to the bigots and haters. Congratulations. You are heroes. on another note, must be tough these days to be a Log Cabin Republican. any fiscally conservative / socially liberal republicans on this thread? how do you feel about the fact that your party stands for growing deficits and bigotry? Francis Posted by: FDL at February 20, 2004 02:50 PM | PERMALINKDon't forget Belgium and Netherlands. Dear God, what wastelands they have become. America should shun their example and be more like, say, Nigeria. California Prop. 209? Looks to me like that's only applicable "in the operation of "But in the short run, we need to defeat the Bush machine, and this is not the issue that's gonna do it." Umm. I disagree. The bases are locked, and I think an overreaction by
Repubs could exactly provide the issue that wins the independents this
year. Spinning - My understanding is that he's decided the state constitution overrules a particular state law. While he may be technically correct, I don't see how a mayor has the authority to interpret law - that's what the judicial branch does. So while he may be correct (IANAL, and I know even less about CA's wackylaw/constitution/referendum business), the most likely result is that all of the gay licenses will be declared null as soon as it goes to court UNLESS the constitution/state law issue gets hashed out first. Posted by: legion at February 20, 2004 02:54 PM | PERMALINKWhile Bloomberg's generally a social liberal and friendly to gays, don't hold your breath waiting for mayorally approved marriages in NYC. His spokesman was quoted in today's Philadelphia Inquirer as saying that the mayor doesn't believe in subverting the law to make a political point. Posted by: Shem at February 20, 2004 02:56 PM | PERMALINKYou know, I still don't understand the basis of arguments against gay marriage. That's because they are not actually "arguments." Posted by: TomF at February 20, 2004 02:58 PM | PERMALINKGay marriage is pretty much a non-issue in Canada, IMHO. In large urban centers like Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal, gay marriage was viewed as justly inevitable. Most opposition to gay marriage is concentrated in the rural mid-west, but even there it would be wrong to call it the dominant opinion. Certainly no one suggests that the gay marriage issue will be any sort of threat to the governing Liberal party in the next election. While there is a Conservative Party of Canada with a definite wing of religious conservatives, this is generally viewed as that party's biggest weakness. The Conservatives popularity in the mid-west is based on feelings of regional disparity, not moral issues or ideals. This is evidenced by the fact that every once in a while one of the Conservative's more religious members denounces gays in some way, leading to a big hit in their support and the need to demote or kick out the offending member in order to save face. The general Canadian attitude is probably something along the lines of 'If two people love each other and want to marry, let them, now stop bugging me about it.' Posted by: Lars at February 20, 2004 03:02 PM | PERMALINKThere is another CA law that says only courts can determine the constitutionality of a CA law and that state (and city) officials are to follow the law they don't like until it gets thrown out as constitutional. Cleary Newsom's violating that law, which itself is certainly constitional. Posted by: Ugh at February 20, 2004 03:02 PM | PERMALINKWhat this all reminds me of is the period in 1989 (I think -- gimme a break, I was in high school and had more important things to do than read the paper, like playing with myself) shortly before the fall of the Berlin Wall, when Yugoslavia opened its borders to the West and allowed tons of East Germans to bum rush the show. After that, it was pretty much too late for the Communists to put the genie back in the bottle. Posted by: Charlie Murtaugh at February 20, 2004 03:03 PM | PERMALINKgarth- It's a long held pattern conservatives have of trying to make government just small enough to fit into all of our bedrooms. They want government out of peoples lives and not to tell them what one can and cannot do... ...except for when it comes to some of the most personal aspects of relationships, like who you have that relationship with and what sort of family planning you do. And I would also like to know what marriage is being protected from...I mean, that someone else is getting married and making a committment to someone else doesn't take anything away from me making that same committment. Isn't this administration spending $1.5 billion to promote marriage? Posted by: Baaaa at February 20, 2004 03:07 PM | PERMALINKBut in the short run, we need to defeat the Bush machine, and this is not the issue that's gonna do it. I agree with McManus. There's a passel of lunatics in the base camp that will demand shrub do something. If he does, he's going to look really bad. If he doesn't, those lunatics will stay home in November. Shrub's got his nuts in a vice. Posted by: poputonian at February 20, 2004 03:07 PM | PERMALINK"Cleary Newsom's violating that law, which itself is certainly constitional." I completely agree, the man is a criminal, and any self-respecting Republican should loudly and publicly demand his arrest and imprisonment. Otherwise all respect for law and social order will disappear and Kevin's cats will eat him. Go for it. This may not make sense except to a few, but if the fundamentalist Christians in this country practiced Islam instead of Christianity, they'd all be screaming for Sharia law. Because THEY believe homosexuality is not "natural" or a "sin," we're all supposed to live by that? I don't believe in God. I find nothing sinful about two consenting adults sharing whatever body parts and lifestyles they want. A lot of these people don't just want to outlaw gay marriage, they'd like to outlaw homosexuality if they could. Look at how Texas fought all the way up to the Supreme Court the right to make sodomy illegal; look at how Florida has reinforced its law against homosexuals adopting children. These people are Christians in name only. Nowhere did Jesus say "Discriminate against your neighbor, and treat people who are different from you in a dehumanizing manner." Conservatives may win this round, but they won't win forever. My husband and I are teaching our children the principles of acceptance; more homosexuals are taking their place in the pbulic arena; the more people get to know them and realize they are our sons and daughters and aunts and uncles and all those other people we have always loved and respected the more they will want them to have the same rights everyone enjoys. I just can't see how even every gay person in America getting married
has ANY impact on my own marriage. Are conservatives afraid that once
gay marriage is legalized their own spouses will leave them to have same
sex marriages? how does change happen? to paraphrase... very slowly, then all of a sudden. years from now, the people of this country (and the world) will look back upon these heroes as we now look back upon people like ghandhi, rosa parks and martin luther king... even gavin newsom never does another thing in his life, he will be well remembered. Posted by: miles at February 20, 2004 03:14 PM | PERMALINKMy understanding is that he's decided the state constitution overrules a particular state law. While he may be technically correct, I don't see how a mayor has the authority to interpret law - that's what the judicial branch does. Mayor Newsom isn't interpreting constitutional law; he's asserting that he's following the law. If someone else has a different view, fine. That's what the courts are for. The Mayor won't be in violation of the law unless a court order is issued and he doesn't follow the court order. The Mayor obviously feels that he isn't in a position where he can
violate a constitutional provision. I agree that courts interpret the
state constitution. There's a disagreement about the law, so they
should go to court and settle the matter. "Are conservatives afraid that once gay marriage is legalized their own spouses will leave them to have same sex marriages?" Those Texas rumours are completely unfounded and I am glad Kevin has gone nowhere near them. Let us try to keep scurrilous stuff out of the comment sections. Posted by: bob mcmanus at February 20, 2004 03:18 PM | PERMALINKUCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh says (http://tinyurl.com/yqd5f) that Newsom is lawfully performing his duties when he makes a plausible case that a statute is unconstitutional and refuses to enforce it. So. Any of you amateurs out there arguing that this or that isn't constitutional should explain in some detail where the wheels come off professor Volokh's wagon. Posted by: Laertes at February 20, 2004 03:21 PM | PERMALINKI would like to find out from those who oppose gay marriage this: How *exactly* does gay marriage affect you and the way you live your life? Quoting Scripture does not count. In your day-to-day existence, please tell me how gay marriage will negatively change one thing you normally do on any given day of the week. Posted by: Augmented4th at February 20, 2004 03:22 PM | PERMALINKI voted for Newsom as Mayor. I am so, so fucking proud of San Francisco right now. I wouldn't say that there's no opposition to gay marriage in urban Canada, there most certainly is - especially among them that gots religion - well certain brands of religion. Still, there's Santorum as far as the eye can see. Posted by: Yermum at February 20, 2004 03:26 PM | PERMALINKLaertes - Larry Lessig begs to differ, see his comment at the top of his blog: lessig.org/blog The law I referred to earlier is actually part of the california constitutiona and states: CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA SEC. 3.5. An administrative agency, including an administrative (a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a (b) To declare a statute unconstitutional; (c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a Now, there may be some issue about whether SF is an administrative
agency, but my guess is Newsom didn't consider this portion of the
constitution. Two words: Berlin Wall. Look at some of the pictures on Electrolite. This could happen very very quickly. Posted by: Jim Henley at February 20, 2004 03:27 PM | PERMALINKAmendment XXVIII: (/sarcasm) Posted by: Occam's Cuisinart at February 20, 2004 03:28 PM | PERMALINKPerhaps a bit off topic, but.. I wonder on what basis the two anti-gay groups have standing to sue any of the parties to the issuance and execution of a marriage license. What injury have they claimed? Can they claim? Yes, yes, I know they are defending the institution of marriage, but just saying it's so doesn't make it so. Curious. Posted by: John Casey at February 20, 2004 03:43 PM | PERMALINK The Genocidal Moon "There will be a purge on God's orders, and evil will be eliminated like shadows," the Unification Church leader Rev. Sun Myong Moon, the owner and primary funder of money-losing right-wing Washington Times, said last week. (The comments were posted online by Rev. Moon's webmaster and picked up by blogger John Gorenfeld.) How should the media be responding to this call for genocide? Have any major media outlets been covering this story? Why not? posted by nofundy at 11:25 AM PST - 26 comments http://www.nypress.com/17/2/news&columns/signorile.cfm http://www.metafilter.com/archived.mefi/1/1/2004 Posted by: Malcs at February 20, 2004 03:46 PM | PERMALINKJohn Casey - Standing argument is: a) we're a nonprofit committed to enforcing this law and thus have beneficial interest; volokh.com has a link to the both sides brief's in the case. Posted by: Ugh at February 20, 2004 03:49 PM | PERMALINKOkay, fuzzy language, like fuzzy math, is bad. What I meant was, I don't think making gay marriage per se a big issue is going to help defeat Bush. In fact, I think doing so would work against us, by energizing his base, by forcing an issue that a lot of the political middle would like to soft-pedal, by leaving us open to caricature as loony liberals, anti-church, unconcerned with the issues of real Americans, blah blah blah. I DO think that the issue, properly handled, can work for us, by using it to portray the Republicans as mean and hateful, in thrall to religious nuts, anti-civil rights, etc. So the question is, what is "properly handled"? And I think the
answer is, low-key. Support gay marriage, along with other "obvious"
civil rights, but not as a front-burner issue. If the rabid
religionists want to froth and foam about it, well, it's a free country,
but we're more worried about jobs and health care for Americans than we
are about what people do in the privacy of their own homes. Okay, I don't live in California, either. But it's my understanding that last week, before the San Fran mayor swung into action, he consulted with the California Attorney General. So, for those of you who say he's violating the law and that this is a matter for the state to settle, not a mere city, isn't that what he did by consulting with the State. And where's the Terminator on this? You can't tell me he didn't work with any homosexuals on all of his films. For a Repub, he's been awful silent on this matter, from what I can see. Posted by: johnr at February 20, 2004 03:55 PM | PERMALINKIn case anyone wanted a link to the BBC article on King Sihanouk, here it is. If you think that we've made progress (and we have!), consider that a couple of decades ago, Pol Pot was calling the shots in Cambodia. Posted by: Ray Radlein at February 20, 2004 03:57 PM | PERMALINKNewsom is arguing that the prop 209 and equal prrotection portions of the CA constitution are at odds, and has forced it into the courts for a resolution (also diffusing a couple of lawsuits brought against SF for NOT issuing licenses to gay couples previously). No dummy this man. Posted by: Alli Gator at February 20, 2004 03:57 PM | PERMALINKGreat news. San Frncisco is now also marrying men and women who want to marry their dog or cat, or even their horse. The Governator says SF is doing a bad thing. Posted by: Alli Gator at February 20, 2004 04:00 PM | PERMALINKArnold's stance on Gay Marriage: "Gay Marriage should be between a man and a woman." Mayor Newsom heads up the City and County of San Francisco. He has a whole passel of attorneys at his disposal. I sincerely doubt he (and they) entered into this fight without what they interpret to be a strong case. This will definitely get more interesting with time. Posted by: betsarms at February 20, 2004 04:02 PM | PERMALINKHere in Canada, we've been forced at gunpoint by the state to abandon our wives and shack up with men. Just as was predicted. Next we'll be forced to marry inanimate objects and animals. Seriously, haven't noticed much difference, things seem fine here in Canada, and I'm glad that so many have been able to express their love in an official legally binding manner. By the way, you can chip in a few bucks to express your support by contributing to Flowers for Al and Don, a volunteer effort by a kind-hearted Canuck to buy flowers for those waiting in line in San Fran. A worthy cause, and a small token of our regret at having put up with this stupid shit for so long. Posted by: Stu at February 20, 2004 04:05 PM | PERMALINKAh, the county clerks. Truly gods among men. :) I like Teresa Nielsen Hayden's comment on Electrolite: "Are we going to have a revolution led by mayors?" I responded at length in Kevin's post yesterday, at this URL: ...but I've never been one to keep quiet. Or to avoid repeating myself. I'm in complete agreement with CatM's excellent post. A lot of these folks would outlaw homosexuality entirely if they could get away with it. For some, this issue is just a cover for their real agenda. And a lot of those who hold the position they're fine with gays and lesbians, and don't even mind civil unions -- they just want to protect the 'sanctity of marriage' -- they are completely missing the point, and in fact are probably unaware of the inherent contradictions of their viewpoint. We've been getting married for years and years now already. I remember hearing about commitment ceremonies way back in the 1970s. For years now, there've been controversies in church hierachies as to whether they could perform the ceremonies or not. Frankly, that's a purely religious issue, and I think any church has the right to decide the practices of their faith however they like. It's not just a gay/lesbian issue either. Most Catholic churches won't marry couples where one has been divorced, for instance. Or, to point to a much more recent and personal example, my partner and I celebrate our wedding anniversary on Winter Solstice each year -- and have been doing so every year since 1998. That's the day we got married. Like tens of thousands of other gay and lesbian couples, we already know -- in our hearts and spirits -- that we -are- married. Our families, friends, and neighbors all know that we're a couple, and we are accepted as such in our community. The one thing we lack is that piece of paper from the GOVERNMENT that acknowledges the fact of our union and which gives us access to all the goodies that hetero married couples take for granted. (As well as all of the responsibilities and liabilities, which we would take equally seriously -- if we were allowed to have them.) People want to know "what rights" -- well, it's been covered elsewhere, but here's a URL for a table showing the differences between Domestic Partnership rights in CA (among the most liberal in the nation) and marriage. But here's a concrete example: Both my and my spouses's names are on our house deed. It has gone up considerably in value since the time we've lived here. Despite the joint ownership, if either of us should die, the other would immediately be liable for inheritance taxes on half of the property. In all likelihood, the surviving widow would have to sell, just to pay the taxes. For a married couple, there'd be no tax at all for the surviving spouse. This controversy has nothing to do with churches or religion. If Brittany and Jason can get married on a lark in Las Vegas in some cheesy chapel -- how is that marriage the least bit respectful of a 'sacred institution'? Even they wised up (or sobered up) and had it annulled 48 hours later. Hell of a statement of sanctity, isn't it? My partner and I wouldn't give a damn if the Lutheran church down the street doesn't want to perform the ceremony for us. All we want is to be able to go into the county clerk's office, file the paperwork, and quietly go on living exactly the same life we'd have otherwise -- only with those rights, privileges, and responsibilities that are available for hetero couples, if they so choose to marry. Again, repeating the point I made in that other post, this is about equal rights, that's all. Being so presumptive as to speak for others (I probably shouldn't, but I will anyway), we don't want to invade your churches, synagogues and temples. Keep your gay-hating religions, we don't give a damn. Feel free to pray for our souls and our salvation, and we'll pray for yours. Unitarian churches are recognized as perfectly legitimate religious institutions, and they've shown great tolerance for a variety of 'lifestyles'. They'd marry us, no problem. So would dozens of other denominations. Why won't our so-called SECULAR government simply let us process the necessary bureaucratic paperwork? Or does the first amendment of the Bill of Rights contain a microprint addendum "Congress shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion; or the free expression thereof... except in the case of marriage"? Let's face it: As soon as we start bandying around the word 'sanctity', we HAVE entered into the realm of religious beliefs. What is sacred to one person is just an interesting but outdated practice to another. Why does the religious zealot always win? Just because a majority of the people in this country might happen to think it's okay to discriminate against a certain group of people (gays/lesbians) and a particular set of religious beliefs (tolerance and equality) doesn't make it right -- or in accordance with our country's Constitution. Of course, this wouldn't stop backward-minded fundamentalist conservative activist judges from continuing to indulge in doublethink. They'll probably spout some nonsense about how it's a vital government policy to support heterosexual procreators (ignoring, of course, the thousands of childless hetero couples, and the thousands of gay and lesbian couples with children). Unfortunately, having logic and even legalistic and constitutional consistency on the side of gay/lesbian marriage rights doesn't have a whole lot of chance of winning when the other side is howling in a raw emotional rage of religious indignation. On the other hand, my spouse and I are debating whether to head up to San Francisco sometime soon. If by some chance our home county were to start handing out licenses though, we'd probably be on line right now. Sometimes you just gotta make a statement, even if you're pretty certain you're going to get slapped down later for it. -Technowitch Posted by: Technowitch at February 20, 2004 04:10 PM | PERMALINKI heard that county clerk in New Mexico on CBS Radio News. Quick soundbite. She sounded smart and sweet and uncomplicated. Posted by: Slothrop at February 20, 2004 04:12 PM | PERMALINKSorry, here's that URL I promised, comparing CA's DP rights against regular marriage: http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/documents/record?record=1320 Posted by: Technowitch at February 20, 2004 04:14 PM | PERMALINKI agree that if this issue is treated properly, it will do more
damage to Bush than the Dems. Bush seems to be boxed in by Rove's
assurances to the religious right that he will back the Musgrave
Amendment. That amendment, despite what some of its supporters say,
would make civil unions and domestic partnership laws in violation of
the US Consitution. So Bush is almost forced to take a position that is
at variance with the majority position (leave it to the states, ok to
have some equivalent to marriage that isn't) and also at variance with
the majority's desire not to amend the US Constitution to enshrine
discrimination against gays. Ah the joys of marriage! The joys of getting to the point of hating someone and giving them your house....smiling. Now, there may be some issue about whether SF is an administrative agency, but my guess is Newsom didn't consider this portion of the constitution. It's not. "Administrative agency" indicates specific administrative bodies that work for a government, and in California municipalities are specifically local governments. In other words, the clerk's office (or whoever it is in San Francisco) who issues the wedding licences is an administrative agency and couldn't decide if the statute was constitutional. The government of the city of San Francisco, however, can. Posted by: Keith at February 20, 2004 04:19 PM | PERMALINKBleh, you're right. This would be the perfect type of issue for MoveOn to spotlight, away from the candidate. Keeps the pressure on between Bush and the evangelical part of his base ... an internal issue for them and not a campaign issue, per se. Although, the way things are going, we may all be able to just sit back and watch as the revolution unfolds. Posted by: poputonian at February 20, 2004 04:22 PM | PERMALINKlegion: "So while he may be correct (IANAL, and I know even less about CA's wackylaw/constitution/referendum business), the most likely result is that all of the gay licenses will be declared null as soon as it goes to court UNLESS the constitution/state law issue gets hashed out first." Are there any family lawyers here? Because I am not sure that invalidating the licenses would automatically invalidate the marriages. I'm thinking you might have to annul each marriage. If you wrongly get a license without establishing residency or something, it doesn't make you not married. Posted by: EmmaAnne at February 20, 2004 04:35 PM | PERMALINKThe law is what the courts say it is. Newsome has filed suit to have the anti-gay law declared unconstitutional. He refuses to follow it on that basis. Anyone is free to seek an injunction ordering him to obey the law. And two groups have. The courts found no compelling circumstances warrinting and preliminary injunction, but one court has ordered newsome to follow the law or show cause why he should not. At that hearing, the city may claim that the pending lawsuit is sufficient cause to allow the marriages to proceed, since no one will suffer any harm warranting an injunction. The groups have an adequate remedy at law. This outcome is unlikely, but possible. In any event, everything is working fine. Rumor has it Newsome did this to aovid a recall vote that likely would have had a decent chance of success, since he barely won election by the skin of his teeth. He is viewed as being in the pocket of big business and the stale old dem machine in SF. Most progressives can't stand him. Time will tell whether he will win them over. But his move was smart. And to say he is acting illegally is silly. No court has stopped him despite multiple hearings. The govenor has not peeped. Posted by: obe at February 20, 2004 04:37 PM | PERMALINK"Rumor has it Newsome did this to aovid a recall vote that likely would have had a decent chance of success, since he barely won election by the skin of his teeth." Oh BS. Newsom had a 8% edge over the idol of the SF left, tobacco-family-rich-kid Matt Gonzalez. "He is viewed as being in the pocket of big business and the stale old dem machine in SF." Those would be the view of the same cretins that put up posters comparing Newsom to Bush & Arhnold? Well, how wrong could one be. Posted by: Tom at February 20, 2004 04:42 PM | PERMALINK"Oh BS. Newsom had a 8% edge over the idol of the SF left, tobacco-family-rich-kid Matt Gonzalez. " Oh my, looks like i hit a nerve. The truth is that the margin came
from the absentee votes secured way in advance of the actual election.
Acutal voting the night of the election was much much closer. They only
pulled it out by flying Clinton in the night before for a desperate
plea, after Gore's plea the week before failed to do Newsome is the mushy middle of the road business ass kissing DLC Lieberman like dem progressives cannot stand, and for good reason. See http://www.liberaloasis.com/ "Those would be the view of the same cretins that put up posters comparing Newsom to Bush & Arhnold? Well, how wrong could one be." No, that would be the view those many tens of thousands of dems who actually voted for the green candidate despite the lingering orod of Ralph nader, that's how much they detest Newsom. Posted by: obe at February 20, 2004 04:53 PM | PERMALINKnot as much of a shameless self promo as it may seem, but i have pics of some of the weddings in sandoval county here: http://coyotesbark.blogspot.com/2004_02_15_coyotesbark_archive.html#107732382185984762 in case anyone is interested.. i read about the goings on here at calpundit, hopped in the car and 5 minutes later was snapping away. :-) coyote Posted by: coyote at February 20, 2004 04:54 PM | PERMALINKp.s. Now he may be redifining himself, and may succede at it, and I admire how he has handled the gay marraige issue, but that is the view (exaggerated for rhetorical effect) that most Gonzales voters had of Newsom as of his inaguration. Newsom won by building a coalition of big biz, dem machine, yuppies, and conservatives. he did not have any of the progressive vote, or very little. Posted by: obe at February 20, 2004 04:59 PM | PERMALINKIn the Netherlands you *always* have a civil wedding and if you choose you can have a religious wedding afterwards (usually two ceremonies in two places). For gays we first had civil union & most rights granted to married people (I think everything except adoption of kids). But most people felt that was not enough (more because of the emotional value of marriage that the legal one at that point) so gay people can now have the same civil wedding/marriage as everybody else, with the same legal rights. And can adopt their partners children if there is no other parent who objects, which seems like the only proper thing to do, also in the interst of the kids. Heterosexual couples can also choose for civil union instead of marriage, and a certain percentage does. On the whole it is not a big issue. It is good that people who love each other want to commit, and giving more people the option to do so will reinforce the importance of commitment rather than diminish it. KeiserSousa: If you see no difference between a marriage between two consenting adults and marrying a pet you'd better stay far away from my dog! Posted by: Dutchmarbel at February 20, 2004 05:01 PM | PERMALINKgarth: "Also: Does the government have a single compelling reason to be involved with marriage at all?" My impression is that the reason they got involved was due to taxes. I think extricating government from marriage would be the moral (in a secular sense) thing to do, but the tax implications are staggering. Posted by: Stoffel at February 20, 2004 05:02 PM | PERMALINK"On the other hand (and on the QT), Newsom's political advisers are giving each other high-fives. Why? Believe it or not, some of those close to the centrist Newsom feared that the city's left and right were plotting a recall drive against the new mayor. And, as the advisers see it, in one fell swoop, Newsom's move: -- Trumped his more liberal opponents on the Board of Supervisors. -- Instantly put the new mayor in the national spotlight as an opponent to President Bush. -- Scored major points with the city's gay community which, pollsters tell us, had split pretty evenly between Newsom and Board of Supervisors President Matt Gonzalez in the last mayoral election. And, as one Newsom adviser said, "If you can control the gay vote, the whole city tips in your favor.'' " http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/02/15/BAG90512JG1.DTL or click my name Posted by: obe at February 20, 2004 05:06 PM | PERMALINKHas anyone else noticed Bush's lack of outrage over same-sex marriages? Or the GOP leadership in general? You'd think by now they would have had a mass press conference of "traditional values" Republicans condemning the 3,000 marriages that have taken place. But they haven't, why???? Their silence is deafening and it's pissing off their right-wing base. I think they are realizing that this isn't the perfect wedge issue they initially thought it was...even among people who are against gay marriage the Federal Marriage Amendment divides Republicans because they don't want to mess with the Constitution. It's just not a win/win for them. It's a gamble, even Bush (or his people who control his strings) seems to see it that way. This could only work in the GOP's favor IF there was nothing else going on...but with the mess in Iraq, the jobless economy, states under GOP control being forced to raise taxes, it just ins't going to be the magic bullet they want it to be. Posted by: zoekentucky at February 20, 2004 05:08 PM | PERMALINKYou forgot about New York. Atrios links to an article by a lawyer who says that New York's marriage law says nothing about gender, and thus allows same-sex marriages (although for some stupid reason so far no one's willing to issue licenses). Posted by: Frederick at February 20, 2004 05:09 PM | PERMALINK"Amazing how this stuff becomes a firestorm so quickly, isn't it? All it takes is one county clerk in each state " Yeah. That and the relentless attention of the media. When Newsweek ran its editorial cover "Is gay marriage next?" I knew what would happen. There's only so much political clout; only so much time journalists can spend pushing issues. Is seeing MUMC Joe and UUMC Joe get hitched really worth the political expense? I believe the dems have other things in their platform, yes? Posted by: me oh my at February 20, 2004 05:14 PM | PERMALINKAll these little outbreaks of gay weddings all over the map do tend to take away one of Bushit's attacks on Kerry -- that he's from that completely-out-of-the-mainstream state that actually sanctions gay marriage. If it's happening everywhere ... Posted by: Bob Munck at February 20, 2004 05:27 PM | PERMALINKI am certain that San Francisco has no recall provision for mayor. Please correct me if I'm wrong. What baffles me, truly, is why the Democratic Party can't see the
obvious. That is, all they have to do to get behind this is change the
language of the debate. It's not about "gay marriage", it's about
"marriage equality". They should do their own polling, but instead of
asking people how they feel about "gay marriage" ask them whether they
think that (personalize a list of potentially gay folk ala Mayor Daly)
should be denied the rights, protections, and benefits our society
supposedly offers to everyone under the constitution? Ask them whether
they really think that someone who happens to be gay does not deserve to
pursue happiness and enjoy life and liberty in the same legal ways as
straight people. I may be overly optimistic, but I think that a simple
question designed to elecit a yes or no answer to the question of denial
of rights, rather than approval of something that sadly some people
(particularly I think older people) just don't understand, would make
for a huge change in the poll results -- even allowing for the fundies
and unashamed bigots who seem to get polled alot more regularly than
anyone I know.... "If it's happening everywhere ..." Hasn't happened in a 2000 Red State yet. When it does, then the revolution truly will have happened. New Mexico is encouraging, though. And New York would be excellent;
even though the City is in a Blue State, it's revered more by the rest
of the country than "wacky old SF". "I am certain that San Francisco has no recall provision for mayor. Please correct me if I'm wrong." My understanding is that Dianne Feinstein was the target of a recall when she was SF Mayor. She fought it off successfully and dramatically increased her popularity in the process, paving the road to the Senate. At least, I think that's what happened. Please correct me if I'm wrong. zoekentucky: [i]Has anyone else noticed Bush's lack of outrage over same-sex marriages?[/i] You're absolutely right. I haven't heard him breathe a single word... since Wednesday. "I have watched carefully what's happening in San Francisco, where licenses were being issued, even though the law states otherwise," Bush said. "I have consistently stated that I'll support law to protect marriage between a man and a woman. Obviously these events are influencing my decision." He went on to say that people, not the courts, should settle the issue. People like King Sihanouk, I'm sure. Posted by: Grumpy at February 20, 2004 05:36 PM | PERMALINK"I am certain that San Francisco has no recall provision for mayor. Please correct me if I'm wrong." Ask Dianne Feinstein. Feinstein's sponsorship of a ban on handguns had led to a petition for her recall as SF mayor in 1983. It is still an option to my knowledge. Posted by: obe at February 20, 2004 05:38 PM | PERMALINKObe wrote: 'Oh my, looks like i hit a nerve.' Yeah, in the same way silver-spoon Matt Gonzalez's prolier-than-thou act stuck in my throat. "Newsom won by building a coalition of big biz, dem machine, yuppies, and conservatives. he did not have any of the progressive vote, or very little." Which is a sign of how *stupid* the progressive vote is in SF (especially the thick-as-pigshit Bay Guardian), especially when they voted for Gonzalez over Ammiano in the first round. IMHO, Ammiano would have beaten Newsom. Tom A. got 40% against Willie Brown on a write-in campaign, goddamn it. Look at you. You can't credit Newsom with taking a courageous stand; do you think Pelosi wanted him to do this? Or Boxer? Or any of the other national democrats who flew in for his campaign. Instead, you imagine that, five weeks into his tenure, he's fending off a recall attempt. That's the Greens for you - rancid spoilers. Posted by: Tom at February 20, 2004 05:40 PM | PERMALINKMy understanding is that Dianne Feinstein was the target of a recall when she was SF Mayor. Yep, you're right. Thanks for the info. Me oh My writes: ?I believe the dems have other things in their platform, yes?? Possibly not. Maybe this is the next important battle that needs to be fought between the progressives and the forces of retrenchment. For the last twenty (probably more) years, the great American progressive movement was no where to be seen. Since we are roughly at the 100 year anniversary of the great
historical movement, maybe its time we ?Kick this pig!? and get it
moving once again. One more thing... This is rich: Mathew Staver, a lawyer with the Florida-based Liberty Counsel who is representing the Campaign for California Families, said his clients would be prejudiced if Warren heard the case. Asked by reporters why he believed that, Staver said because it would delay the case and there were other reasons he wouldn't elaborate on." Apparently the bigots are hesitant to argue to Judge Warren's face
that he himself (I believe he's gay) doesn't deserve equal rights - but
are too chicken to say so... "Look at you. You can't credit Newsom with taking a courageous stand' Look at yourself. You're a loudmouth and wrong. I did applaud his stand. Go back and read. It does not change the facts of the mayoral election, however. And that Newsom was appointed to his seat on the board. He is not that popular. He's entirely a creation of Willie Brown. Posted by: obe at February 20, 2004 05:47 PM | PERMALINKAnyone who does not want their state values defined by the likes of Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed should be standing up and supporting this issue. Posted by: ann at February 20, 2004 05:50 PM | PERMALINKann said: "should be standing up and supporting this issue..." My psoriasis is kind of bad, and I can't afford the medicine. But I know that government has its priorities, so could I show my support while seated? Posted by: me oh my at February 20, 2004 05:55 PM | PERMALINKOnly in Demento Land would same sex marriage become an issue in a presidential campaign. After all, the president has no Article II powers pertaining to that subject or any other remotely connected to it. But, considering everything else the Bush administration has said and done, maybe we do live in Demento Land. So, to set the record straight here's a very helpful link to the California League of Women Voter's web site explaining "Prop. 22" in 2000. In summary: 1. California FOR MANY DECADES has had a statute defining marriage as "a civil contract between a man and a woman" (to quote the League). 2. "In 1996, Congress passed a law (the federal Defense of Marriage Act) stating that states could refuse to recognize same-sex marriages contracted in other states and that only heterosexual marriages performed in any state would be recognized for purposes of federal law." (Whether that federal statute violates Art. IV or Amendment XIV of the U.S. Constitution is doubtful, I understand.) 3. Cal. Prop. 22 merely added a statute to the effect that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Prop 22 itself, then, applies only to out-of-state marriages where the parties come into California afterwards or their status under California law for some other reason might be relevant. (How? Well, think about hospital visits, wills, enforcing alimony or support obligations for a child, joint bank accounts, and a host of others.) Have to run. Am late for a date with a good looking rutabaga. Posted by: larre at February 20, 2004 06:05 PM | PERMALINKGrumpy-- But what Bush said could hardly be quantified as "outraged." Yes, he doesn't like what is happening, but for vitriolic anti-gay marriage folks it wasn't enough. Frankly, it was a pretty tepid response. It wasn't the deeply offended, emotional response that they need from him. For these "true believers" their unwavering support of Bush relies upon the idea that he's one of them. I think they're starting to see him as too soft on the issues they really care about. I also think it's clear that the GOP is really nervous about coming off as gay bashers. Democrats are afraid of coming off as too supportive and very few of them have come out in support of gay marriage. I'm starting to think as wedge issues go, this one isn't the "big kahuna" that everyone has been predicting. Posted by: zoekentucky at February 20, 2004 06:13 PM | PERMALINKLooks like the New Mexico county has stopped granting licenses. Link courtesy of Talking Points Memo: Meanwhile, a New Mexico county that began granting marriage licenses to gay couples Friday indicated it would stop after the state attorney general said the documents are invalid. Some of the dozens of couples who got licenses Friday in Sandoval County also got married immediately afterward in brief ceremonies. The development in the small town of Bernalillo came after the Republican county clerk?s unexpected decision to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. She says she checked with the county attorney before doing so. But then came the attorney general?s ?advisory? opinion, and now a
spokesman says the county will abide by the law. However, New Mexico
law defines marriage as a civil contract between contracting parties. It
doesn?t mention gender. Bush's reaction has been somewhat interesting. It's been rumored for days that he will be endorsing a Constitutional amendment, but he still hasn't actually come right out and done so. He also hasn't been quite as outspoken as his conservative base wants him to be. Kinda makes you wonder what kind of debate is going on over there at the White House. Posted by: PaulB at February 20, 2004 06:20 PM | PERMALINKObe wrote: "I did applaud his stand." That would be after the screeds about: "Rumor has it Newsome did this to aovid a recall vote", yes? And after him being a tool of big business, yes? Would "Jesus, was I ever wrong in what I thought in the opposing candidate in a past election" ever cross your mind? "He is not that popular." Take a poll in SF right now. Hell, I'd bet he could beat John Edwards in the next primary if he tried. "He's entirely a creation of Willie Brown." No, that's the way the Gonzalites tried to protray him. This is not a move Brown would have made. Newsom's his own man, as he's shown in the past two weeks. Posted by: Tom at February 20, 2004 06:21 PM | PERMALINKLiberal Oasis has an interesting post up on the political calculations of Gavin Newsom. The established storyline (smartly fed by Newsom to the SF Chron and NY Times) is that he was inspired to strike a blow for equality after suffering, in person, Dubya?s State of the Union address. The cynical take, established by SF Chron?s political gossip hounds, is that Newsom wanted to grab support from the left that eluded him in the mayor election, and avert a possible recall attempt. Both could well be true. Idealism and political calculation are not necessarily mutually exclusive. But don?t for a minute think Newsom didn?t also factor in his long-term political future. You can read the rest at the link. Posted by: PaulB at February 20, 2004 06:25 PM | PERMALINK"No, that's the way the Gonzalites tried to protray him. This is not a move Brown would have made. Newsom's his own man, as he's shown in the past two weeks." What he does now does not change the fact that Willy Brown created Mayor newsom. He gave him his seat on the board and groomed him for 4 yeas as his replacement and put all the power of his machine behind him. I hope you are right and newsom is using this as a way to re-create himself into his own man. When your political life flashes before your eyes as Newsom's did in the last election, things can change. He sure has lots off goodwill behind him now, and deservedly so. Time will tell. Posted by: obe at February 20, 2004 06:35 PM | PERMALINKCharlie Murtaugh wrote "What this all reminds me of is the period in 1989 . . . shortly before the fall of the Berlin Wall, when Yugoslavia opened its borders to the West and allowed tons of East Germans to bum rush the show. After that, it was pretty much too late for the Communists to put the genie back in the bottle." The memory is correct, except that the former Yugoslavia doesn't border Germany. It was Czechoslovakia that allowed East Germans across its border, and thousands of East Germans rode mopeds, scooters, and motorcycles to West Germany via Czechoslovakia. Posted by: Joel Rubinsteinn at February 20, 2004 06:37 PM | PERMALINKIt's strange to see states fighting back and States rights becoming a weapon of the left. moreso than that is a new tactic I notice and I will call it for lack of a better term Municipal Rights, where small towns sue for justice ans in enough number- they might be quite an unexpected method of civil disobedience. Posted by: Maccabee at February 20, 2004 06:40 PM | PERMALINKPaul B, I've been wondering about that too. I don't think W is gay (despite the "pretty face comments"). I actually think that Bush and his wife are relatively laissez-faire towards gays (as surprising as it may seem and for reasons unknown), and would (personally) rather do nothing about it. Remember, Bush thinks that he is on a mission from God, if he feels it's no big deal, then it IS no big deal. Rove has been trying to convince the idiot prince that he must support the Marriage Amendment Act and W tried to use it as a threat, half-heartedly at first. You can bet that snaketongue Rove is all over his ears right now, and Saruman's aide WILLl have his way. To those speculating about Bloomberg declaring the legality of gay marriage in NYC: No fucking way. As someone said upthread, he's definitely a liberal on social/cultural issues so I doubt he, personally, has a problem with gay marriage. However, he is (at least nominally) a Republican. My theory: he doesn't want to piss off the Republican hierarchy. NYC still hasn't received the full amount of rebuilding funds Bush promised; the "everybody share nice" division of first responder/security money means that, per capita, Wyoming (home [except for electoral purposes] of Defib Dick) gets some ridiculous multiple of the amount NY gets. If Bloomberg made the kind of public statement Newsom did ? can you imagine the scene at City Hall? Our POV: Acres of love, joy and giddiness ? what's the problem? The BushCo POV: Oh, what was that Rove quote? "We're going to fuck that fucker like he's never been fucked before" ? something like that. Hmmmm. Perhaps Karl wishes he could join the happy throng. Posted by: dix at February 20, 2004 06:58 PM | PERMALINKComments about Newsom from the Chron's gossip mongers.... I rather doubt Newsom felt any danger of being recalled. Matier and
Ross live in some type of warped fantasy land where only the most
ridiculous political gossip gets printed. They do try to do as much
damage as possible. Newsom has been getting very high marks across the board since he took office. He was under no threat. Newsom was widely hailed by the one of the new faces of the National
Democratic Party. I have never been prouder of being a Democrat. "I'm starting to think as wedge issues go, this one isn't the "big kahuna" that everyone has been predicting." The thing is, the issue is a potential problem for both parites. For the Bush Administration, the problem is two-fold: 1) They risk pissing off the right-wing fundies if they aren't gay-bashy enough but 2) They risk turning off moderates and swing voters if they are too gay-bashy. One doesn't have to be supportive of or comfortable with gay marriage to be turned off by hateful anti-gay bigotry. Another thing, Vermont isn't the only state with 'civil unions'. California has that too. My partner and I are 'official domestic partners' in here in CA, and it isn't just symbolic either. We have the same rights & responsibilities as a married couple as far as the State of California's legal reach is concerned. Posted by: Eric at February 20, 2004 07:10 PM | PERMALINKI repeat the charge of anarchy. And it looks like its contagious. I'm pretty ambivalent on the whole issue of gay marriage, but I am firmly opposed to abuse of power and disregard for the rule of law. And I'm a Libertarian. Wait till officials start abusing power to flaunt laws and perform acts that you're OPPOSED TO and see if you're still chanting, "You go, girl!" Posted by: out4blood at February 20, 2004 07:13 PM | PERMALINKIf you do not want the culture of this country It's easy to make sly comments when it's not your rights being trampled on. If you don't speak up for other then when they come for your rights....well you know that drill. Republicans are trying to make an issue out of gay marriage because they don't have solutions for the real concerns of America. It's just like the abortion issue. I smell political grandstanding. Posted by: Tyler at February 20, 2004 07:30 PM | PERMALINKout4blood, Don't even bother. People want what they want, and they don't care how they get it. Don't explain to them that if a clerk (A clerk, for god's sake!) can circumvent the will of the people, then so can any other governing authority...including those who have actual power. Posted by: me oh my at February 20, 2004 07:36 PM | PERMALINKAnd speaking of gay marriage, how are things going in Canada? Has the institution of marriage completely disintegrated yet? Just wondering. Not yet, but give it ten years and it will follow Norway and Sweden, where the institution of marriage has disintegrated. Posted by: General Glut at February 20, 2004 07:51 PM | PERMALINKJosh Marshall on gay marriage: "My reason for not supporting gay marriage -- and I think there's a difference between opposing and not supporting, in this case -- is that it seems like a step that would trigger a backlash that would a) quite possibly prevent the adoption even of civil unions and b) provide a tool for conservatives to win elections and thus prevent or turn back various other progressive reforms that are no less important than this one. (Of course, this hybrid reasoning has all manner of uncomfortable echoes from the middle decades of the 20th century.)" Dear lord. This reasoning captures, in my view, exactly what the dems better not do: take a wishy washy muddled position on a defining moral and legal issue, taken not because it is right or wrong, but out of calculation on what will do the least harm or the most good politically. That's how many justified their capitulation on the iraq vote, and the tax cuts and the patriot act, etc. And it's what pisses dem voters off to no end. We stand for nothing but trying (with terrible results) to get elected and do not have the guts or the moral fortitude to lead. The only viable dem position is to storngly and vigorously oppose the marriage amendment. That's the issue, and it can be vigorously opposed without having to rely on support for gay marriage to do it. Let localities decide the marriage issue on their own, or let the courts decide. But the amendment fight needs a strong leader to condem it, expose the hate behind it, and to fight it with everything he has. Then we'll win. If we creep around and take a weasley stance, no one will follow and we will only earn contempt and scorn, while lending support to the amendment. Posted by: obe at February 20, 2004 07:59 PM | PERMALINKForgot the link http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_02_15.html#002585 Posted by: obe at February 20, 2004 08:02 PM | PERMALINKMost of these gay marriages are libertarian theater, done for the enjoyment of libertarians like me. If the liberals think they will get credit for them, think again. One thing though, the Freeper Communist party is freaking out. They
are going spouting their christian magic rants over on their web site. "We stand for nothing but trying (with terrible results) to get elected and do not have the guts or the moral fortitude to lead." That's right! And that is exactly why the Dimocrats do not deserve access to the reigns of power. Posted by: Analog Roam at February 20, 2004 08:14 PM | PERMALINKGeneral Glut wrote: "Not yet, but give it ten years and it will follow Norway and Sweden, where the institution of marriage has disintegrated" Oh good grief...not that discredited article again. Kurtz doesn't even come close to making the case that gay marriage has caused heterosexual marriages in the Scandinavian countries to "disintegrate." Kurtz's article contradicts itself in a couple of places and is guilty of the classic post hoc; ergo propter hoc fallacy, in addition to quite a few other idiotic mistakes. Posted by: PaulB at February 20, 2004 08:14 PM | PERMALINKout4blood wrote: "I repeat the charge of anarchy." And it's just as silly now as it was the last time you said it. For pete's sake...get a grip! This is classic civil disobedience and street theater, nothing more. If the mayor ignores a court order to shut down, then you can start weeping and wailing about anarchy and the abandonment of law and order. Until then, you just look silly. Posted by: PaulB at February 20, 2004 08:18 PM | PERMALINKFor whoever upthread compared county clerks to gods, a little historical notice on a goddess elected a little before her time. Nearly 30 years ago, on a day I shall never forget, Boulder (Colorado) County Clerk Clela Rorex (no, I did not make that name up) issued what was one of the first licenses, if not the first, for a gay marriage in the United States. Unless the site has been overrun with hits by now, you can see the story and a photo of the partners here. An excerpt: Two Colorado Springs men were issued a marriage license Wednesday afternoon at the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder's Office. The case is apparently the first in Colorado in which a marriage license has been granted to homosexuals. Dave McCord and Dave Zamora, both 27, were issued the license in Boulder County after they had been refused in El Paso County. Boulder County Clerk Clela Rorex' decision to grant the license was based on a March 26 memorandum from the Boulder District Attorney's Office which said That the issuance of a license to persons of the same sex was not specifically prohibited under Colorado law. Assistant District Attorney William C. Wise, who wrote the memorandum, said the issuance of such license was up to the Judgment of local county clerks, since the matter is not defined in the statutes. "There is no statutory law prohibiting the issuance of a license, probably because the situation was simply not contemplated in the past by our legislature. The case law is strongly on the side of the public official that refuses to issue a marriage license in these situations, and a public official could not be prosecuted for violation of any criminal law by such marriage licensing," Wise wrote. The section defining circumstances which invalidate a marriage mentions blood relations and bigamy but does not mention the sex of the parties involved, Wise said. Rorex was interviewed recently and says she's learned a lot since those days, but she hasn't changed her mind that her decision was the appropriate one, even though it failed legally: Editorials around the country condemned Rorex's decision,
including one in the Daily Camera. Rorex was deluged in hate mail,
accusing her of creating a Sodom and Gomorrah in Boulder, or, worse, a
haven for queers. Church congregations told her to burn in hell. And
then things really got weird, courtesy of Roswell "Ros" Howard and his
mare, Dolly. He then asked Rorex to marry him and his horse. Rorex hardly missed a beat. She denied Howard's application, explaining the 8-year-old Dolly was too young to get hitched without her parents' written consent. Spurred on by the state legislature, the Colorado Attorney General decided to put an end to the scandal. In late April he issued a legal opinion stating that the same-sex licenses were misleading, falsely suggesting the recipients had obtained all the rights the state afforded to husband and wife. Boulder's district attorney difered to this opinion, and Rorex's now-famous licenses became void. Today, Rorex is a corporate officer for a national nonprofit organization based in Boulder. But she admits that on that fateful day 29 years ago, she was a na?ve political baby, unaware of the animosity and confusion her decision would spur. But does Rorex regret issuing the licenses? Not for a minute. "Of all the decisions I've made in my life, that was one of the ones I am most proud of," says Rorex. "I wish there was the support and ability to hold onto those decisions back then. I absolutely believe in [marriage rights], 100 percent." Posted by: Meteor Blades at February 20, 2004 08:19 PM | PERMALINKMe oh my, proving himself to be just as silly as out4blood, writes: "Don't explain to them that if a clerk (A clerk, for god's sake!) can circumvent the will of the people..." Dear heart, it looks like the clerk is doing precisely what the people of San Francisco want. Posted by: PaulB at February 20, 2004 08:20 PM | PERMALINKADDENDUM: In previous comments, I'd said that my spouse of six years and I had not planned to go to San Francisco for a marriage license. Some of the reasoning had to do with being too busy to stand all day in line (I own a small business). Some had to do with concerns over the status of our registered Domestic Partnership here in California. And I will also further admit that I am a bit of an agoraphobe, and do not do well in large, noisy crowds. Nevertheless, she and I talked it over this afternoon and have settled on a compromise. We will wait just a little while to see what happens in the court cases -- and whether or not our own county might decide to go ahead and buck the authorities. (Lots easier to get to our local county seat than all the way up to SF.) However, we've decided that as long as it's still possible to do so, we'll make that trip to the city, early in the second week of March. Sometimes you just have to stand up for what you believe is right. -Technowitch Posted by: Technowitch at February 20, 2004 08:20 PM | PERMALINKHere's a post from a chat room that indicates some of the motivation gays feel that they deserve full "equal protection of the laws", including marriage. This is quoted from this guy's post (not from me): "This summer I almost lost my life all because of someones intense
hatred of gays. I had been walking from one gay bar to another when a
homeless guy saw me and got up in my face yelling, "You're one of them
sissies, ain't ya?" Well, I was twice his size and half his age so I
laughed and said, "What?!?! Compared to you, I don't think so!" "it looks like the clerk is doing precisely what the people of San Francisco want." When I say "People" I mean the people of the state. Do I have to define every single term I use to keep it from getting warped? Oh, well. Besides, even if California unanimously wanted gay marriage, the proper channel is legislative, not bureaucratic. As I said, there's no use explaining this to anyone. My own fault. Posted by: me oh my at February 20, 2004 08:56 PM | PERMALINKUgh at February 20, 2004 03:27 PM >Now, there may be some issue about whether SF is an administrative agency... If SF is an administrative agency I guess that Newsom is nothing more than a Gauleiter. Don't be dumb. SF is not an administrative agency. (NB: If you don't understand the Gauleiter reference, I'm sure you know how to do a search on google.com) Posted by: raj at February 20, 2004 08:59 PM | PERMALINK"This is classic civil disobedience and street theater" Exaclty. There is no need to fear, this isn't a revolution, it is just some rather dramatic activism. Speaking of drama, me oh my & out4blood are being drama queens here with the "Anarchy I sayeth!" routine. What is a drama queen, anyway? Civil disobedience is an old tradition...usually it works thus: when the taxman comes, you refuse him your money because you disagree with the war against Mexico. But...would it be acceptable for the taxman to refuse to collect taxes on the same grounds? (Oh, he could quit, of course. But if he's drawing pay, should he select which laws to adhere to?) Posted by: me oh my at February 20, 2004 09:25 PM | PERMALINKMe_oh_my said: (along with others) "But if he's drawing pay, should he select which laws to adhere to?)" Under the Geneva War Conventions, an officer must not obey orders that are illegal. Similarly, an civil Executive (like the Mayor of SF) has stated that the discrimination against gays and lesbians is unlawful under the CA Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law. The mayor says he has a duty not to break his oath under the state constitution, and therefore cannot permit discrimination. Cities and Counties are not state administrative agencies, but are defined in a separate portion of the state constitution. The legal briefs are posted at: http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/" Posted by: JimPortlandOR at February 20, 2004 09:40 PM | PERMALINKOh my, me oh my. The problem with your position is that it overlooks the gaps in the law and how things fit together, in the real world, not your ideological construct. You may be right that the law prohibits SF from allowing same sex couples to get married, but nothing prevents Newsom from ordering the clerk to permit the marriages while he challenges the law in court. One could obtain an injunction, if the courts deem it warranted pending hearing of the challenge to the law. That is a normal procedure, the standards are clear. They have not been met here, however. So the marriages can continue until the full hearing, unless someone seeks mandamus relief from an appellate court...as they likely will. And all of it is in compliance with the law. The judge said so today. OK? Posted by: obe at February 20, 2004 09:42 PM | PERMALINKme oh my, Drame queen: (type: drama queen definition) http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=drama+queen Posted by: ch2 at February 20, 2004 09:44 PM | PERMALINK"And all of it is in compliance with the law." Okay, okay--so what can a mayor do or not do then? What's the standard? As long as we're bringing up ludicrous parallels like war conventions, let's say he starts freeing people from prisons along ethnic or gender lines, to ensure that prisons are equally filled with different groups. (I'm pretending that SF has prisons that the mayor controls, for this example.) Now, that would clearly be illegal, and could not wait for
injunctions, etc, but he could claim "equal protections" to that as
well. Where is the line drawn between FORBIDDING the mayor from doing
whatever he wants, and ALLOWING him to do whatever he wants? If the mayor started freeing violent prisoners (the sheriff already realeases non-violent ones when the prison population exceeds court-mandated limits), a TRO could be obtained in as little as 1 hour maybe less. Remember, the Mayor is like the Commander in Chief over the police force. The police are the only tool of force readily available to enfore the law. That's why cities choose mayors carefully. They have real power. It's kind of like a president and the military. You have to trust him to have good sense, or yes, a lot of damage and destruction and death can happen, and sometimes does. The remedy is to vote them out of office. Posted by: obe at February 20, 2004 10:19 PM | PERMALINKSome time ago, Kevin Drum suggested that gay marriage, or some version of it, might be a good wedge issue for Democrats. At the time it seemed plausible; polls showed a majority substantially tolerant of gays. The polls shifted abruptly after the Lawrence decision. Whether it was distaste for judicial activism or whether "sodomy" just sounded too yucky, a chunk of the public apparently lost its appetite. The reaction to the decision by the Massachussets Supreme Court seemed to reinforce the perception that America was a long way from being ready for gay marriage. Then San Francisco staged a Valentine's Day to remember, and suddenly a thousand flowers bloom. New Mexico isn't that big a stretch, but Chicago's Daley saying "Why not?" is certainly a surprise. Outside of the usual nutcases, where is the outrage? The tepid response from the White House may just be part of the general malaise there. The release of the National Guard records was at best artless. The general admission that no one there supports their own Economic Report may not be a scandal outside of the cognoscenti, but it doesn't say much for their long-vaunted discipline. The fact that many insiders either have testified before the Valerie Plame grand jury or are in preparation probably doesn't help. Is it necessary to mention elections or their lack in Iraq? Instead, the press shows us an endless stream of couples being made happy, and who can object to good news? Posted by: bad Jim at February 20, 2004 10:20 PM | PERMALINKHey...you'all wanta be famous?? Yeah you..... Here's how: Be the first gay couple to get divorced! How cool is that? You'll be on Okra Wimpey's show...and maybe even get to pull whats-his-face's suspenders! Rad. And as do your 12.9 minutes of fame (yes fame has an inflation coefficient)....don't forget to tell Sean Hannity you like his smile...and do me a favor will ya? Ask him if he ever would consider doing a "Queer Eye" episode? Can you imagien that? That'd be way bad. [Aside: And don't forget to mention me in a footnote of your autobiography.] Posted by: -pea- at February 20, 2004 10:20 PM | PERMALINKor vote to re-elect them. Newsom has strengthened his chances for re-election. He is leading SF they way it wants to be led, and he is leading the nation, too. So far, other mayors are following. Posted by: obe at February 20, 2004 10:22 PM | PERMALINKme oh my, It's almost as if your beef seemed to be with the fact that a MERE mayor dare do X or Y. A mayor's power is rather limited. Right now you have a problem with the fact that a mayor is validating a civil contract between two people, because he thinks the State constitution demands it. For your hypothetical example, why don't you do a quick google search to find a real power a mayor could abuse, not one that a governor could abuse (pardoning prisoners). Sure, your rethorical argument won't be as flashy, but it'll gain a lot more weight. Posted by: ch2 at February 20, 2004 10:23 PM | PERMALINKGeneral Glut wrote: "Not yet, but give it ten years and it will follow Norway and Sweden, where the institution of marriage has disintegrated" If official marriage was destroyed in Nordicdom, it was most likely destroyed by social welfarism, not gay marriages. I specuilate that government sponsored marriage has been replaced by private marriage contracts, either religious or personal. Nordic countries are mostly suicidal, but Nordic fathers brave enough to have children are not likely to abandon them. San Francisco gays can do no better service to marriage than to destroy the government's connection to it. Government is the greatest threat to hetero marriage, not gays. Posted by: Matt Young at February 20, 2004 10:23 PM | PERMALINK Oh my! First let us separate civil matters from criminal. The courts control criminal matters, and the Sheriff just follows the courts orders. The Sheriff is separately elected and does not report to the the Mayor. As to civil matters, the question is, to what authority does an Executive point to when engaging in an action. In this case, the Exec (Mayor) points to the state constitution and his oath thereunder, as a constitutional officer defined by the constitution. The mayor has said three current marriage-related laws conflict with the constitutional provision of equality under the law to the extent they discriminate against gays and lesbians, and thereby don't provide equality under the laws. The mayor has the legal right and duty to do this until a court finds he is wrong, and appeals have upheld the court ruling. During appeal, the courts decide whether to enjoin the executive actions, OR NOT. So far, no injunctions or restraining orders have been issued by the courts. Suggest Oh My read the briefs and the decisions issued so far. The actions to date are completely legal as of this date, and until the courts rule otherwise. The courts have also ruled that no damage has occured that would require a "stop action" ruling. Posted by: JimPortlandOR at February 20, 2004 10:25 PM | PERMALINKHow many times have the Bushies either co-opted our issues
(education, medicaid) or abandoned their own once they see they won't
fly (Mars, of course, but I know there are others I can't think of at
the moment but sure others here who can). Neglected to mention that Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin is a joint filer-complainant in the City of SF's suit against the state to overturn the portions of the three laws that the mayor has found to contravene the state constitution. Howard Rice is one of the prestige names in CA law firms, and their particapation indicates some top legal minds are on this problem supporting the Mayor's position. Posted by: JimPortlandOR at February 20, 2004 10:36 PM | PERMALINK"Newsom has strengthened his chances for re-election. " Eh. If nothing else, you can respect the guy as a propagandist. But maybe he's just trying to stay in office. ... "The courts have also ruled that no damage has occured" What about all the extra wear-and-tear on the city building floor? ... Seriously people, if nothing else we can see a distinct difference between getting a law passed (hurray!) and getting a law re-interpreted (hurray?) Any jackass can re-interpret a law, and sometimes it's perfectly reasonable. But (at a gut level) wouldn't you rather a NEW law allowing gay marriage than forcing it through an old one...one that was never so intended? I mean...I never said they should arrest the mayor...but this is damn sneaky of him, if not subversive. Posted by: me oh my at February 20, 2004 10:52 PM | PERMALINKI never said they should arrest the mayor...but this is damn sneaky of him, if not subversive. I never said they should arrest those hoodlums throwing tea into Boston harbor, but it was damned sneaky of them, if not subversive. Posted by: Thersites at February 20, 2004 11:02 PM | PERMALINKHere is the link to the CCSF suit against the State of CA: "CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/glrts/prop22sf21904cc.pdf Posted by: JimPortlandOR at February 20, 2004 11:06 PM | PERMALINK"I never said they should arrest those hoodlums throwing tea into Boston harbor" Heh heh. They weren't public officials. I recommend a little subversion, now and then, from certain quarters. Posted by: me oh my at February 20, 2004 11:12 PM | PERMALINKThis is one of those moments when subversion from certain quarters is called for, buster. Even public officials. Posted by: Thersites at February 20, 2004 11:26 PM | PERMALINK"I recommend a little subversion, now and then, from certain quarters." Yeah, just not them uppity queers huh? "This is one of those moments when subversion from certain quarters is called for" You could be right. But who decides that sort of thing? "Yeah, just not them uppity queers huh?" By "certain quarters" I mean citizens. My romantic image of the Boston Tea party and the Bastille and Harper's Ferry, etc, involve mere citizens. I really don't want my tea inspector dumping tea, whatever the case. Posted by: me oh my at February 20, 2004 11:39 PM | PERMALINK"By "certain quarters" I mean citizens." What do you think are those gay couples are? Guess what, they are tax paying citizens entitled to equal rights under the law and just like them, I'm tired of waiting for the rest of you to catch up with that. Posted by: Eric at February 20, 2004 11:43 PM | PERMALINKEric, My only problem was with the mayor. Geez. Take my words and turn them into an insult again, why don't ya? And then I'll have to respond with another useless post like this one, to make a correction. Though, I guess I do have a problem with CNN, too. They've got
"Repent America" on their webpage, chanting "This is wrong". Religious
lunatics, great! Let's hope the KKK doesn't put in an appearance
because you just know they'll get air time, and twist this even further
out of proportion. So the couples should have stormed city hall instead? No, the way it is being done is admirable...there is no anarchy, nobody is getting hurt, the point is being made, the issue is getting attention and Mayor Newsome is acting in accordance wiht the state consitution as he sees it. The courts have been asked to stop him and they have declined, twice, for the time being. I can't imagane what your problem with all this is. Should he continue after being ordered to stop byt he courts, then you'd have a legit beef but until then you are over-reacting. Posted by: Eric at February 21, 2004 12:14 AM | PERMALINKOh my: "My only problem was with the mayor." The mayor read the state constitution, heard George Bush's position in the State of the Union, and decided that several state laws violated the CA and Federal Constitutions. He thought his oath to defend that CA and Federal constitutions overruled the duty to obey parts of several state marriage laws. What part of doing what you think is right under the constitutional law is it that you don't understand? Should an executive merely follow the legislative law if a higher law compels a different outcome? Your objections sound to this reader like external reasons for not allowing the idea of same sex marriage. If the law said "discriminate against gays/lesbians" or "discrimate against asians", would any executive be correct in obeying those laws? Posted by: JimPortlandOR at February 21, 2004 12:19 AM | PERMALINKThis fierce respect for ridiculous laws (DOMAs are ridiculous, yes) reads to me like a pretense, not an honest reaction. I'm sorry me oh my, but that is how your posts seem to me. I've been a gay rights activist for many years and I've heard words like yours before, many, many times. They have rarely, if ever, rung true. Posted by: Eric at February 21, 2004 12:31 AM | PERMALINKThe government does not grant rights. It can only take away rights. Something as personal and important as who you wish to marry, be your next of kin and inherit your property should be an inherent right. Gays don't require a new law to allow them to get married - it is their right to get married. Prop. 22 is wrong because it establishes tyranny of the majority over a minority. Minorities are protected from majority rule in USA. Posted by: Coco Nut at February 21, 2004 12:47 AM | PERMALINKThe funny thing is that Gavin Newsome is what passes for a *CONSERVATIVE* in San Francisco . San Francisco. What a... unique... place :-). Posted by: BadTux at February 21, 2004 12:51 AM | PERMALINKWhere is the outrage? Where is the anger? I bet the guys wielding hammers against the wall didn't have permits. Anybody want to argue that THAT was a bad thing? Right. Add the Netherlands to the list of depraved European cesspools whose societies have undergone complete moral collapse because a few thousand same-sex couples have said "I do" in front of a bureaucrat. (not.) Posted by: vaara at February 21, 2004 02:59 AM | PERMALINKYeah, Vaara. And maybe it will rain in southern California tomorrow. The really funny thing is that so few seem to mind. "Why not?" grows decreasingly indefensible as the parade proceeds around the block at city hall, with flowers delivered at irregular intervals. Posted by: bad Jim at February 21, 2004 03:18 AM | PERMALINKI think it would be advisable to focus on the effects that homophobic bigotry had on GLTB youths. A commercial expousing the links between homophobic enviironments and increased depression and suicide risks would be great. You guys think this marriage stuff is progress? There are regular gay bashing incedents all the time. Financial planning is impossible for older gay couples because of problems with transferability of benifits and stuff. There are still fucking kids who shoot themselves because they are gay and cannot reconcile the homophobia around them and their sexuality. Young men who are not out of the closet have huge incedents of drug abuse and related problems. Who the hell are you folks kidding? What progress really have we made. We went from a nation where gay kids kill themselves in hugely disproportionate numbers where gays can't get married to a nation where gay kids kill themselves in hugely disproportionate numbers and the yuppie gays in SF can get married. This is NOT much progress. Yes, recognition of gay marriage is a positive step, but this is like Maine or Vermont banning slavery when it was still rampant in the south, it may be the start of something, but there is no victory for the movement yet. I worry that gay marriage will become permissible, and everyone will forget about more important gay issues like the permissability of employment issues, gay youth suicide rates, or the rest of the unique pressing issues to the gay community. Progress? This is nothing. Progress will happen when the homosexual children of homophobic parents don't feel so alienated by tension between their sexual feelings and their homophobic parents that they kill themselves. Someone in comments said something like "This gay marriage issue is an excuse for republicans not to deal with the real problems of the country" and I think a similar sentiment is true in the other direction, this gay marriage issue is being used by gay advocates as an excuse not to address more pressing gay issues, especially the suicide rates among children. Posted by: TomK at February 21, 2004 03:19 AM | PERMALINKSF's creating booties on the ground, as it were. Heh. To clarify: rain IS epected, along with the overthrow of the Republican dynasty currently in ascendence. It is not at all likely that all revenge phantasies will be satisfied, however. Posted by: bad Jim at February 21, 2004 03:32 AM | PERMALINKWe may have to settle for two of "peace, love and understanding", and I cheerfully disclaim the last of these. WTF, after all. Posted by: bad Jim at February 21, 2004 03:40 AM | PERMALINKI think there are also oppritunities here. Can you imagine how easy it would be to put together a 1 minute video clip showing the ugly side of homophobia. Show video clips with gays being attacked, show the people who protested Matt Shepards Funeral. Show pictures of gay youth who killed themselves, with voiceovers describing it. Show gays who have been attacked and crippled by bigots speaking out about their attackers. Mix these footage with footage of president bush describing his support of the hasgroove amendment. Mix it with footage of laura bush saying gay marriage is shicking to some. Mix it with Pat Robertson saying gays are resposible for the meteor storms about to descend on disney world. I think it would be an effective spot. Make it like this: 0:00: Black screen, fade to picture of Matt Shepard in good shape. Then, try and get airplay for it on a day of signifigance to days (perhaps the anniversery of Matt Shepards death or another such anniversery). When they don't play it, get free media attention about the commercial the networks won't play and send everyone to moveon.org to get it. Maybe I'll make the video clip. It's not hard to add voice overs and stuff to pictures. Posted by: TomK at February 21, 2004 03:41 AM | PERMALINKLooks like Der Gropenfueher has gotten his marching orders: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, facing mounting calls for action from within his own party, ordered Attorney General Bill Lockyer on Friday to intervene immediately to stop San Francisco from granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples. In a letter to Lockyer, Schwarzenegger directed the state's top lawyer to "to take immediate steps" to obtain a court ruling that the city's actions are illegal. "Our civilized society and legal system is based upon a respect for and adherence to the rule of law," the governor wrote. "The City and County of San Francisco's unfortunate choice to disregard state law and grant marriage certificates to gay couples directly undermines this fundamental guarantee. As Attorney General, you have the authority to take legal action to require the City and County of San Francisco to comply with the laws of the State. "Because the City and County of San Francisco's actions are directly contrary to state law and present an imminent risk to civil order, I hereby direct you to take immediate steps to obtain a definitive judicial resolution of this controversy." The Schwarzenegger administration released the letter shortly before the governor addressed the California Republican Party convention in Burlingame. [ahnuld]Vot vould mein dear olt dad haff done?[/ahnuld] Posted by: dave at February 21, 2004 04:28 AM | PERMALINKTo the left these pictures mean love and equality, to the right they
mean hate, and fear of the unknown, I'll take left every time. Here in Ontario after you have lived common law for a year all the legal benefits of marriage have devolved down to you. Slightly OT, and the comment was made more than 12 hours ago, but I have to correct it. In Ontario, common law couples (both same and opposite sex) get certain rights (mainly support rights) after they have co-habited for three years OR if they are together the parents of a child. NO common law couple, same or opposite sex, is entitled to the division of property on relationship breakdown; division of property on death; or a preferential share on death. Common law couples, same or opposite sex, are entitled to certain government benefits after one year of cohabitation, as well as rights pertaining to power of attorney. New Jersey is the only state besides Vermont to have passed civil union legislation. It doesn't take effect until April, but our elected officials had the courage to do it. Please don't feed our self-conscious inferiority complex any more than necessary and leave us out in the future! :-) Posted by: Poppy at February 21, 2004 04:59 AM | PERMALINKtechnical translation website internationalization localization globalization spanishtranslation language translation french translation translation service online translation japanese translation italian translation chinese translation Posted by: semantics at February 21, 2004 05:08 AM | PERMALINKAnd speaking of gay marriage, how are things going in Canada? Has the institution of marriage completely disintegrated yet? Just wondering. Not yet, but give it ten years and it will follow Norway and Sweden, where the institution of marriage has disintegrated. Posted by General Glut at February 20, 2004 07:51 PM General This is not just directed at you. If you want to make a point by posting a link, it works a lot better if it is a link to a site that is not normally totally in agreement with you. As soom as "Weekly Standard" appeared, I knew exactly what it was going to say. This holds for the left as well as the right (although the tatic is more common on the right). If you want to support your position find someone who is not your ideological twin. Posted by: ____league at February 21, 2004 05:56 AM | PERMALINKIt is also helpful to link to sites that allow the whole article to be read. Page 1 Ok, try to go to page 2. Directory Listing Denied This Virtual Directory does not allow contents to be listed. Posted by: ____league at February 21, 2004 06:00 AM | PERMALINKSorry for this long paste from FAIR, but in a nutshell, it explains why the right is LYING about this amendment, that it specifically takes away EVERY right of hospital visits, inheritance, etc. by defining restrictions against gay couples as the UNIVERSE of every agreement between men and women. Why are the media allowing the talking heads to fudge this until they define gays into second class citizens and march them into camps? Also, it clearly explains Bush's FAILURE to rule from the center from day one, and gives the lie, finally, to "compassionate conservatism."
February 16, 2004 Backers of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage have created a misleading impression of their legislative plan-- a deception that some media outlets have not properly explained to readers and viewers. The dispute centers on the fact that some advocates claim that the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment would permit states to allow civil unions for gays and lesbians. On February 11, ABC World News Tonight correspondent Terry Moran explained that the amendment "would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, but allow states to establish civil unions for gay couples." Moran continued by saying that "some conservatives are unhappy that the proposed amendment would allow civil unions for gay couples." But the language of the amendment introduced by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.) suggests otherwise: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups." Some legal scholars point out that the "nor state or federal law" clause would make it difficult for states to pass any civil unions legislation for gay couples. Unfortunately, some media outlets have failed to clarify the issue by offering only what amendment supporters are saying. The New York Times, for example, explained (2/8/04) that "the proposed amendment would allow state legislatures to recognize gay civil unions, a provision that had alienated many conservatives." The Times wrote that some on the right "considered it far too permissive" because they believe the amendment would allow for civil unions. Other papers have managed to convey the legal dispute. The Washington Post (2/14/04) devoted a whole article to the topic, reporting that "the amendment's possible interpretations are a matter of furious debate among constitutional scholars and political activists, with some contending that it would allow Vermont-style civil unions and others saying it would not." The Post noted that two of the amendment's authors "contend that the opening sentence also would forbid some kinds of civil unions," though others aren't so sure. The federal marriage amendment could be a key issue in the 2004 presidential campaign-- as ABC's Moran put it, "White House advisors say it is just a matter of when, not if, the president comes out in favor of amending the Constitution." Considering that political reality, journalists should set the record straight on its potential consequences. Posted by: Brian at February 21, 2004 06:10 AM | PERMALINKAhnold is not in a position to ORDER the AG Lockyer to do anything. Lockyer was elected on his own, independently of the exTerminator. Posted by: raj at February 21, 2004 06:42 AM | PERMALINKTom K: Smashing idea! Brilliant! Post it here with Kevin and see how long it takes to get noticed! Posted by: Alli Gator at February 21, 2004 06:45 AM | PERMALINKBrian: Interesting...now we're seeing blog comment spam? How long has this been going on? Posted by: PaulB at February 21, 2004 07:14 AM | PERMALINKAlli Gator, you'll find the original FAIR article here. The main website for FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting) is http://www.fair.org/. Posted by: PaulB at February 21, 2004 07:16 AM | PERMALINKPaul: Sorry; "blog comment spam"? I'm new at this and still learning. Afriad I donn't quite understand. Posted by: Alli Gator at February 21, 2004 07:23 AM | PERMALINKTomK wrote about the gay marriage flap taking attention away from other serious matters like gay bashing and gay youth suicide rates. Tom, that's not entirely fair. Sure, everyone's looking at San Francisco now, but many gay organizations and activists are aware of and have worked on the issue of gay youth problems and will continue to do so when the current San Francisco excitement is no longer in the news. Besides, I think you're overlooking a key connection. These are positive gay images and role models that everyone, including gay youths, can see. The more positive images we have, the more gay men and women are out there leading normal lives, the more that people see that homosexuality isn't the terrible and terrifying thing they've been taught it is by bigots like Charlie, the fewer incidences of gay youth suicide we'll have. Posted by: PaulB at February 21, 2004 07:25 AM | PERMALINKAnd on a related note, what I find truly disgusting is how the bigots have the unmitigated gall to set up the conditions for the depression, low self-esteem, and destructive behaviors of gay youths, and then blame them for the very conditions they set up in the first place! They're doing precisely the same thing with respect to gay marriage. They set up the conditions that inhibit long-term relationships, including denying recognition of these relationships, and then have the gall to blame gay men and women for not having enough long-term relationships! The wonder to me is not how few gay men and women establish long-term relationships, but how many do, given the incredible obstacles they have to overcome. Posted by: PaulB at February 21, 2004 07:29 AM | PERMALINKTom K, I suspect that there is no overall permanent cure for the fact that gay people face risks in their search for health, happiness, and well-being that straight people don't. And it's true that marriage licenses have little to do with gay-bashing, job discrimination, and the like. But what we've got here is a positive step. The public at large, most of whom don't realize or wouldn't admit that they deal with gay people all the time, are accustomed to thinking of gay people in terms of cliches: the swishy mannerisms of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, the calculated offensiveness of a minority of Pride Day parade participants, and not much else. Now they're seeing obviously respectable people dressed nicely for a happy occasion, looking pleased, talking about themes of love and devotion that the public can sympathize with, behaving courteously. The civil rights marchers of the '50s and '60s put images before the public of black people dressed well and behaving respectably, and those images clashed harshly with the ranting white bigots opposed to them. This is a chance to do it again: put those couples in San Francisco and elsewhere up against Governor Bush talking about strange women wandering into his room to have sex with him, and a grab bag of images about casual divorce, adultery, spouse abuse, neglected children, and the like. People are all different in important ways. But they're also alike in
many ways. What Mayor Newsom has done, besides giving a great
opportunity to the couples getting married, is show the rest of the
country that in the matter of loving someone and wanting to share your
life with them, there are a lot of gay people who fully share the
romantic ideal, and who are prepared to act on it. This is not a cure
for bigotry, but it is part of the cure. It helps tilt the
balance in favor of regarding the gays among the straights as just folks
after all, and I'm all for that. Alli, I was referring to the post above (Posted by semantics at February 21, 2004 05:08 AM)
with all of the hyperlinks to semantics.com. Looks to me like
companies have now started spamming the comments sections of blogs like
Kevin's. I've heard that a couple of other blogs have been hit, too,
and was wondering how widespread the problem is. When I look at the pictures at the Washington Post today (click on
the pic to see all of them) and I see the signs of the protestors
telling the gays they are going to hell, that homosexuality is a sin,
and even one with a shirt that has "homo" in a circle with a slash
through it and their hate-filled faces and I contrast that with the two
elderly women, ages 79 and 82, who have been together 51 years and just
got married, the two men holding their twin daughters, and the very
normal decent looking people in the line waiting to get married, I can't
help but be absolutely convinced that gay marriage is right and all
those people opposing it are just nasty people who want to force their
religion on others. Ah. (light bulb now dawning;=) I hear comments that bigots are somehow responsible for depression among gay youth. I doubt that one, definitely. Depression is too deep a mental
illness to be blamed on societies bigots. Bigotry within the gay
person's family may be a more likely cause. Matt: Bigotry is bigotry, and I suspect you are both correct and in error here. Had you grown up gay and listening to "faggot" jokes daily throughout your formative years, the inevitable offshoot is a form of self-loathing which this culture (at least during my early years - quite some time ago) creates. Posted by: Alli Gator at February 21, 2004 07:48 AM | PERMALINK"And where's the Terminator on this? You can't tell me he didn't work with any homosexuals on all of his films." You're aware of how he financed his body-building career aren't you? But I'm not one to gossip so you didn't hear this from me! Posted by: David Ehrenstein at February 21, 2004 07:48 AM | PERMALINKThis is interesting. The OC Register says, "Among religious groups, Catholics are most accepting [of gay marriage], at 64 percent" http://www2.ocregister.com/ocrweb/ocr/article.do?id=82067§ion=REGION_STATE&subsection=REGION_STATE&year=2004&month=2&day=21 Posted by: Bakelite Lung at February 21, 2004 08:41 AM | PERMALINKMatt, it's not an either/or thing. Among my gay friends, some have encountered a lot of bigotry close up from relatives and less out in the world at large, and some just the opposite, with understanding or at least supportive families and hostile communities. The latter is certainly easier to deal with, but not a piece of cake, and the truth of most gay people's experience is that there's bigotry to spare both close up and far away. (It would be a happier world if more people accepted that it's not necessary to regard others as either friends or enemies, but as simply other people one can deal civilly with and then not worry about. I distrust any effort to make civil society work like a family, tribe, or clan; what we need are not so much the bonds of affection, devotion, and respect as simply the absence of feeling threatened by others' needs and wants.) Posted by: Bruce Baugh at February 21, 2004 08:41 AM | PERMALINKLiving here in Arlington County, Virginia -- probably the most liberal county in Virginia outside of neighboring Alexandria City -- is going to be interesting over the rest of this year, particularly since Bush has his national headquarters here. I think I'll write a letter to my county government DEMANDING that they get in the game. Posted by: Tony Shifflett at February 21, 2004 09:19 AM | PERMALINKOkay. Newsom has defined the left edge of a solution to this challenge. We know where the right stands. Now, do we all play Ralph Nader and strangle Venus because we're pissed at Mars? Or, do we force Mars to reconcile his rhetoric with the facts of his existence, thereby neutering his pose? Interesting conversation on framing this issue happening over at Metajournalism. Posted by: fouro at February 21, 2004 09:55 AM | PERMALINKMatt: (In response to your post over on the State Dept. thread ..;=) There are liars, damn liars, and statisticians :=) As a therapist who has worked with gay people of all ages since 1969,
I can assure you that these "facts" do not coincide with the realities I
personally have observed and studied. There is "drama" within all IPR, and gay youth or adults are no different here than hetro individuals of like age etc. What is often neglected in evaluating these things objectively, however, is an accounting for/of the predispositions one develops based on cultural acceptance or lack thereof in the formative environments. Teen suicides are a tremendous problem, and from what I understand, are on the rise across the boards. Also of note, is that "Gay" teens were not studied for many decades due to the overwhelming notion that they simply did not, or could not exist (which of course is nonsense). Posted by: Alli Gator at February 21, 2004 09:55 AM | PERMALINKI asked a bible thumper why he was against gay marriages. After the usual run down of bible scriptures, I asked him what he didn't like about it. He said that he'd hate to go to Applebees for dinner and "see two fudge packers sitting in a booth playing kissy face". Gay marriages would open the door to outwardly expressing homosexuality and getting it out of the closet. That is what I fear most Americans are against and they use bible scriptures to hide behind. I'd expect most Americans don't care about the marriage aspect, it's the in your face stuff they aren't ready for. Posted by: Ajay at February 21, 2004 10:16 AM | PERMALINKOh and by the way, just how much of a THREAT TO SOCIETY is VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY'S GAY DAUGHTER, MARY CHENEY? I guess she is a demonic presence who needs to be erased from America. Thank you Dick Cheney, for proving just how strong GOP family values are. Sorry, Mary Cheney, right this way to the gay second-class-citizen club. Posted by: Brian at February 21, 2004 10:26 AM | PERMALINKNARTH is a anti-gay outfit, trying to put a "science" face on their irrational bigotry. They are this issue's equiviliant of tobacco industry 'scientist-hacks' claiming lung cancer had nothing to do with cigarettes. Posted by: Eric at February 21, 2004 10:35 AM | PERMALINK"New Jersey is the only state besides Vermont to have passed civil union legislation." As I noted above, California has civil unions too. Posted by: Eric at February 21, 2004 10:42 AM | PERMALINKI asked a bible thumper why he was against gay marriages. After the usual run down of bible scriptures, I asked him what he didn't like about it. He said that he'd hate to go to Applebees for dinner and "see two fudge packers sitting in a booth playing kissy face". Gay marriages would open the door to outwardly expressing homosexuality and getting it out of the closet. That is what I fear most Americans are against and they use bible scriptures to hide behind. I'd expect most Americans don't care about the marriage aspect, it's the in your face stuff they aren't ready for. I think that a lot of people are uncomfortable going to Applebees and seeing a heterosexual couple making out in the next booth. In a night club,OK, (for everybody) but I doubt the bible thumper would ever go there anyhow. Posted by: ____league at February 21, 2004 11:10 AM | PERMALINKIt is funny to see so many gays embracing the heterosexual, religious intstition of marriage. The worlds religions set up marriage as a way to Let's face it, you can't divorce yourself from God. Posted by: Keiser Sousa at February 21, 2004 12:16 PM | PERMALINK...He said that he'd hate to go to Applebees for dinner and "see two fudge packers sitting in a booth playing kissy face". Gay marriages would open the door to outwardly expressing homosexuality and getting it out of the closet.... I hate to tell you, but the fact is that a same sex couple doesn't have to be married to sit in a booth playing kissy face. A marriage license isn't required to play kissy face. Posted by: raj at February 21, 2004 12:21 PM | PERMALINKI can agree raj, but you need to look beyond his comment to the true meaning. As I've already stated, most Americans don't seem to be ready for same sex couples to show the same amount of affection that straight couples do in public. Whether that be simply walking down the street hand in hand or sitting on the park bench sharing an ice cream cone. Why is everything always taken to a disporportionate extreme when people discuss homosexuality? I don't see many same sex couples showing as much outward affections as I do with heterosexual couples. And I don't live in Nebraska - I'm in the SF bay area. Most gay couples cannot and do not show affection for fear of being beat up or ridiculed unless you are in "gay friendly areas" - which are few and far between in America. I'm glad Gavin Newsome has the balls to stand up for us. It's about time. I'm uncomfortable going to Applebees at all. "Let's face it, you can't divorce yourself from God." Especially if you never married him in the first place...or are you saying God is the ultimate bi-sexual polygamist? Posted by: Eric at February 21, 2004 05:23 PM | PERMALINKWell, at least Bill Lokyer had a better message than Arnold (as seen on Sac TV KCRA news this eve). Posted by: Alli Gator at February 21, 2004 06:45 PM | PERMALINKFucking hilarious. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/02/20/MNASMUSSENBR.DTL Posted by: Churl at February 22, 2004 12:43 AM | PERMALINKEarlier, I was debating this 'issue' with a friend of mine, we finally agreed that god probably does give the best blowjobs. You know you're in trouble when even the liberals are laughing at you, Al. Posted by: Churl at February 22, 2004 12:53 AM | PERMALINKHilarity ensues update (now with link!). http://norbizness.com/
I generally leave the religious satire to the Raving Atheist, but even I can be roused out of my spiritual apathy every once in a while by... you guessed it... celebrities sounding like unhinged lunatics as they profess their love for the invisible sky fairy of their choice: When asked who killed Jesus, Mel Gibson said, "The big answer is, we all did. I'll be the first in the culpability stakes here." You know, if I said something similar about the Lindbergh baby (75 years ago) or Tupac Shakur (8 years ago), I'd have a little involuntary vacation at our local state hospital. Just seeing excerpts of his sit-down chat with Diane Sawyer, I got the feeling that there were several burly attendants just off-camera who would hold him down if he got too agitated. Exhibit B: Gibson, interviewed by the Herald Sun in Australia, was asked if Protestants are denied eternal salvation. "There is no salvation for those outside the (Catholic) church," Gibson replied. "I believe it... Put it this way. My wife is a saint. She's a much better person than I am. Honestly. She's, like, Episcopalian, Church of England. She prays, she believes in God, she knows Jesus, she believes in that stuff. And it's just not fair if she doesn't make it; she's better than I am. But that is a pronouncement from the chair. I go with it." Just let the madness roll over you like the incoming tide. But don't put him in a straitjacket, he can just dislocate his shoulder and get out of it." Posted by: scissors at February 22, 2004 03:16 AM | PERMALINKHow'd you all feel if a mayor in another city hands out licenses for banned assault weapons and someone else hands out licenses for selling drugs? You'd all support that, right? Posted by: out4blood at February 22, 2004 10:48 AM | PERMALINKOh please, now you are comparing a loving relationship with guns and drugs (oh wait, that drugs part sounds interesting)! Don't even bother, out4blood - their brains short-circuit if you point out the fallacies of their own logic to them. Posted by: Charlie at February 23, 2004 02:49 PM | PERMALINKCharlie wrote: "their brains short-circuit if you point out the fallacies of their own logic to them" LOL...talk about the pot calling the kettle black.... This is hilarious. Posted by: PaulB at February 26, 2004 08:48 AM | PERMALINKFINALLY! Mayor facing criminal charges http://www.newsday.com/news/local/state/ny-stgay0302,0,1055677,print.story?coll=ny-top-span-headlines Posted by: Charlie at March 2, 2004 04:24 PM | PERMALINK
The meaning of life is that it stops. Posted by: Tritter Michael at March 17, 2004 07:34 PM | PERMALINKGenius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped. Posted by: Sanford Daria at May 2, 2004 01:28 PM | PERMALINKI like long walks, especially when they are taken by people who annoy me. Posted by: Mendelson Joel at May 3, 2004 12:55 AM | PERMALINKWhat business is it of mine who wants to marry whoever? In Genesis
we learn that God destroyed Soddom and Gommorah because the same sex
thing was very repulsive to him. In the New Testament, the first
chapter of Romans (read it) [In] mourning, it is better to err on the side of grief than on the side of formality. The lesser of two evils is still evil. Posted by: Schiffmann Rob at June 30, 2004 06:11 AM | PERMALINKinternet eraser | jackpot city | lucky emperor | lucky nugget | magic box casino | magic oasis | med prescribe | miami paradise casino | millionaire casino | music hall casino Posted by: fortune room Casino at July 1, 2004 12:19 AM | PERMALINKlesbian sex laina sex online dating service anime porn live webcams rape stories gay sex asian sex
handjob movies WOW! I like this guestbook... that's cool http://www.online-dating-service.com free anal sex movies gay sex video free gay sex video free gay sex video gay sex asian sex animal sex free anime cartoon porn free lesbian porn sex movies free lesbian porn sex movies public nudity public nudity indian sex movies stories free rape stories videos sexy naked girls porn
animal sex, horse sex, god sex, rabbit sex, fish sex
no... fucking script... nothing interesting http://interracial-sex.ws http://www.nakedadultxxx.com/sexe-chicks-wide-dirty-panties-butt-celebraties-nude-extreme-women-pics.html sexe chicks wide dirty panties butt celebraties nude extreme women pics html http://www.nakedadultxxx.com/pregnancy-male-shemale-celebrity-studs-nude-celebreties-thumbnails-celebrities-mature-ladies-pics-free-chat.html pregnancy male shemale celebrity studs nude celebreties thumbnails celebrities mature ladies pics free chat html http://www.nakedadultxxx.com/pictures-celeb-nude-celebs-gay-espanol-pics-celebraties-photos-the-actress.html pictures celeb nude celebs gay espanol pics celebraties photos the actress html http://www.nakedadultxxx.com/people-fat-bestiality-petpleasure-models-indian-fuckers-teens-at-the-beach-black-pussy-celebrities-thumbnails-animal-sex-thumbnail-wives-stories-free-porn.html people fat bestiality petpleasure models indian fuckers teens at the beach black pussy celebrities thumbnails animal sex thumbnail wives stories free porn html http://www.nakedadultxxx.com/with-femdom-orgasm-handjob-thumbs-extended-male-hardcore-erotica-pissing-teens-women-dicks-free-pics-eel-in-pussy-video-sesso-mistress-jackoff-stories-long-clit.html with femdom orgasm handjob thumbs extended male hardcore erotica pissing teens women dicks free pics eel in pussy video sesso mistress jackoff stories long clit html http://www.nakedadultxxx.com/black-nude-son-incest-teen-pics-mother-sexo-virtual-nubian-sexual-perversions-sexe-amateur-animals-fucking-men-free-celebs-fake-celebraties-pictures-fuck-stories.html black nude son incest teen pics mother sexo virtual nubian sexual perversions sexe amateur animals fucking men free celebs fake celebraties pictures fuck stories html http://www.nakedadultxxx.com/eel-nevada-free-bbw-sex-purverts-ball-busting-femdom-whore-big-titties-cheap-bare-pissing-korean-whores-gay-dick.html eel nevada free bbw sex purverts ball busting femdom whore big titties cheap bare pissing korean whores gay dick html http://www.nakedadultxxx.com/gay-and-sex-porn-picture-mother-daughter-pictures-free-lesbian-kissing-story.html gay and sex porn picture mother daughter pictures free lesbian kissing story html http://www.nakedadultxxx.com/clitoris-handjob-ultimate-orgasm-big.html clitoris handjob ultimate orgasm big html http://www.nakedadultxxx.com/links2.php/asian/index.html links2 php asian index html http://www.nakedadultxxx.com/celebs-mpegs-celbrity-archives-fake-relations-pics-sexual-of-celeberties-xxx-free-porn-sex-photo-cum-celebrities-nude.html celebs mpegs celbrity archives fake relations pics sexual of celeberties xxx free porn sex photo cum celebrities nude html http://www.nakedadultxxx.com/interracial-panties-celebriti-celeb-nude-orgy-amature-sex-butt-celebridades-desnudas-amateur-men-girl-male-suck-it-sexual-problems-teen-free-celebraty-pictures.html interracial panties celebriti celeb nude orgy amature sex butt celebridades desnudas amateur men girl male suck it sexual problems teen free celebraty pictures html http://www.nakedadultxxx.com/celeb-celeberty-chicks-suck-free-japanese-sexo-nubian-sluts-pics-bitch-fucking.html celeb celeberty chicks suck free japanese sexo nubian sluts pics bitch fucking html http://www.nakedadultxxx.com/gallery-story-porn-jjj-chat-gay-sex-lesbian.html gallery story porn jjj chat gay sex lesbian html http://www.nakedadultxxx.com/amatuer-thumbnails-lesbian-porn-free-kissing-gay-and-picture.html amatuer thumbnails lesbian porn free kissing gay and picture html http://www.nakedadultxxx.com/links2.php/amateur/index.html links2 php amateur index html Posted by: Zoophile Pictures the sick beast sex farmfucking sexual animal farm sex now alice in wonderzoo at August 3, 2004 11:16 AM | PERMALINKhttp://www.cumshotshowcyber.com/new-nudity-pictures-womens-tits-female-stories-black-voyeur-xxx-time-teens-pretty-pics-women-boys-fuck-milking-anal-underage-girls-first-masturbation-lesbian-free-mature-nude.html new nudity pictures womens tits female stories black voyeur xxx time teens pretty pics women boys fuck milking anal underage girls first masturbation lesbian free mature nude html http://www.cumshotshowcyber.com/animal-stories.html animal stories html http://www.cumshotshowcyber.com/beast-teen/index.html beast teen index html http://www.cumshotshowcyber.com/xxx-beastility/index.html xxx beastility index html http://www.cumshotshowcyber.com/free-backdoors-black-animal-sex-topless-for-celebrity-mpeg-mature-women-xxx.html free backdoors black animal sex topless for celebrity mpeg mature women xxx html http://www.cumshotshowcyber.com/porn-slut-cheerleaders-fat-women-movies-voyeur-hard-core-black-gay-men-nude-highschool-camera-sexy-naked-beautiful-fucking-free-celebrity-tits-lesbian-lust.html porn slut cheerleaders fat women movies voyeur hard core black gay men nude highschool camera sexy naked beautiful fucking free celebrity tits lesbian lust html http://www.cumshotshowcyber.com/nudes-women-shoes-black-squirting.html nudes women shoes black squirting html http://www.cumshotshowcyber.com/young-beautiful-nudes-housewives-men-bondage-mature-penis-disease-sex-babes.html young beautiful nudes housewives men bondage mature penis disease sex babes html http://www.cumshotshowcyber.com/orgasme-l-de-des-fantasmes-annuaire.html orgasme l de des fantasmes annuaire html http://www.cumshotshowcyber.com/ians-zoosex-links/index.html ians zoosex links index html http://www.cumshotshowcyber.com/beast-fucker/index.html beast fucker index html http://www.cumshotshowcyber.com/sex-story.html sex story html http://www.cumshotshowcyber.com/beastaility.html beastaility html http://www.cumshotshowcyber.com/animalx/index.html animalx index html http://www.cumshotshowcyber.com/zoophiliasexo-animales-zoophilia.html zoophiliasexo animales zoophilia html http://www.cumshotshowcyber.com/adult-pictures-hookers-black-lesbian-penis-contest-thai-pics-celebraties-naked-free-wife-slut-stories-nudes-voyeur-bikini-tits.html adult pictures hookers black lesbian penis contest thai pics celebraties naked free wife slut stories nudes voyeur bikini tits html Posted by: Asian Porn Pics Archive Asian girls listed for ease of veiwing at August 5, 2004 12:00 AM | PERMALINKWOW! I like this guestbook... that's cool http://www.online-dating-service.com http://www.free-anal-porn-sex.com
animal sex, horse sex, god sex, rabbit sex, fish sex
Best XXX Sites - Best XXX Sites - http://older-woman-pic-html.licknudecat.com/older-woman-pic.html older woman pic html http://lesbian-jpg-index-html.licknudecat.com/lesbian-jpg/index.html lesbian jpg index html http://sexy-crossed-leg-index-html.licknudecat.com/sexy-crossed-leg/index.html sexy crossed leg index html http://cocks-hardcore-pictures-cunts-html.licknudecat.com/cocks-hardcore-pictures-cunts.html cocks hardcore pictures cunts html http://links-pictures-movies-stories-xxx-zoophilia.licknudecat.com/links-pictures-movies-stories-xxx-zoophilia-pics.html links pictures movies stories xxx zoophilia pics html http://brunette-xx-blond-virtual-small-babes.licknudecat.com/brunette-xx-blond-virtual-small-babes-suck-fetish-shaved-liveshow-black-school-als-cyberporn-porn-oral-animals-zoophilia-anderson-african-fuck-latex-japanese-gays-animal-teens-woman-toy.html brunette xx blond virtual small babes suck fetish shaved liveshow black school als cyberporn porn oral animals zoophilia anderson african fuck latex japanese gays animal teens woman toy html http://free-site-html.licknudecat.com/free-site.html free site html http://nues-photo-prostitution-jeunes-sodomie-homosexuel.licknudecat.com/nues-photo-prostitution-jeunes-sodomie-homosexuel-fille-sexe-et-de-femmes-uk-my-sexy-couple-amateur.html nues photo prostitution jeunes sodomie homosexuel fille sexe et de femmes uk my sexy couple amateur html http://live-animals-teen-pig-warez-toys.licknudecat.com/live-animals-teen-pig-warez-toys-wet-gayman-farmsex-beatiful-schoolgirls-rooms-virtual-fetish-hiden.html live animals teen pig warez toys wet gayman farmsex beatiful schoolgirls rooms virtual fetish hiden html http://images-erotique-porno-de-cul-quebec.licknudecat.com/images-erotique-porno-de-cul-quebec-sexe.html images erotique porno de cul quebec sexe html http://pic-free-mature-woman-html.licknudecat.com/pic-free-mature-woman.html pic free mature woman html http://tres-gros-seins-pipe-bomb-html.licknudecat.com/tres-gros-seins-pipe-bomb.html tres gros seins pipe bomb html http://anal-sex-free-gay-picture-html.licknudecat.com/anal-sex-free-gay-picture.html anal sex free gay picture html http://porno-girls-pussie-sexie-sexo-picx.licknudecat.com/porno-girls-pussie-sexie-sexo-picx-pictures-cumshots-follar-free-hot-gratisporn-sex-pussy-young-pixs-porn-pornografie.html porno girls pussie sexie sexo picx pictures cumshots follar free hot gratisporn sex pussy young pixs porn pornografie html http://sexo-gratis-foto-html.licknudecat.com/sexo-gratis-foto.html sexo gratis foto html http://milking-tits-index-html.licknudecat.com/milking-tits/index.html milking tits index html Posted by: foot sex pictures free erotic photos of womens feet at August 13, 2004 09:31 AM | PERMALINK5954 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~ Posted by: blackjack at August 23, 2004 11:05 AM | PERMALINK5495 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-) Posted by: blackjack at August 24, 2004 11:27 PM | PERMALINK7864 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow Posted by: texas hold em at August 26, 2004 12:06 AM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
