Supreme Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage

[BayGBM]

Same-sex wedding date may move up to June 16
Wyatt Buchanan, Chronicle Staff Writer

(06-04) 21:04 PDT -- San Francisco officials have asked the state for permission to begin marrying same-sex couples a little earlier than scheduled, on the evening of June 16 instead of the morning of June 17.

Mayor Gavin Newsom and other city officials are wondering when the state Supreme Court ruling allowing same-sex nuptials actually takes effect. The state has told county clerks the ruling kicks in the morning of June 17. But city officials want to know whether they can legally begin to issue the marriage licenses at 5:01 p.m. June 16 - right after the end of the state's workday.

"Unquestionably, we hope to extend beyond 5 o'clock. Why wouldn't we?" Newsom said Wednesday. "People have longed for this for 30 and 40 years. I don't think we should deny that just on the basis of a bureaucratic timeline."

Such a change would require permission from the state Office of Vital Records, which oversees the issuance of marriage licenses for all of California's 58 counties.

Suanne Buggy, a spokeswoman for the office, said the state has received inquiries from some counties about whether starting on the 16th would be legal.

"We're taking a look at it and will get additional guidance to counties if needed," Buggy said.

Since the moment the state Supreme Court ruled that California's Constitution grants same-sex couples the same right to marry as opposite-sex couples, people have made appointments at San Francisco City Hall, trying to be the first in line to be married there.

Initially, officials believed the decision would take effect June 16, but the state decided last week that it would be the next day. Forty-four same-sex couples had signed up in San Francisco to marry on the 16th. The state's decision forced them to reschedule their appointments, and some could be weeks later.

Karen Hong, the director of the county clerk's office, said city officials are discussing whether they can schedule more than 48 daily wedding ceremonies and appointments for obtaining licenses. Allowing more appointments could open up more slots for couples to marry on June 17. They also might be able to reserve spots on the 16th, depending on the state's determination.

San Francisco began requiring reservations in 2004, when Newsom ordered the clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and people waited in line for hours, sometimes even overnight.

Hong said her office, which has a staff of seven including her, will need additional help, equipment and detailed logistical planning. Some people could come from other departments in City Hall, she said.

"We're still working on getting commitments for additional resources. As soon as we get those commitments in place, we will definitely put that information out to the public," Hong said.

Even with the desire by some couples to be first in line, the San Francisco Convention & Visitors Bureau - which is launching a campaign to encourage both straight and gay couples to marry in the city - wants couples to take their time.

"In the best case scenario, it's not a rush thing," said Joe D'Alessandro, president and CEO of the bureau, who is planning a Labor Day wedding with his partner. "It's something people can plan this time, and that's how we are really going to encourage people."

[MCWAY]

What will the gays have to continually whine and bitch about now?

The fact that their marriage licenses may only be good for another 5 months.

[drkaje]

The fact that their marriage licenses may only be good for another 5 months.

They complain to much.

[BayGBM]

Gay Unions Shed Light on Gender in Marriage
By TARA PARKER-POPE

For insights into healthy marriages, social scientists are looking in an unexpected place.

A growing body of evidence shows that same-sex couples have a great deal to teach everyone else about marriage and relationships. Most studies show surprisingly few differences between committed gay couples and committed straight couples, but the differences that do emerge have shed light on the kinds of conflicts that can endanger heterosexual relationships.

The findings offer hope that some of the most vexing problems are not necessarily entrenched in deep-rooted biological differences between men and women. And that, in turn, offers hope that the problems can be solved.

Next week, California will begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, reigniting the national debate over gay marriage. But relationship researchers say it also presents an opportunity to study the effects of marriage on the quality of all relationships.

“When I look at what’s happening in California, I think there’s a lot to be learned to explore how human beings relate to one another,” said Sondra E. Solomon, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Vermont. “How people care for each other, how they share responsibility, power and authority — those are the key issues in relationships.”

The stereotype for same-sex relationships is that they do not last. But that may be due, in large part, to the lack of legal and social recognition given to same-sex couples. Studies of dissolution rates vary widely.

After Vermont legalized same-sex civil unions in 2000, researchers surveyed nearly 1,000 couples, including same-sex couples and their heterosexual married siblings. The focus was on how the relationships were affected by common causes of marital strife like housework, sex and money.

Notably, same-sex relationships, whether between men or women, were far more egalitarian than heterosexual ones. In heterosexual couples, women did far more of the housework; men were more likely to have the financial responsibility; and men were more likely to initiate sex, while women were more likely to refuse it or to start a conversation about problems in the relationship. With same-sex couples, of course, none of these dichotomies were possible, and the partners tended to share the burdens far more equally.

While the gay and lesbian couples had about the same rate of conflict as the heterosexual ones, they appeared to have more relationship satisfaction, suggesting that the inequality of opposite-sex relationships can take a toll.

“Heterosexual married women live with a lot of anger about having to do the tasks not only in the house but in the relationship,” said Esther D. Rothblum, a professor of women’s studies at San Diego State University. “That’s very different than what same-sex couples and heterosexual men live with.”

Other studies show that what couples argue about is far less important than how they argue. The egalitarian nature of same-sex relationships appears to spill over into how those couples resolve conflict.

One well-known study used mathematical modeling to decipher the interactions between committed gay couples. The results, published in two 2003 articles in The Journal of Homosexuality, showed that when same-sex couples argued, they tended to fight more fairly than heterosexual couples, making fewer verbal attacks and more of an effort to defuse the confrontation.

Controlling and hostile emotional tactics, like belligerence and domineering, were less common among gay couples.

Same-sex couples were also less likely to develop an elevated heartbeat and adrenaline surges during arguments. And straight couples were more likely to stay physically agitated after a conflict.

“When they got into these really negative interactions, gay and lesbian couples were able to do things like use humor and affection that enabled them to step back from the ledge and continue to talk about the problem instead of just exploding,” said Robert W. Levenson, a professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkeley.

The findings suggest that heterosexual couples need to work harder to seek perspective. The ability to see the other person’s point of view appears to be more automatic in same-sex couples, but research shows that heterosexuals who can relate to their partner’s concerns and who are skilled at defusing arguments also have stronger relationships.

One of the most common stereotypes in heterosexual marriages is the “demand-withdraw” interaction, in which the woman tends to be unhappy and to make demands for change, while the man reacts by withdrawing from the conflict. But some surprising new research shows that same-sex couples also exhibit the pattern, contradicting the notion that the behavior is rooted in gender, according to an abstract presented at the 2006 meeting of the Association for Psychological Science by Sarah R. Holley, a psychology researcher at Berkeley.

Dr. Levenson says this is good news for all couples.

“Like everybody else, I thought this was male behavior and female behavior, but it’s not,” he said. “That means there is a lot more hope that you can do something about it.”

[BayGBM]

2 counties to halt all weddings, gay or not
Marisa Lagos, Chronicle Staff Writer

(06-10) 18:50 PDT -- County officials in at least two California counties say they'll stop performing all wedding ceremonies by next week, arguing that they don't have enough resources to marry both gay and straight couples.

Officials in Kern and Butte counties cited budget and staffing constraints as the rationale for halting the ceremonies. But clerks in other counties say that claim is specious. Some activists went further, arguing that the decision to stop the ceremonies amounts to poorly disguised discrimination against gay and lesbian couples.

County clerks are required by law to issue marriage licenses, but the offices do not have to perform wedding ceremonies. The recent state Supreme Court decision allowing same-sex marriages takes effect after the business day on Monday.

In Kern County, Clerk Ann Barnett announced her decision only after county lawyers told her she could not refuse to marry gay couples. Butte County Clerk Candace Grubb, meanwhile, blamed budget constraints, telling the Chico Enterprise-Record that her decision was made long before the court ruling.

In Merced County, Clerk Stephen Jones also announced that all marriages were being halted, though he later reversed his decision.

Conservative populations

Neither Barnett nor Grubb returned calls seeking comment Tuesday, nor did officials with the Alliance Defense Fund. That group, which argued in court against same-sex marriage, has urged county clerks to oppose such unions.

Both counties have conservative populations that overwhelmingly supported a 2000 ballot measure that defined marriage as between a man and a woman, a law found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on May 15. Advocates of that law are going back to the ballot in November with a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages.

Gay marriage advocates said the decisions to halt all marriages in the rural counties limits options for gay and straight couples who do not want or are denied a religious ceremony.

Only a handful of people - including religious officials, state legislators, retired judges and magistrates - may marry couples under California law. County clerks also may marry couples, and they may deputize any member of the public to perform the ceremonies.

Some county clerks said the budget argument seems a stretch, though they acknowledged that both Butte and Kern counties might not have enough staff to deal with a large influx of couples.

It's a no-brainer'

Steve Weir, Contra Costa County's clerk and president of the California Association of Clerks and Elected Officials, noted that the state allows counties to set their own fees for marriage ceremonies so they can recover the costs associated with performing the duty.

"It's a nice service that we provide to the public, and it's not costing me anything. In this day and age with the budget situation, how can you go wrong providing a public service that helps with your overhead? It's a no-brainer," Weir said. "Other folks might say you can go to another county, but that's not the point. I'm not going to say you can register to vote in Alameda County because we're not in the same political party."

Others said they doubt that the clerk's office in any rural, conservative county would be overwhelmed with gay couples come next week. Kings County Clerk Ken Baird, for example, said he would be surprised if more than a handful of same-sex couples wanted to get married there.

"Bakersfield (the Kern County seat) is not a very safe place to be out," added the Rev. Byrd Tetzlaff of the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Kern County. "We are not expecting that many couples, maybe 10 or 12."

Free marriages

After hearing of the decision, Tetzlaff announced she would perform free marriages to same-sex couples until Nov. 4, when voters will weigh in the proposed constitutional amendment.

Next Tuesday she plans to offer her services to all couples getting licenses at the county building. But she said she and other gay-marriage supporters have been told that the police will not allow them to conduct the ceremonies there.

"We are looking at places nearby where we can be, and there are a number of us that are going to be supporting the couples as they go in to get their licenses," she said.

Kern County Supervisor Don Maben asked county officials Tuesday to explore other options for folks who want to tie the knot, including possibly bringing in officials from another county to perform the ceremonies. The Kern County Board of Supervisors will not take up the matter again until July, he said.

"I am concerned that this is disenfranchising all citizens from having civil marriages in Kern County," he said. "This is an 8,000-square-mile county, and there aren't a lot of opportunities (for civil ceremonies)."

Maben said he is "getting a lot of flak" for raising concerns about Barnett's decision but, that to him, it's not a gay-rights issue - it is simply a marriage issue. At least 25 opposite-sex couples who had weddings scheduled at the clerk's office are also being forced to make other plans, he said.

Options limited

In the meantime, couples wishing to get married in Butte or Kern counties could have limited options. Many churches refuse to perform gay marriages, though Tetzlaff said a number of clergy members in Bakersfield will marry same-sex couples privately. If Barnett or Grubb will not deputize her staffers or members of the public to perform the marriages, couples might have to find other public officials or retired judges who can - or leave the county, which could significantly increase the cost.

Weir, who is openly gay and plans to marry his partner next week, said while clerks are not legally bound to perform marriage ceremonies, they are public servants.

"We take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the state of California," he said. "It's a public ministerial process we perform for the public, and to a degree we have a monopoly on it - you can't go across the street to a private clerk's office."

[MCWAY]

2 counties to halt all weddings, gay or not
Marisa Lagos, Chronicle Staff Writer

(06-10) 18:50 PDT -- County officials in at least two California counties say they'll stop performing all wedding ceremonies by next week, arguing that they don't have enough resources to marry both gay and straight couples.

Officials in Kern and Butte counties cited budget and staffing constraints as the rationale for halting the ceremonies. But clerks in other counties say that claim is specious. Some activists went further, arguing that the decision to stop the ceremonies amounts to poorly disguised discrimination against gay and lesbian couples.

County clerks are required by law to issue marriage licenses, but the offices do not have to perform wedding ceremonies. The recent state Supreme Court decision allowing same-sex marriages takes effect after the business day on Monday.

In Kern County, Clerk Ann Barnett announced her decision only after county lawyers told her she could not refuse to marry gay couples. Butte County Clerk Candace Grubb, meanwhile, blamed budget constraints, telling the Chico Enterprise-Record that her decision was made long before the court ruling.

In Merced County, Clerk Stephen Jones also announced that all marriages were being halted, though he later reversed his decision.

Conservative populations

Neither Barnett nor Grubb returned calls seeking comment Tuesday, nor did officials with the Alliance Defense Fund. That group, which argued in court against same-sex marriage, has urged county clerks to oppose such unions.

Both counties have conservative populations that overwhelmingly supported a 2000 ballot measure that defined marriage as between a man and a woman, a law found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on May 15. Advocates of that law are going back to the ballot in November with a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages.

Gay marriage advocates said the decisions to halt all marriages in the rural counties limits options for gay and straight couples who do not want or are denied a religious ceremony.

Only a handful of people - including religious officials, state legislators, retired judges and magistrates - may marry couples under California law. County clerks also may marry couples, and they may deputize any member of the public to perform the ceremonies.

Some county clerks said the budget argument seems a stretch, though they acknowledged that both Butte and Kern counties might not have enough staff to deal with a large influx of couples.

It's a no-brainer'

Steve Weir, Contra Costa County's clerk and president of the California Association of Clerks and Elected Officials, noted that the state allows counties to set their own fees for marriage ceremonies so they can recover the costs associated with performing the duty.

"It's a nice service that we provide to the public, and it's not costing me anything. In this day and age with the budget situation, how can you go wrong providing a public service that helps with your overhead? It's a no-brainer," Weir said. "Other folks might say you can go to another county, but that's not the point. I'm not going to say you can register to vote in Alameda County because we're not in the same political party."

Others said they doubt that the clerk's office in any rural, conservative county would be overwhelmed with gay couples come next week. Kings County Clerk Ken Baird, for example, said he would be surprised if more than a handful of same-sex couples wanted to get married there.

"Bakersfield (the Kern County seat) is not a very safe place to be out," added the Rev. Byrd Tetzlaff of the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Kern County. "We are not expecting that many couples, maybe 10 or 12."

Free marriages

After hearing of the decision, Tetzlaff announced she would perform free marriages to same-sex couples until Nov. 4, when voters will weigh in the proposed constitutional amendment.

Next Tuesday she plans to offer her services to all couples getting licenses at the county building. But she said she and other gay-marriage supporters have been told that the police will not allow them to conduct the ceremonies there.

"We are looking at places nearby where we can be, and there are a number of us that are going to be supporting the couples as they go in to get their licenses," she said.

Kern County Supervisor Don Maben asked county officials Tuesday to explore other options for folks who want to tie the knot, including possibly bringing in officials from another county to perform the ceremonies. The Kern County Board of Supervisors will not take up the matter again until July, he said.

"I am concerned that this is disenfranchising all citizens from having civil marriages in Kern County," he said. "This is an 8,000-square-mile county, and there aren't a lot of opportunities (for civil ceremonies)."

Maben said he is "getting a lot of flak" for raising concerns about Barnett's decision but, that to him, it's not a gay-rights issue - it is simply a marriage issue. At least 25 opposite-sex couples who had weddings scheduled at the clerk's office are also being forced to make other plans, he said.

Options limited

In the meantime, couples wishing to get married in Butte or Kern counties could have limited options. Many churches refuse to perform gay marriages, though Tetzlaff said a number of clergy members in Bakersfield will marry same-sex couples privately. If Barnett or Grubb will not deputize her staffers or members of the public to perform the marriages, couples might have to find other public officials or retired judges who can - or leave the county, which could significantly increase the cost.

Weir, who is openly gay and plans to marry his partner next week, said while clerks are not legally bound to perform marriage ceremonies, they are public servants.

"We take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the state of California," he said. "It's a public ministerial process we perform for the public, and to a degree we have a monopoly on it - you can't go across the street to a private clerk's office."

Will Weir still uphold that oath, if the marriage amendment passes in November?

All of this could have been avoided, if the judges had simply ordered the stay and WAITED, until the election to see the results.

According to this article, the amendment will be retroactive. It makes no sense to give marriage licenses to gay couples, when they could be null and void 5 months later.

http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14102&AlertID=850

And, again, I ask, what's is stopping those who support gay "marriage" from doing what their opponents did: beating the streets, starting petitions, and driving to get a constitutional amendment to the ballot to favor their cause?

[Dos Equis]

Will Weir still uphold that oath, if the marriage amendment passes in November?

All of this could have been avoided, if the judges had simply ordered the stay and WAITED, until the election to see the results.

According to this article, the amendment will be retroactive. It makes no sense to give marriage licenses to gay couples, when they could be null and void 5 months later.

http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14102&AlertID=850

And, again, I ask, what's is stopping those who support gay "marriage" from doing what their opponents did: beating the streets, starting petitions, and driving to get a constitutional amendment to the ballot to favor their cause?

I agree.  Really doesn't make any sense not to stay their decision. 

They don't beat the streets because there is no groundswell of support.  Voters don't want it.  And it's not just "Republicans," "conservatives," or "religious" voters.     

[drkaje]

I agree.  Really doesn't make any sense not to stay their decision. 

They don't beat the streets because there is no groundswell of support.  Voters don't want it.  And it's not just "Republicans," "conservatives," or "religious" voters.     

At this point I say give it to them so they can STFU already.

[Dos Equis]

At this point I say give it to them so they can STFU already.

lol.   

[MCWAY]

At this point I say give it to them so they can STFU already.

They will get it (for at least 5 months), unless the California Court of appeals orders the stay. According to a more recent article (similar to one I posted several days ago), the California legislature has to come up with the new law and the new forms, replacing the 1M-1W language of marriage with a "gender-neutral"-type one for the marriage licenses.

That's one reason why the gay "marriage" supporters don't want the stay. By the time the legislature meets to re-write this law, the amendment will have been decided and the Cali. Supreme Court's call may be voided.

[drkaje]

Screw what the public wants!! I'm just over hearing gays and fags go on about this topic. If losing a critical part of our culture means never having to hear about this topic again then I don't care. So sick of all the bullshit and crap, especially the stupid comparisons between blacks and gays.

[Colossus_500]

A breakdown of how the country sees this topic:

Light green  - states already have a marriage amendment in their state constitution (voters already passed a resolutions)
Light blue - states that are likely to have amendments on the ballot in November
Dark green - state (Arizona) that could have the amendment on the ballot again in November
Dark blue - states that do not have a marriage amendment being pursued

[loco]

Why do gay people want to get married?  Haven't they suffered enough already?...just kidding!   

All joking aside, gay people are not just protesting that they can't get married in certain states.  They are also protesting that they can't get divorced.  Yes, that's right, those gay people that managed to get married are now protesting that they can't get divorced now or that the divorce process for them is now too difficult.

Same-Sex Couples Face
Another Growing Hurdle -- Divorce
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121306493888759775.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[Straw Man]

A breakdown of how the country sees this topic:

Light green  - states already have a marriage amendment in their state constitution (voters already passed a resolutions)
Light blue - states that are likely to have amendments on the ballot in November
Dark green - state (Arizona) that could have the amendment on the ballot again in November
Dark blue - states that do not have a marriage amendment being pursued

source??

gays have been able to get married now in CA (for a few weeks so far)

How have you been personally harmed??

[Straw Man]

Why do gay people want to get married?  Haven't they suffered enough already?...just kidding!   

All joking aside, gay people are not just protesting that they can't get married in certain states.  They are also protesting that they can't get divorced.  Yes, that's right, those gay people that managed to get married are now protesting that they can't get divorced now or that the divorce process for them is now too difficult.

Same-Sex Couples Face
Another Growing Hurdle -- Divorce
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121306493888759775.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

I agree with you

we should outlaw marriage for everyone

[loco]

I agree with you

we should outlaw marriage for everyone

 

I was kidding about that.  Marriage can be great if both people are willing to commit for life and work through their many problems.   

[Straw Man]

I was kidding about that.  Marriage can be great if both people are willing to commit for life and work through their many problems.   

personally, I'm against marriage but I don't think it should be outlawed or illegal

of course, by people I assume you mean people

[Straw Man]

what if you had to renew your marriage license every "x" number of years

just like a business license or a drivers license

[Dos Equis]

A breakdown of how the country sees this topic:

Light green  - states already have a marriage amendment in their state constitution (voters already passed a resolutions)
Light blue - states that are likely to have amendments on the ballot in November
Dark green - state (Arizona) that could have the amendment on the ballot again in November
Dark blue - states that do not have a marriage amendment being pursued

I think I'm color blind.  Which states are dark blue? 

[BayGBM]

Foes of California same-sex marriage ruling ask a lower court to delay it
With a state Supreme Court ruling set to become law June 16, a group asks an appeals court to delay its imposition until after a November vote on the issue. The ruling's proponents deride the effort.
By Maura Dolan
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

SAN FRANCISCO -- Opponents of same-sex marriage asked the California Court of Appeal today to put on hold a ruling that permits gays to marry next week, a move that supporters of the ruling quickly belittled as frivolous and certain to fail.

The California Supreme Court, which approved same-sex nuptials in a historic ruling May 15, already has refused to delay the effective date of its decision. Opponents wanted the court to postpone the ruling's effect until after a November ballot initiative to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples. The ruling becomes law June 16 at 5 p.m.

The 1st District Court of Appeal, which had ruled 2-1 against same-sex marriage, is bound by the Supreme Court's decision.

San Francisco City Atty. Dennis Herrera, whose office helped litigate the marriage case, called the petition "beyond frivolous . . . absurd."

"I am not aware of a process that enables parties to effectively appeal a higher court ruling to a lower court," Herrera said.

But Liberty Counsel, the group that filed the petition on behalf of sponsors of the November marriage initiative, said the Court of Appeal procedurally regains the case on June 16 and could issue a stay.

"This court should stay the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples to prevent a violation of federal and state law by opening the door to de facto polygamy and polyamory," the petition by the Christian-affiliated group said.

[Deicide]

I agree with you

we should outlaw marriage for everyone

Yes, outlaw marriage; a primitive and antiquated institution and more costly than it is effective in so many ways.

[drkaje]

Yes, outlaw marriage; a primitive and antiquated institution and more costly than it is effective in so many ways.

To what extent do you think this will affect traditional marriage?

[Deicide]

To what extent do you think this will affect traditional marriage?

Huh? I think marriage (gay or heterosexual) is useless and silly; I don't get your question.

[Benny B]

Foes of California same-sex marriage ruling ask a lower court to delay it
With a state Supreme Court ruling set to become law June 16, a group asks an appeals court to delay its imposition until after a November vote on the issue. The ruling's proponents deride the effort.
By Maura Dolan
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

SAN FRANCISCO -- Opponents of same-sex marriage asked the California Court of Appeal today to put on hold a ruling that permits gays to marry next week, a move that supporters of the ruling quickly belittled as frivolous and certain to fail.

The California Supreme Court, which approved same-sex nuptials in a historic ruling May 15, already has refused to delay the effective date of its decision. Opponents wanted the court to postpone the ruling's effect until after a November ballot initiative to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples. The ruling becomes law June 16 at 5 p.m.

The 1st District Court of Appeal, which had ruled 2-1 against same-sex marriage, is bound by the Supreme Court's decision.

San Francisco City Atty. Dennis Herrera, whose office helped litigate the marriage case, called the petition "beyond frivolous . . . absurd."

"I am not aware of a process that enables parties to effectively appeal a higher court ruling to a lower court," Herrera said.

But Liberty Counsel, the group that filed the petition on behalf of sponsors of the November marriage initiative, said the Court of Appeal procedurally regains the case on June 16 and could issue a stay.

"This court should stay the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples to prevent a violation of federal and state law by opening the door to de facto polygamy and polyamory," the petition by the Christian-affiliated group said.

This thread really means a lot to you, eh homo?

[drkaje]

This thread really means a lot to you, eh homo?

What's his life gonna be dedicated to after the 18th?

A major part of his identity will be gone, LOL!