The Battle Over Gay Marriage in San Francisco
A Contributor Perspective: San Francisco Showcases the Latest Inquisition
In an article, "It's Official: Prop. 8 In Effect Until December (If Not Longer)" (Law Blog, 8/17/ 2010), Ashby Jones explains the latest development in the battle over gay marriage, the latest inquisition. Proposition 8, or the California Marriage Protection Act, was passed by voters in November 2008, and defined marriage as that between a man and a woman.
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom made San Francisco "ground zero" for the battle, not only campaigning heavily and starring in a commercial opposing Prop. 8, but holding a fundraiser in his own home to oppose the issue ("Newsom ignores risks, campaigns against Prop. 8"; SF Chronicle, 10/29/2008). At a No on 8 rally at UC Santa Cruz, Newsom told students that he recognized the outcome of the election could hurt his career: "The biggest problem in politics today is that we're risk-adverse. We're afraid of tomorrow's headlines. I couldn't care less if the rest of my life I'm only known as the ex-mayor of San Francisco. I will regret nothing about standing up on this issue. I get to go to sleep at night having done the right thing."
The issue is very much a religious battle between those who claim to be able to interpret "God's will", regardless of which Christian sect they follow, and those who wish to walk their own road. Although the church no longer has a Grand Inquisitor to lead persecution of these "unnatural" people, there are still many incidents of gay bashing in our country, up to and including murder. Perhaps most importantly, religious fanatics are still hiding behind their beliefs in order to deny human rights to others: the right to a legal marriage, the right to have legal and economic benefits, the right to live openly and without fear in a manner that horrifies the "true believers".
Opponents of Proposition 8 celebrated a big win on Aug. 4, 2010, when U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, based in San Francisco, found the law unconstitutional. As Walker noted in his ruling, "a state's obligation is to treat its citizens equally, not to mandate its 'own moral code'." He further cited that, in recent history, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled time and again that laws rooted in traditions of bigotry-from segregated schools to prohibitions on interracial marriage-are in basic conflict with the U.S. Constitution.
The following Monday afternoon, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed Judge Walker's decision. The appeal will be briefed throughout the fall and will be heard by the Ninth Circuit the week of Dec. 6, 2010.
It is fantastically ironic to me that the greatest opposition to gay marriage, and a huge voting bloc that turned out for the 2008 election, was comprised heavily of Latinos and African-Americans. Just driving around the streets of the SF Bay Area, I saw large demonstrations of primarily minority members waving anti-gay marriage signs along with those reading "Honk if you love Jesus". I thought Jesus preached tolerance and love for everyone. I thought those minorities had been involved in battles for their human rights for decades in the U.S., and were still fighting those battles today. Frankly, I would have thought those were the very people who would most understand the injustice of discrimination simply because of the color of one's skin or some sort of life preference.
As a Latino myself, I was extremely disappointed. Who needs Grand Inquisitors when the masses will run the persecution for you?
Published by Don Maker
Don Maker received his B.A. in English and Comparative Literature from the University of California, San Diego, and his M.A. in Education from Chapman University, concentrating on the history and financing o... View profile
-
Gavin Newsom Running for California Lieutenant Governor
Most of the 2010 California election headlines are focused on the battle between Jerry Brown, Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner for California governor. But San Francisco Mayor is i...
- Mayor Gavin Newsom and Jennifer Siebel Wed Can politics and romance coexist? San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and actress Jennifer Siebel seem to think so. The pair wed on Saturday 26 August in Montana.
-
Actress Jennifer Siebel Weds San Francisco Mayer Gavin Newsom in Montana
RightPundits.com, in an article by Beth Shaw entitled "Jennifer Siebel is Gavin Newsom's Wife," and the Associated Press, are reporting that Mayor of San Francisco and same-sex...
- San Francisco Mayor Newsom Admits Adultery, Trouble with Alcohol Supervisor McGoldrick calls for San Francisco Mayor Newsom's resignation. This reporter thinks McGoldrick should shut his big fat pile hole.
- Boppy Pillow Photography Prop Four poses for using the Boppy Pillow as a photography prop for babies and pets.
- Same-Sex Marriage
- The Pros and Cons of Gay Marriage
- Marriage Inequality - Gay Marriage
- Discount Wedding Dresses in San Francisco, California
- Employment Staffing Agencies in San Francisco, California
- Gavin Newsom and Jennifer Siebel to Wed
- San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom Attempts to Outlaw Obesity
|
|
2 Comments
Post a CommentHi Bill, I like point you introduced at the end of your opinion. "Just driving around the streets of the SF Bay Area, I saw large demonstrations of primarily minority members[...]" In addition to the crime that absolute strangers voted away the right of the gays to get married, some of them are immigrants! They left their indigenous land for a better life to tell others whom they may or may not marry.
Conversely, I can't imagine how the marriage bans can survive the federal constitutional test. In order to make something illegal, there must be a punishment for a penalty. A gay marriage ceremony in a state with a gay marriage ban would be neither legal nor illegal. It would simply be unrecognized in the eyes of the state. As was proven in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial, there isn't a valid reason, legally speaking, to ban same sex marriage.
Peace.
Your facts are incorrect, sir. The 9th Circuit DID NOT reverse Walker's ruling AT ALL. THey have not yet even heard the merits of the case, so HOW could they REVERSE it????
You should correct this piece immediately.
They extended a stay. That is all. No 'reversal' has happened.
CORRECT THIS!