SF Mayor pushing the gay issue...

[tobius]

Newsom is a Dem. The timing is questionable- good or bad for Kerry?

The newly elected Democrat said he wants all "forms and documents used to apply for and issue marriage licenses" to be revised by County Clerk Nancy Alfaro so they can be provided "on a nondiscriminatory basis, without regard to gender or sexual orientation."

"Less than a month ago I took the oath of office here at City Hall and swore to uphold California's Constitution, which clearly outlaws all forms of discrimination," Newsom said in a statement. "Denying basic rights to members of our community will not be tolerated."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/02/10/state2025EST0139.DTL

If Newsom's request is honored and implemented within the short time he hopes, San Francisco would become, at least symbolically, the first place in the nation where gay and lesbian couples could wed. The Massachusetts Supreme Court has cleared the way for the state to start sanctioning marriages between same-sex couples as early as mid-May.

A spokesman for Newsom acknowledged that the mayor's request was an act of protest as well as public policy. State law explicitly defines marriage as an act between a man and a woman, a prerequisite Newsom considers "codified discrimination," said Peter Ragone, Newsom's spokesman.

[AP]

1. Newsom might do this the right way.

The problem isn't that this is a 2004 issue -- that's inevitable. The problem is if Dems argue it as a right to marry issue or a right to rights issue, regardless of religious definitions.

[David__77]

11. I don't understand, this is a marriage rights issue.

It is indeed a marriage issue. We (the lesbian and gay community) are not just fighting for marriage equality for this or that right and responsibility. We are fighting for cultural equality as well. When a fundamentalist says "no sex before marriage," we want that phrase not to exclude gay youth, for instance. This is a crucial struggle. This is not only about taxes or hospital visitation. Those things are important, don't get me wrong. But separate but equal is indeed rarely equal.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

14. I for one don't want the government enforcing culture

that's called "social engineering".

"When a fundamentalist says "no sex before marriage," we want that phrase not to exclude gay youth"

And you want the government to enforce that? Yikes!

If you want to change the culture, you do it through cultural institutions, not the state. Why not fight it out in the churches - that's where a lot of anti-LGBT sentiment is coming from.

I thought this was a struggle for equal rights - but some people here are making it a struggle to legislate morality. Scary indeed.

[AP]

15. excellent post.

I don't think it's the government business whether I'm having sex with or have love for or feel anything spiritually about the people with whom I want to share legal rights and burdens.

[David__77]

19. What have I said that's wrong?

Of course the government has to do with the culture. And, no, I don't want to "enforce" a position of no sex before marriage. I was using it as a point that in the culture the word "marriage" is important and that's one reason that I'm fighting for marriage rights.

Some would say that we should separate marriage from the government, but do you really think that's going to happen? Do you think the government would establish civil unions for all and abolish governmental recognition for marriages? I think the chances are next to zero. So, barring that possibility, the only solution that upholds equality is marriage equality. There's no other way.

As far as morality is concernd - the state does take a stand on this. It enforces civil rights laws because discrimination is immoral. That is the reason people fought for them to be passed in the first place. Fighting for freedom is a moral issue. There's nothing wrong with that.

Yes, we need to struggle for justice in our houses of worship as well. In the media, on television, in the schools, in workplaces, in housing, in adoption rights - everywhere. We cannot allow "separate but equal" That's the bottom line. If you support marriage equality, I am very thankful. If you do not, I ask "why?"

[bluestateguy]

2. Newsbomb is watching his left flank

The Greenies are strong in SF and he only won 52% in December.

[tobius]

4. makes sense

I just wonder if this should have waited until after May.

“I don't drink these days — I am allergic to alcohol and narcotics — I break out in handcuffs” — Robert Downey Jr.

[lcordero]

3. that bitch is keeping gay marriage in the news right now so that

we'd have less of a chance to get somebody in and have somebody do something right for a change.

[Dr Fate]

5. outrageous...

I cant believe we are attacking the Democratic mayor of SF- who is doing the right thing!!!

[lcordero]

6. this stupid moron is preventing Democrats from assuming

a majority and legalizing gay marriage.
He should have kept his stupid mouth shut. He just handed the GOP some momentum by keeping gay marriage in the news :mad:

[Dr Fate]

7. Look, this is San Francisco...

...and most people know this. Calm down- Mayor Newsome is not enabling Bush...

[lcordero]

8. Get a load of this

http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/12/1662786.php

[tobius]

9. quite an eye opener that link of yours

    "When I have to choose between voting for the people or the special interests, I always stick with the special interests. They remember. The people forget."
                      -- Senator Henry Fountain Ashurst (D-AZ)

[David__77]

10. He's not the only Democrat to have done this.

So, he paid some money to be on an advertisement. The GOP in San Francisco doesn't even really run candidates. And when they do, they're sometimes what would otherwise be Democrats anywhere else. There are very, very few right-wingers in SF. I agree that he shouldn't have done that, but it's not as if he's governing like a Republican.

[Freddie Stubbs]

12. I wonder what the Green candidate would have done if he had won

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

13. Gavin Nuisance was bankrolled by Republicans

you tell me why he's pushing this issue now.

[David__77]

17. Because it's the right thing to do.

He's working with gay rights organizations who are supporting this. Assemblymember Mark Leno is introducing marriage equality legislation on Thursday. Saturday I'm going with my spouse to a rally at the capitol for marriage equality. We are fighting for our civil rights.

When Newson ran, he said he supported marriage equality. Things are coming to a head. We cannot play defense on this issue. That's how we'll lose. It will upset some people to be sure, but we're going to fight for marriage rights. And though I supported Gonzalez for mayor, I welcome anyone to support doing the right thing.

Equality California, the state's LGBT rights group, is putting marriage on the front burner. I am proud of them doing so.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

16. As someone who voted against Newsom...

I will say this -- he had been moving fast and furiously since taking office to "enhance" his Democratic credentials and gain left brownie points (look at some of his appointments), so this isn't entirely out of character for what he has been doing. Locally, we are just worried that he is doing the easy "leftish" stuff early on before he hits us with the more conservative parts of his program.

And as a city that has had domestic partnerships for over a decade and had yearly large-scale DP ceremonies in City Hall officated by the Mayor, this isn't much of a leap.

[KamaAina]

18. Looks like he heard the wakeup call from Gonzalez

When Newsom appointed his replacement to the Board of Supervisors (unlike the Felonious Five, he had the legal right to do that), he made history with his choice of Michela Alioto-Pier, the first Supe in The City's history (it is believed) to use a wheelchair. This in a city that had accessible buses even before the ADA required it to. They're even remodeling City Hall for access, just like Congress did for Jim Langevin (D-RI):

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/02/10/BAGCQ4KU2U47.DTL

Now, Mayor Gavin Newsom's appointment of Michela Alioto-Pier to replace him on the board has set in motion the most significant alteration the historic room has seen in 89 years: the addition of a wheelchair ramp or lift.

The preservation architects won't build it as a perfect match for the room, which is cloaked in honey-colored, old-growth oak, for two reasons: Historic guidelines dictate that additions look contemporary -- and there simply is no old-growth Manchurian oak left.

Still, providing access for Alioto-Pier and her successors would seem to be a simple matter. But this is City Hall -- not only the home of red tape, but a national historic landmark whose Beaux Arts-style innards are subject to a web of building regulations.

Of course, she is not the first Supe to be named "Alioto"; the fact that Newsom owed her aunt Angela big-time probably had more to do with this selection than anything else.

Is it true that Newsom has state and/or national aspirations? He may not be my ideal mayor of "the last progressive city", but he (and his glamorous wife and his flashy restaurateur's lifestyle) sure would look good going up against a certain groping Hitler admirer...