Rep. Barney Frank opposed San Francisco's gay marriage effort

[Freddie Stubbs]

BETH FOUHY

Associated Press


SAN FRANCISCO - Rep. Barney Frank said San Francisco's decision to challenge state law and grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples was a "distraction" that could damage efforts by gay rights advocates to defend the Massachusetts court decision legalizing gay marriage.

"I was sorry to see the San Francisco thing go forward," said Frank, an openly gay congressman from Massachusetts who shared his concerns with fellow Democrat and San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom as the city prepared to begin marrying gays and lesbians last week.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Frank also expressed concern that the image of lawlessness and civil disobedience in San Francisco would pressure some in Congress to support a federal constitutional amendment banning gay unions.

Frank said he and other gay marriage advocates had hoped Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court decision upholding the right of same-sex couples to marry would serve as a national model for orderly, legal protection of gay marriage.

more: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/7982531.htm

[Ruby Romaine]

1. Hey, don't knock Barney, he's a politician & worried about the backlash.

I think Barney is great. It's really not the governments business what people do.

It is absurd, the RWers who are saying their marriages are hurt by same sex marriage.

You know what the comics say-
You get married, you have the same sex, over & over!
:)

[Freddie Stubbs]

2. I'm not knocking Frank--I agree with him

Some people are comparing the gay marriage issue to the struggle for civil rights by African-Americans. I think that we can learn from this analogy is timing. If that struggle had been fought in the 1920's, the outcome would have probably been different.

[Terran]

12. What then, in your opinion,

would be the propitious timing for this issue? How long are we supposed to wait?

The Civil Rights Movement was all about lawlessness and civil disobediance. And no one then had any special knowledge that that was the right time to begin. I wonder what percentage of the country in 1960 even supported the idea of such laws. I'll bet it was lower than the 45% who support gay marriage now.

[Fla_Dem]

3. Flame me if you want

But are there not a whole lot more important problems this nation needs to be dealing with than gay marriage ?

[trumad]

4. So what then

Do Gays just sit around and wait until all these er...problems go away? NOT!

[Ruby Romaine]

5. Of course, that's why * & repukes will try to make it an issue!

saw a newspaper article-
a gun guy said he was gonna vote dem this time-
cause you can't buy bullets if you don't have a job!

The economy has to be the main issue.

[Boomer]

6. Not a flame, but I will respond

If this was simply some "feel-good" issue, I'd agree with you. But marriage is first and foremost a legal contract that codifies the rights and obligations of family members to each other and guarantees inheritance of jointly held property.

Case in point: I have a good job with medical benefits, but my partner of 12 years -- who has MS -- is uninsured. Regardless of whether or not anyone else recognizes us as a couple, I do. Which means I pay for her medical bills so she can receive treatment when she needs it. Some years her bills are negligible; last year she had gall-bladder surgery that cost nearly $8,000. My company was willing to provide partner benefits, but was NOT ALLOWED to cover her because of state regulations against it.

This year, we've changed insurers to one who does allow partner benefits, so for the first time in over ten years she's finally covered. But the legislation the Republicans are considering could strip us of those benefits and we'd be back to square one all over again. Given her medical condition, that's a very scary thought.

As is the thought that my local hospital -- in a relatively conservative community -- could keep me from visiting my partner if she was hospitalized. Some will recognize the right of non-related persons, others won't. Some will give more weight to my power-of-attorny than to her family's automatic legal right to make life-and-death decisions, but others won't. In an emergency situation, having to fall back on lawyers and the courts could mean a fatal delay.

Legally, I own our house and have to pay extra legal fees to arrange for her to inherit from my estate. Fortunately, I have no family that would contest the will, so my partner stands a good chance of not losing OUR home. Her family, on the other hand, would probably come at me with knives to get back any property that she leaves me, will or not. Just what every person wants to deal with in the middle of grieving for a lost partner -- having to mount a legal defense to keep your car, your furniture, or art on the wall that your lover's family is trying to "take back."

Fortunately, we don't have children, so we don't have to worry about losing custody if the legally defined parent dies. Or if we split up and one of loses all contact with the children because we have no legal right to visitation.

I don't give a damn about the "sentimental value" of marriage. I've made my choice and no one else needs to confirm it for me to feel good about myself. But I do envy the protections and guarantees that come with that little white document -- they could be worth every thing I hold dear in the world.

(Edited for spelling)

[demdave]

7. Could you provide a link that shows

the legislation the Republicans are considering could strip us of those benefits? I was under the impression that private companies could offer anything they wanted to their employees. If they chose to cover domestic partners, they could. While not forcing companies to offer benefits, it would not prohibit it either.

If I am wrong, I would appreciate a link. Thanks.

[Ruby Romaine]

8. America is such a weird place-

We never got the Equal Rights Amendment passed and corporations have more rights than individuals.
It's terrible what you have to go through, Boomer -

I guess I take for granted the advantage I have -living in a "liberal" town & having a "liberal" employer.

[Noon_Blue_Apples]

9. can the 'greatest nation on earth' not walk and chew gum?

I guess not

[Chovexani]

10. LOL, good point

I always think that when people bring that up. Besides, when exactly is a good time to demand equality? It's always "wait till after the election". Wait till this, wait till that. It's infuriating. Good on SF and Mayor Newsom, I wish others had his courage.

[sweetcee]

11. This is exactly the type of action

MLK would have applauded!

No violence; disobedience to the State which has a protection of (heterosexual) marriage act which passed only because it was on the ballot in an off election with a couple of issues.

As any other civil rights battle is fought, one keeps on keeping on.

The right (yes, right) to marry is not covered in the constitution; the right to marry (no mention of gender) has been considered inviolate.

Considering the fact that this country leaves the poor and the elderly to use E.R.'s as primary care physicians, the gay rights struggle and the right to healthcare for all are 2 top issues as far as I'm concerned.

Newsom was pegged as a moderate in a very pejorative way and so I am pleasantly surprised he would ease this along ... and for 5 days!

[David__77]

13. I have to support Newson wholeheartedly.

In fact, I may just get married this weekend in SF.

But that personal motivation aside, I think that history will hold Newsom in high regard. Years ago, most states forbade "miscegenation." Imagine how highly we would think of a mayor who challenged the validity of such a state law. History is on the side of the progressives.

[Moderator]

14. Dupe... locking

Please continue discussion within the original LBN thread on this topic, which can be found here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=372995&mesg_id=372995|Rep. Frank Opposes Gay Marriage Effort]

Thanks!

DU Moderator