Separate Is Not Equal

Four years ago, when Del Martin, Phyllis Lyon and more than 4,000 other couples said "I Do" this country took an irrevocable step toward securing equality for every American.

While many feel what we did was too much, too fast, too soon – we stand firm in the belief that our actions were not only just, but legal and constitutional. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the pursuit of happiness.

Today, the California Supreme Court is hearing arguments on whether excluding gay couples from marriage violates the state constitution. Today, these Justices have a unique chance to follow in the proud tradition of California's high court, which took a courageous stand on marriage equality in 1948 when it ruled that the state's ban on inter-racial marriage was unconstitutional.

Four years ago, when we started this process we knew this day would come – that we would have the opportunity to argue for justice and equality before the state Supreme Court. Whatever the Justices decide, the struggle will go on, both in the courts and at the ballot box.

Right now, the same groups that sponsored the 2000 California ballot measure reinforcing the prohibition on same-sex marriages are circulating petitions that would write discrimination into the state Constitution and overturn laws granting benefits to same-sex couples.

Right now, as the Justices are hearing arguments on what I believe is the civil rights issue of our time, we have a chance to take a stand against hate, against injustice, and stand up for equality.

Please – take a moment right now and go to equalityforall.com and join the "Decline to Sign" campaign to discourage people from signing these dangerous and hateful petitions. The very best way we can show the Court, not to mention the governor, the state legislature and the country that equality should not be whim to popular opinion or the political winds, is to stop the newest effort to legalize discrimination.

No matter the outcome of today's arguments, it is clear that this battle will continue. I, for one, believe that it is a fight worth fighting and never giving up on, until we have won.

If you have a chance today, check out Judge Richard Kramer's opinion from 2004 in support of marriage equality. He offers a well reasoned, dispassionate analysis of the fundamental right to marry. His decision was overturned – but I believe that his reasoning will prevail, if not today then someday.

•  Thanks for all your work

  Someday I hope we'll have more Democrats like you here in Virginia...

  by bpkybe on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:50:08 AM PDT

•  On behalf

  of all the happy, well-adjusted couples I know, thank you and good luck!

  by eColt on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:51:36 AM PDT

•  Thank You!

  As a young gay man, I would like to thank you for standing up for us when it was not popular to do so. Politicians don't always lead on issues that are difficult, but you did and we will forever be grateful.

  by Erik W on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:51:58 AM PDT

•  I love you, Gavin!

  Thank you for being a courageous American among a nation of so many cowards! Thank you for your support and graciousness!

  by sternsieger on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:52:51 AM PDT

•  Thank you for having a spine

  At a time when they are so rare.

  by BoiseBlue on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:54:08 AM PDT

•  i was then a resident of sf

  it's a pity to describe doing the right thing as courageous, but there we are.

  many thanks for stepping up for us.

  by homo neurotic on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:54:11 AM PDT

•  Thanks for writing

  As a straight neighbor just north of you I want to tell you how much I admire you for your stand on this and many other issues.  We do need a different Cal Supreme Court.

  by NearlyNormal on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:56:19 AM PDT

•  I like this "Decline to Sign" idea.

  Equality under the law is the rock bed foundation of this country's greatness.  The more we offer to each other, the more this country prospers and grows for all of us.  I can't understand how people don't see that.

  by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:57:14 AM PDT

•  Please move to Quebec, Canada.

  You are more than welcome to love and marry whomever you choose.

  It's a lovely place and you can live without fear.

  I'm sorry for all your pain.

  by CanAm on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:59:01 AM PDT

  •  nice

    thanks for the invite--lovely province you have there (i grew up in maine, and am of french-canadian descent going back to the late 1600's). so, it'd kind of be like coming home.

    alas, i'd probably have a hard time convincing my winter-adverse, southern-raised and otherwise fantastic better half to consider any more than a nice summertime visit...  :)

    we could sure choose to learn plenty from our northern neighbors!

    by homo neurotic on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:04:12 PM PDT

  •  Makes me proud to be a North American!

    with a hat-tip to Hendrick Herzberg of
    The New Yorker!

    by ExStr8 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:06:48 PM PDT

•  should be no distinction on sexual preference

  but it is going to take a long time until we can move enough of the country in that direction

  by teacherken on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:59:06 AM PDT

  •  Mr. Newsome is right.

    However, I'd like to suggest that the core issue is equality.  We assume that it's a good and it's enshrined in our Constitution.  However, there are many people who are antagonistic to equality.  For whatever reason, they find it necessary to believe that they are better than other people.  Which, of course, means that other people are somehow less than they.  So, to counter this contradictory attitude, they look for differences to PROVE that there's a natural hierarchy among humans.

    That's why they couch their objections as threats to the traditional form of marriage--a pairing of a superior and an inferior whose status was clearly related to their gender.  That's what the pairing of same-gendered individuals challenges.  It posits equality or, perhaps, reinforces it.  After all, if equality were indisputable, it wouldn't have to be guaranteed by the community.

    What's really short-sighted about all of this is the effort to condition a legal relationship and an assumption of mutual obligation (beneficial to society) on sexual interest even though sexual interest and relationships aren't conditioned by any obligations.  Moreover, this myopia actually precluded individuals who have mutual interests and are keen to share obligations (financial and material), but who have no sexual interest in each other, from entering into a partnership.  It really makes no sense.  Same gendered individuals are to be excluded from partnership because of their supposed sexual interest, but individuals who have no sexual interest are excluded, as well.

    by hannah on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:39:28 PM PDT

    •  bingo! sexual interest vs other....

      Ultimately the state has to get out of the "marriage" business, and the key consideration has to be: equal status for individuals who share means of subsisence (e.g. a household) and pledge to act in a mutually committed and supporting manner regardless of gender or sexuality.  

      The only reason sex is in the picture is because it's a reliable source of the various brain chemicals that lead to emotional bonding and thus a basis for mutual commitment and support.  However there are other reliable sources of similar brain chemicals, for example engagement in other types of creative pursuits as one's life's purpose.  

      by G2geek on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:46:21 PM PDT

      •  Not Gonna Happen

        The state is not going to get out of the marriage business and it is insulting to gay people that now that we want in, after hundreds of years of being in the "marriage business" the state is suddenly going to get out of it.

        by claudew on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:16:32 PM PDT

        •  marriage is a religious sacrament

          and as such has no place in the business of government any more than the legal age of majority should be determined by the various religions' ceremonies for the spiritual coming-of-age.  

          The proper secular legal category should be civil union or civil partnership, across the board, regardless of gender.  No "separate but equal" and no religion in the county registrar's office.   And "hundreds of years" doesn't matter; women were denied the vote until the early 20th century.  

          By the way, I'm gay too.  Not that it matters. Ideas stand or fall on their merits, not on the identity of the person espousing them.  

          And as for civil union or partnership, that should also be plural.  One should be able to create one's family on any basis one chooses, not just on the basis of reproduction or adoption.  If some group of people wants to constitute itself an extended family and pick up the legal obligations of doing so, fine and good.  

          When I was doing music production, I often advised new bands, "this is the closest you're going to get to being married to a bunch of guys, and creating an instant extended family."  That's not too far from the facts of life in a new band, touring and recording and so on, and very often living together in close quarters.  In that case it's an extended family based on the commitment to a shared creataive vision.  I see no good reason why artists, scientists, and others engaged in the creation and propagation of memes should be accorded any fewer rights than people engaged in the creation and propagation of genes.  

          That however will probably take another century to be widely enough understood to make any kind of dent in the legal system.  If humans don't crash the planet and go back to the caves first.  

          by G2geek on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:06:14 PM PDT

•  People May Debate The Impact on the Party

  But I believe that you did the right thing.  If I had still lived in San Francisco for the last election, I would have voted for you.

  Someday will come, I hope sooner than later.  

  by Spirit of Fighting Bob on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:59:55 AM PDT

  •  Agreed

    The fact is that positive/progressive action is often met with a backlash, but history shows that the backlash is temporary so it's the classic two steps forward, one step back.  

    by Darmok on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:03:30 PM PDT

•  Thanks, Gavin. Every one should read the part of

  the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, to wit,
  ""no state shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

  by ExStr8 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:04:45 PM PDT

•  I'm watching the CA SC oral arguments now.

  From what I'm watching, it's looking good for our side.

  by Nick Blas on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:05:32 PM PDT

  •  i'm recording it.. i have a question...

    why is it looking good?

    Are the judges' questions any indication? Do they seem to be friendlier or more probing on one side or the other?

    Or are arguments for marriage equality just sounding good :) (of course they would to me!)..

    just curious.

    by wclathe on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:07:42 PM PDT

    •  Some of the questions

      seem to be actively attacking the basic position of the respondents (that would be "not us"), and not in the way that allows the respondents to sharpen or clarify their position.

      by Nick Blas on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:11:26 PM PDT

    •  More specifically,

      I'm getting a strong vibe from all three women and Chief Justice George that they are planning on granting marriage to the couples in question. 4 is a majority on the CA Supreme Court.

      by Nick Blas on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:36:18 PM PDT

      •  That would be great

        But I'm a little skeptical because of the conservative make-up of the Court - although I haven't followed them closely for a few years.  Can you elaborate a little?  

        (And I'm not doubting your ability to read the Court at all; I just think it would be a shock if they came down the right way.  I hope that I'm just out of touch).

        by Darmok on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:09:59 PM PDT

        •  It's more of a gut feeling than anything else.

          Along with the sorts and manner of questions being asked. George looked like a lock, as did Kennard. I understand Moreno is likely to back it, which means that George and Kennard (the two most respected jurists in the state) just have to get one of Corrigan, Werdegar or Chin to go along with it.

          I like our odds, is all I'm saying. And keep in mind that California Supreme Court is the most cited state court by other state courts by a huge margin. Their opinions are routinely adopted nation-wide.

          by Nick Blas on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:26:27 PM PDT

•  Thanks, Mayor Newsom

  I live in SF and voted for you in both elections.  I am very nervous about what the state court will decide, but I'm thankful for you starting this process in motion, and I do believe that eventually the state of California will see marriage equality happen, and when that time comes, on the day of my wedding I will thank you for helping to make it possible.

  by Black Knight on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:08:25 PM PDT

•  We got married in SF 4 years ago...

  in the marriages you instigated! :D

  Of course this court case stemmed from that... and my partner and I are VERY focused on what is happening.

  Here's to hope.

  And thank you Mayor Newsom!

  by wclathe on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:09:33 PM PDT

•  I was there...

  ...when many of my friends tied the knot at City Hall. It was glorious.

  I'm proud to work for the City and County of San Francisco and to have you as my Mayor. =)

  by Archangel on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:14:53 PM PDT

•  Thanks, Gavin.

  I live in the Inner Richmond.

  Those were heady times. Thanks for your courage. I've heard all the criticism, but I think you have to go with your gut. You advanced the debate in a very powerful and tangible way. You can't refrain from doing the right thing because there might be a backlash.

  One of your senior staff lived next door to me and said you approached this boldly and unflinchingly (I believe the direct quote was "I didn't want to run for higher office anyways!"). I very much respected that (and still do).

  Thank you and best wishes.

  by homogenius on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:18:30 PM PDT

•  As a straight San Franciscan whose marriage

  has never been threatened by the same sex couples around us (despite the warnings from the fundies), I'm really hoping for the best today.  Someday the rest of the country (the rest of the world!) will wake up.

  by lineatus on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:20:13 PM PDT

•  Thank you

  As I said yesterday in response to an unfair attack on you:

  The California Legislature would not have passed a marriage equality bill twice had Newsom not done what he did. We stand a better chance of winning in the California Supreme Court in the case that will be heard tomorrow morning.

  More importantly, the most important impact of "The Winter of Love" was on gay people ourselves. Many of us, even if we supported the right to marry in the abstract, still had qualms. Whether from the left - assimilation into a heterosexist institution - or the right -too far, too fast. But seeing all those people waiting in line in the rain, seeing the joy on their faces, hearing their life stories. All doubts melted away. And having an elected politician (rather than unelected judges) standing up for us like that made us feel like we mattered.  

  Many of us use to say that we didn't care what straight people thought about us, just give us our rights and leave us alone. But the struggle for same-sex marriage has shown that to be a lie. A lie we had to tell ourselves but the only people who don't care what others think are sociopaths. That's why Civil Unions will never be enough. It's about social acceptance. And for those who say that you can't legislate that I have two words for you - Barack Obama. People said that passing Civil Rights laws wouldn't change attitudes either but they were wrong.

  That said, I have to take issue with your using the inequality of Civil Unions to attack only Barack Obama while ignoring that your chosen candidate has the same position. In fact, Obama's position is slightly better in that he calls for the complete repeal of DOMA. Moreover, he has said that if a state (either by law or initiative or through a court decision) recognizes same-sex marriages, he is for granting same-sex married couples ALL federally recognized spousal benefits.

  by claudew on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:27:28 PM PDT

•  Thank you - and fuck Jerry Brown :) nt

  by tiponeill on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:37:25 PM PDT

  •  Jerry Brown has a constitutional duty to

    defend that measure. He's often stated he's in support of gay marriage - but any good attorney often has to take positions which are opposite of his own beliefs. The Attorney General would be impeached, and rihtly so, if he refused to defend something passed by the state's voters.

    by Shane Hensinger on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:39:29 PM PDT

    •  No he doesn't

      he could state that he thought the law was wrong and couldn't defend it.

      Gavin did when he allowed gay couples to marry despite the "state's voters".

      The difference is morality and courage, which I understand Jerry Brown had once upon a time

      by tiponeill on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:45:15 PM PDT

      •  No, actually every person

        and measure has a right to be defended and Jerry Brown was elected to represent the people of California and not his own beliefs.

        Imagine if a right-wing attorney general refused to defend a measure instituting gay marriage. That's called "politicization of the court and its officers" and it's what we've (rightly) been trying to stop the Bush administration from doing over the past 7 years.

        by Shane Hensinger on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:49:26 PM PDT

        •  Alberto Gonzales? nt

          by ExStr8 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:12:33 PM PDT

          •  Yep

            Exactly. I'm sure Jerry Brown is holding his nose as he defends this measure, but he's fulfilling his constitutional duty as attorney general. And loyalty to the constitution, whether that be California's or the Federal version, is paramount over ideological concerns.

            by Shane Hensinger on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:18:07 PM PDT

            •  No it isn't

              any more than upholding fugitive slave laws was paramont - when the law is blatantly immoral, one's moral duty is not to uphold it.

              And I doubt Jerry Brown is holding his nose - the law defining marriage as being only for straights was passed under his governorship.

              by tiponeill on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:49:36 PM PDT

•  I hope you'll take on other issues that effect SF

  with equal vigor.

  Like the displacement of the very people who make San Francisco "San Francisco" (including average gay folks) by the endless and relentless approval of neighborhood crushing development.  

  The constant approval of highrise luxury condos and apartment conversions that is driving the pressure to up rents and tear down or convert historic rent controlled buildings, has plowed on unabated under your watch, changing the social fabric and threatening the century old beauty of this city.  

  There are so many issues effecting the day to day "quality of life" for San Franciscans that are being ignored.  Are "marriage rights" really as important as it's average working people being forced to leave their homes because it's become city policy to help wealthy people who want to take their place?  Driving out the very people who have worked for decades here to create an environment where "gay rights" (and countless other Progressive ideas) became even possible?  

  The demographics that have made San Francisco the literal "shining city on a hill" for Progressives in America, and indeed, around the world, are being changed forever.  That is a far greater tragedy than the cause you've been so moved to write about in this diary about.

  by recontext on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:38:44 PM PDT

  •  Zzzzzzzzzz, stop diary hijacking

    The mayor is addressing a specific issue and you're trying to start a fight around development - which has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

    by Shane Hensinger on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:40:47 PM PDT

    •  However...

      The number one issue in this wonderful city is affordable housing. I'd like to see the mayor do more for middle class (and poorer) families, lest the massive exodus of families and African Americans continue.

      It's not so often that we see our Mayor strolling around these parts. When we do, I see no harm in trying to engage him in healthy debate about the issues that we care about.

      by jordan on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:31:17 PM PDT

•  Shout out from the Inner Sunset.

  I've been a proud San Franciscan for 25 years, but I've never been prouder than in February of 2004.

  Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for not giving up on this!

  by slksfca on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:50:11 PM PDT

•  thank you thank you thank you

  When all's said and done, your name is going down as one of the people who refused to bend to bigotry early in the fight.  Regardless of what happens in the short term, future generations of married couples have you to thank for helping lay these foundations.

  by pico on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:54:50 PM PDT

•  Thank you

  You are a hero.

  by Oregon Bear on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:02:29 PM PDT

•  Thank you, Mayor!

  I will always be grateful for your stand on behalf of full equality for our lgbt community!

  by Nancy in Berkeley on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:34:53 PM PDT

•  We in the purple/red states are counting

  on you to win.

  When the west coast and the east coast are north-to-south SSM states, that is when the bigoted rationales for forbidding it will begin to die here.

  by AndyS In Colorado on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:39:32 PM PDT

•  as a queer man

  I wish you hadn't done what you did in SF as it was unwise.  Political action takes strategy and you seemed to have fallen on that front.  Everything else you have to offer is bullshit.

  Also, as a queer man who is mixed, I don't take "Separate But Equal" lightly.  Marriage, while important, is not the same as hospital care, education, etc etc.  We haven't treated GLBTQQI folk the way Blacks were treated (slavery, Jim Crow, cropsharing, etc).  You may think you're helping, but you're really, really not.

  by bsmcneil on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:45:56 PM PDT

  •  One man's opinion

    You can strategize political action and speculate about how it will play out in the next 5 minutes to 50 years until your head spins, but sometimes, doing the right thing is just that.  

    And I think the term "separate but equal" originated in a Supreme Court case about railway cars; is marriage less important than who sits in which railway cars?

    And, please stop with the tired game of "who suffered more."  Equality doesn't depend on who has been treated worse over the years, and thank goodness, because we could debate that until the end of time.  It's a ploy to pit groups against each other, and shame on you for suggesting it here.

    by Darmok on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:08:18 PM PDT