Headlines, Human Rights, North America

RIGHTS-U.S.: Same-Sex Couples Hurry to San Francisco

Marty Logan

MONTREAL, Feb 19 2004 (IPS) - As same-sex couples from throughout the state of California, the rest of the United States and beyond flock to the city of San Francisco to be married, their supporters and opponents are readying for another court hearing Friday.

Earlier this week two California courts refused to block the ceremonies that have married more than 2,300 same-sex couples in the west coast city since Feb. 12.

On Wednesday, U.S. President George W. Bush, backed by his wife, said he is “troubled” by the court decisions and hinted again he might seek a constitutional amendment to ban the practice.

Friday’s hearing in a California Superior Court is certain to be just another step in the legal battle that pits the City of San Francisco, gay rights advocates and same-sex couples against conservative groups that want to limit marriage to heterosexuals.

“The National Centre for Lesbian Rights, along with the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) and Lambda Legal, have intervened in the litigation on behalf of Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, the first same-sex couple to be married in San Francisco, as well as five other couples and Equality California,” NCLR legal director Shannon Minter told IPS.

“We intend to remain involved in the litigation until it is finally resolved,” she said.

New San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom announced last week that California’s historically radical, gay-friendly city would perform the marriages that he argued are legal under the state constitution’s equality guarantees.

The west coast nuptials follow a decision by the highest court in the east coast state of Massachusetts earlier this month that found only same sex marriages and not the civil unions advocated by some people (which provide couples fewer legal protections and benefits) would measure up to the state constitution’s rights guarantees.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger appealed to San Francisco’s leaders on Tuesday to stop the ceremonies, which he said violate a proposition approved by the state’s voters in 2000 that limits marriage to heterosexuals.

But Newsom refused, and in an e-mail interview Minter predicted more U.S. cities will follow San Francisco’s lead.

“We believe that it is inevitable this will happen, and that more and more local leaders and communities will stand up for equal marriage rights for same-sex couples and their families.”

On Wednesday, Bush, who is running for re-election in November and relies on the support of a conservative constituency that does not favour gay rights, again told reporters he is considering supporting an amendment to the U.S. constitution to limit marriage to heterosexual couples.

“I have watched carefully what’s happening in San Francisco, where licences were being issued, even though the law states otherwise,” Bush said. “I have consistently stated that I’ll support a law to protect marriage between a man and a woman. Obviously these events are influencing my decision.”

During a visit to California this week, a usually taciturn Laura Bush said that some people find the gay marriage ceremonies “shocking”.

“It’s an issue that people want to talk about and do not want the Massachusetts Supreme Court or the mayor of San Francisco to make their choice for them. I know that’s what the president thinks,” the first lady told the Associated Press.

Gay rights advocates argue that public opinion is on their side.

According to Lara Schwartz, senior legal counsel for the group Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the U.S. public is divided, and same-sex marriage is an issue that does make many people uncomfortable.

“However, the amendment itself is something that the majority of people are uncomfortable with,” she said.

An amendment banning heterosexual marriage has already been introduced in both houses of the U.S. Congress, though Schwartz believes Bush might not support it because it goes too far in discriminating against gay people.

“It’s unclear but it would very likely go much further than most Americans, even those who are not in favour of gay rights, would agree with. It could invalidate simple protections for gay and lesbian couples nationwide that legislatures have enacted.”

The groups that challenged the San Francisco marriages include the Proposition 22 Legal Defence and Education Fund and the Campaign for California Families.

Matt Coles of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) told IPS he believes that “the American people think that probably, ultimately, same-sex marriage is an inevitability. As with lots of changes, people can be reluctant about it, but I think the people regard it as something that is going to happen.”

Minter went further: “If anything, we believe the outpouring of support for the couples who have been able to marry in California will give (Bush) and other politicians pause”.

“We believe President Bush coming out in favour of an amendment to the constitution to enshrine discrimination creates enormous political risk for him.”

The ACLU’s Sean Cahill told IPS earlier that even a majority of supporters of Bush’s Republican Party (56 percent) supports non-discrimination laws that cover gay people.

HRC released a poll Wednesday that found the gay community strongly motivated to vote in November’s presidential poll. About 75 percent of the 748 respondents who self-identified as being gay in the December survey said they were “absolutely certain” to vote.

Schwartz said that level of activism reflects previous elections but the difference this time is that Bush will not be backed by a sizeable chunk of the community. In 2000 about 25 percent of gays in the United States supported Bush, who ran on a “very moderate” platform, she added.

“We had a very close election in 2000, and (if) you lose a quarter of this substantial group… that’s no small thing.”

“All of these LGBT (lesbian, gay bisexual and transgender) Americans have families who are maybe not LGBT – extended family, parents, brothers, sisters – and the impact of something as enormous as a constitutional amendment is certainly going to matter to the friends and family of the LGBT community,” she added.

“So it’s a small community and, yes, voter turnout has been high in the past, but if one party or one candidate is very clearly so bad for LGBT rights, what you could see is the gains that the Republican Party and the gains that George Bush made in 2000 would evaporate.”