continued from page 1

On thesame day, openly
gay State Assembly member Mark
Leno (D-San Francisco) introduced
the Marriage License Non-
Discrimination Act (MLNDA),
sponsored by_ Equality California.
The bill would end discrimination
in the issuance of marriage licenses
statewide, allowing same-sex cou-
ples to obtain marriage licenses
anywhere in California. Leno also
performed many of the marriages
at City Hall. 4

Newsom had given fair
warning of his intentions, if not his

salme-gender marriages, he told the
San Francisco Chronicle, “Alittle
more 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.
Denying basic rights to members
of our community will not be toler-
ated.” W '

The initial low-profile
approach to this major policy
change was designed to prevent
conservative groups from getting a
court injunction to stop the prac-
tice. The marriage licenses were
issued in defianceofa California
law, passed by referendum, which
prohibits same-sex marriage.
Before his recall last fall, former
Governor Gray Davis signed a V
measure that will provide several
marriage-like rights to gay and les-
bian couples, but stops far short of
marriage and in any case does not
take effect until 2005.

The license documents
had been changed from “bride”
and “groom” to “applicant 1” and
“applicant 2.” They also came with
disclaimers, according to a report
in the Chronicle: “Marriage of les-
bian and gay couples may not be
recognized as valid by any juris-
diction other than San Francisco,
and may not be recognized as valid
by any employer.”

A spokesman from
F lorida-based Liberty Counsel,
representing opponents to marriage
equality, charged that the licenses
were “worthless” and predicted
they would be invalidated by the
courts. a
‘ Gary Busek, of Lambda
Legal, said in a press release, “If anti-
gay groups take the government to

MARRIAGE
  EQUALITY

  MARCH Es om

timetable. Two days before the first .

fiagzperterri at same: sex rzezspisac’ right to marry miiiaad mstsidez the Reuse of Repreaézmtéséives
énsiaiea the Easter; $2329 Ream Wednesday chanting and singing fer eqiizafiéty wtiiiie the
Legistatuaga met inside as a éierestituténrzai iiemrentiora, gmmm: éfiixréstcpiaer aware}

court tomorrow or in the days

‘ ahead,” he continued, “we intend to

take any legal action necessary to
make sure marriage licenses continue
to be issued.”

It remains to be seen
whether the San Francisco mar-
riage licenses — estimated at press
time to number in the thousands —
will be invalidated, as were a
dozen issued to same-gender cou-
ples in Boulder County, Colorado,
by County Clerk Clela Rorex in
1975, according to an Associated
Press story.

Achieving a Draw: The
Struggle Goes On

L The ending of the Massachusetts

constitutional convention was, by
all reports,‘emotional and chaotic,
with crowds of pro-marriage equal-
ity supporters singing “God Bless
America” and holding a huge
American flag, while the anti-gay
amendment’s supporters chanted,
“We want a vote!” That cry was
taken up as it finally dawned on
the conservatives that they were
witnessing a filibuster designed to
run out the clock to end the session
without further voting.

All of the amendments,
including those that “permitted” or
“established” civil unions, had
gone down to defeat by margins of
10 votes. or less.

About 20 legislators
who were supporting the

amendment to prohibit equal
marriage rights for same-gen-
der couples walked out of the

' session to dramatize their

opposition to the maneuver.
But the clock went on ticking,
and pro-equality spectators
applauded and cheered the fili-
bustering legislators as they
departed the hall shortly after
midnight.

“We sang patriotic songs
loud and strong for nine hours
straight,” said MassEquality.org ‘
campaign director’ and Vennont
resident Marty Rouse. “It is amaz-
ing that we got the delay.”

Rouse estimated that
about 90 legislators want the anti-
gay marriage amendment, and per-

 

haps 55 were firmly against writ- 
ing discrimination into the ‘ f
Massachusetts constitution. An
amendment must receive 101 votes V
to move to the next step in a three-
step process. The difficulty is in
convincing legislators in the mid- i
die, "many of whom are gay-friend-A
ly, that voting for an amendment '
prohibiting same-sex marriages -
even if it mandates civil unions —
is not the answer. -.
“Either”we’re 100 percent
equal, or it’s not equal,” Rouse
said. “There is no middle ground. j~
Civil unions are not a compromise .
— how do you compromise peo-
ple’s civil rights? The momentum
is in our favor, but whether that’s
enough to hold off bigotry ...‘”
Most telling, noted 7
Rouse, is who wins the March 2
special election for the state Senate ,
seat vacated by Cheryl Jacques” ’
when she became director of the ii 
Human Rights Campaign. A win
by former Jacques assistant_A_ngus_
McQuilken “would be a very gay.
sign,” Rousesaid; - -- .—  -  .
Responding "to a request a
for comment on the Massachusetts '

  

’ situation, Sherry Corbin, ofthe

Vermont Freedom to Marry Task ,
Force, said in a written statement,
“It appears that all attempts to pass‘ W
a discriminatory amendment have
been pushed aside, as it should be.

“It is,” she said, “a good ,
day today, Friday the 13th, 2004. i
The citizens of Massachusetts have:
a lot to be proud of, and we have ,
shed a tear of happiness at their tri- I
umph for fairness. We understand E,
their struggles and feel theirjoy. r ‘'
Another-step forward toward true '
equality and the ability for every-
one to have the choice to marry on
May 17, 2004. Yeah to ' ’
Massachusetts.”

“We have managed so far ~-
to dodge several bullets,” said '
Arline Isaacson, co-chairwoman of
the Massachusetts Lesbian and
Gay Political Caucus. “We’ve
made it through one more day.” V‘