Close Window Dozens of gay couples prepare to wed in California Monday, June 16, 2008 SAN FRANCISCO - Dozens of gay couples planned to rush down to their county clerk's office Monday evening to be among the very first to say "I do" under the historic court ruling making California the second state to allow same-sex marriages.
The May 15 decision by the California Supreme Court was set to take effect at 5 p.m. While Mondays are not exactly a big day for weddings, at least five county clerks around the state agreed to extend their hours to issue marriage licenses, and many gay couples planned to get married on the spot.
"These are not folks who just met each other last week and said, `Let's get married.' These are folks who have been together in some cases for decades," said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. "They are married in their hearts and minds, but they have never been able to have that experience of community and common humanity."
The really big rush to the altar in the nation's most populous state is not expected to take place until Tuesday, which is when most counties plan to start issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of couples from around the country are expected to seize the opportunity to make their unions official in the eyes of the law.
Local officials will be required to issue licenses that have the words "Party A" and "Party B" where "bride" and "groom" used to be.
A conservative Christian legal group asked a state appeals court to block the weddings, but the move was given little chance of success. California's high court rejected a previous request for a postponement.
In San Francisco, where Mayor Gavin Newsom helped launch the series of lawsuits that led the court to strike down California's one-man-one-woman marriage laws, workers got ready for the crush of couples by setting up a satellite office in the lobby of City Hall.
Newsom planned to preside at the wedding of lesbian rights activists Del Martin, 87, and Phyllis Lyon, 84, the only couple scheduled to receive a marriage license in the city on Monday. As of Friday, nearly 620 couples had booked appointments to obtain licenses at San Francisco City Hall over the next 10 days.
Clerks elsewhere around the state reported nowhere near as high a demand but said they were training volunteer marriage commissioners to officiate at civil ceremonies in anticipation of a surge in business.
Unlike Massachusetts, which legalized gay marriage in 2004, California has no residency requirement for marriage licenses, and that is expected to draw a great number of out-of-state couples. The turnout could also be boosted by New York state's recent announcement that it will recognize gay marriages performed in other jurisdictions.
A UCLA study issued last week estimated that half of California's more than 100,000 same-sex couples will get married over the next three years, and an additional 68,000 out-of-state couples will travel here to exchange vows. The study estimated that over that period, gay weddings will generate some 2,200 jobs and $64 million in badly needed tax revenue for the state, which is ailing financially.
Some of those out-of-state couples are likely to demand legal recognition in their home states, setting the stage for numerous court battles.
However, some couples may wait to tie the knot because of a proposed constitutional amendment on the California ballot in November that would undo the Supreme Court ruling and ban gay marriage.
Amid the preparations, some religious leaders and conservative activists objected to the social change unfolding around them. The seven bishops of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles issued a statement Monday reiterating the Roman Catholic Church's position on same-sex marriage.
"The church cannot approve of redefining marriage, which has a unique place in God's creation, joining a man and a woman in a committed relationship," the bishops said.
Although government officials cannot legally withhold marriage licenses from same-sex couples, the clerks in comparatively conservative Kern, Calaveras and Butte counties last week stopped performing weddings altogether.
Among the reasons they cited were concerns that the increased demand would overwhelm their staffs and endanger the security of the election equipment they also oversee as part of their jobs.
Robin Tyler, 66, and Diane Olson, 54, who like Lyon and Martin were among the two dozen couples who served as plaintiffs in the litigation, also were scheduled to get married on Monday afternoon. The Los Angeles County clerk agreed to issue them a marriage license a day ahead of the general public in recognition of their role in the case.
"The word `marriage' is important to me to this day because marriage is a universally understood word," Olson said. "Robin is a different relationship to me than any other relationship I've had in my life. She's my special person."
---
Posts: 6008 | From: phoenix az | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geez!!! There's gonna be more tourists getting married in California than in Las Vegas....If that's even legal?
Posts: 2321 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ace of Spades: Geez!!! There's gonna be more tourists getting married in California than in Las Vegas....If that's even legal?
United States Constitution
"We the People..."
Article IV
Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ace of Spades: Geez!!! There's gonna be more tourists getting married in California than in Las Vegas....If that's even legal?
United States Constitution
"We the People..."
Article IV
Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
Actualy they say california is the first state to allow out-of-state gays to get maried....there is only one other state that allows same sex mariage..but not for out of states.
How is this possible with constitution clip you posted?
Posts: 2321 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
LOS ANGELES (AFP) - California's economy is poised for a multi-million-dollar windfall as same-sex marriages get underway here Monday, with the tourist sector eyeing a bonanza as gays and lesbians flock to the state to tie the knot.
Analysts say that a mini-industry will sprout up as California prepares to become the only US state that will allow gays and lesbians from outside the region to get hitched on its soil. Massachusetts, the only other US state to allow same-sex marriage, forbids non-residents from exchanging vows there.
That fact leaves California free to monopolize the same-sex wedding market.
According to a University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) study published earlier this week, around 51,000 of the 102,000 same-sex couples living in California are expected to marry over the next three years.
A further 67,500 same-sex couples from other states that are likely to recognize their vows are expected to come to California during the same period to get married, the study found.
"Spending by resident same-sex couples on their weddings and by out-of-state couples ... will boost California's economy by over 683.6 million dollars in direct spending over the next three years," the UCLA study reported, adding that the new industry would create around 2,100 new jobs.
Jack Kyser, Senior Vice President and Chief Economist of the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation, told AFP that same-sex marriages would lift the local tourist sector as fears of recession gripped the industry.
"There's going to be an economic impact, and this will be a welcome boost for the travel and tourism industry, which is a little bit concerned about the impact of the economy on traditional tourism," Kyser told AFP.
Kyser said the majority of gays also represented the most sought-after consumer demographic -- "DINKS" or "dual income no kids."
Even though some rural conservative areas of California "were not thrilled" by the same-sex marriage ruling, many districts such as Los Angeles and San Francisco are already marketing themselves as "gay-friendly" destinations.
"With all its sights and attractions -- and a heritage of tolerance -- gay-friendly Los Angeles will soon be the perfect gay and lesbian wedding destination," Los Angeles tourist office declared on its official website.
In West Hollywood, the gay hub of Los Angeles, businesses are preparing for the same-sex marriage windfall.
Zoe Caratas, Sales Director of the Ramada Plaza hotel in West Hollywood, told AFP that occupancy rates had soared since the California Supreme Court overturned the same-sex marriage ban on May 16.
"It has definitely increased the occupancy rate, especially for next week," Caratas said. "We are almost completely sold out on Tuesday (when marriage licenses will become available to couples), and the same goes for the remainder of the week. Normally, our occupancy is not as high during the week."
Caratas said the hotel was offering a special 599-dollar "Honeymoon Package" which includes two-nights accommodation, a complimentary bottle of champagne and free parking.
Posts: 2321 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actualy they say california is the first state to allow out-of-state gays to get maried....there is only one other state that allows same sex mariage..but not for out of states.
How is this possible with constitution clip you posted?
it has to be tested in the courts... get ready for some big cases.
Gay Married Californians moving to Texas will be very intertaining....
consider this case:
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)[1], was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States. The plaintiffs, Mildred Loving (nee Mildred Delores Jeter, a woman of African and Rappahannock Native American descent, 1939 – May 2, 2008)[2][3] and Richard Perry Loving (a white man, October 29, 1933 – June 1975), were residents of the Commonwealth of Virginia who had been married in June 1958 in the District of Columbia, having left Virginia to evade the Racial Integrity Act, a state law banning marriages between any white person and any non-white person. Upon their return to Caroline County, Virginia, they were charged with violation of the ban. Specifically, they were charged under Section 20-58 of the Virginia Code, which prohibited interracial couples from being married out of state and then returning to Virginia, and Section 20-59, which classified "miscegenation" as a felony punishable by a prison sentence of between one and five years.
quote: "With all its sights and attractions -- and a heritage of tolerance -- gay-friendly Los Angeles will soon be the perfect gay and lesbian wedding destination," Los Angeles tourist office declared on its official website.
Sure makes its nickname The City of Angels a bit more fitting.
Posts: 5729 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: "With all its sights and attractions -- and a heritage of tolerance -- gay-friendly Los Angeles will soon be the perfect gay and lesbian wedding destination," Los Angeles tourist office declared on its official website.
Sure makes its nickname The City of Angels a bit more fitting.
LoL...more like the city of fairies Posts: 2321 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
I believe that only applies to the rights that ALL citizens have, Glass. That no state may unilaterally decide to recind the rights afforded them by the constitution.
This is different as the state is giving a new right, not taking one away. If\once the federal government recognizes gay marriage, then it would apply. As for the Loving vs. Virginia, it was based on the racial component of the Virginia law, not the definition of marriage part. THAT is what the current debate is focused on.
I'm not saying the the government won't make it a universal right sooner or later; just that until it does, the states are going to fight it out tooth and nail until Big G stands up and takes a hard position one way or the other.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is different as the state is giving a new right, not taking one away
not really. the CA supreme court decision was based on the idea that the law banning same sex marriage was unconstitutional
Article 4 works both ways...
this is why there was a constitutional amendment push several years ago when Bush was running for his 2nd term...
there is no US constitutional definition of marriage, therefore the law has to be decided upon.
you are correct about the fighting, but unless the US Constitution is amended? every state will be required to honor what another has done. and the Federal Govt will have to provide marriage benefits to legally married gay couples in any state they live in... there is no constitutional basis to deny gays the right to be married.
just because you can't perform same sex marriages in Texas doesn't mean that same sex marriages won't be legally recognised.
Article 4 also brings some DC gun laws into question too, but nobody fought them until recently. we are still waiting on the results of that case.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait until all the divorce issues come up out of all this men and women that left there spouses with children and then they seperate again alimony and lots of other things attornies will have a field day.
Posts: 6008 | From: phoenix az | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I found this to be a interesting article that came out in the NY POST, a very Pro-GOP newspaper and written by a Consservative/GOP journalist (and i absolutely agree with her):
THE GOP GAY-MARRIAGE CON
Posted: 3:22 am July 8, 2008
IT'S déjà vu all over again.
Last weekend, Fred Barnes argued on Fox News Sunday that John McCain "needs to energize the right" by focusing on gay marriage and gays in the military. Otherwise, "he'll lose."
No word on whether McCain is considering this tactic, but the idea gets zero points for originality.
In 2004, Republicans tapped into anxiety about same-sex marriage after a spate of such marriages on the steps of San Francisco's City Hall and a Massachussetts Supreme Court ruling in favor of gay marriage. Eleven anti-gay-marriage ballot initiatives passed, and President Bush won re-election.
In 2006, just when the GOP had almost lost hope, New Jersey's Supreme Court decided right before the election that gay couples are entitled to the same legal rights and financial benefits as heterosexual ones. Bush suddenly began warning of a threat to the "institution of marriage" on the campaign trail. No matter: Democrats swept Congress.
This year, it's the California Supreme Court striking down a same-sex-marriage ban that must have gotten the Republicans noodling over the gay menace as a last hope to enthuse the GOP electorate. In a recent Los Angeles Times poll, 81 percent of Obama voters say they're "enthusiastic" about the candidate. McCain voters? More than half say that they're "not enthusiastic."
Barack Obama, like John Kerry in 2004, opposes gay marriage but supports civil unions. He also opposes an amendment to ban same-sex marriage and so write discrimination into the Constitution. Presumably, it's that last position that leads Fred Barnes to believe Obama - who's still married to his original wife - can be cast as hostile to traditional marriage. McCain, who's on his second wife, is the pro-marriage one, of course.
When are anti-gay-marriage voters going to get tired of being whipped into a frenzy about people they'll probably never meet wanting to marry someone of the same sex?
Gays and lesbians make up an estimated 5 percent to 10 percent of the US population. How much damage can they do by committing themselves to one another? They certainly can't do worse with marriage than heterosexuals have.
The New Testament says that marriage is between a man and a woman, you say? Yes, it does. But it also prohibits divorce, adultery and all sex outside of marriage. When are Republicans going to introduce a constitutional amendment banning divorce?
The "sophisticated" argument is that gay marriage poses a unique threat to the stability of the family. That one requires a thought process that my brain can't accommodate. Surely nothing is more threatening to marriage than divorce, followed by adultery. How is letting gays get married more damaging to the institution than cheating on your spouse?
Premarital sex accounts for many unexpected pregnancies, leading to single parents, again a threat to the traditional family. Yet the GOP hasn't taken up the cause of outlawing premarital sex.
Some argue that government sanction of gay marriage gives "moral approval" for such unions. If so, then a government divorce certificate provides "moral approval" for divorce - which, again, is banned in the Bible and threatens family stability.
There's a simple solution: Get the government out of the marriage business and provide civil unions to heterosexual and homosexual couples. Leave churches to perform the kinds of marriages that they want.
But then what would the GOP do in election years?
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
will be very intertaining....![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
