San Francisco's showdown on same-sex marriages

Whatever your views on San Francisco's issuance of marriage license's to same-sex couples, here are some excerpts from three separate columnists. It's interesting to see how others are viewing these events from other parts of the country:

Ruben Navarrette

A lot of Americans are seeing what's going on in San Francisco with gay marriages, and they're not pleased. They include President Bush, who signaled that he would support a law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Such an amendment would be a mistake, and it won't square with the rhetoric about Bush being a compassionate conservative.
...
Let's agree on this much: No matter how badly some Americans would like the issue of gay marriage to simply go away, it won't. And for good reason. There are some pretty serious issues involved -- not just religious teachings and social norms but states' rights, equal protection and the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution.

AND WHAT ABOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT? Full faith and credit does not dictate if the 1,000+ rights granted to marriage from the Federal Government will be granted.

Leonard Pitts

The most absurd thing about that argument is that it asks us to believe a man might have his choice of a sexuality that is accepted and one that will leave him open to ridicule . . . and he would take the second one. If that's not the dumbest thing I've ever heard, it's definitely in the top 10.

Whatever causes a man to be gay or a woman to be lesbian is obviously powerful enough that they have no real choice in the matter. The people who have been flocking to Mayor Newsom's city did not decide to be gay. What they have decided is that they are human beings worthy of human dignity, and they are tired of waiting for people to get that.

Yes, we are tired of waiting around for people and legislative bodies to deal with it. Many in Massachusetts have said that the issue of gay marriage is a matter that the Legislature should deal with, and not judges. The problem is, for the last 10 years, the legislature of Massachusetts have promised to do something with "civil unions", and they have not. If the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts had not made this ruling, it would not be dealt with they year either. It wasn't even on their agenda for this year, until they were forced to deal with it.

It's the same story here in Connecticut. That is why we are going to the Town Clerk's office tomorrow in our town. I want my state to tell me that I'm not worth as much as other citizens.

Jonah Goldberg

Fortunately, I have the answer for just such occasions: federalism. Under a federal system, each state can establish its own rules, within reason, for how it wants to live.

Liberals suddenly learned a newfound respect for the concept on the issue of gay marriage. U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., touts the genius of federalism whenever he can, including on Fox News Sunday when he indicated that he thinks having same-sex marriage legal in some states but illegal in others is an acceptable compromise.

Conservatives are suddenly less enamored with federalism. For a host of reasons, many of them want to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage in all 50 states. I'm opposed to that. First, real diversity requires accepting that some communities will do things you don't approve of. Second, I favor civil unions and I can't get a straight answer -- pardon the pun -- on whether the proposed amendments would allow them.

AGAIN, WHAT ABOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT? Federalism is fine for the states - assuming that it is acceptable to allow some states to continue to discriminate against it's gay citizens, but, it says nothing to the 1,000+ rights and privileges granted to married couples of the Federal Government.

Am I the only one that understands that the Federal Government is a major player in all of this? Everyone wants to leave it up to the states. It's not that simple. If we want to leave it entirely up to the states, than ALL rights and privileges afforded to marriage by the Federal Government should be stripped from marriage. It's that simple; assuming that society wants to rid itself of discrimination against it's gay citizens. That's a big assumption.

The people who would like to see civil unions rather than full-fledged marriage for same-sex couples are the same people who would speak out against racism against African American citizens, while at the same time, they are saying, "I never drive through the black neighborhood". Suddenly, you question their motives. They will say anything to be politically correct, but they will never put actions behind their words.

Isn't that right, Congressman Barney Frank? I thank God for people like San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom who has the incredible courage to take these brave steps into a new frontier for our equal rights. He didn't have to do this. He could have been like you Congressman Frank, who did nothing year after year, to promote equal marriage rights in your state of Massachusetts.

He has given me hope that my life with my partner may be as full as any other couple. He has made me think that maybe there is some hope for the human race after all.

What the hell have you given us Congressman? You are such a hypocrite. You are such a... politician.

Story Source