Keyword
in
Collection
Date
to
Houston Voice, No. 1217, February 20, 2004
File 010
Citation
MLA
APA
Chicago/Turabian
Houston Voice, No. 1217, February 20, 2004 - File 010. 2004-02-20. University of Houston Libraries. University of Houston Digital Library. Web. October 22, 2019. https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/montrose/item/6119/show/6099.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

(2004-02-20). Houston Voice, No. 1217, February 20, 2004 - File 010. Montrose Voice. University of Houston Libraries. Retrieved from https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/montrose/item/6119/show/6099

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

Houston Voice, No. 1217, February 20, 2004 - File 010, 2004-02-20, Montrose Voice, University of Houston Libraries, accessed October 22, 2019, https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/montrose/item/6119/show/6099.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

URL
Embed Image
Compound Item Description
Title Houston Voice, No. 1217, February 20, 2004
Contributor
  • Crain, Chris
  • Fisher, Binnie
Publisher Window Media
Date February 20, 2004
Language English
Subject
  • LGBTQ community
  • LGBTQ people
  • Gay liberation movement
Place
  • Houston, Texas
Genre
  • newspapers
Type
  • Text
Identifier OCLC: 31485329
Collection
  • University of Houston Libraries Special Collections
  • LGBT Research Collection
  • Montrose Voice
Rights In Copyright
Note This item was digitized from materials loaned by the Gulf Coast Archive and Museum (GCAM).
Item Description
Title File 010
Transcript HOUSTON VOICE www.houstonvoice.com FEBRUARY 20, 2004 Critics liken S.F. mayor to Ala. 10 Commandments' judge SAN FRANCISCO, continued from Page 1 amendment banning gay marriage, something his aides have told conservative groups he plans to do soon. "I have watched carefully what's happening in San Francisco, where licenses were being issued, even though the law stales otherwise," Hush said during an Oval Office session with Tunisian President Zinc Kl Abidine Ben Ali. "I have consistently stated that I'll support law to protect marriage between a man and a woman. Obviously these events are influencing my decision." He reiterated his position that marriage should lie defined as a union between a man and a woman and added he was "troubled by activist judges who are defining marriage." Even the often restrained First Lady, Laura Bush, who is on a fund-raising tour for her husband's campaign, weighed in on the debate and said gay marriages are "a very, very shocking issue" for some people. "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," said Mrs. Bush who did not express her own opinions about gay marriage. "I think people ought to have that opportunity to debate it, to think about it, to see what the American people really want to do about the issue," she said. California Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said in a statement this week that San Francisco must stop issuing marriage licenses. "Californians spoke on the issue of same-sex marriage when they overwhelmingly approved California's law that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. I support that law, and I encourage San Francisco officials to obey that law," the former actor said. Schwarzenegger has said he opposes gay marriage but supports domestic partnerships. Several socially conservative groups including the Campaign for California Families, the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund and the Proposition 22 Legal Defense & Education Fund filed lawsuits seeking injunctions against the city. Judge calls for March hearing San Francisco Superior Court Judge James Warren issued an order telling the city to cease and desist from issuing the licenses or he would require Newsom and other city officials agreed to appear at a hearing on March 29. City officials agreed so they can continue issuing marriage licenses. And San Francisco County Superior Judge Ronald Quidachay said Tuesday that he was not prepared to rule until Friday on injunctions brought by the Campaign for California Families and the Alliance for Defense Fund. Jenny Pizer, a senior staff attorney at Lambda Legal, said that for these groups to obtain an injunction, they must show they will suffer irreparable harm if the city Longtime activists Phyllis Lyon (left) and Del Martm, who have been together for 51 years, were the first gay couple to get married last week at San Francisco's City Hall, after Mayor Gavin Newsoti (far right) ordered city officials to issue marriage licenses to gay couplees. (Photo by Liz Mangeldsdorf/San Francisco Chronicle) continues to issue the licenses. "It's a three-part test that opponents must win," Pizer said. "First, is there irreparable harm to the plaintiff? Secondly, the party has to show they are likely to win and thirdly, would there be harm to others? All three must be met." Mayor Newsom, who ordered the city to begin issuing the licenses, said the city would continue marrying gay couples until a court order stops them. He added that when a court order prevents future licenses from being issued, the city would pursue a constitutional challenge through the courts. Newsom and gay marriage proponents say the marriage licenses are legal because of the California Constitution's equal protection clause prohibiting discrimination, as well as state recognition of gays as a protected class. Mayor may have violated state law But opponents say the move violates a successful voter-approved state initiative in 2000 declaring that California only recognizes marriages between one man and one woman and noted that state law supercedes city law when it comes to marriage. They also say that Newsom violated criminal law as well, citing the California Penal Code in which section 115 "prohibits the knowing procurement of any false or forged instrument to be filed or recorded in any public office, making such an act a felony punishable by up to three years in prison." Pizer said what will be determined in the cases is whether or not Newsom has the authority to "read the Constitution and make a determination that there's a statute in violation of the Constitution." "It's a little too early to predict how both cases will address that issue," Pizer said. "The question does shift to what the [California] Constitution requires. That would then effect questions of whether this was an abuse of the executive power or not or a trivial abuse or a serious abuse. "The right wing is claiming that this is anarchy and making quite inflated assertions. Civilization in California is percolating just fine. What has happened is that Mayor Newsom has pointed out that the boogie monster has no clothes. The assertion that society will tumble into disarray is obviously hollow." Brian Fahling, a senior trial attorney and policy analyst for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy said Mayor Newsom is "actively undertaking to violate the law in a pretty profound way" "Because of the laws that exist in California, you have an effort to call something marriage when it is in fact not," Fahling said. "I think we can safely conclude that they are attempting to further a political agenda through this defiance." Act of civil disobedience? Some gay activists have asserted that Newsom is engaging in civil disobedience, much like African-Americans did in the 1960s at the height of the civil rights movement. Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, a civil rights leader, said while he supports "equal protection under the law" for gay couples, he condemned equating the gay marriage cause with the civil rights movement. "The comparison with slavery is a stretch in that some slave masters were gay, in that gays were never called three-fifths human in the Constitution ... and in that they did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the rights to vote," Jackson said. "What is the same is that we all as citizens have the right to choose our partners." He stopped short of endorsing gay marriage. Fahling said the situation in San Francisco was not similar to the civil rights movement because a city official was breaking the law. "A civil magistrate can never engage in civil disobedience," Fahling said. "He's a man under authority. To the degree he finds himself unable to operate under the present regime, he should resign and work to create change as a citizen. But it is a huge problem when you have people charged with upholding the law being charged with violating it." Fahling said that Newsom was no better than another public official openly defying law, former Alabama Supreme Court Judge Roy Moore who blatantly defied state law, ignored a federal order and placed a monument to the Ten Commandments in the lobby of the Alabama Supreme Court. Moore was stripped of his chief justice position for defying a federal judge's order to remove the Ten Commandments monument. "There's the disintegration of law in this country and the most recent evidence of this fact is Judge Roy Moore." Fahling said. "While I felt that the Alabama Supreme Court was wrong, he had no authority or business defying that federal court order." John Aravosis, the co-chair of DontAmend.com, a grassroots lobbying effort dedicated to defeating a federal marriage amendment, said the comparison between Newsom and Roy Moore was wrong and that civil disobedience is appropriate in civil rights struggles. "And sometimes it is appropriate to be a good German," Aravosis said mockingly "People have a right to stand up in a non-violent way. If the right wing wants to talk about fairness, they have to explain Judge Moore. They didn't seem to have a problem when he took the law into his own hands and placed that Ten Commandments monument in the [Alabama] Supreme Court." ft MORE INFO American Family Association P.O. Drawer 2440 Tupelo, MS 38803 662-844-5036 www.afa.net
File Name uhlib_31485329_n1217_009.jpg