Gavin Newsom Honored on 3rd Anniversary of Issuing Gay Marriage Licenses


On Monday, the third anniversary of the day San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom began issuing marriage licenses to over 4,000 same-sex couples in San Francisco, setting off a wave of similar actions by mayors around the country and bringing the gay marriage battle into sharp focus, he was honored by hundreds of same-sex couples at City Hall.

Newsom3_1The San Francisco Chronicle reports that the Mayor was buoyed by the support in the wake of his recent disclosure that he had an affair with the wife of a former campaign manager.
Newsom talked about the continuing struggle for gay and lesbian marriage rights as California’s courts continue to consider whether or not same-sex marriages are legal under the state’s constitution.

Said Newsom: “For me this is a long battle, but it is one that will be won inevitably. It’s only won through courage and constancy and works. You’ve got to continue to remind people what’s at stake and not give up or deviate from your purpose….There’s never a wrong time to do something right.”

Newsom also referenced Vice President Dick Cheney’s recent interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, in which he declared questions about his lesbian daughter Mary’s pregnancy off-limits: “I think it’s unfortunate that the vice president does not want to talk about the pending birth of his granddaughter when he was at the forefront of advancing efforts that I would argue not only discriminate against his daughter, but also his granddaughter.”


Anniversary of Same-sex Weddings [sf chronicle]

You may have missed…
Gavin Newsom on Gay Marriage and Spineless Democrats [tr]


  1. Matt says

    I disagree with Dick Cheney’s views but I don’t think he has to answer questions about his family. They aren’t in political office. Frankly, he is an old man who is finished in politics anyway since he will not ever run again for a political office.

    Does anyone know what happened to the 100 hours countdown clock on Nancy Pelosi’s website? I know that the minimum wage didn’t pass b/c there were disagreements over tax cuts for businesses to help them adjust to paying more for employees but what happened to the other issues they were working on? It seems like they forgot about these issues and instead focused on passing a resolution saying the troop surge is bad, which I think is a waste of time since it’s only symbolic.

  2. bambambam says

    As long as Dick and Mary Cheney continue to profiteer from the war while threatening the lives and well-being of every gay person by living in the closet and modeling this self-hatred every day, you bet your ass, we have to ask how that child is and whether she is a fit mother to make that child understand that he or she is NOT a freak or an abomination…

    Mary Cheney will teach her child that she or he is not an abomination? Please. She didn’t stand up for herself. She doesn’t stand up for the troops when her dad sends them WITHOUT ARMOR, THIS WEEK. She won’t stand up for this child. That’s what makes her an unfit mother, not whether she’s gay.

  3. chrisnyc says

    No matt, they finished the whole agenda in 42 hours, that’s why the clock is gone. They voted on everything, the hold up is the senate where parlamentary procedures can be used my the minority party to add amendments to delay or prevent passage. Speaker Pelosi did her job. Nice try though.

  4. Matt says

    What try Chris? I asked a question? I didn’t know. I didn’t see anything in the media or on this blog about her finishing. I didn’t even see anything on her site that said the agenda was finished. Her main page still says, “In the first 100 hours of the 110th Congress, we will pass the elements of our “Six for ‘06” agenda to meet the everyday needs of all Americans.” There isn’t anything on her alternate page, speaker.gove either. Anyway just because she did the whole agenda doesn’t mean a thing. It’s stuck in the Senate now and will probably go back to the House.

  5. Matt says

    Zeke would be proud. I did my research for once. Of course he was absolutely right to call me out on not reading up on anything before I slapped it on here. Oh, and I meant

  6. Leland says

    Ouslander, I don’t know what planet you’re typing from but your comment was moronic. Matt, despite your disclaimer, you’re either naive, a fool, or a Repug shill [dismiss Cheney/dart Pelosi]. The combination of the ageist “old man” with the suggestion that Cheney has been rendered harmless by the likelihood that he will never run for office again is stupid. If you wish to comment, is it too much to ask you to know a little bit about political reality? As long as Cheney has a vile breath in him, he will continue to be a major influence on the thoughts and actions of the American Taliban. Even afterward, as evidenced by the remaining influence of Nixon and, particularly, Reagan from their well-deserved graves. Cheney’s a living “weapon of mass destruction” of the civil liberties and quality of life of anyone he disagrees with, not just LGBTs of all colors, but, for instance, as I recall, he voted against Head Start funding when in Congress.

    “modeling this self-hatred every day” is a brilliant phrase, Bam! And, that’s exactly what Mary With Child continues to do, and her father and cunt mother reinforce it with treating their daughter’s life like a dirty secret. The message is, “Gays aren’t quite good enough to be first class citizens.” Most of us have experienced this with a family member or friend in our own lives, who don’t want us to talk about “gay” in front of someone else, or bring a same gender date or partner to family/friend events, or not talk about the battle for equality. But the truly SICK thing is that Ma & Pa Cheney are doing it less because of personal embarrassment and more to dim the light that people like Wolf Blitzer AND John Kerry legitimately tried to shine on their heinous Party—in other words so that their HYPROCRISY WON’T LOSE VOTES!!!! And Mary Muffdiver has played the same game.

    It was entirely right of Newsom to say what he said. It is entirely consistent with the fact that he remains one of the few Democrats with a national reputation with the balls to defend FULL equality for gays as manifested by full MARRIAGE! The SF Chronicle continues to dig at him as their irresponsible, senseless campaign to bring him down by way of his PERSONAL mistakes continues to fail, as it should. Writing that Pa Cheney opposes a Constitutional gay marriage ban is like saying that he opposes war or war and oil profiteering. He’s drooled mealy-mouthed lip service to it, BUT said he will follow the President’s wishes. Adolph Eichmann much? Even Eichmann didn’t put his own daughter and grandchild on trains to the camps, yet Cheney keeps “modeling” that he loves them both deeply IN SPITE OF THE FACT that their evil, less than human, perverts, whatever.

    A hypocrite, or perhaps he’s simply willfully ignorant, on the Dem side is Barack O’Bigot, whose own mother, father and stepfather, might have gone to jail for being in mixed race marriages—which were once even more illegal and socially repugnant than same gender marriage—and attacked by “Christians.” Ah, but THAT was different, eh, Senator?

    Who knows what NGLTF’s Matt Foreman’s FULL comment was, but the Chron’s quoting him as saying that Newsom’s marriage actions fueled the fire of states inacting consitutional bans lacks the normal nuance of such an intelligent man. I’m confidant that he would have added that it was only a matter of time in any case. That dry drunk and pathological liar Bush likes to blame Newsom for “forcing his hand” to call for a federal amendment, counting on hoi polloi to be too dumb to remember that he was talking about doing it before. In fact, as many will recall, Newsom’s action was in direct response to being in the chamber when Bush talked about it again in his State of the Union that year.

    I do disagree with Newsom about one thing—that is, that his private life is any of my, or the Chron’s, or The City’s business. While Cheney and O’Bigot and Giuliani and Hillary and Romney and Edwards and McCain still nourish their political careers and power with drops of our blood, coming close but always backing off from saying we’re EQUAL Americans, Newsom continues to say we are, three years after the Party leaders privately and publicly crucified him, telling him any hopes of serving in higher office were toast; three years after receiving over 1400 death threats and having to have a large security detail 24-7; despite the fact that local homophobic Repugs AND Dems are now feasting on his “scandal” to get even with him for daring invite 21st Century “darkies” to the table.

    So he’s human; I still say, three cheers for Gavin Newsom and the FUTURE his courage represents!!!

  7. LightningLad says

    Newsom’s political heart was in the right place back in 2004 but he went about things the wrong way.

    It was an abuse and overreaching of his executive power to singlehandedly decide to start issuing marriage licenses which he knew were not even worth the paper they were printed on (and which I believe even came accompanied with a disclaimer stating that the document may not be legal).

    Just because a Mayor disagrees with a law – no matter how unjust he thinks it is – does not give him the legal right to just overrule it and set up his own law.

    Imagine if instead handing out marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Mayor Newsom decided to hand out assault weapons from the steps of City Hall to anyone who wanted one because he disagreed with the California ban on ownership of assault weapons and thought it was a fundamental violation of the Constitutional right of private citizens to keep and bear arms. The same people who celebrated Newsom’s willful disobedience of the law in handing out same-sex marriage licenses would likely be condemning him for handing out assault rifles – even though the same political principle would apply in both cases, which is an executive feeling he can just disobey a law if he thinks it is unjust.

    As an executive, it is the Mayor’s job to faithfully execute and enforce the laws – not willfully disobey them, or create new laws or rescind old ones by executive fiat. That’s the proper role of the legislature and judiciary. It’s called balance of power as we learned in Civics 101.

    As the leader of the executive branch, the Mayor is entitled to propose or challenge legislation that he feels best serve the needs of his gay constituents, or join in challenges to state law banning same-sex marriages as Newsom eventually did. As a private citizen, he may even participate in marches or activist groups to press for change in marriage law from outside the traditional system of power.

    But it was an incorrect use of power for Newsom to willfully disobey the law. Again: heart in the right place and good symbolic politics but wrong and illegal approach.

  8. says

    Leland you might want to calm down before you give yourself a heart attack. I was being sarcastic about the “threat”. I don’t believe we are a threat to marriage, straights have pretty much down that themselves. He’s still a dirtbag.
    Whether it’s called marriage or union as long as it holds the same rights and duties, I am all for it.
    You are no better than the far right that demonizes and attacks us and our supporters.
    Yes, if Giuliani runs, I will def support his campaign. I guess that makes me a traitor to my “tribe” Watch how quickly the dems/left/whatevah try to use his support of gay unions, staying with a gay couple and once dressing in drag against him.
    Leland I thinks I hear massah Ford calling you back to the plantation.

  9. rudy says

    Leland brother, Glad to have you back with us in cyberspace. But be warned: the Vacant Stare Generation does not like long posts because it makes their brains hurt. That is especially true when you engage in activities of which they are incapable, such as thinking and articulating a cogent argument. Thank Judy (that one’s for you bro!), that you included paragraph breaks because their little minds focus on little things. Lightninglad, you also are guilty of thinking and engaging in a responsible and responsive dialogue. What will the VSG do now that the grownups have deigned to post?

  10. Leland says

    Thank you, kind Rudy, but I cannot be so generous with Lightninglad, based, if nothing else on his factual errors and fantasies.

    1. There was NO disclaimer on the marriage licenses SF issued. See an example at:

    2. Your argument is based on legalisms, which, even were they not so flawed factually, would not speak to morality. There was, objectively, no “willful disobedience” on Newsom’s part. If anything CA’s version of DOMA, passed by referendum, violates its own constitution. which says no right shall be denied any citizen that is afforded other citizens. As a state official, Newsom swore to UPHOLD the state constitution. Yes, the courts have, so far, ruled against him, but, just as the Supreme Court did in Plessy vis-a-vis blacks and Hardwick vis-a-vis gays — both rulings later overturned by the same court, of course — those judges are nakedly not deciding upon law — it is black and white until the state constitution is amended — but upon homophobia, just as the judges in Plessy, and those that had upheld laws forbidding mixed race marriage were voting on the prevalent opinion of race at the time. To confuse temporal subjectivity with “legal” truisms is intellectually lazy or dishonest.

    In any case, legalism is a weak floor to stand on. It is still legal in some countries to execute someone for gay sex. Judges in Nazi Germany repeatedly authorized the denial of civil liberties, even murder, e.g., those deemed mentally or physically handicapped, to suit the State and/or their own prejudices. Would you have said of anyone who tried to stop them, “they’re heart is in the right place but they’re wrong.” All laws are meant to serve the people, not the other way around. “FOR the people.” And the approaches to changing them when they violate the people’s rights are not as narrow as you propose.

    Hypothetical situation: after exhausting the venues that you sanction; after myriad lawsuits die year after year in the Supreme Court Bush packed; not only gay marriage is still illegal, but job, housing, etc. discrimination against gays is “legalized” because smug legalists like you repressed all efforts to combine legal challenge with civil disobedience to raise consciousness to overcome the inherent prejudices of jurist and legislators — what then, oh wise one? What then?

    Ouslander, are you saying Newsom is a dirtbag because he wants us to have more rights than Guiliani does, or simply because he’s straight, which would, of course, make Guiliani, prancing across the country with the woman he abandoned his wife and son for, would be a dirtbag, too.

    Civil unions, however many “rights” attached to them, are no more equal to marriage than the back of the bus is to the front. I’m sure people argued at that time, “What difference does it make; you still arrive at where you’re going.”

    That Guiliani stayed with a gay couple after abandoning wife and child is not quite enough for anyone to vote for him. And if doing drag were a qualification for office, or evidence of incomparable gay affirmation, Congress would be filled with nothing but veterans of Harvard’s annual Hasting Pudding review.

    Clock this, oh Jew for Jesus, I would not vote for Guiliani even if he was the only candidate to change his mind and support gay MARRIAGE. All boats benefit from a rising tide and there are too many of the boats of the Republican party are filled with our rabid enemies. I cannot imagine him, once in office, going against them, e.g., issuing an executive order overturning DADT, actively using “the bully pulpit” for other gay rights — has he been doing that recently and I just missed it? — nor opposing them on any number of other things that I believe in that are totally non gay specific such as universal healthcare and doing anything significant to stop the nation’s/world’s worst polluters that are almost universally REPUBLICAN.

  11. chrisnyc says

    Apologies, your tone sounded like one of the either trolling log cabins on here, or an obnoxious, uber-progressive who wonders why the democrats haven’t passed a bill banning religion.

    She’s moved on. Until it comes back from the senate, there is nothing she can do. She passed it all, and it’s time to look into new issues, such as the 52 hearings they have already had on Iraq to actually uncover where the money is being spent and how such catstrophic mistakes were made.

    If I had read it as a simple, honest question, I would have left the snide on the side.

  12. Matt says

    No problem Chris. Thanks for the apology. A least you didn’t call me a repug shrill like leland. Am I the only person who use to read what he said but now just scrolls through it b/c it is so hate based?

  13. says

    Some of Newsom’s instincts, like his charisma, are to be honorable. But several of his judgments, not unlike Haggard’s and Foley’s, are to be lamented. At least his own foibles are owned, rather than denied, only to be blamed on alcohol (dependency like Haggard and Foley). If we do not tolerate the foibles of Haggard, Foley, and others, can we tolerate the foibles of Newsom without our own double standards being called into question? It’s one thing to be all too human, it’s another to be all too human with your campaign manager’s wife.

  14. jmg says

    Don’t worry, Matt. Just keep on postin’.

    There is a small group of VERY verbiose older gentlemen on here who don’t always appreciate the points of view of the younger generation(s). They like to give constant shout-outs to their cyber-comrades and to leap to their defense if anyone dares to disagree with them. I actually agree with their posts for the most part (especially Leland’s), but they seem to think the comment section belongs to them and them only.

  15. Leland says

    Matt, Matt, Matt. It’s a scan [that’s something like a photo] of an actual SF marriage license that simply is on a Wikipedia page. Unless you’re fantasizing that someone altered it to remove the never-existent “disclaimer,” GET A GRIP!

    Gay Feces: comparing Newsom to Foley, who had earlier said that suggesting he was gay was repugnant and spent his later life working his closeted ass off to elevate neo-fascists like Bush, and Haggard, who made millions as a leader of the antigay industry that demonizes us in Jesus’ name and is behind the very legislative and constituitonal bans against gay rights generally and gay marriage specifically, is intellectually absurd and morally reductive.

    Hitler was a vegetarian, should Civilization consider all vegetarians his moral equivalent?

    It must be National Toy Box for Brains Day.

  16. LightningLad says


    I never said that disclaimers were printed ON the marriage licenses themselves. I said that they were accompanied by disclaimers – meaning on a separate piece of paper.

    And while you may try to minimize my argument by calling it “legalisms” we are in fact a nation of “laws not men” and so what is legal is decided based not on the whims of one mayor looking for a public relations boost but whether the laws he executes are legal or not.

    The law on the legality of same-sex marriage in California is in fact not clear at all, despite your assertion to the contrary, as underscored by the contradictory rulings as the case has wended its way through the California judicial system.

    It is the judiciary’s job to interpret the law – not the executive. The executive’s job is to faithfully uphold and execute the laws. Newsom overreached and assumed the powers of both judiciary and executive. Newsom was wrong.

  17. Matt says

    Thanks for the comment JMG. I would maybe agree with Leland if I understood his comments. I guess us (Repug shrlls) don’t get it. And don’t worry he doesn’t bug me at all. He is like the far right wing except he is far left and just screams to be heard. I’ll be happy when we have a moderate president and congress that represents the majority of Americans who are also moderate. Basically I don’t want Mitt, Barak, or Hillary in office. I still want Colin Powell.

  18. Tyler says

    I worked in a very gay friendly restaurant in the Castro 3 years ago and I saw so many happy, fulfilled and vindicated gay couples in that week celebrating their new marriage. Personally I don’t care if Newsom acted illegally or out of ultimate self interest….and none of those married gay couples did either.

  19. Da says

    I also thought that what Newsom did was brilliant. He knew how to cease the moment and make a statement which was almost cinematographic..and he’ll probably go down in history for it. But it shouldn’t be the only thing he’s ever judged by as a mayor.

  20. rudy says

    Is not that just adorable? Matt and JMG–our very own representatives of the Vacant Stare Generation–are engaging in mutual mental self-gratification. And they have so little with which to work.

  21. says

    Leland, don’t get all red faced. You should really take up meditation or something and channel your anger. I called newsome a dirtbag because he couldn’t handle his drink and slept with his friend’s wife, who i believe was an employee. hat is what makes him a dirtbag.
    I never said those things about Guiliani were qualifications. I said that they will be used against him. Please get you stuff straight.

  22. Leland says

    Matt, it’s “shill” with an “i” not “shrill” with an “r” though one can understand you’re subconsciously confusing the two, much as you consciously confuse so much else. I don’t know if you are, in fact, as young as your jejeune comments suggest, but youth is no excuse for the pointless arrows you keep shooting into Towleroad’s air. You want Colon [sic] Powell for Prez? Hells Bells, the only ones actually running that are MORE conservative than he is vis-a-vis gays are Romney and Brownback. Powell, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, was the main reason we now have Don’t Ask Don’t Tell instead of a military open to out gays that Clinton attempted before he had a near mutiny on his hands. Powell threatened to resign as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and kept the flames of the homophobic firestorm burning high at the Pentagon and among his allies in Congress [who made it clear they would overturn Clinton’s proposed executive order]. Powell has said that being gay is a choice and encouraged military academy cadets to resign should gays every be allowed to serve openly. Who do you want for Vice President; Jerry Falwell?

    Lad: whether or not there was a disclaimer associated with the 2004 SF same gender marriage licenses, which you’ve yet to document, is beside the point. You cavalierly caterwaul yet again your allegiance to the tyranny of the abstract over the corporeal. Germany was a “nation of laws,” too, but you refuse to address both that historical conundrum, and its modern parallels, and the hypothetical I set you. What would YOU do if the judiciary and legislators LEGALLY stripped away all of our rights? “In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.” That’s from a little old thing documenting the willful disobedience of a group of men, not judges, not legislators recognized by THE Executive at the time, not even mayors themselves, a couple of hundred years or so ago. The George they had to deal with declared they were engaging in an illegal rebellion, much as our George declared Newsom’s actions illegal and justification for death by Constitutional amendment. In short, if our forefathers had followed your idealogue’s absolute, we would all still be speaking with a British accent in “the American colonies.”

    And, for the record, I don’t believe Newsom’s courage and example regarding gay marriage earns him a pass on anything he might do wrong, yet, given that we are faced with a panoply of Presidential candidates who, however else they might disagree, agree that we are “half men,” I find it exceeding strange that Newsom needs defending here at all.

  23. LightningLad says

    >>What would YOU do if the judiciary and legislators LEGALLY stripped away all of our rights?

    I would fight to change or overturn those laws through the appropriate venues, through legal action or proposed legislation, which is how we came to have legal gay marriage in Massachusetts and how Newsom ultimately and correctly handled the issue.

    >>Germany was a “nation of laws,” too, but you refuse to address both that historical conundrum, and its modern parallels, and the hypothetical I set you.

    Because when someone brings up Nazi Germany as their trump card it proves they are just searching for a counterargument.

    As for the disclaimers, you can choose to not believe me if you want. Couples were handed a sheet of paper warning them that the so-called marriage certificates may not be legal and that couples were advised to get legal counsel before dissolving their civil unions. I’m not your Googlemonkey so if you need proof that it happened you’ll have to serve for it yourself. Given the lengthy diatribes you post here, I know you have a lot of time on your hands so get on it.

  24. Marc says

    How disappointing that one of the few guys to really stick up for our rights turns out to be a first-rate douchebag. Knowingly participating in an affair is one thing, but sleeping with your friend and closest business associate, what a rotten, disgusting thing to do.

  25. rudy says

    Okay M, now I get it. You are really a thirteen year old girl trolling the gay sites for kicks. Now that you have been unmasked, go finish your grammar homework. You have a great deal of work to do to catch up with your girlfriends.

  26. Matt says

    Shill, Shrill? Who cares? Leland you are an old queen who is bitter. I’ll gladly give up the right to marry until you are long gone so you want have the chance to experiance it. Oh and no I don’t want Jerry Farwell. It is annoying that if someone doesn’t share your exact beliefs you see them as a threat. Hum…sounds like Hezbolah. They name call and threaten anyone with a different opinion.

  27. rudy says

    Matt why don’t you confine your incoherent sputterings to the rest of your little VSG clique and leave those of us who prefer to think and post cogent and relevant comments out of your unmanned orbit through your perpendicular universe? “Old queen” and “verbiose” [sic] is the best your VSG can muster. Better a bitter old queen than a vapid little pretender to the crown. Pathetic. You can lead a twink to culture but you cannot make her think.

  28. Matt says

    Rudy, you and leland should get a room. It seems that you two are the only ones who think alike on this blog. It isnt your blog and Andy allows anyone to post what they want within reason.

  29. rudy says

    Mattie, Pluperfect Pathetic. VSG is the new twink. The rest of us have grown beyond trying to impress the other thirteen year old girls in your little clique. We do not need or even seek your notice, much less your approval. A man is known as much by his choice of friends as he is by those with whom he disagrees. Remain steadfast in your refusal to think. It is the only discernable aspect of what you proffer as a personality.

  30. Da says

    Leland you are an old queen who is bitter. I’ll gladly give up the right to marry until you are long gone so you want have the chance to experiance it.
    Posted by: Matt |

    ..One of the most hainous things I’ve ever heard a gay man say to another. Actually there’s no way you’re a gay man. No way, nohow.

  31. rudy says

    Exactly DA. This blog has been invaded by a clique of uneducated and ill mannered thirteen year old girls. They exemplify only too well the emergence of the Vacant Stare Generation. VSG is the new STD (socially transmitted disease). Don’t feed the trollettes.

  32. Matt says


    You should be a little more kind to the VSG’s as you call them. When you are old we will be in charge and taking away your social security and health care/medicare to fund VSG agenda. I feel sorry for you actually to be so angry and bitter. If you feel that we are all VSG, what are you doing to change it? Nothing, you are just gripping and complaining. Sounds like an evangelical to me.

  33. rudy says

    That last post proves my contention that Matt and his ilk are really thirteen year old girls who are upset because most of us do not want to belong to their clique. No gay man could be that vacuous and stupid.

  34. Da says

    Posted by: rudy |

    Well Rudy, I suppose we should be flattered that these trolls, whoever they are, are intensely fascinated by what we have to debate over here? Or maybe they’re sensing the queer revolution which is indeed brewing and about to engulf the US and the rest of the world?

    Whatever the case, I welcome their ignorance over here cause I’ve never been opposed to contrasts!!

  35. rudy says

    Of course you do Mattie. And the people in Hell want ice water, some with a straw. What a pathetic little self-absorbed VSG. You would have to mature substantially to morph into a troll.

Leave A Reply