Exclusive: SF Mayor Gavin Newsom Asked Court to Delay Prop 8 Ruling

Confidential sources close to San Francisco City Hall told Towleroad's Corey Johnson that the California Supreme Court was prepared to release its opinion on Proposition 8 tomorrow, but decided to delay the ruling after a call from Mayor Gavin Newsom.

Newsom"Newsom reached out to the Supreme Court and asked them to hold off releasing their decision so it did not coincide with the White Night riots," said our source.

As mentioned earlier, a ruling Thursday would have fallen on the 30th anniversary of the San Francisco riots, which were
set off when the court handed down the most lenient decision possible
(voluntary manslaughter) against Dan White for the murders of
supervisor Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone. The ensuing riots in
San Francisco on May 21, 1979 caused hundreds of thousands of dollars
in damage.

UPDATE: Towleroad received this tip from a highly credible source who did the interview on the condition that they remain anonymous. We have been working to get additional sources.

Gavin Newsom's office has issued a release denying the story.

San Francisco Supervisor Bevan Dufty spoke with Towleroad late this afternoon, saying he doubted the claims. Said Dufty: "It is implausible if not impossible to imagine that the Mayor could reach out to the California Supreme Court. Any thinking person would know that he would be radioactive to the justices given his leadership on the issue. His father is a retired federal judge. The Mayor's courage on this issue is unimpeachable. He would not intrude in what we've been waiting for."

Comments

  1. says

    This doesn’t seem like good news.

    Mayor Newsom doesn’t know the ruling, but the Supreme Court does. I think they’re avoiding piling it on tomorrow. Remembering the White Night Riots, oh, and by the way, nope, you still can’t get married.

    If Prop 8 is upheld, I hope demonstrations are big and loud and successful. But please, guys, keep it civil.

    I’ll see y’all at the demonstrations in NYC.

  2. Bob says

    How did we lose New Hampshire?
    And yes, it does increasingly look like we’ve lost in CA.

  3. Ric says

    @ JohnInManhatten…

    How did we lose NH? The Governor wanted language that guaranteed a church could not be forced to marry a couple that they did not want to marry. That already happens. A Catholic church can turn down a divorced person, etc.

    It’s going to pass. I’m so proud to be in New England. :-)

  4. Bosie says

    I’ll stay positive……….BECAUSE NO ONE KNOWS YET morons.

    Anyways, Thanks Gavin….We don’t need to be destructive. If Prop8 stays…I guess I’ll take it to the streets and fight it…Not just sit on front of my computer and whine about it…like some fat old queens in here.

    I have seen peaceful protests…and they have won.

  5. ichabod says

    Well, the plump lady hasn’t sang just yet. But if the court does rule against us, it’ll just be another black mark in the history books that these monsters will have to try to live down once we’ve ultimately defeated them (which we most assuredly will).

  6. K says

    johninmanhattan, I’m echoing the commenters confused by your NH comment. Do you have information? Frankly, I’m surprised that any mayor can even contact a state supreme court, much less ask them to release a ruling on a case in any certain time frame. How could he know the ruling? What incentive would the court have to do what the governor requests? Why would the court consider historical signifance at all? I feel sick.

  7. says

    I don’t know – I think Newsom was being awfully paternalistic making sure we queers wouldn’t misbehave because of the anniversary.

  8. says

    Honestly, I think a little destructiveness can be good once in a while. I don’t think we need that in San Francisco, but San Diego? LA? 90% of the rest of America? No one should be hurt or attacked or anything like that, but taking a bite out of the courts that took a bite out of our equality seems like just any other kind of civil disobedience to me.

  9. FunMe says

    Protests WILL happen no matter the outcome.

    Given that JUNE is around the corner, and it being GAY PRIDE month, there will be a lot of people ready and available to protest.

    I pray there will actually be CELEBRATIONS.
    I still feel not all is lost.

  10. John from Boston says

    Marriage has NOT failed in NH. The House voted to negotiate the changes with the Senate (from the AP):

    CONCORD, N.H.—A divided New Hampshire House has refused to go along with changes the governor demanded to make his state the sixth to allow gay marriage. Instead, it voted to further negotiate with the Senate.

    The Senate passed the changes 14-10 Wednesday, but the House failed to agree later in the day by a vote of 188-186. Opponents tried to kill the bill, but failed. The House then voted 207-168 to ask the Senate to negotiate a compromise.

    Gov. John Lynch said last week he wouldn’t sign the legislation without language to better protect churches and their employees against lawsuits if their beliefs preclude them from marrying gays.

  11. Leland Frances says

    I don’t particularly buy it. It’s not like there are that many people gays still alive in SF that remember the riots and would also be motivated to act any worse after a negative decision tomorrow than they would the next scheduled announcement day.

    But if he did, it’s not “paternalistic,” it’s simply practical.

    And, Friday night raise a toast to Harvey….that’s his birthday. And ya might want to throw in a, “And I’m sorry we’ve not been fighting as hard for ourselves as you would have wanted.”

  12. says

    “We lost. Apparently New Hampshire as well.”

    We haven’t lost in NH. The House lawmakers rejected the governor’s proposed changes (which were overkill religious exemptions designed to placate the right) to the bill and voted to send it back to the Senate for further negotiation. A discouraging delay, but they did not reject marriage equality. Let’s hope they can find a compromise ASAP.

  13. John says

    Newsom obviously knows the gist of the ruling – if not the details – by now. San Francisco is a small town.

    The California Supreme Court meets across the street from his office. And there are always aides and clerks going back and forth. I’m sure rumors are spreading like wildfire through City Hall.

  14. Franko says

    I just called Newsom’s office and they are denying this completely. RUMORS are abounding and we all need to CALM DOWN.

  15. Tim Lorenz says

    Yes, we do know the outcome. I would hope if it is upheld, there would hundred of thousands of people holding a candle-light vigil like the deaths of Milk and Moscone. Love always conquers hate.

  16. Ralph says

    Leland writes MANY MANY stupid comments but “there are not many people alive who still remember an event that took place in 1978?” well well he has hit a new low of stupidity … what did every 14 year old alive then die before reaching the young age of 45 in this year?

    1978 was not that long ago.
    And no not every gay person in SF died since then.

  17. Gianpiero says

    Newsom has no more definitive knowledge than the rest of us. Isn’t this exactly what you would want any good mayor to do–have an awareness of the city’s history and try to avert unfortunate coincidences that might further stoke people’s emotions (not to mention conspiracy theories)?

  18. Was There says

    White Night was NOT one of our proudest moments. It was a violent, scary few nights in San Francisco. Harvey, our hero and leader, was dead, and the one who killed him got off. But the violence didn’t change anything.

  19. mike shackleford says

    As a “fat old queen” I hope that civil unrest happens more frequently than once every 30 years. Meantime, I ain’t gonna hold my breath waiting for the Chelsea Muscle Marys to take to the barricades.

  20. Eric says

    David Ehrenstein,

    Thank you. I agree. The White Night Riots and the Stonewall rights are among our finest moments.

  21. Dwayne says

    I support civil disobedience and breaking a few things here and there. We have been marginalized and shunned for too long. I am 37 and obviously didn’t witness all that came before me but I am sick of the complacency. F*uck the church esp LDS, F*ck Obama and his empty rhetoric and F*ck all the Repubs and some of the democrats. We need to stand and DEMAND our rights!

  22. Proudtobedad says

    I fully agree: while the White Night riots were scary, the impact they had on our history cannot be underestimated. For the rest of California, and the nation, to see our angry strength in all its fury was ultimately empowering… Stereotypes were immediately shattered…

  23. says

    You’re welcome.

    The only way we’ve ever gotten anywhere was by KICKING ASS!!!!!!

    What cripples our movement is the “Best Little/Boy/Girl/etc. in the World” syndrome.
    HRC, NLGTF and GLAAD are all about being Nicey-Nice. As if acting that way ever got us jack shit!

    Our enemies LOVE the idea of a cowed and cowardly LBGT community — too “sensitive” to fight back.

    Stonewall and White Night showed them how mistaken they were.

    We MUST go for THREE!!!!!!

  24. Tralfaz says

    @ Bossy or Bosie or whatever the fuck your name is.

    What’s with the ‘tude?

    You don’t have to be such an arrogant prick.

  25. Joe in SF says

    If we lose this battle in CA, we will protest and show our outrage, note to self, in a non-violent way. However, we eventually will win, either next week, next year or in the next decade. All these ups and downs are part of our community’s heroic and historic fight for the civil rights. Make no mistake, regardless what happens next week in CA, we are winning this war on ignorance.

  26. Tony N SF says

    This is an unsourced story. It sounds like a rumor that may have been created to rile people up. I think this is important enough that if the source and/or sources were willing to “leak” this story they should also go on the record as well. “Leaks” are always motivated by some agenda. Andy — since you and your associate are the persons “reporting” this story/rumor, based on what you know about the sources, can you at least share why you think this got leaked, and what the agenda was behind this leak? Also, do you intend to ask Newsom’s office to comment on this story? As someone who lives in SF, I cannot discern any serious threat of violence like there must have been during the days and hours leading up to the White Night Riots. Anger, yes. But, rioting? Seems far fetched to me.

  27. NV Bunni says

    Hmmmm…I wonder if the fact that tomorrow is Gavin’s big fundraiser at the Palace Hotel had anything to do with his request. Get it OVER already!

  28. Wes says

    I echo the sentiments of civil disobedience.

    No minority got civil rights handed to them on a platter, regardless how much begging and pleading and negotiating and compromising. No matter how justified their cause or clear their entitlement.

    Every moment in history when oppression was confronted, it has only succeeded at its boiling point.

  29. says

    Like RYAN, I’m not altogether certain that a bit of destruction would be a bad thing. These issues need to stay at the forefront of public and political thought, and barely-controlled street demonstrations scare the politicians.

    TBQH, I have the feeling that the rails in the Castro may have as much to do with American Idol as with Prop 8. I have a feeling that Adam is going to lose, and I think it’s going to piss a lot of people off. If that happened, and was followed a day later by a negative ruling on Prop 8, SF might end up looking like a war zone for a week.

  30. John says

    Who knows? The court cannot tip its hand about the results. If they told Gavin that they will still release it on Thursday because “it will be ok”… that would be tipping their hand. And remember that even if they to the right thing and overturn prop8 there will still be parties from the good guys (the gay folks) and protest form the bad guys (the religious morons).
    So I don’t think this should push anyone’s guess in either direction. Me personally, I just want to get it over with!

  31. Adam G says

    White Night WAS one of our proudest moments, just like Stonewall was. It was a night when we made it clear that gays are a force to be reckoned with and that we’re no longer willing to be treated like second-class citizens.

    It sent a message. Maybe we need to send the message again. People have gotten complacent in thirty years. Harvey would be ashamed of all of us.

  32. Natalie says

    LOL! Like the Gav has any sway by just making a call to the Supremes. “Hello, Supremes? You might not want to release the opinion tomorrow…” LOL!! As if!

  33. peterparker says

    I totally agree with David Ehrenstein that the White Night Riots were one of our proudest moments. I’ve been saying all along that if the Supreme Court upholds discrimination against our community we should all get in the streets and generally FUCK SHIT UP (not in our neighborhoods, of course)!!!!!!!

  34. Glenn says

    Assuming this story is true — and I’m skeptical, but it’s not totally implausible — that wouldn’t mean that Newsom has any advance notice of the result. Pretty much everyone understands that it would be a surprise if the Court rules our way. Not impossible by any means, so I’m not suggesting not to be hopeful, but the odds are not in our favor.

  35. no@no.com says

    Protest. Raise hell. Our entire country has become complacent. You want example #1? Look at how we are being bent over by handouts to the banks and financial companies and yet nobody does anything. The only language these people speak is money. Numbers. If you cannot make your freedom cost something to them, they will not give it to you. I think Newsom knows something and does not want riots. If this ruling lets prop 8 stand, riot. Show the world how wrong this injustice is. The ruling class will not listen to you until you make them listen to you.

  36. says

    seriously, there MUST be protest– the country is so hypocritical. the fact that rights like this, and every single other right to happiness here, is up for vote in this “land of the free” is ridiculous, and we have to make noise. no one else will do it for us. refrain from violence, but as MLK Jr and Ghandi knew, there is such a thing as effective nonviolent resistance!

  37. John says

    Gays in 1970s San Francisco were considered pathetic “misfits” and “deviants.”

    Gays in 2000s San Francisco are businessmen, PTA members, and politicians.

    There will be no violence. Riots only occur when people have nothing to lose. These people have way too much to lose.

  38. FASTLAD says

    I have a feeling they won’t be able to keep the lid on this thing whatever day the decision is handed down from on high.

    It’s looking like they’ll uphold Prop 8. Ok, then.

    Here’s what we learned in Ireland: You get as much freedom as you take.

  39. Corey Johnson says

    Franko — it doesn’t surprise me that Newsom’s office is denying it. Why would they admit to it?

    I stand by source who gave this to Towleroad.

    Onward,

    Corey

  40. Qbear says

    Regardless of whether this ruling falls on the anniversary of White Night riots, in the future the Day of decision will be the Anniversary of H8 Night riots.

  41. Tom Crowe says

    “And, Friday night raise a toast to Harvey….that’s his birthday. And ya might want to throw in a, ‘And I’m sorry we’ve not been fighting as hard for ourselves as you would have wanted.'”

    I’m quite sorry you feel that way, Leland. I personally disagree with you. If you knew just how much heart and soul these activists put out there, because we’re trying to deter THAT from happening, you’d be proud of them/us. To the queers/queens/debutants that decide to watch from atop their bar stools while having cocktails, while everyone else is busting their tailends with voter canvassing, phone banking, marching, rallying, etc etc…stay there darlings, we will need SOMEONE to keep the stools warm when your kicked off of them afterwards. Just sayin…

  42. Qbear says

    @WAS THERE

    White Night Riot was a proud moment. When they spit on someone they had already murdered…the damage should have been MASSIVE.

  43. says

    1st this was not “exclusive” another site had it looong before you, and they say It was not Gavin that called for the hold off, it was the court that decided out of respect for the date not to do it. BUT the real question is, if they changed the date, then is it going to be bad news?????

  44. Chris says

    Newsom doesn’t know. He’s a party to the suit — it would be illegal for him to find out about the decision before it was handed down to everyone.

  45. Leland Frances says

    Ralph, Smalph. Disagree with me all you want, but I won’t allow you to hysterically misquote and misrepresent me, because of some ongoing ‘hate the message-shoot the messenger” axe you have to grind. What I did write:

    “It’s not like there are that many people gays [sic] still alive in SF that remember the riots AND would also be motivated to act ANY WORSE after a negative decision tomorrow than they would the next scheduled announcement day.”

    Never came close to saying everyone alive then had died. But I do challenge your implied assumption about the ubiquitous of awareness of it among those alive then, and the “ready to rumble” mindset of those now in their late 50s and above. And there’s no reason to believe those who are will be no less motivated any other night. It’s not like there have been banners up all month across Castro street, stories on the SF news every night, “White Night is coming! White Night is coming!” or that Cliff’s Hardware has been advertising a sale on Molotov Cocktails.

    Every time I’ve seen the White Night Riot [singular] mentioned here and elsewhere, the majority of posters act as if they’ve never heard of it. Many probably because they weren’t “14” or whatever age of understanding in 1978; others because it has been virtually and intentionally buried by most gay historians, if they heard about it at all after the Bay Area pansyniks and dykeniks of the time quickly buried it under their prissy pacifist meltdown.

    I know that because I have read a great deal of gay histories that have been published since I was there that night myself, was clubbed in the back by a police officer at City Hall, watched the Police Riot of revenge in the Castro later that night from the roof of my apartment building at 18th & Castro. I remember Sally Gearhart, admirable in other ways, clucking, “We must not be violent. We must not even talk about it. Even think about it.” And, when I heard Holly Near bleating from the platform set up in front of the Castro Theatre for Harvey’s birthday celebration the next night,

    “We are a GENTLE angry people
    Singing, singing for our lives
    We are a land of many colors…
    We are an anti-nuclear people…
    We are gay and straight together…
    We are a PEACEFUL, loving people…”

    I wanted to beat her with her own guitar.

    And I wish the person who perceives that “the nation” knew about it and “stereotypes were immediately shattered” was right, but he’s not. If he were, we wouldn’t still be second class citizens 31 years later, weeping with gratitude whenever Massa Obama even says the word “Gay.”

    The majority who weren’t here then, or who don’t know someone who was, IF they know about it at all, know about it primarily from the documentary, “The Times of Harvey Milk.” Van Sant, curiously and indefensibly, left it out of his biopic, thus contributing the perception you see everywhere that Harvey would want us to just be holding candlelight vigils and hugging Mormons now.

    It made Stonewall look like a gay-sponsored pancake breakfast for the NYC Police Athletic League, and SHOULD be told to our children and our children’s children.

  46. Leland Frances says

    Correction, only 30 years more of inequality more, of course. What’s a year or two when you’re still irrelevant to most Americans AND the president you helped elect.

    And, Tom, I agree with you….in the exception. MANY activists have worked as hard as you say, but not all, certainly not HRC’s Joe “Nevilla Chamberlain” Solmonese, and the majority of the so-called “Impact/Stonewall 2.0″ tribe don’t get it at all.

  47. fern says

    The way I understand what happened in NH is that the Gov wanted too much and the results could have been a town hall employee refusing to deliver a license on moral grounds, it could give any homophobic SOB turning down any request from hospitals to pharmacists, caretakers the right to do so based on moral ground. this was my understanding, it would have been the golfer’s hell everything top notch but no balls.
    As for the young one calling me an old fat queer behind my computer, am not fat not queer and live in Belgium where we have SSM, where the only ones to hit the streets were the “good Christians” and not much good it did them, and I did my stuff in 1968. I can only give you moral support.

  48. fern says

    The fact that Newsom asked to delay the decision has nothing to do with the outcome.
    I still have faith in a favorable decision.
    CHEER UP YOU’RE THE WINNING TEAM.

  49. John says

    Newsom is the chief executive of San Francisco County. Which means he’s responsible for maintaining public order. While he would never suggest that the justices tell him what the ruling actually says, he certainly could say:

    “Look, if you release it on the anniversary of a gay-related riot, there might be trouble. And given how understaffed my security forces are, I can’t guarantee that your courthouse will be safe.”

    It would still be upto the court whether they want to go through with handing down a decision on that particular date or not. That’s their call. By presenting the appearance of being extra cautious, however, Newsom can say “I told you so” if there’s any disturbance. If these reports are true, then it would be a fairly clever move on his part. There’s nothing unusual about a politician being a politician.

  50. Peter says

    But if the California Supreme Court decision wasn’t another judicial kick in the teeth, why not release the ruling as a riposte to an earlier bad judicial decision?

    To me, either the decision is really bad for our community or Newsom displayed a public case of cold feet. We’ll just have to wait and see what the court decides for good or ill.

  51. rusty says

    Newson just said on Twitter that this story on this site is NOT TRUE he never reached out to the court.

  52. stephen k says

    Gavin wrote on Twitter: “Lots of tweets about me and supreme court today, not correct – if I could influence court, would use it to support marriage equality.”

  53. MCnNYC says

    I have to agree with Leland and all the other posters that THE WHITE NIGHT RIOT was a true, defient, couragous, PROUD ACT OF VIOLENCE. It’s also true that so many LGBT know nothing about it. I wasn’t there, I was in college and I was CRAZED at the verdict and Proud of those who participated in both the peaceful as well as the violence that night.

    And GOD I HATE that Holly Near crap of a song.

  54. Scott says

    “STATEMENT FROM NATHAN BALLARD
    COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, MAYOR GAVIN NEWSOM
    Today a website posted an item that quoted a false allegation from an unnamed source: “Mayor [Gavin] Newsom reached out to the Supreme Court and asked them to hold off releasing their decision so it did not coincide with the White Night riots.”

    This allegation is not true. We have asked the website to correct the item immediately.”

    You have to watch those “confidential sources” – methinks people who don’t like Gavin just want to shoot at Gavin’s run for Mayor. Not that I like Gavin that much, but I have to question sources that are allegedly close to a source, but refuse to go on record.

  55. says

    Newsom’s office just sent a statement denying the rumor and asking Towleroad to take down the untrue item. We posted on Andy’s entry, but have updated the post to include Newsom’s statement.

    http://www.bilerico.com/2009/05/two_marriage_items_back_to_committee_in.php

    “Today a website posted an item that quoted a false allegation from an
    unnamed source: “Mayor [Gavin] Newsom reached out to the Supreme Court and
    asked them to hold off releasing their decision so it did not coincide with
    the White Night riots.”

    This allegation is not true. We have asked the website to correct the item
    immediately.”

  56. Chris says

    It would illegal for a party to the suit (Newsom) to contact the court ex parte, privately, for any reason, or vice versa, because it could be seen as trying to affect the outcome of the case which isn’t actually decided until the opinion is posted.

    If the court got a communication like that they would legally have to ignore it, or acknowledge it only by finding Newsom/SF in contempt of court.

    This is where the whole story loses credibility.

  57. Tralfaz says

    @ Leland – Uh I was a teenager when the White Night Riots took place. My best friend’s brother was there and talk about it. It’s a part of our history just like Stonewall was. I sure as hell remember that. AND … I also have told those younger than myself or my family what this meant to us. My parents watched MILK with me over Mother’s Day weekend and they wept when I told them about that night.

  58. SFDex says

    I live in this “small town” and work at the supreme court in SF. Newsom does not know the outcome any more than anyone else. I spoke with the courts’ public information officer today, and she was asking ME if I knew anything from the gay blogs. She doesn’t even know, so there’s really no way that Gavin does. I think he’s being prudent.

    I’m 45, BTW, and I remember White Night, even though I didn’t yet live here. Not all of us are dead.

  59. ZnSD says

    I do believe that organized civil disobedience could be pretty powerful and keep us sympathetic to those who are on the fence. If we riot and cause destruction we don’t do ourselves any favors. A thousand gay men and women blocking traffic during rush hour in every major city in CA or better yet: block everyone from getting marriage licenses. If we can’t have them, no one will. Pick an intersection/office and a time and be there. Pretty easy to organize via the internets. Refuse to give information and refuse to move: but never fight back. Just be in the way. That is what has worked before: get in the way and refuse to move. Repeat as necessary. Just a thought.

  60. gunshowsigns says

    We want the gays to riot because civil unions are next and taking away the right to adopt kids. You gays called, civil rights or civil war. Look forward to the blood running in gay SF. The National Guard must be put on alert and Obama must be ready to call the army to siege SF because the gays are ready to die for gay marriage. Lets give them what they want, death instead of them killing us with their mafia or spreading of AID’s to our youth.

  61. John says

    Blocking street traffic and disrupting government officials from performing their duties is just as illegal as looting and vandalism. They could arrest you for it.

  62. Brianna says

    Some of us teenagers know about Harvey Milk and the White Night Riot/Stonewall so don’t be too discouraged.

    -from a 17 year old (18th coming up, day after Milk’s bday)

  63. Leland Frances says

    Good for you, Tralfaz. And keep telling it.

    Here’s a link to some scenes from that incredible afternoon and night, 30 years ago Thursday. The last few seconds are of the police [still enraged that they had been held back at City Hall for so long by the police chief who feared a bloodbath] cold-bloodedly attacking innocent pedestrians on Castro Street in front of [I believe] the former location of the Midnight Sun [now on 18th].

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_mvk4istzo&feature=PlayList&p=1F3259A444DC4EDD&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=49

  64. Pissed Off Fag says

    It is definitely time to RIOT! We are being screwed left and right. Hell, we can’t even get a queer boy to win American Idol.

    Civil Disobedience nonstop until we have our civil rights!

  65. PISSED OFF gay Automotive Enthusiast says

    Im FAR beyond pissed off.Its gotten to the point where Im literally having dreams about setting churches on fire,clubbin the bigots to the ground,throwing dog shit in the bigots faces,and even sneaking from behind and slittin’ a bigot’s throat open.I know what Im suffering from.

    Pent up rage due to being treated like a THIRD class citizen.Its haunting me when I sleep.Some people suffer dreams like that when stressed out.

    This is indeed a stressful time for ALL of us.

  66. pistolpetey says

    @Chris: Are you a lawyer? Because your post is completely inaccurate.

    (1) It is not illegal (ie, prohibited by law and subject to criminal penalties) to contact the Court ex parte. And while it is improper to communicate on the substance of the case, it is permitted in various circumstances (incl. scheduling and administrative issues). Newsom’s communication (if it happened) was not on the substance of the case and appears to have been purely informatory (ie, tomorrow would be a bad day given the fact of the anniversary).

    (2) Further, ex parte communications are permitted with the consent of, or notice to, other parties. We do not know the circumstances of Newsom’s communication (if any).

    (3) The court is neither “legally required” to disregard such a communication (although that is typically how it would be handled) nor obligated to hold such a party in contempt.

  67. Jason87 says

    This whole discussion thread is being played.

    We’re not in 1978 anymore, this is Post 9/11 Divided States of America, where the scars of violence are fresh and the fear of terrorism still runs high.

    While I support our right to protest, the imagery and language of GAY CIVIL VIOLENCE is just what our opposition needs to link TERRORISM and VIOLENCE to our fundamentally noble cause. Why hand them the ammunition that would surely backfire and hurt ourselves.

  68. Mike says

    This is a silly story – the mayor is firmly in support of marriage equality – the court rules when the court rules. I respect and admire the mayor, but he has absolutely no influence on the courts schedule – this probably came from the same source that claimed the court was going to rule today… yeah, right!

  69. el polacko says

    white night opened a lot of straight people’s eyes. we weren’t just a bunch of limp-wristed fairies .. we were pissed off gay MEN who could flip a cop car. oh and btw, i speak from direct experience.. i was there and .. gasp ! .. i’m still alive.

  70. Tom K. says

    You get what you take, not what you demurely request while holding a Kumbaya sing-along and goddess circle.

  71. alex in boston says

    NB: When our Supreme Judicial Court here in MA declared Same-Sex Marriage in 2004, their decision came on the 50th Anniversary of the Brown v Board of Education (a landmark in Civil Rights legislation) as I and several friends talked about the CA Supreme Court handing down its’ decision on the Anniversary of the “White Nights Riots” and ONE day before the birthday of Harvey Milk – we saw that as a positive sign that the Courts saw this as a monumental Civil Rights issue and by choosing to declare its’ decision on this day would etch it into the History books forever and join it to a time and place of historic meaning to the GLBTT communities of CA. I am disappointed that for whatever reason and by some invisible hand that this did not occur as planned!!!! be strong remain diligent and we shall also overcome this period of uncertainty!

  72. says

    We are an ex-mormon group looking for supporters against prop 8 and encouraging all gay exmormons to resign on 1st June 2009 for this years International Choose to Resign day.

  73. Shay says

    As a gay 19 year old boy i see the White Night riots as gays showing that we can and will fight back and we wont be steriotypical fags that just prance around but we are human and we get angry just like everyone else. And they had better treat us the same or there will be problems, especiallly from my generation.

  74. hareton says

    Wow – at first I was excited awaiting the court’s verdict. Then a bit flat since maybe it won’t be so good. (And I’m not even in california!)

    But then I read all the awesome kick-ass comments about taking action, hitting the streets, continuing the fight for queer rights (and not just as ‘nice corporate gays and lesbians’!). Civil rights or civil war – yes!!

    Who would’ve thought a blog page could breathe such passion, energy, life into it all – thanks to all posters here…

    Can’t wait for the action(s)…

  75. Wren says

    I disagree. White Nights were a necessary and beneficial time in history. After that point, we finally got the respect we deserved in SF and our community then became entrenched in its political machine.

    By Any Means Necessary!- Malcolm X

  76. says

    I was 8 years old when the White Night riot occurred, but I still claim it as a proud moment for my tribe. It’s a proud moment just like the queens at Stonewall and the throngs of people all over the country who took to the streets and petitioned their government after the prop 8 bullshit.

    Civil rights are never given freely. They are TAKEN by force, and always have been.

    I’m a peaceful man. But you know what?

    It’s time to open up a can of whoop-ass.

  77. Ed says

    found this information re New Hampshire at that link

    The legislature had been asked to approve language that would give legal protections, including the right to decline to marry same-sex couples, to clergy and others affiliated with religious organizations.
    That wording was added by Governor John Lynch, a Democrat who promised to sign the bill if those changes were made.
    The House vote against the governor’s amendment means the bill will be sent to a committee that will try to resolve the differences between the two chambers. It remains unclear how the governor would respond to any changes to his wording.
    Lynch has said he would veto gay marriage if his wording is not adopted.
    State Representative Steve Vaillancourt, a gay Republican from Manchester, was a leading voice against the amendment securing religious liberties, saying that the House should not be “bullied” by the governor.
    Vaillancourt said an earlier bill that did not provide protections to clerics or religious groups was the one that should have been passed, adding that the amended bill would allow discrimination to be written into state law.
    The earlier bill passed both chambers.