Moved by news footage of thousands of same-sex couples waiting patiently in the rain for hours for the chance to get a marriage license, Mike Trevinson boarded a plane in Dallas last Thursday and flew to San Francisco. On his way to city hall, Trevinson bought six dozen roses. Marrying his own longtime partner was not an option. "He comes from a small town and no one would understand," says Trevinson, 35. So instead he contented himself as a witness to the joy of strangers, handing long-stemmed beauties to couples as they climbed the marble staircase under the grand rotunda to recite their vows. "I just wanted to make a contribution," says Trevinson, a writer. "These people desperately need support."
As if reliving its glory days as a counter-culture mecca in the 1960s, San Francisco was again the place to be. The city's Winter of Love was launched just before Valentine's Day, when Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered the city clerk to start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, in defiance of California state law. By the end of last week, nearly 3,200 same-sex couples had wed at city hall, and neither Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who supports domestic partnerships but not full marriage rights for gays, nor the blizzard of lawsuits filed by conservative groups could rein in the rebels at city hall. Newsom's brash move vaulted San Francisco to the front line in the ever-widening marriage wars and set the stage for a legal showdown that could result in California's joining Massachusetts, Vermont and Hawaii, whose state Supreme Courts have ruled in recent years that bans on same-sex unions are illegal.
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LAWS BY STATE
In 1996, the federal government passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines a marriage as a union between a man and a woman. It also permits states to deny recognizing a same-sex marriage in any state. Such laws have been passed by 37 states.
Alabama Marriage law: On its third attempt, a law was passed in 1998 that bans gay marriages.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
Alaska Marriage law: A 1996 law banned same-sex marriages. But in 1998 a state judge ruled that marriage is a fundamental right and that the law discriminated against citizens based on sex. As a result, the judge said, the state of Alaska must show a compelling reason for withholding civil marriage licenses from gay couples. Voters later ratified an amendment to the state Constitution banning gay marriages.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
Arizona Marriage law: A 1996 law bans gay marriages and prohibits the recognition of gay marriages in other states.
Domestic partnership benefits: Tucson passed a law in 1997 approving the benefits.
Arkansas Marriage law: 1997: Anti-Marriage Bill Adopted. Senate Bill 5: Anti-marriage bills passed Senate (1/27) and House (1/22). Signed by Governor Huckabee (R) on February 13.Domestic Partnership: There are no municipalities offering domestic partner benefits in Arkansas.
California Marriage law: Californians banned gay marriage on March 7, 2000 by approving a ballot measure that allows the state to recognize only the union between a man and a woman. The emotionally-charged issue was one of 20 addressed by state voters on ballot measures.
Domestic partnership benefits: The entire state has a domestic partnership registry and 29 municipalities offer domestic partnership benefits.
Colorado Marriage law: Four years in a row, Republican Sen. Marilyn Musgrave introduced an anti-gay marriage bill but it has failed each time. In two previous years, the bill was vetoed by former Governor Romer.
Domestic partnership benefits: Boulder and Denver offer them.
Connecticut Marriage law: Two attempts to ban gay marriages have failed.
Domestic partnership benefits: Hartford offers them and a "symbolic" registry that provides no legal or financial benefits.
D.C. Marriage law: No legislation on the issue has been introduced.
Domestic partnership benefits: There has been no marriage legislation introduced in the District of Columbia.
Delaware Marriage law: A 1996 law bans gay marriages.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
Florida Marriage law: On its second attempt, an anti-gay marriage bill was adopted in 1997. The bill would also deny recognition to lawful marriages of same-sex couples under all circumstances.
Domestic partnership benefits: At least five municipalities offer them.
Georgia Marriage law: An anti-gay marriage bill was adopted in 1996. The law also declares same-sex marriages from out-of-state as null and void.
Domestic partnership benefits: Atlanta offers domestic partnership benefits and a registry.
Hawaii Marriage law: In 1998, voters ratified a constitutional amendment that permits, but does not require, the Legislature to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples. The state government has yet to act on the amendment. In 1999, three anti-gay marriage bills were blocked.
Domestic partnership benefits: Under the Reciprocal Beneficiaries Law, passed in July 1997, the state of Hawaii offers domestic partnership benefits to employees. The legislation gives same-sex couples the broadest package of rights and benefits ever accorded gay families in the United States. Idaho Marriage law: A 1996 law upholds an existing law against same-sex marriages in the state. The law also prohibits the recognition of gay marriages deemed lawful in other states. Domestic Partnership: No municipalities offer them.
Indiana Marriage law: A 1997 law bans gay marriages.
Domestic partnership benefits: One municipality offers them.
Illinois Marriage law: A 1996 law bans gay marriages.
Domestic partnership benefits: Three municipalities offer them.
Iowa Marriage law: On its third try, an anti-gay marriage bill was adopted in 1998. The law also calls for a study of domestic partnerships.
Domestic partnership benefits: Iowa City offers the benefits and has a registry.
Kansas Marriage law: A 1996 law bans gay marriages; it was passed without hearings in the House and Senate.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
Kentucky Marriage law: On its second attempt, a 1998 law bans gay marriages and does not recognize same-sex marriages in other states.
Domestic Partnership: No municipalities offer them.
Louisiana Marriage law: An anti-gay marriage bill was adopted in 1999 after its third attempt.
Domestic partnership benefits: New Orleans offers the benefits and a registry.
Maine Marriage law: A 1997 law bans gay marriages. The governor refused to sign the bill, saying it was unconstitutional, but he allowed it to become law rather than allow a statewide referendum, as proposed by anti-gay groups.
Domestic partnership benefits: Portland offers them.
Maryland Marriage law: Three attempts to ban gay marriages have failed, as has an attempt to legalize them.
Domestic partnership benefits: Two municipalities, including Baltimore, offer them.
Massachusetts Marriage law: A bill that would ban gay marriages is pending.
Domestic partnership benefits: Eight municipalities offer domestic partnership benefits, and Boston, Brookline, Cambridge, Nantucket and Provincetown have a registry.
Michigan Marriage law: A 1996 law bans gay marriages and prohibits the recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states.
Domestic partnership benefits: Four municipalities offer them.
Minnesota Marriage law: On its second attempt, an anti-gay marriage bill was adopted in 1997. It prohibits same-sex couples from marrying and does not recognize lawful same-sex marriages from other states.
Domestic partnership benefits: At least five municipalities offer the benefits.
Mississippi Marriage law: On its second try, an anti-gay marriage bill was adopted in 1997.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
Missouri Marriage law: A 1996 law banned gay marriages but in 1997 the state Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional. Another attempt to ban gay marriages in 1999 failed. Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them. St. Louis has a registry. Montana Marriage law: A 1997 law bans gay marriages.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
Nebraska Marriage law: Three legislative attempts to ban gay marriages have failed including a bill in 1999, which was co-sponsored by 23 legislators.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
Nevada Marriage law: No anti-gay marriage legislation has been introduced in Nevada.
Domestic Partnership: No municipalities offer them.
New Jersey Marriage law: A bill that would ban gay marriages is pending. Three previous bills failed.
Domestic partnership benefits: Gloucester County offers non-health benefits.
New Hampshire Marriage law: A 1997 law bans gay marriages.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
New Mexico Marriage law: In 1999, anti-gay marriage legislation was defeated for the fourth year in a row. The Mormon Church lobbied heavily for passage of the legislation, sending $30,000 to supporters of the bill.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
New York Marriage law: Four legislative attempts to ban gay marriages have failed. The latest attempt in 1999 sought to void same-sex couple's lawful marriages if they return, come to, or travel through New York.
Domestic partnership benefits: Six municipalities offer them and three - Ithaca, New York City and Rochester - have a registry.
North Carolina Marriage law: A 1996 law bans gay marriages, and 12 counties do not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Domestic partnership benefits: At least six municipalities offer them. North Dakota Marriage law: A 1997 law bans gay marriages and doesn’t recognize marriages out of state for same-sex couples.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
Ohio Marriage law: Two legislative attempts to ban gay marriages have failed; the latest attempt was made in 1998.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
Oklahoma Marriage law: A 1996 law bans gay marriages and prohibits the recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states. It also bans gay couples from adopting children or caring for foster children.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
Oregon Marriage law: An effort to ban gay marriages failed in 1997, and an effort to pass a constitutional amendment failed in 1999. The proposal in 1999 would have also attempted to overturn a court decision forbidding discrimination based on sex in health benefits and other protections.
Domestic partnership benefits: At least six municipalities offer them.
Pennsylvania Marriage law: A 1996 law bans gay marriages and does not recognize same-sex marriages in other states.
Domestic partnership benefits: Two municipalities offer them, and Philadelphia has a registry.
Rhode Island Marriage law: A bill is pending that would legalize and allow for same sex marriage in Rhode Island. It is the only pro-same sex marriage bill to have a hearing in the country.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
South Carolina Marriage law: A 1996 law bans gay marriages and prohibits the recognition of gay marriages in other states.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
South Dakota Marriage law: A 1996 law bans gay marriages; it was passed on its second attempt.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
Tennessee Marriage law: A 1996 law bans gay marriages.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
Texas Marriage law: Two years in a row, Republican Sen. Warren Chisum introduced an anti-gay marriage bill but it failed to advance out of committee.
Domestic partnership benefits: Travis County offers non-health benefits and a registry.
Utah Marriage law: A 1995 law bans gay marriages.
Domestic Partnership: No municipalities offer them.
Vermont Marriage law: Civil unions allowed
Domestic partnership: Full benefits granted under state law.
Virginia Marriage law: On its second attempt, a law was passed in 1997 banning gay marriages.
Domestic partnership benefits: Arlington County offers the benefits.
Washington Marriage law: On its third attempt, a law was passed in 1998 that bans same-sex marriages and prohibits the recognition of gay marriages deemed lawful in other states.
Domestic partnership benefits: At least seven municipalities provide the benefits and Seattle offers a domestic partner registry.
West Virginia Marriage law: Four attempts to ban gay marriages, the latest in 1999, have failed.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them.
Wisconsin Marriage law: Three attempts to pass an anti-gay marriage bill failed; the latest attempt was made in 1998.
Domestic partnership benefits: Some six municipalities offer domestic partnership benefits and one has a registry.
Wyoming Marriage law: Two attempts to ban gay marriages have failed. The latest attempt in 1997 failed to advance past the Labor, Health and Social Service Committee. The first attempt in 1996 failed to receive enough votes for introduction.
Domestic partnership benefits: No municipalities offer them. Source: LAMBDA
March 1, 2004 Issue: Marriage in the U.S.A.
COUPLES: WHAT MARRIAGE MEANS NOW
If marriage is in trouble, don't blame gays. Straights changed the rulesBy the weekend, the gay-marriage brushfires seemed to be spreading, with mayors in Chicago, Salt Lake City and Plattsburgh, N.Y., chiming in that they, too, like the idea of same-sex marriage licenses (although only San Francisco, with its unique status as a city and a county, could actually issue them). And officials in Sandoval County, N.M., managed to issue several dozen licenses before being shut down by the state's attorney general. The ripples also reached the White House, where President George W. Bush has been under increasing pressure from conservatives to actively support a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as the union between a man and a woman. Last week Bush said he was "troubled" by the events in San Francisco and that they would "obviously" influence his decision. Even Laura Bush, normally loath to enter a fray, allowed that gay marriage was a "very, very shocking issue" for many Americans.
ndeed, it could well emerge as the defining cultural issue of the 2004 election, and that has many Democrats nervous. Despite the sentiment in the Bay Area, a new NEWSWEEK Poll finds that only 23 percent of registered voters support full marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples, with an additional 24 percent supporting gay civil unions or partnerships that stop short of marriage. Approval rates are highest among younger voters.
Presidential front runner John Kerry has been forced into a painfully nuanced position on events in his home state of Massachusetts, where gay marriage becomes legal in May. Kerry says he supports efforts by lawmakers in Boston to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, while opposing a similar action at the federal level. Some Democrats are even blaming Newsom, heralded as a rising star in the party, for forcing a losing issue onto front pages around the country.
SOCIETY: GAY MARRIAGE AND THE LAW
A heterosexual, Jesuit-educated, Irish Catholic son of a prominent state judge, Newsom is an unlikely bomb-thrower. The wealthy 36-year-old wine and restaurant entrepreneur with movie-star looks took office only seven weeks ago. He received at best moderate support from the city's gay community in his narrow December victory over a Green Party opponent. But Newsom stunned even his closest aides when he returned from Bush's State of the Union address last month, saying he was appalled by the president's comments about preserving the "sanctity of marriage," if necessary, by a constitutional amendment. "I had just taken an oath of office not to allow discrimination," Newsom told NEWSWEEK. "It was pretty darned clear what my obligations were."
S.F. CONTINUES GAY WEDDINGS
Feb. 18: NBC’s James Hattori reports outside San Francisco City Hall as President Bush spoke out against gay marriage, city officials said they’ll continue performing same-sex weddings.
MSNBCNewsom could have issued his challenge through the courts, claiming that a state law defining marriage as a contract between a man and a woman violated the California constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law. Instead, he says, he decided to "put a human face" on the issue by marrying couples first and then waging the legal battle. "Rosa Parks didn't wait for the courts to tell her it was all right to ride in the front of the bus," says Newsom. "It's never, ever, the 'right' time for change." To get started, mayoral aides invited two longtime lesbian activists, Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, a couple for 51 years, to come and get the first license. "Why should my wife and I, who have been married for only two years, be entitled to more rights than they are after half a century?" asks Newsom.
The mayor's "take it to the people" strategy turned the city on its head. In contrast to the flamboyance of some gay-pride events, the overflow crowd at city hall was remarkable for being so ordinary. Mothers pushing strollers stood behind dads with infants strapped to their chests; seniors mingled with businessmen; elderly parents struggled with their corsages and brothers-in-law fiddled with their video cameras, while children slid across shiny marble in their dress clothes. "We're not scary people," said Susan Trainor, a health-care-company manager waiting to marry her partner of 10 years, Ann Harty. "We just want what everyone else wants."
TIMELINE MARRIAGE RIGHTS BATTLE
Key turns in fight over unions for same-sex couples
1989
Denmark becomes the first nation to legally recognize same-sex unions, offering "the same legal effects as the contracting of marriage." Half a dozen European countries begin moving in the same direction.
1996
A court in Hawaii overrules a previous state ban on gay marriage, sparking a national debate on the subject.
1996
The U.S. House and Senate overwhelmingly pass the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a bill denying federal recognition of same-sex marriages and giving states the right to refuse same-sex marriage licenses from other states and deny benefits associated with marriage. President Bill Clinton signs the bill. Some 38 states have since adopted similar state legislation.
2000
Vermont creates a new legal relationship status called a "civil union," allowing same-sex couples to obtain all of the rights, responsibilities and benefits available through marriage within the state of Vermont, becoming the first state to do so.
April, 2001
Netherlands: Gay and lesbian couples who are Dutch are allowed to marry and adopt with the full privileges enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. The law offers the most sweeping rights to same sex couples in the world. By 2002, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Germany, France and Switzerland have all adopted laws allowing registration of same-sex unions, with most or all of the rights enjoyed by married heterosexual couples.
May, 2003
Rep Marilyn Musgrave, (R-Colo.) and five cosponsors introduce HJ Resolution 56, the Federal Marriage Amendment, a resolution to amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman only. The Senate follows suit with its own resolution in November. The amendments state that no state or federal law "shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
June 2003
The U.S. Supreme Court strikes down a Texas law prohibiting same-sex sodomy. By removing criminal implications for private consensual sexual acts, the ruling changed the legal landscape for an array issues concerning same-sex couples, including the right to marry.
June-July, 2003
The Canadian provinces of Ontario and British Columbia begin allowing same-sex couples to marry, and obtain full rights of marriage under Canadian law, following a court decision that the law on traditional marriage is unconstitutional.
November, 2003
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules that it is a violation of the state constitution to bar same-sex couples from marriage. The first legal marriages for same-sex couples are due to take place in May.
February, 2004
Massachusetts lawmakers debate amending the state constitution to define marriage as a union only between a man and woman. This amendment, if passed by lawmakers, could only appear on a ballot for voter approval in 2006. By the start of this debate, 21 states had introduced or were expected to introduce similar state constitutional amendments. Source: MSNBC Research
The seemingly endless parade of same-sex couples flouting the law without consequence left conservative activists fuming. "There are millions of Americans angry and disgusted by what they see on TV, two brides, two grooms, but not a man and a woman," says Randy Thomasson, of the Campaign for California Families, which last week sued Newsom to stop issuing licenses. "This is the new civil war in America." Now Bush, who desperately wants the support of an estimated 4 million religious conservatives who did not vote in the 2000 election, must walk a fine line between pleasing his base and not seeming intolerant or mean-spirited, which could sully his image as a "compassionate conservative." White House aides say Bush is still deciding, but NEWSWEEK has learned there are plans for the president to announce his support for an amendment this week.
SHOWDOWN IN SAN FRANCISCO
Feb. 16: As same-sex marriages continue in San Francisco, two opposition groups vow to return to court Tuesday in an effort to stop the city from issuing licenses. NBC's Tom Costello reports.
Arnold Schwarzenegger is also walking a high wire. While aides say the Governator is "annoyed by the appearance of anarchy" in San Francisco, they also worry that inserting their superstar too deeply into the story could play into Newsom's hand, allowing the cocky young mayor to play David to Schwarzenegger's Goliath. (Privately some concede that Schwarzenegger's Hollywood heart just isn't in a battle over gay rights.) Last Friday, dismayed after two judges failed to stop the city from issuing licenses, Schwarzenegger took a stronger line. In a letter to Attorney General Bill Lockyer, he called San Francisco's actions "an imminent risk to civil order" and demanded that the attorney general take "immediate" legal steps to stop the marriages.
There is still no telling what will happen as the brigade of same-sex couples married in San Francisco fans out, testing the power of their licenses in gaining benefits. But for Kristie and Maureen Lanktree, who drove 400 miles from Los Angeles last week with their 8-year-old daughter, Briana, marriage would mean never again fighting to enter a hospital room, as Maureen once did when Briana was in intensive care. After 14 years together, they say, that would be victory enough.
With Debra Rosenberg and Tamara Lipper
© 2004 Newsweek, Inc.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4340242/
