San Francisco Marriage Rally

So, as promised, I attended the event. Some observations:

Gavin Newsom: This was my first chance to see Gavin Newsom at first-hand (I had been at the front of the march, and so was near to the speakers). He's not half so smooth an orator as Willie Brown, but given that man's superhuman charisma, that's hardly a fault. His message was highly political, pointing out that last session's legislature passed the first-ever bill seeking to establish gay marriage rights (a bill that passed in the Assembly but not the state Senate). He exhorted the crowd to get out there and support Democratic candidates around the state in the upcoming elections, so that the bill could be brought up again in the next legislature. None of this is exactly shocking, but it helped me see how his actions in this issue, might be advancing his political fortune. I don't mean to imply that his motives are purely cynical - he makes a powerful case for the underlying righteousness of gay marriage. But galvanizing San Francisco's gay base to expand its political message... and more importanly, it's financial largesse, to a broader spectrum of candidates, is a shrewd move, both ideologically and politically. And that was one of the central points of his speech - that today's setback, though expected, should serve as a clarion call to the gay movement to make it's case forcefully and persuasively.

It's often said that the court system is the way to sneak legislative changes through the backdoor of the political process. But Newsom's focus wasn't on the outrage of the court, it was upon the outrage of the law. And in this case, I now think that his goal was to use the courts to advance the debate among the electorate rather than to shortcut it.

Mabel Teng - In case you don't know who she is, she is the Recorder of San Francisco... an elected official and the only speaker there who exceeded Newsom in the crowd's affection. I'll be honest and reveal here that most of my knowledge of local news is picked up through word-of-mouth, and I heard something today that I hadn't heard before (or had forgotten). Apparently, on Valentine's Day, a protest march had descended upon the City Hall to demand marriage rights for gays. Mabel Teng came out onto the City Hall steps and told the crowd, "there is no need to protest. I will not shut down the hall until every couple in this crowd that wishes to get married has had a chance to do so." And thus, the marathon marriages had begun. Now, I'm not sure if this story is strictly accurate, nor if Mabel acted under her own initiative or with Newsom's prior approval. I don't know whether there was premeditation to their decision, and I don't know whether it was an attempt to copycat Massachusetts (what I had previously presumed), or merely a response to a protest motivated by the Massachusetts decision. But Ms. Teng impressed me with her commitment to this issue. And getting a more full impression of her role in events from others made it much more understandable for me that the City waded so foolishly into such legally treacherous waters.

Not because it was legal, but because it was right.

Rev. Marks - Sorry, but I didn't catch his first name. He was one of the speakers, who spoke "as a gay black Baptist preacher." Can I just point out that identity politics is the American equivalent of royal titles? However, there were two things to note. First of all, the man is a very gifted speaker, not only in the technical craft of oratory, but in the spiritual craft of articulating righteousness. He had a gift for vocalizing the issues and locating them in the broader context of the perpetual struggle for civil rights. Also, in a city that has introduced me to so many intractable misanthropes pretending to a higher love of mankind, it was such a breath of fresh air to see such a rousing sermon hinged by the line (I believe borrowed with attribution from another) that "while we look ahead at how far we have yet to go, look behind you at how far we have already come."

I'm not sure what the career prospects are for a gay black Baptist preacher... but unless they improve dramatically, I'd keep my eye out for him in the world of politics...

The Couples - There were so many couples there tonight. Nowhere near the full 4,000 who were married back in February. But quite a few. However, there were two couples, who spoke at the rally, who I have to discuss.

The first was a straight couple. The man is an Australian immigrant who was working here in America. Back in February, he was laid off from his job, and so the clock started ticking on his visa. His girlfriend of several years agreed to marry him a little sooner than planned so that they could remain in this country together. They hadn't really been following the news, and were shocked to find a line of thousands stretching out of the City Hall when they came in for their "INS quickie." So, they're one of the few couples from that weekend which remains married after today's court ruling. Both avowed a view which shouldn't be so rare as it is that their marriage is in no manner imperilled by the marriage of anyone else. And he'd written a funny song about it (and it goes something like this...).

The other couple were two lesbians in a nearly identical situation who were married the same weekend. They have a child together. One partner is from the United Kingdom, and her visa too is set to expire within a few months. In a matter of months, they will be forced to abandon the United States, and the family that their child has known, in order to keep their family together. She broke down in tears as she tried to explain it.

I'll admit, I've been a half-step behind justice on this issue. I've often seen it as peripheral, and as a matter we may have been fighting too soon. But I've been wrong on that. It's not simply an inequity in the law. It is an injustice. And there's never a wrong time to fight it. Now may not be the best time for this issue to have gained the prominence it has. There may very well be political consequences for forcing the matter too soon. But it is a manifest injustice happening right now.

It's not an injustice that can be defended on the grounds of religion (or "sanctity" as they like to put it). There are religions which recognize the validity of gay marriage, and if the law is to assert its definition of "sanctity" against the claims of those religions, it must find a secular basis for doing so. Precisely because we have freedom of religion, we have pluralism of faith, and the religious beliefs of some should not be restricted upon the basis nothing more than the religious beliefs of more.

It cannot be defended on the grounds of "preserving the family" because this injustice is chewing up families like the one I saw tonight. Why those families and their nuclear integrity should be denied any less protection than others is a mystery to me, and those who would perpetuate the status quo must articulate a sound basis for it.

It's coming. We are making our case, and it is a strong one.