posted 02-18-2004 11:29 AM            

Now, That's San Francisco
Nothing like a few thousand gay marriage ceremonies to reignite your urban pride

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist Wednesday, February 18, 2004

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Friendly sex shops. Peet's. Dog parks. Stellar restaurants. Superlative tattoo artists. Fabulous weather. Unparalleled natural beauty. Organic foods. Fewer SUVs, more Priuses. Mission burritos. An overwhelming anti-Schwarzenegger sentiment. Sushi. Bush never visits.

There are things that make you happy to live in San Francisco, truly grateful, along with plenty of things that make you hyper-aware that you live in the country's most progressive open-minded convoluted messed-up liberal bubble, for both good and ill.

But few are the things that transcend mere gratitude, things that our struggling budget-strapped modern metropolis has offered of late that makes you say, oh my God, I am right now so incredibly proud to say I live here, I mean just look what we're doing, look what ground we are breaking, what stagnant trends we are blasting, what history we are making.

But for the moment, that's all changed. There is one astounding beacon of political and social (and romantic) action about which San Franciscans can be truly emboldened: The move to legalize same-sex marriage, to hold genuine same-sex wedding ceremonies, this should make any progressive soul proud to live in this amazing city. Deeply, genuinely, thoroughly.

Here's why: No matter what the final outcome, this past week will go down as one of those defining moments, a seminal point in American history. It hearkens back to the civil rights movement and to women's suffrage, though with less screaming chanting effigy-burning marches and beatings by angry cops, and more roses and warm-hearted grins and life-affirming smooches on the steps of city hall.

It was a delicious and heartwarming historic spectacle indeed, and there was simply no way for any person of any elevated consciousness or spiritual awareness -- anyone with any heart whatsoever -- to witness the huge line of happy, eager same-sex couples snaking around city hall and not be deeply moved, profoundly touched.

I was there. I saw the lines, the smiles, felt the intense emotional energy. It was simply irrefutable: These are people in love. These are couples who have been together for years, decades, who have started families and raised children and set up homes replete with dogs and dinner parties and antiques and regular shopping excursions to Safeway and the mall. You know, just like "real" Americans.

These are couples who are willing to go the distance, to commit and connect, and who are eager to prove to themselves and the world that their love is something true and real and momentous, something that, in truth, can only serve to reignite and reunite our stagnant, fractured, contentious, 50 percent-divorce-rate nation. Hey, we need all the help we can get.

And one other thing was very apparent: It was a situation in which you simply could not imagine anyone hurling gobs of intolerant hate at it. It would have required a serious amount of nasty, inbred ignorance and appalling nerve to march up to any of the passionate and committed couples waiting patiently in line for their marriage ceremony and say, you know, God hates you for this, you immoral disgusting sodomites, and it's intolerable and unacceptable that you wish to love and honor each other till death do you part.

Which, yes indeed, is exactly what a great many antigay groups are doing, in effect, right now.

But here's the best part: The City's brave move was not merely a giant well-manicured middle finger to the Christian Right and indignant homophobic conservatives everywhere.

Nor was it just an audacious act of civil disobedience, guaranteed to raise the ire of Bible thumpers and so-called pro-family groups hailing everywhere from Orange County to Colorado Springs. That's just a nice bonus.

It was, more than anything, an incredible celebration of love. The more than 2,600 wedding ceremonies performed so far were the purest evidence, an irrefutable outpouring of the most wondrous and messy and baffling and orgasmic and desperately needed of human emotions, the air electric and warm, the ceremonies themselves radiant and poignant and genuinely tearful.

And no question became so clear, so obvious, as the one being asked by same-sex-marriage advocates around the world: What, really, is so wrong about this? What is the horrible threat about two adults who love each other so intensely, so purely, that they're willing to commit to a lifetime of being together and sleeping together and arguing over who controls the remote? And what government body dares to claim a right to legislate against it?

It is a question no group, no homophobic senator, no piece of antigay legislation, no BushCo stump speech, no Bible-humping pastor has been able to answer with any clarity or conviction.

They can only mumble about immorality and quote some vague Scripture about sodomy that makes them all tingly, as wary biblical scholars all over the world roll their eyes and point to a thousand proofs that demonstrate, over and over again, how the Bible is basically a reinterpreted regurgitated piece of classic patriarchal misogynistic mythmaking that says exactly what the church rewrote it to say.

But I might have part of an answer. From what I can glean from some of my hate mail and the general conservative outcry, here is what the homophobes fear about same-sex marriage: bestiality.

That is, they are utterly terrified that same-sex marriage is a slippery slope of permissive debauchery that will lead to the utter breakdown of social rules and sexual mores, to people being allowed to marry their dogs, or their own dead grandmothers, or chairs, or three hairy men from Miami Beach.

In short, to the neocon Right, a nation that allows gays to marry is a nation with no boundaries and no condoms and where all sorts of illicit disgusting behaviors will soon be legal and be forced upon them, a horrific tribal wasteland full of leeches and flying bugs and scary sex acts they only read about in chat rooms and their beloved "Left Behind" series of cute apocalypse-porn books.

You know, just like how giving blacks the right to own their own land meant we had to give the same rights to house plants and power tools, or how granting women the right to vote meant it was a slippery slope until we gave suffrage to feral cats and sea slugs and rusty hubcaps.

This, then, is why it is a time to be incredibly proud. San Francisco is slapping this moronic worldview back to the dank basement of subhuman intellect, where it belongs. We have broken the taboo, challenged the ignorant and the easily terrified, made it beautifully clear that what matters most in a modern society is not unfounded, naive fears, not uptight religious puling, but a humane and equal, joyous sense of love for all.

The war is far from over. It will be a brutal battle, with much hate yet to be spewed, much Bible waving and law mangling accompanying what will undoubtedly be a slow, painful sea change for a very uptight, easily terrified American society.

posted 02-18-2004 12:17 PM            

I think that the human race has gotten to the point that we are overpopulated. It is not necessary for us to reproduce for survival of the species. I think that it is more important for us to learn to love each other and to figure out how to clean up this planet and put sane people in positions of power.

This I think is the biological push/pull for some of us now, not to have children. So, it doesn't matter what sex organs you have or what age you are, just if you care for your partner and want to help each other learn and survive.

posted 02-18-2004 08:14 PM            

I can't really find anything that I care to dispute in your posts, as I have said I pretty much concur with what's been said.

The only thing I can think to add is that along with the list of people you mentioned Swamp, who don't want to be a part of Falwell's etc. persecution of gays, are also some Republicans I happen to know. One must be careful not to paint any one group whether it be gays, Republicans, or perhaps gay pot-smoking Republicans or whatever, with too large a brush. Stereotypes are easy to fall into and I speak as one to whom this happens to sometimes despite good intentions.

Again, I say, I pretty much concur, so I won't make this long. Yes personal responsibility as you have said should be at the ROOT of all law and I also agree the line to strive for as you have said is when our actions can be shown to DIRECTLY impact others. That should be at the heart I think of decision making. As far as your reference again to "pot" yes I believe it should probably be treated like alcohol using similar laws. It seems to me this is the way the rest of much of the world is heading. As I said before Britian is lately in the news with allowing British citizens to use it like alcohol, with similar penalties if one should become dangerous or break laws such as drive under the influence.

posted 02-18-2004 08:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Show-Me Truth:
The only thing I can think to add is that along with the list of people you mentioned Swamp, who don't want to be a part of Falwell's etc. persecution of gays, are also some Republicans I happen to know. One must be careful not to paint any one group whether it be gays, Republicans, or perhaps gay pot-smoking Republicans or whatever, with too large a brush. Stereotypes are easy to fall into and I speak as one to whom this happens to sometimes despite good intentions.

---

I'm not sure of where I mentioned Republicans in relation to gay marriage. Historically, Democrats, Socialists, Liberals, Hippies, Beats, Artists, Musicians, and environmentalist, have been more concerned with what the average person's well being, and Gay Rights have always been embraced by aformentioned groups. Of course, many of the same groups don't think much od chemtrails and the New World Order.

So here's my take, before you go "Painting Me with a Large Brush". I am for the Little Person, The Victim, The Sick, Innocent Animals and Humans, Displaced Workers, and Justice. I feel The Constitution is more important than the Bible. People like Alex Jones, Chris Ruby, and Mike Rivero have it all correct when it comes to The New World Order, aerosol spraying, and Police State. They are half right when it comes to 2nd Amendment issues and abortion. They are way off the mark when it comes to gay issues, drugs, The UN, and religion. People like Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, and Jim Hightower are more correct in the UN, gay issues, drugs, and politics. They are half right with 2nd Amendment and abortion. Way off the mark with The NWO and aerosol spraying.

I take no political affiliation, only who is the most logical, and most humane. Republicans have simply been historically more for war and big Business. This is not to say that some Repulicans can be for more humane causes. Then they are called Libertarians, basically Conservatives who like weed. There still is a difference between the Democrats and republicans, small as that may be.

If you noticed what I said, I mentioned Essense Chrisitian as a philosophy. Falwell, Robertson, GW Bush, Colin Powell, Donald Rumpsmell, Condi Rice, and Reed call themselves "Born-Again Christians". Fine, call yourself whatever you want, or somebody will find a name for you. there is a lot of disagreement amongst Christians on even who is the correct Jesus. The people I just mentioned are Phoney Christians in my view. They are the furthest thing from The Prince of Peace. Again, the Essense Dead Sea Scrools Gnostic Scriptures are being further bent away from the original Paganistic and very Spiritual Essenes.

posted 02-19-2004 05:20 PM            

- I also trust these same people are protesting marriages between couples who cannot procreate, or who choose to not procreate.

- Hello, this is Chem Central.. one of the biggest theories of Chemtrails is to control OVERPOPULATION. Perhape a rise in homosexuals is nature's way of slowing down the OVER-BREEDING process (naimly by minority groups who insist on having 4-5-6+ children per family).

- Why do religious fanatics always focus on the SEX?

- Straight couples have anal sex.

- Straight couples have oral sex.

- If the REASON for marriage is to procreate (how ludicrous a statement) then why does the government award single mothers with money for their unaffordable children?

posted 02-19-2004 09:03 PM            

regarding sex.

Sex of course really is simply replication and reproduction of the species at it's core *physical* level. It seems odd to me to place so much hysteria around a biological event such as replication as do many in the "mainstream" public. (And here I use the narrow definition of "sex".)

And I am not speaking simply as a 'scientist' I also find it odd that those who claim to seek "spirituality" think often of sex and reproduction as somehow "sinful" until they pass a certain stage.(Here I mean many religious denominations). Of course I am not suggesting "sex" in it's broader form can't include such things as are outside of procreation but I think at the "heart" of sex(Biologically) comes reproduction at least genetically speaking when looking at the systems within the human body and how they are driven to respond. And this includes many of the biological systems (Parts of the brain) that control hormones and sexual systems.

So again this is not to deny all of the emotional, spiritual, etc. value of sex between caring persons. In fact just the opposite. Sex can be WAY outside of anything to do with procreation in it's broader form (and definition).

So what I'm saying in case the point has been lost is that I have NO problem of allowing gays/lesbians to marry. I for one am NOT going to cast the first stone (or ANY stones). If I have been unclear in any way, let me state for the record I believe gays/lesbians should be allowed to marry. This of course is simply my opinion based upon what I deeply feel is the right thing to do. I respect others may feel differently and such is life and our own unique experiences. So it is, we're all learning and growing and seeking what it is we need to be whole even though that may appear to be a fallacy to others. Let them cast the first stone, not I.

posted 02-20-2004 07:21 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ScaredForTheFuture:
>>I respect others may feel differently and such is life and our own unique experiences.>>

Yes, they may feel differently, but their actions on their feelings AFFECT OTHER HUMAN BEINGS' LIVES.

---

Yes, as a researcher and a human being, and one that realizes just how strongly our "environment" affects us, I do have to wonder not only what produces gay/lesbian individuals, but what produces the type of individual that would go out a try and file suit against them based soley on their sexual selections. I strongly suspect many of the same hormonal type functions are taking place though producing some very differently appearing behavior.

posted 02-20-2004 10:52 PM            

http://chem11.proboards2.com/index.cgi?board=temple&action=display&num=1061867241

If reproduction and social hive development are a stage 4 function on the Periodic table of Evolution, then homosexuality itself bypasses, or more precisely, quickly moves through that stage.

When Smt says the same "hormones" could be involved in completely opposite reactions, it is very close to the truth I believe. The hormones in this case could be neural "triggers", activating non-linear brain circuitry. What is a new "Door of Perception" to one person, could be a "Gateway to Hell" to another. It is the same exact nootropic pathway in two individuals, but one is ready more exponential models.

Reminds me of the "Good Friday Experiment" in the early 60's. Divinity students were to be given Psilocybin Mushrooms. Before beginning, they would simply discuss what they thought God would look and sound like. They are consummed the 'shrooms together. During the trip, they would talk into tape recorders, and after it was over, wrote down wht they now thought God to be. The neophyte priests gave wide responses afterwards, much more varied than when everybody who was straight at the beginning. Some were frightened. Some were joyous .

http://www.maps.org/news-letters/v06n2/06212psi.html

In conclusion, hormone activation is the result of a neural circuit activating. Depending on ones Social (4th level) conditioning, diet, emotional development, and symbolic knowledge, would give an easy or diffucult transistion into the uncharted, sex for pleasure, or the so-called "Neuro-Somatic" circuit.

posted 02-22-2004 08:30 PM            

First off, it's nobody's business. Secondly, human rights are human rights.

posted 02-22-2004 08:33 PM            

MANY people will disagree with you.

I for one say marriage should be for a man and a woman.

Iv'e given my reasons. Seems the majority agrees.

posted 02-22-2004 09:25 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mech:
Seems the majority agrees.

---

We can't go by that, as 90% of the population thought GW Bush was doing the right thing at one point, and I'd like to find the percentage of people that were opposed to Woman's Right to Vote in 1900.

I always try an put myself in the shoes of the person who is the victim. Many people on this site have been in the minority on their views of the New World Order, Globaliization, Religious Fundamentalism, Terrorism, and Chemtrails. This is a most basic human right, the choice on who to love and how. Imagine if the shoe was reversed, and a person loved a person of the opposite sex, and religious dogma was the factor stopping one from marrying.

I still say, it is against the Constitution, Equal Rights. That is what will eventually come down to, a Constitutional battle between the Hard Right, and Fighters for Equal Rights. There is enough biological, religious, hormonal, emotional, and intellectual data given on this post to see the analogy between The Patriot Act and The Marriage Amendmnent. Both Un-Constitutional. Besides, the World needs more Love, not shredding The Constitution even more.

posted 02-27-2004 09:03 AM            

Gay couples can be as stable as straights, evidence suggests
Bush quote makes longevity an issue

Rona Marech, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, February 27, 2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When President Bush stated Tuesday that "marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots" without weakening society, some advocates viewed his choice of words as an embrace of an old stereotype: That gay couples would undermine the institution because they value sex over lasting, emotional bonds and they don't understand lifelong commitment.

But how to square that with the widespread image of thousands of gay newlyweds, many of whom have been together for years and even decades?

The equation doesn't add up, advocates for gay rights say, and a growing body of research supports their claims that gay couples can and do stick together -- and legalizing same-sex marriage will only contribute to the creation of more stable relationships.

"There are studies that find that the majority of gay men and lesbians want enduring relationships," said Esther Rothblum, a psychology professor at University of Vermont who is conducting her own study on couples united in civil unions in Vermont in 2000-2001, the first year after the legislation was enacted there. Moreover, while very few longitudinal studies on gay legal unions exist, "my guess is that, again, what you're going to find is that lesbians and gay men who get married are going to stay in relationships longer than the ones who don't," she said.

On average, the 400 couples in Rothblum's civil union study had been together for 11 to 12 years by the time they made it official, she said. Their relationships were comparatively shorter than those of their straight, married siblings, but for good reason, Rothblum said.

"Heterosexuals get more socialization to marry. They are much more likely to have children and it's easier to break up relationships if you don't want children," she said. "Heterosexuals also have legal marriage and up to that point gays and lesbians did not."

But Bill Maier, vice president of the conservative evangelical organization Focus on the Family, said "the research seems to indicate that (long-term relationships) are very rare and that promiscuity is still very common. ... Men tend to be less into commitment."

Not so fast, said Darren Spedale, a law and business student at Stanford University, who studied divorce rates in Denmark in 1996-97, seven years after same-sex registered partnerships were legalized. He found that 17 percent of gay partnerships ended in divorce compared with 46 percent of the straight relationships.

"Same-sex couples who enter into marriage-type relationships have obviously given it much more thought. ... A lot of them, in general, have had longer relationships previous to tying the knot," which decreases the likelihood of divorce, said Spedale, who is completing a book on the subject.

Gay couples don't have to contend with family pressure or unexpected pregnancy, said Ted Guggenheim, 35, who married his partner of 17 years last week. "It's truly about love."

Dale Bullock founded Bonds Limited, an organization devoted to bringing together gay couples seeking lifelong, monogamous relationships. Over the past decade, he's made 228 matches. One hundred sixty of his couples are male; all but seven are still together.

San Francisco is full of gay couples who "believe they're capable of manifesting a happy marriage," he said. "These are the lines of people we see at City Hall."

Caitlin Ryan, a researcher at San Francisco State University, said that most of the lesbian, gay and bisexual youth in a study she's conducting, said they would like to have families, long-term relationships and children.

But many conservatives disagree.

Most gay men "are not interested in monogamous relationships, which is the traditional definition of what marriage is," said Gary Glenn, president of American Family Association of Michigan.

In Rothblum's study, gay men were more likely to be non-monogamous than straight couples or lesbians, but she and others say there are numerous explanations for those findings.

"Let's say, for example, that you're raising a child and you tell that child I'm going to legislate against you to become college educated because you aren't smart enough. How many children are going to get a college education?" said Bullock, who agrees that gay couples seeking monogamous relationships are still the minority.

"Historically, the media hasn't focused on long-term relationships among gay men and lesbians, even though they existed," Ryan said. "I think that has an impact on believing you could have a relationship like that." Increased visibility, including the thousands of gay newlyweds, offers young people "a sense of possibility that didn't exist before," she said.

In any case, gay advocates say that non-monogamy is hardly restricted to gay couples. Some add that the consensual, non-monogamous agreements some gay couples have are honorable and preferable to the typical straight version of affairs and cheating.

If promiscuity were limited to gay men, then prostitution wouldn't be a multi-billion dollar business," said Renate Stendhal, author of "True Secrets of Lesbian Desire: Keeping Sex Alive in Long-term Relationships."