Sebastian White :: Newsom's Move Was The Right One

OPINION

Newsom's Move Was The Right One

The Empty Closet | April 1, 2004
By Sebastian White

The signs of change were everywhere.

Outside a bistro on 18th Street, the daily special sign had been changed to read, "Have a Happy Homo Honeymoon." Down the block, at Does Your Mother Know, a gay gift shop, wedding rings shared the window display with rainbow trinkets and tourist t-shirts. At Ixia on Market Street, florists were doing a brisk business catering to gay and lesbian nuptials, the social revolution that has catapulted San Francisco squarely into the center of the American values battleground.

Throughout the Castro, the city's famously gay neighborhood, the effects of Mayor Gavin Newsom's bold move to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples were evident. But even as excited couples honked around the neighborhood in SUVs adorned with “Just Married” declarations, evoking a palpable sense of excitement, hopefulness and change, it was a feeling of perfect normalcy, of life moving seamlessly forward, that pervaded the city.

Within hours of the union of Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, San Francisco's first same-sex marriage—America's first, for that matter—I was stepping off a plane from Boston into a foggy West Coast evening. I was there by sheer coincidence. I had gone to California, in part, hoping to chronicle the lives of some of the thousands of men and women living on the streets in San Francisco, the homelessness capital of America, but soon found my work being eclipsed by the breaking news story unfolding at City Hall.

As soon as eager couples began lining up to be wed, reverberations from the young mayor’s actions were being felt across the nation from Albuquerque to Washington, as social conservatives began mobilizing against notoriously liberal San Francisco, a place they contend is out of touch with American public opinion, and especially against Newsom, a politician they say is setting a dangerous precedent by woefully ignoring California law.

Right wing conservatives may have been up in arms, but contrary to their worst fears, the world didn't end when the first same-sex vows were exchanged. In fact, on the ground in San Francisco, residents seem to be taking the move in stride and—except for the thousands of men and women who stood in endless queues to marry and are now settling into their new legally recognized relationships—life goes on as usual in the Bay Area.

Newsom’s move to bring scores of same-sex couples to the ranks of the wedded masses, far from destroying the institution itself, may, in fact, be doing more to renew interest in the traditionally conservative social custom than most would like to admit.

With a 50% divorce rate and declining numbers of Americans choosing to marry, this fundamental rite often fails to live up to the lofty ideals so touted by same-sex marriage opponents. Still, those against marriage equality say this foundering tradition needs to be protected from the encroachment of gay men and lesbians.

What exactly about the tremendous commitment being demonstrated by couples in San Francisco is it they fear will imperil families and children?

The countless positive images of loving, committed, newly married gay and lesbian couples in the media are a stark contrast to the stereotype of infidelity and promiscuity that conservatives are shamefully using to bolster support for their anti-gay crusade.

The specious arguments against allowing gays and lesbians to marry have become stale and highly politicized attempts to continue limiting the rights of a long marginalized community and are intended to create serious divisions between Americans during this campaign season.

The most common claim made, that heterosexual marriage is a universal and timeless phenomenon, is as deceptive as it is untrue. It is no great secret that those allied in the fight against same-sex marriage are using this incomplete interpretation of history to strengthen their case.

According to Dr. Linda Mitchell, a professor of history at Alfred University in New York, “until quite recently, marriage had historically been a secular, political, and social structure that had nothing to do with morality or heterosexuality.”

She contends that those “who claim a universal value system associated with companionate heterosexual marriage are doing so because they have an agenda that makes it necessary for them to make such claims.”

Indeed, it is Republicans—who desperately need a wedge issue in this difficult election year—who are the most vocal opponents of the San Francisco action. Their conservatism is by no means compassionate; it is contradictory and hateful rhetoric that relegates gay men and lesbians to the ranks of the separate and unequal.

The San Francisco decision has emphasized a growing, politicized schism between Americans over one of society's most fundamental civil institutions. Newsom accelerated an inevitable social shift, taking a noble but politically dangerous stand for equal rights. Impressively, the recently inaugurated mayor hasn’t backed down on his interpretation of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution, despite being sternly rebuked by President George W. Bush, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, and even Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, fellow Democrats from California.

Newsom's political legacy has been firmly established just weeks after taking the reins of one of the nation's most influential cities. Friends and foes of same-sex marriage alike say Newsom has effectively killed any chance of national political office with his unprecedented constitutional challenge.

But whatever happens to his political ambitions and to the validity of the thousands of marriages that have been performed so far in San Francisco, one thing is certain: Gavin Newsom has solidified his name in the history books as a courageous leader who did what was right for gays and lesbians. Like those who have fought so hard for racial and gender equality in the United States, history will look kindly upon his commitment to diversity and inclusion.