California's top court legalizes gay marriage

California's top court legalizes gay marriage
By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer Thu May 15, 7:45 PM ET
SAN FRANCISCO - California's Supreme Court declared gay couples in the nation's biggest state can marry — a monumental but perhaps short-lived victory for the gay rights movement Thursday that was greeted with tears, hugs, kisses and at least one instant proposal of matrimony.

ADVERTISEMENT

Same-sex couples could tie the knot in as little as a month. But the window could close soon after — religious and social conservatives are pressing to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in November that would undo the Supreme Court ruling and ban gay marriage.

"Essentially, this boils down to love. We love each other. We now have equal rights under the law," declared a jubilant Robin Tyler, a plaintiff in the case along with her partner. She added: "We're going to get married. No Tupperware, please."

A crowd of people raised their fists in triumph inside City Hall, and people wrapped themselves in the rainbow-colored gay-pride flag outside the courthouse. In the Castro, the historic center of the gay community in San Francisco, Tim Oviatt wept as he watched the news on TV.

"I've been waiting for this all my life. This is a life-affirming moment," he said.

By the afternoon, gay and lesbian couples had already started lining up at San Francisco City Hall to make appointments to get marriage licenses. In West Hollywood, supporters were planning to serve "wedding cake" at an evening celebration.

James Dobson, chairman of the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, called the ruling an "outrage."

"It will be up to the people of California to preserve traditional marriage by passing a constitutional amendment. ... Only then can they protect themselves from this latest example of judicial tyranny," he said in an e-mail statement.

In its 4-3 ruling, the Republican-dominated high court struck down state laws against same-sex marriage and said domestic partnerships that provide many of the rights and benefits of matrimony are not enough.

"In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority in ringing language that delighted gay rights activists.

Massachusetts is the only other state to legalize gay marriage, something it did in 2004. The California ruling is considered monumental by virtue of the state's size — 38 million out of a U.S. population of 302 million — and its historic role in the vanguard of the many social and cultural changes that have swept the country since World War II.

California has an estimated 92,000 same-sex couples.

"It's about human dignity. It's about human rights. It's about time in California," San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, pumping his fist in the air, told a roaring crowd at City Hall. "As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation. It's inevitable. This door's wide open now. It's going to happen, whether you like it or not."

Unlike Massachusetts, California has no residency requirement for obtaining a marriage license, meaning gays from around the country are likely to flock to the state to be wed, said Jennifer Pizer, a gay-rights attorney who worked on the case.

The ultimate reach of the ruling could be limited, however, since most states do not recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere. Nor does the federal government.

The conservative Alliance Defense Fund said it would ask the justices for a stay of the decision until after the fall election in hopes of adding California to the list of 26 states that have approved constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage.

"We're obviously very disappointed in the decision. The remedy is a constitutional amendment. The constitution defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman," said Glen Lavy, senior counsel for the organization.

Randy Thomasson of VoteYesMarriage.com, a campaign to amend the California Constitution to ban gay marriage, said the decision was in effect telling children that they have a "new role model — homosexual marriage, aspire to it.

"This is a disaster," he said.

Opponents of gay marriage could also ask the high court to reconsider. If the court rejects such a request, same-sex couples could start getting married in 30 days, the time it typically takes for the justices' opinions to become final.

The justices said they would direct state officials "to take all actions necessary to effectuate our ruling," including requiring county marriage clerks to carry out their duties "in a manner consistent with" the court's decision.

James Vaughn, director of the California Log Cabin Republicans, called the ruling a "conservative one."

"The justices have ensured that the law treats all Californians fairly and equally. This decision is a good one for all families, gay and non-gay," Vaughn said.

The case was set in motion in 2004 when the mayor of San Francisco — the unofficial capital of gay America — threw City Hall open to gay couples to get married in a calculated challenge to California law. Four-thousand gay couples wed before the Supreme Court put a halt to the practice after a month.

Two dozen gay couples then sued, along with the city and gay rights organizations.

Thursday's ruling could alter the dynamics of the presidential race and state and congressional contests in California and beyond by causing a backlash among conservatives and drawing them to the polls in large numbers.

A spokesman for Republican John McCain, who opposes gay marriage, said the Arizona senator "doesn't believe judges should be making these decisions." The campaigns of Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton said they believe that the issue of marriage should be left to the states.

Ten states now offer some form of legal recognition to same-sex couples — in most cases, domestic partnerships or civil unions. In the past few years, the courts in New York, New Jersey and Washington state have refused to allow gay marriage.

Outside the San Francisco courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as news spread of the decision. Jeanie Rizzo, one of the plaintiffs, called Pali Cooper, her partner of 19 years, via cell phone and asked, "Pali, will you marry me?"

Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights said same-sex marriage advocates could not have hoped for a more favorable ruling by the Republican-dominated court. "It's a total victory," Minter said.

California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners many of the legal rights and responsibilities afforded to married couples, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support.

Citing a 1948 California Supreme Court decision that overturned a ban on interracial marriages, the justices struck down the state's 1977 one-man, one-woman marriage law, as well as a similar, voter-approved law that passed with 61 percent in 2000.

The chief justice was joined by Justices Joyce Kennard and Kathryn Werdegar, all three of whom were appointed by Republican governors, and Justice Carlos Moreno, the only member of the court appointed by a Democrat.

In a dissent, Justice Marvin Baxter agreed with many arguments of the majority but said that the court overstepped its authority and that changes to marriage laws should be decided by the voters. Justices Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan also dissented.

California's secretary of state is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signatures to put the gay-marriage amendment on the ballot.

Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has twice vetoed legislation that would have granted marriage to same-sex couples, said in a statement that he respected the court's decision and "will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."

___

Associated Press writers Terence Chea, Jason Dearen, Juliana Barbassa and Evelyn Nieves in San Francisco and Liz Sidoti in Washington contributed to this report.

Long Distance Relationships Work (Part 2)

Previously: Frankie and Jai battle it out against all odds as they stand firm on their decision to maintain a long-distance relationship. Will they be able to keep things from deteriorating or will the culture clash, the language barrier, the different time zone and the sheer geographical distance bring this relationship to a bitter end?

We'll never know how KK and Arthur really met because KK has a thing about not telling the story according to how it actually happened because he wants to preserve a certain self-image. He's not really trying to put up appearances but he's just conscious about the way people perceive him. In this case, he doesn't want us, his friends, to think that he's a slut. Maybe he's not or maybe he is. But the factoids that we know about the circumstances of the meet-up were far and few in-between. KK met Arthur in Bed Bar in Malate two weeks before he's told anyone that he met some guy. Who introduced himself to whom would tell us who is slutting around town. Bed is not exactly the gay destination of choice for a good majority of my gay friends... okay, an overwhelming majority of them... as the quality deteriorates - venue and people - as you move away from Makati. KK's "new friends" happen to hang out in Malate all the time. The reason why it took KK two weeks to tell us that he's in such a state with a semblance of "dating someone" is partly because 1) he has "new friends" who are more like recycled friends, and 2) he knows of our aversion for gay Malate.

Let's be clear. I am not dissing KK. He just happens to be the resident underdog in the clique and the tag has grown into him. I'm actually humbled by the fact that of all our gay friends, he feels comfortable confiding in me and seeking my advice.

So again, who was spotted slutting around gay Manila. We'll never know until KK spills all the beans. The slutting around turned out to be a good thing. At first it was high time for paranoia, confusion, miscommunication, misunderstanding and a lot of great expectations and wrong first impression. Which are all normal for a person who just came out of a comfortable/complacent three-year relationship meeting a new guy whom you like in a way you're unsure about and who seems to like you for the wrong reasons. Or so you thought.

Arthur, in a nutshell, is a chap who photographs well. Like his cousin. I've written about them earlier in this blog. According to KK's voluntary disclosures, Arthur made him crave for sex again. A state he's never been in for the last months of his previous relationship. It was a slow gradual process that eventually became a daily routine up to a point where they'd do nothing but each other for an entire day. Even work sometimes gets brushed aside because "it's getting in the way".

In the beginning of things, KK's complaint was that despite his sex appeal, Arthur is shallow and they'd talk about nothing. As in nothing. I was about to foredoom the relationship, or whatever it was back then, but KK made certain pronouncements about the setup. That it was just for the sex. That he just wanted to get back into the game. That he was still enjoying the company. And that he doesn't want to be tied down again in another relationship. The biggest thing that is holding KK back is that in less than a year's time, KK is flying to Europe for his Master's degree. He doesn't want to invest in something that he's gonna stop eventually.

The first dilemma was what the status of their relationship was. "KK," I told him over coffee, "you've barely spent a month with the guy and you wanna label the relationship?" He said that it was not him but Arthur asking. "What do you think are you?" I asked.

"Friends...?"
"Friends?"
"Yeah. Friends. Fucking Friends."

Which is the root word of Friends with Benefits.

He doesn't want to be attached to someone at the moment. That's the least he needs for now. And he's afraid that Arthur is becoming clingy. I told him to be fair and leave the guy or at least be honest about what he really thinks about the relationship and what he needs from it. But KK thinks that he can have the cake AND eat it, too. I told him that it's only a matter of time before the cake realizes that he's being eaten up alive.

KK is the biggest flipflop of all time and the next week he was saying that he now can't imagine himself without Arthur and that he was afraid that Arthur has lost interest in him and that he has changed towards him. Talk about paranoia. He also felt that Arthur was "cheating" on him.

"You're oversteppin' it, bitch," I told him on a text message. "How can he 'cheat' on you when you're not together and you don't want to be too attached to him?"

"I think I'm falling for him."

"Damn straight, and if you keep on it, you'll have enough emotional baggage for a two-year hiatus in Sorbonne."

Two weeks later, he finds out that the rumors were just that. Filthy rumors spread by one of his so-called "new friends" who apparently was also into Arthur and was jealous that KK ended up with Arthur instead of him. He then asked me if he should tell him how he really feels and if he should tell him that he's leaving within the year.

That decision was not for him to make. A few days later. Arthur pronounced his sentiments love of admitted that he knew that he was leaving for France. The absent-minded KK was unaware that he leaves his YM conversation with me open for his ex-boytoy-and-soon-to-be-boyfriend to see.

There were waterworks which was understandable but could be over-the-top to some. But they've decided to carry on with what they have and cross the bridge when they get there. Hopefully they would not be burning bridges instead.

The situation is complicated by differing religious beliefs and cultural upbringings. KK comes from a straight-as-an-arrow Catholic family but he turned out to be an atheist until he found his God among the Methodists. Arthur, believe it or not, is a Maranao Muslim royalty (which is pretty much titular and meaningless exceppt for the number of hectares you own), as in the princess of Sulu kind of royalty. He's actually married but decided to leave for Manila. Now that he's finished with his studies, the family pressures him to come back and settle down. With a girl. We all know Arthur digs dicks exclusively so there's no way this is happening.

There's also no way to run away from family duty without being disowned. After KK's Europe sojourn, Arthur plans to run away with him to the halal Big Apple: Dubai. If he can run away at all.

I've told KK that his relationship is a walking textbook case that can be used in fourteen different fields of study and I've asked him how he felt about it. "It might be interesting but I wished it were a bit more normal. But I'm happy just the same."

And I think, in the end, beyond distances and differences, that - happiness - is all that matters.

Long Distance Relationship Works (Part 1)

Repeat: Long Distance Relationship Works.

I'm still undecided on this issue. Jake believes that long distance relationships work. He actually phrased it in a mumbled question (while his lips are pressed on mine) "Why, don't you think long-distance relationships work?" You might not remember it babe but I do because I remember how I did not answer it because, as I've said I'm still undecided on the issue.

This is a long overdue post prompted by two close friends of mine that are in or about to embark on a long distance relationship. First, do I have to put a dash in between "long" and "distance"? I think so. The fact that this is overdue owes to the same reason, which is my indecision on the topic at hand.

It's also interesting because the same issue gives way to another, even more complex set-up of cross-cultural relationship. Not just interracial but cross-cultural. I digress: interracial sounds like animals cavorting with another species. I'll stick to the term cross-cultural as it sounds more academic.

Frankie, yes, Frank Ulrich Cudal von Krefeld, the scion of German ex-nobility, left Manila last month to go back to his native Germany, leaving behind another dear friend Jai. In an interesting twist of events, Jai sent me an SMS about how he was worried about Frankie. I was surprised by that statement. First because I thought I knew Frankie better as his friend. And second because I didn't expect such a reaction from Jai. You see, Jai and Frankie met through me. Jai saw Frankie's pic online through my Multiply and oh-so sweetly asked if I could intervene in their fateful meeting. What was a good friend like me to do but introduce and introduce I did.

Jai's, well, "history" with boys is more colorful than the Pantone palette to say the least. And Frankie is still, well, confused on whether he digs boys exclusively or boys and girls equally. I was not sure about what the outcome will be when the two inevitably meet in oh-so romantic Manila a few months after their online meeting.

Well they hit it off quite well. Quite is an understatement.

The time came last month when Frankie had to go back to Germany to get ready for Uni in September. He spent the last few months of his stay in Manila away from our set of friends and more with Jai, which is of course understandable. I wasn't there at the airport so I don't know what happened at the exact moment when he officially left.

Fast-forward a few days later and I receive the text from Jai. He was concerned about how Frankie was handling all this while they're apart. They're committed to staying together despite the distance and have been making future plans together. In fact, Frankie will spend the three months leading to Uni openings in the Philippines just to be with Jai. He'll be back by June.

Jai, who is a few years older, just quit his work to focus on graduate school. Frankie is just entering University. And I think, at his age, he doesn't know what he wants to be yet.

I really thought that Jai would fare worse in this setup than Frankie. With our upbringing, we Filipinos tend to be more emotional about things like this. And I was thinking that with his age, Jai would be more inclined to actually hold on to this relationship than Frankie, who, with his age, seems to be wanting to try things out. That was what was going on in my head. But the reality seemed reversed.

Three months of course, is not a long time to wait. But what about in the long-term? Can this work? Can two people, of two different upbringings with oceans between them, with different life priorities, make this work?

Up next: A walking case study. KK and Arthur bring more drama into their already-steaming stew of clashing cultures and personas. And they say that they're a couple.

Boyd Gets Promoted!

Woohoo!!! Time to bring out the champagne bottles coz Boyd just got promoted! I've already pre-celebrated the event with Jake last Sunday (with all the fireworks!) and I'm planning to take my family out for a nice dinner. :)