San
Francisco to President Bush: Don't blame
us
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Mayor Gavin Newsom
denounced President Bush's ''lack of truthfulness''
Tuesday in attributing his support for a
constitutional ban on same-sex marriages
partly to San Francisco's recent experiment
in allowing gay couples to wed.
Bush
announced in an Oval Office address Tuesday
that he's backing a proposed federal anti-gay
marriage amendment because ''a few judges
and local authorities are presuming to change
the most fundamental institution of civilization.''
The
president specifically pointed to Newsom's
Feb. 12 decision that has allowed more than
3,200 same-sex couples to marry with the
city's blessing, as well as a Massachusetts
Supreme Court ruling that has cleared the
way for gay couples to wed in that state
beginning in May.
Newsom,
a Democrat, strongly disputed Bush's assertion
that San Francisco's wedding spree had fueled
his decision to back the amendment, citing
comments the president made as early as
last summer indicating he would do so. Newsom
called the way Bush chose to cloak his endorsement
''shameful'' and ''cowardly.''
''I
am deeply disturbed by the president's lack
of truthfulness regarding his decision,''
said Newsom, who took office on Jan. 8.
''President Bush promised the right wing
of his party that he would support this
effort to codify discrimination in the Constitution
long before San Francisco's decision to
uphold the state constitution.''
As
Newsom continued to defend the city's policy
and more couples took their vows at City
Hall, Bush's announcement received lukewarm
reactions from some Republican leaders in
the state.
In
Washington for a meeting of the nation's
governors, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
said ''the proper thing to do'' to resolve
the deeply divisive debate is to seek a
determination from the state Supreme Court.
''We
have a law in California ... that makes
it very clear that marriage is between a
man and a woman so I don't have to concern
myself with anything else,'' Schwarzenegger
said, citing a 2000 ballot initiative that
requires the state to only recognize a marriage
between a man and a woman as valid.
Schwarzenegger
said he can't remember if he voted for Proposition
22 four years ago, but that he considers
it ''a very strong law'' that ''should be
upheld.''
The
governor's comments were echoed by Republican
Rep. David Dreier, R-San Dimas, chairman
of the House Rules Committee.
''I
will say that I'm not supportive of amending
the Constitution on this issue. I believe
that this should go through the courts,
and I think that we're at a point where
it's not necessary,'' Dreier said.
California
Attorney General Bill Lockyer has said he
will ask the California Supreme Court on
Friday whether San Francisco's issuing of
same-sex marriage licenses violates state
law to hasten a speedy resolution on whether
the couples who have wed in San Francisco
are legally married.
The
announcement from Lockyer, a leading Democrat
and potential rival to Schwarzenegger in
the 2006 election, gave lawyers on both
sides of San Francisco's gay marriage debate
a rare point of agreement.
Mathew
Staver, who represents one of two groups
that have sued the city to get the disputed
licenses invalidated, and Kate Kendell,
Executive Director of the National Center
for Lesbian Rights, said they preferred
for the case to work its way up through
the lower courts instead of going straight
to the Supreme Court.
''I
think this entire matter needs to be carefully
deliberated, and haste sometimes makes waste,''
Staver said.
Agreed
Kendell: ''I do think it would be a real
mistake, given the enormity of the issues,
to not permit the full-evidence arguments
and analysis to be presented.''
Two
groups that are opposed to marriage rights
for gay couples, the Campaign for California
Families and the Proposition 22 Legal Defense
and Education Fund, have sued Newsom and
the county clerk. The San Francisco city
attorney has countersued, naming the state
government as well as the groups as defendants,
in an attempt to get California's marriage
laws declared unconstitutional.
The
Supreme Court is not required to take the
case, and could wait until the issues get
worked out in the lower courts before agreeing
to a hearing.
Meanwhile, Republican activists who helped
mount the recall of former Gov. Gray Davis
last year announced plans Tuesday to seek
the removal of Lockyer because of the perception
he has ''neglected his duty'' to enforce
state laws governing marriage.
U.S.
Senate candidate Howard Kaloogian and political
consultant Ted Costa began a petition drive
aimed at qualifying the recall for the November
election. They made the move despite Lockyer's
announcement to take the issue to court
this week.
Lockyer
spokesman Nathan Barankin called the move
politically inspired. ''The criticism of
the attorney general is fueled by misinformation
and falsehoods,'' he said. ''It's been abundantly
clear that Lockyer was going to defend state
law.''
|
