To have and to hold
Newsom hatches a plan for queer marriage and puts San Francisco in its rightful place at the forefront of the fight

By Tali Woodward

Between Feb. 12 and 16, more than 2,400 same-sex couples were married at City Hall. All it took was a directive from Mayor Gavin Newsom, some tinkering with the city's marriage application, a little low-profile coordination to preempt a court order sought by right-wing forces, and a bevy of volunteers.

So it's perfectly reasonably to wonder: why didn't this happen sooner?

Sure, gay marriage is the national topic du jour, with the Massachusetts legislature wrangling over how to deal with the state Supreme Court's order to establish it, President George W. Bush's increasingly high-pitched call to amend the U.S. Constitution to forbid it, and Assemblymember Mark Leno's effort to make it legal throughout California. But gay marriage has long been popular in San Francisco, where 69 percent voted against 2000's anti-gay marriage Knight Initiative.

If it was this easy, why did we have to wait to start granting marriage licenses to queer couples?

The first public peep seems to have come from the Bay Area Reporter, which published a story Feb. 5 on a growing push to get the city to issue marriage licenses to queer couples. Matthew S. Bajko wrote that the mayor and his chief of staff had recently received "several letters" asking them to highlight the discriminatory marriage rules by either banishing the clerk from City Hall or forbidding heterosexuals from marrying.

Halfway through the story, Molly McKay, the northern California director of Marriage Equality California, spoke about an upcoming rally as part of National Freedom to Marry Week, when same-sex couples routinely descend on the Clerk's Office to request licenses. "Maybe it will include that they give out licenses to couples that ask," she's quoted as saying.

How the idea grew from a vague protest demand to official city policy is unclear.

When the Bay Guardian asked Bajko, who is a BAR assistant editor, if he thinks his story provided the impetus, he said, "I'd love it if that were true, but I just don't know."

Newsom did not return phone calls, but he told the San Francisco Chronicle that he resolved to act on gay marriage after hearing President Bush attack gay marriage during his State of the Union speech Jan. 20. After a couple weeks of secret research, Newsom sent a letter to the county clerk asking her to change the marriage license forms so they could be issued "on a non-discriminatory basis." He said he was ready to defend his plan in court, declaring in a statement, "California's Constitution leaves no doubts; it leaves no room for any form of discrimination."

Newsom had already surprised many with several progressive moves, such as calling attention to the persistent neglect of Hunters Point. But this was an unexpectedly activist use of the Mayor's Office, one that's annoyed some Democratic Party leaders and may haunt him as he seeks higher office. Nonetheless, he's been courageous and forceful on the issue, sticking hard to the notion that denying marriage licenses is discrimination, pure and simple.

"I think I speak for many in the gay community when I say that he has won a lifetime supporter and friend," said McKay, who was married Feb. 13.

As soon as Newsom's plan became public, a Christian group that opposes gay unions announced it would sue the city to block it. Newsom's staff immediately began lining things up so that at least one couple could get married Feb. 12, before the case could be filed.

That first couple was Del Martin, 83, and Phyllis Lyon, 79, lesbian activists who have been together more than 50 years. Then the word got out, and City Hall quickly became a whirlwind, with dozens of people lining up to marry and celebration in the air. Eighty-seven pairs had said their vows by the end of Thursday; three hundred more had lined up to get their licenses by Friday morning.

Things moved so fast that the Clerk's Office outgoing message still stated, "Same-sex marriages are not recognized in California." On the office's Web site only the old application, with spaces for "bride" and "groom," was available. Meanwhile the office made special arrangements to open on Valentine's Day and through the holiday weekend to perform more civil marriages. By the end of Sunday, 1,700 licenses had been issued. But amid the excitement, no one could really say what they might be worth in a few weeks.

Michelle Johnson and Ruth Schneider of Benicia had a commitment ceremony six years ago but were among the couples waiting in the long line Feb. 13.

"This is more for the symbolism and civil disobedience than the hope that it will actually stick," Johnson told us.

Two right-wing groups, the Campaign for California Families and the Traditional Values Coalition, have filed suit to stop the same-gender weddings and to invalidate the licenses that have been granted. San Francisco Superior Court was set to hear their pleas for a temporary injunction Feb. 17. The cases may turn on the state's family code, which defines marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman."

Then there's Bush and his constitutional amendment, which is poised to become a defining issue in the presidential campaign. However Newsom's move plays on the national political stage, it's clear a massive cultural shift is occurring, and the San Francisco weddings – in addition to providing possible test cases for the courts – carry a potent punch.

Even those in Middle America could be swayed by the stories and photos of couples like Hans Pfeifer and Toni Sanders-Pfeifer, who met in college and have spent nearly 20 years together. They moved to San Francisco in 1987 and registered as domestic partners on the first day the law went into effect, Feb. 14, 1991.

Thirteen years later to the day, they returned to City Hall to marry. "The magnitude and significance of what's happening didn't sink in until today," Pfeifer said as they neared the front of the line. The national momentum is clear, Sanders-Pfeifer added, "I think the ball's rolling now."

After all, it wasn't long ago that interracial marriage was illegal too.

Steven T. Jones contributed to this report.

E-mail Tali Woodward