Phyllis and Del on their wedding day

Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon were issued a marriage license in 2004 when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered that same-sex couples could apply for them. Sadly, it was voided by the courts just a few months later. Phyllis implored the courts to reconsider:

Del is 83 years old and I am 79. After being together for more than 50 years, it is a terrible blow to have the rights and protections of marriage taken away from us. At our age, we do not have the luxury of time.

When the California Supreme Court did legalize gay marriage in June of 2008, Del and Phyllis were the very first gay couple married by Mayor Newsom.

Martin and Lyon had already been together for 55 years at the time of their marriage.

Del Martin died just two months later from complications from a bone fracture. Del was 87 years old and had been in failing health for some time. Because Del and Phyllis were legally married, when critical choices had to be made about Del's condition, Phyllis had the right to act in the best interests and wishes of her wife.

Unfortunately, there are now thousands and thousands of same sex couples in California who do not have that same right--one of the more than 1000 denied to them and which seems to get lost in the hysteria and just bizarre logic of those fighting against equal protection for all citizens.

There is now a site designed to help couples--both gay and straight--discuss the uncomfortable subject of end-of-life issues: Compassion & Choices:

Most Compassion & Choices supporters would eagerly bargain away a few days of extended life in an intensive care unit in exchange for final days spent at home, in relative comfort and meaningful communion with those they love. Such folks don’t adhere to the doctrine of redemptive suffering and would rather slip away peacefully if imminent dying would be otherwise prolonged and agonized.

Continue reading »

Washington's Blog: Not one person has been prosecuted for the 9/11 attacks, although seven and a half years have gone by and many were tortured

The Peking Duck: Is this bad journalism?

Calitics: Arnold Swarzenegger should resign

Towleroad: SF Mayor Gavin Newsom asked California Supreme Court to delay releasing its Prop. 8 ruling

Sadly, No! Another really smart idea to save the GOP

OFF THE BEATEN PATH: Asylum, Notes From Underground, Apoliticus, worldslaziestjournalist

DOWNLOAD (32)

PLAY (48)

California courts agreed to hear a challenge to Proposition 8 which banned same-sex marriage. The question before the court asks if Proposition 8 is an amendment to California's Constitution or a revision. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom told CNN's Anderson Cooper that if Proposition 8 is a revision to the Constitution it would mean that the courts no longer had a role in determining if the rights of minorities had been violated.

"Should we go in front of the voters every time there is an adjudication in the courts that we don't like and submit the rights of minorities to the whims of the majority, based upon the morality of the day?" asked Newsom. "That's what's happened here in California."

I mean, this is an interesting point. Look, if we were having this conversation in 1967, we would have had a U.S. Supreme Court, the loving court, that unanimously decided to get rid of all of those laws in the remaining 16 states that denied interracial marriage.

If we had gone to the voters, almost every public opinion poll showed that the overwhelming majority of voters would have overturned that court decision

Newsom argued, "Well, what's next? I mean, now, if this is the basis of principle, what other rights should we take away? And is the court powerless in each and every case when the voters by a majority decide to change the constitution, again based upon the issue of the day?"

CNN transcripts:

COOPER: Protesters this past weekend against California's Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage. There was a major new development today. The state's highest court said the initiative can be enforced. They're not going to try to delay it. But at the same time, the court agreed in March to hear arguments on its validity.

And they're going to focus on three questions: does Prop 8 revise the state's constitution instead of amending it? Does it also violate the state's constitution separation of powers doctrine, violating judges' ability to guarantee equal rights? And the court is going to try to decide what happens to the thousands of gay marriages that have already taken place.

Continue reading »