Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Mayor supports effort to overturn state ban
By Jennifer Vigil
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
September 20, 2007
A tearful Mayor Jerry Sanders made a dramatic shift yesterday, explaining that he can no longer oppose same-sex marriages because he does not want to deny justice to people like his daughter, who is a lesbian.
Mayor Jerry Sanders paused as he explained his change of heart on the issue of same-sex marriage during an emotional news conference yesterday. Sanders was joined by his wife, Rana Sampson.
Joined at a late afternoon news conference by his wife, Rana Sampson, the San Diego mayor announced he will back a City Council decision to support same-sex marriage before the state Supreme Court, where California's ban on it awaits review.
I decided to lead with my heart, which is probably obvious at the moment, said Sanders, moments before he revealed his daughter's sexual orientation.
The mayor's new stance marked a reversal of his pledge Tuesday to use his veto power to block the council's move. At the time, he repeated his preference for civil unions, partnerships between same-sex couples that offer some but not all of the legal protections given to those who marry.
Speaking one day before he plans to formally launch his re-election campaign, Sanders' emotions began to overtake him almost immediately as he prepared to discuss his daughter Lisa's private life. Neither of his daughters attended.
He said his thoughts on same-sex marriage began to change late Tuesday, when he received word of the resolution.
That's when the enormity of the council's action hit him, Sanders said, and he sought the counsel of a small group of friends and neighbors. They gathered at his Kensington home throughout the evening. Meanwhile, he spoke by phone to Lisa, a North Park resident in her early 20s.
Mayor Jerry Sanders, joined by his wife, Rana Sampson, exited yesterday's news conference during which Sanders choked back tears and paused several times to compose himself. The San Diego mayor discussed why he no longer opposes same-sex marriage.
Though this aspect of his daughter's life is widely known in political circles, Sanders had never discussed it publicly until yesterday.
Doing so led to a raft of emotions for the battle-hardened former police chief, who began choking back tears just seconds into his five-minute statement. He paused several times to compose himself.
He began by explaining his refusal to veto the council's decision, saying his beliefs had evolved significantly since 2005, when he established his stance on civil unions during his first mayoral campaign.
In the time since, he said he realized he could not accept the concept of a separate-but-equal institution. Because of that, he continued, he was unwilling to send the message to anyone that they were less important, less worthy or less deserving of the rights and responsibilities of marriage.
The mayor, now crying openly, noted that he has close family members and friends in the gay and lesbian community, including staff members and my daughter Lisa.
In the end, I couldn't look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationships, their very lives, were any less meaningful than the marriage I share with my wife, Rana, said Sanders, who quickly thanked reporters and dashed from the room.
...
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20070920-9999-1n20sanders.html
I think this is the same epiphany most straight people have when they switch from anti to pro gay marriage. But to most of us it happens rather quietly and goes unnoticed.
Civil Unions are what I will accept. Marriage has a meaning and gay couples do not meet the criteria of that meaning.
I could even support a plan put forth by some on the left of this board. Take the Government out of the marriage business, have the Government JUST approve civil unions and let religions preform marriages with no binding legal status outside the religion.
You should try it--- You might like it and it WOULD make you more human (and perhaps humane)Yes, the same stupid emotional epiphany that all liberals indulge in while reason goes flying out the window. If one were to stop and think that marriage is really about children and the structure of society, they would oppose gay "marriage" which is nothing more than an emotional aberration.
Yes, the same stupid emotional epiphany that all liberals indulge in while reason goes flying out the window. If one were to stop and think that marriage is really about children and the structure of society, they would oppose gay "marriage" which is nothing more than an emotional aberration.
Civil Unions are what I will accept. Marriage has a meaning and gay couples do not meet the criteria of that meaning.
I could even support a plan put forth by some on the left of this board. Take the Government out of the marriage business, have the Government JUST approve civil unions and let religions preform marriages with no binding legal status outside the religion.
now THATS what im talking about.. kudos, dude.
the beginning of a workable compramise.
I can totally agree. Take the govt out of the marriage business and simply issue lisences for civil unions and let the church's observe marriage as they see fit with no legal implications.
GODDAMN I LOVE AMERICA.
now, if we can just get to legalizing the pot...
You should try it--- You might like it and it WOULD make you more human (and perhaps humane)
Marriage is only a word (which means to join one or more whatevers) until folks like you get ahold of it and decide it has only a religious meaning (and that just ain't true)
jasendorf said:Then I guess we'd have to deny marriage licenses to the infertile, women too old to conceive, men who can't "get it up"...
...maybe we could even put a clause in marriage licenses that sets a deadline for having children to stay married! Since marriage is an emotionless state of union designed for birthing babies... there shouldn't be much fuss in the above criteria.
Yeah -- so?Shogun said:marriage is not a prerequisite to social interaction which creates a society.
Since you are the one who desires to change the status quo, you are the one who needs to prove that changing it will not harm what already works. Survived quite well? The countries with the longest track records today are already exhibiting problems.Shogun said:You can't ptove that allowing gay marriage will destroy our society. In fact, I can point to many, MANY societies that have survived quite well.
Japan supports gay marriage? LOLShogun said:Japan being the first that comes to mind.
Marriage is one of the most deeply entrenched social institutions, from which gay people are excluded as a minority, according to Masaki Inaba, director of advocacy at OCCUR (formally, Japan Association for the Lesbian and Gay Movement), a 350-member gay and lesbian rights organization based in Nakano Ward, Tokyo.
http://www.gapimny.org/newsletter/1999/99january/japan.html
Despite the recent trends that suggest a new level of tolerance, as well as open scenes in more cosmopolitan cities (such as Tokyo and Osaka), Japanese homosexuals often conceal their sexuality; with many even marrying persons of the opposite sex to avoid discrimination.
The major political parties express little public support for gay rights issues. Despite recommendations from the Council for Human Rights Promotion, the Diet has yet to take action on including sexual orientation in the country's civil rights code.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_Japan
What's that supposed to mean…dude?Shogun said:and.. dude... the first 75% of our American history is FAR from what I'd call "healthy".
when you make comment like this:Did I say anywhere in my post that marriage has only a religious meaning?
No, I mean people with you biggotted, unthinking mind set, Christian or not.And what do you mean by "folks like you"? Meaning Christians?
The Love of the Samurai: A Thousand Years of Japanese Homosexuality (Hardcover)
http://www.amazon.com/Love-Samurai-Thousand-Japanese-Homosexuality/dp/0854491155&tag=ff0d01-20
Google "The Beautiful Way" and discover what those Samurai had in common with Rome.
Japan is a nation thats been around for a long time. The FACT of it's example, and that of many other societies where homozexuality can also be found in theri mainstream culture, pretty much proves you wrong about our society imploding if we allow gay marrige. Tell me, where is the correlation between the history of homosexuality in Japan, a far more ancient culture than ours, and these "problems" you claim they exhibit? Be specific, please.
There are many examples if you would choose to discover them.
Since heterosexuality, sexuality at all, is not the reason for the evolution of society it makes no sense to insist that allowing gays to marry would harm society since it is NOT a critical component for maintaining the structure of any given society. You could claim the same about slavery, segregation, etc.
and Yes, Japan's cultural history has, in fact, supported homosexual behaviour. Again, I point you to The Beautiful Way and let it blow your, uh, mind. If they do not today such is the product of western influence and not so much anything that remotley resembles the destruction of their society.
Records of homosexuality in Japan date back to ancient times; indeed, at some times in Japanese history love between men was viewed as the purest form of love.
While homosexuality had never been viewed as a sin in Japanese society and religion and was only briefly restricted by legal prohibition, exposure to Western religious thought and the desire to appear "civilized" have influenced the way that homosexuality is viewed by both the Japanese government and by the population at large since the end of the nineteenth century.
YOUR wiki link
Way to pick and choose what you thought sounded good. I guess you didnt read the very first fucking sentence?
It means exactly what it said. If you think that the first 75% of American history was Healthy then you probably don't like this modern way we allow women to vote, blacks to have rights, kids to be educated, laws to be applied equally and so forth and so on. I love America too but let's not pretend that our background is a fucking utopian wet dream, ok?
Not a damn thing there about religion. You're full of it.doniston said:when you make comment like this:
(quote) Yes, the same stupid emotional epiphany that all liberals indulge in while reason goes flying out the window. If one were to stop and think that marriage is really about children and the structure of society, they would oppose gay "marriage" which is nothing more than an emotional aberration.(unquote)
and this:
Marriage is not just about love...it's not simply a legal way to demonstrate your love for someone else. It is a critical component for maintaining the structure of society. Marriage is a lot more than just a "word".
and this:
Marriage should be reserved simply for two people of the opposite gender because that is what forms the structure of our society. You most assuredly are implying it.
Prove here that I'm unthinking or bigoted. Or are you just full of hateful hogwash?No, I mean people with you biggotted, unthinking mind set, Christian or not.
I disagree. Why is there such resistance in Japan to gay marriage (and even to homosexuality) if it would not damage their society at all? And where exactly is this "mainstream" homosexuality in Japan today? It doesn't exist. Just because homosexual behavior existed in the past among the samuri, it does not mean that it would be good for Japanese society today. And anyway, I don't believe that ancient Japan had gay marriage, did they? Weren't the samurai male lovers primarily accepted in order for one to pass on his skills to a younger man? Did not the samurai have arranged marriages with women? I don't believe their society arranged gay marriages. So I don't see how I am wrong here. And why do you assume that I hate gays? I got nothing against them personally.Shogun said:um, it has EVERYTHING to do with your claim that allowing homosexuals to get married would, somehow, destroy our society. I've given you examples of societies that have functioned with equal rights as well as when they prohibited such behaviour. Thus, the midigating factor in the preservation of a society is, in fact, not a matter of alloing sexual orientation.
Do you want to be a man about admitting you were wrong or would you rather wallow in your hatred of gays long enough to pickle your brain some more?
I'm not "running to the Bible". lol You guys have an abnormal fear of the Good Book. And you haven't proven a thing. All you showed was that Japan used to have a society much like Greece when homosexuality was acceptable. Both societies did not last. Our country already has problems with marriage and the family. Do you put out a fire by throwing gasoline on it? Gay marriage today only hastens the demise of marriage and in the process children are hurt. That is not good for society. You want some evidence in the real world today? Here:Shogun said:Indeed, I sure would take it from today's perspective since all of these things have IMPROVED our nation and no one, ill say that again, NO ONE wants to go back to a society as unhealthy as only letting white land owners participate. Sure, viewing Nazi Germany from the inside might let you think such is perfectly normal too. Would you want to claim that Nazi Germany was a healthy society since you share their opinion about gays? So, if not, then I guess it's OK to use our modern perspective to judge our past then, eh? That last sentence is, by the way, your opinion. Millions of gay Americans would have a different answer just like millions of women and blacks did during their respective periods of being treated like shit.
Dude, I've given you my evidence for conflicting your assertion that allowing equal rights to gays would implode our society. Would you like to provide similar evidence? Hell, just give me one culture that was destroyed because of homosexuality WITHOUT RUNNING TO THE BIBLE. Legends don't count.
The End of Marriage in Scandinavia The "conservative case" for same-sex marriage collapses.
by Stanley Kurtz
MARRIAGE IS SLOWLY DYING IN SCANDINAVIA. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern--including gay marriage--is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has.
More precisely, it has further undermined the institution. The separation of marriage from parenthood was increasing; gay marriage has widened the separation. Out-of-wedlock birthrates were rising; gay marriage has added to the factors pushing those rates higher. Instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage, Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp?pg=1
