This (re)blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this (re)blog is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
The US Declaration of Independence, some maintain, was meant to be read aloud. Take some time right now and just listen to the document that started "the great experiment":
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
November, 2002 There are many different battles across the United States of America concerning the posting of the 10 Commandments in public buildings/grounds. The posting is illegal as it violates the First Amendment's establishment of religion clause. This does not deter those seeking to have it posted on any available surface. To sneak around the First Amendment many have adopted the tactic of calling it an "historical document" and "the basis for our system of law", often trying to post it as part of a larger display with historical documents. To me, this is like trying to make a marijuana plant legally acceptable by planting daisies and gardenias around it and calling it a botanical display.
But does their main argument hold any water? Is American law based upon the 10 Commandments? Let us examine them.
1. You shall have no other gods before me
This runs directly counter to the first amendment. This commandment demands obedience to a single, specific god. The first amendment gives the right for worshiping any or none.
2. You shall not make yourself a graven image, nor any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
Once again, this runs directly against the freedom of religion in the First Amendment. There is also some dispute as to what counts as a graven image. The catholic church has statues and stained glass windows, while other christian denominations consider these iconography, and therefore in violation of this commandment. Some religious orders even go so far as to be against non-religious images and photographs. If the law prohibited non-religious images that would then be a violation of freedom of speech/expression.
3. You shall not take the name of Jehovah your God in vain
Now this commandment is directly counter to the freedom of speech. For being the 'basis for our laws' about one third of the commandments run directly counter to constitutional rights.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God.
While there is a tradition of seven day week, there is no law mandating that anyone keep the sabbath. People are free to work on any day they wish. Also the tradition here is for a 5 day work week, with two days off on the weekend. Does that mean we are in violation of the commandment? Should we now give up our Saturdays and report to work?
5. Honor your father and your mother
Frankly, some parents might not be all that worthy of honor. There is no law requiring a person to honor their parents. In fact there are laws to protect children from abusive parents, and children can be taken away from unfit parents.
6. You shall not kill
A good commandment, but hardly original. Laws against murder existed in pretty much all cultures long before hearing about the 10 commandments. Therefore claiming such laws are based on the 10 commandments are unfounded.
7. You shall not commit adultery
A very good suggestion, if you define adultery as between a married person and someone who is not their spouse. However, there is no federal law against it. State laws will vary on the subject. If you define adultery as between any couple not married to one another, even if they are both single, then there are even fewer laws against it, and the state laws can probably be challenged. There was not too long ago a case in California: A man and a woman were brought up on charges for living together. The charges were brought up by his ex-girlfriend who found religion, ignoring that they lived together for a while. The district attorney went to the court to have the law stricken from the books.
8. You shall not steal
Like 6, good but hardly original.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor
like 6 and 8 good but not original.
10. You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male slave, or his female slave, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's
Isn't that what capitalism is all about? There are no laws against thoughts or desires. Any such law would run counter to civil liberties.
Postlude
Out of the 10 commandments, 4 (1, 2, 3, 10) are counter to American laws. 3 (6, 8, 9) are part of our legal system, but are part of just about every legal system in history. 2 (4, 5) are not a part of our laws. And 1 (7) may or may not be a part of state or local laws. Even in a state that has laws concerning 7, that still means less than half of the 10 commandments carry any legal weight, and an equal number are illegal to enforce.
Those that claim the 10 commandments are our basis for law apparently do not know the law very well. The only thing funnier is those that want it posted illegally in schools "to teach children respect for the law".
I think it's the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately. -- George Carlin,
The last vote that George Carlin said he cast in a presidential race was for George McGovern in 1972.
When Richard Nixon, who Carlin described as a member of a sub-species of humanity, overwhelmingly defeated McGovern, the comedian gave up on the political process.
"Now, there's one thing you might have noticed I don't complain about: politicians," he explained in a routine that challenged all the premises of today's half-a-loaf reformers. "Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here… like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There's a nice campaign slogan for somebody: 'The Public Sucks. Fuck Hope.'"
Needless to say, George Carlin was not on message for 2008's "change we can believe in" election season.
His was a darker and more serious take on the crisis – and the change of consciousness, sweeping in scope and revolutionary in character, that was required to address it.
Carlin may have stopped voting in 1972. But America's most consistently savage social commentator for the best part of a half century, who has died at age 71, did not give up on politics.
Recalling George Bush's ranting about how the endless "war on terror" is a battle for freedom, Carlin echoed James Madison's thinking with a simple question: "Well, if crime fighters fight crime and fire fighters fight fire, what do freedom fighters fight? They never mention that part to us, do they?"
Carlin gave the Christian right – and the Christian left – no quarter. "I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State," Carlin said. "My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death."
Carlin's take on the Ronald Reagan administration is the best antidote to the counterfactual romanticization of the former president – in which even Barack Obama has engaged – remains the single finest assessment of Reagan and his inner circle. While Carlin did not complain much about politicians, he made an exception with regard to the great communicator. Recorded in 1988 at the Park Theater in Union City, New Jersey, and later released as an album -- What Am I Doing in New Jersey? – his savage recollection of the then-concluding Reagan-Bush years opened with the line: "I really haven't seen this many people in one place since they took the group photograph of all the criminals and lawbreakers in the Ronald Reagan administration."
But there was no nostalgia for past fights, no resting on laurels, for this topical comedian. He read the papers, he followed the news, he asked questions – the interviews I did with Carlin over the years were more conversations than traditional Q & A's – and he turned it all into a running commentary that focused not so much on politics as on the ugly intersection of power and economics.
No one, not Obama, not Hillary Clinton and certainly not John McCain, caught the zeitgeist of the vanishing American dream so well as Carlin. "The owners of this country know the truth: It's called the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it."
Not just aware of but steeped in the traditions of American populism – more William Jennings Bryan and Eugene Victor Debs than Bill Clinton or John Kerry – Carlin preached against the consolidation of wealth and power with a fire-and-brimstone rage that betrayed a deep moral sense that could never quite be cloaked with four-letter words.
"The real owners are the big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians, they're an irrelevancy. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They've long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the statehouses, the city halls. They've got the judges in their back pockets. And they own all the big media companies, so that they control just about all of the news and information you hear. They've got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying – lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want; they want more for themselves and less for everybody else," ranted the comedian whose routines were studied in graduate schools.
"But I'll tell you what they don't want," Carlin continued. "They don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don't want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking. They're not interested in that. That doesn't help them. That's against their interests. They don't want people who are smart enough to sit around the kitchen table and figure out how badly they're getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago. You know what they want? Obedient workers – people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork but just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, reduced benefits, the end of overtime and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it. And, now, they're coming for your Social Security. They want your fucking retirement money. They want it back, so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street. And you know something? They'll get it. They'll get it all, sooner or later, because they own this fucking place. It's a big club, and you ain't in it. You and I are not in the big club."
Carlin did not want Americans to get involved with the system.
He wanted citizens to get angry enough to remake the system.
Carlin was a leveler of the old, old school. And no one who had so public a platform – as the first host of NBC's Saturday Night Live, a regular on broadcast and cable televisions shows, a best-selling author and a favorite character actor in films (he was even the narrator of the American version of the children's show Thomas the Tank Engine & Friends) – did more to challenge accepted wisdom regarding our political economy.
"Let's suppose we all just materialized on Earth and there was a bunch of potatoes on the ground, okay? There's just six of us. Only six humans. We come into a clearing and there's potatoes on the ground. Now, my instinct would be, let's everybody get some potatoes. "Everybody got a potato? Joey didn't get a potato! He's small, he can't hold as many potatoes. Give Joey some of your potatoes." "No, these are my potatoes!" That's the Republicans. "I collected more of them, I got a bigger pile of potatoes, they're mine. If you want some of them, you're going to have to give me something." "But look at Joey, he's only got a couple, they won't last two days." That's the fuckin' difference! And I'm more inclined to want to share and even out," he explained in an interview several years ago with The Onion.
"I understand the marketplace, but government is supposed to be here to redress the inequities of the marketplace," Carlin continued. "That's one of its functions. Not just to protect the nation, secure our security and all that shit. And not just to take care of great problems that are trans-state problems, that are national, but also to make sure that the inequalities of the marketplace are redressed by the acts of government. That's what welfare was about. There are people who really just don't have the tools, for whatever reason. Yes, there are lazy people. Yes, there are slackers. Yes, there's all of that. But there are also people who can't cut it, for any given reason, whether it's racism, or an educational opportunity, or poverty, or a fuckin' horrible home life, or a history of a horrible family life going back three generations, or whatever it is. They're crippled and they can't make it, and they deserve to rest at the commonweal. That's where my fuckin' passion lies."
Like the radicals of the early years of the 20th century, whose politics he knew and respected, Carlin understood that free-speech fights had to come first. And always pushed the limit – happily choosing an offensive word when a more polite one might have sufficed. By 1972, the year he won the first of four Grammys for best comedy album, he had developed his most famous routine: "Seven Words (You Can't Say on Television)."
That summer, at a huge outdoor show in Milwaukee, he uttered all seven of them in public – and was promptly arrested for disturbing the peace.
When a version of the routine was aired in 1973 on WBAI, the Pacifica Foundation radio station in New York,. Pacifica received a citation from the FCC. Pacifica was ordered to pay a fine for violating federal regulations prohibiting the broadcast of "obscene" language. The ensuing free-speech fight made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 against the First Amendment to the Constitution, Pacifica and Carlin.
Amusingly, especially to the comedian, a full transcript of the routine ended up in court documents associated with the case, F.C.C. v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978).
"So my name is a footnote in American legal history, which I'm perversely kind of proud of," recalled Carlin. Proud enough that you can find the court records on the comedian's website: www.georgecarlin.com
There will, of course, be those who dismiss Carlin as a remnant of the sixties who introduced obscenity to the public discourse – just as there will be those who misread his critique of the American political and economic systems as little more than verbal nihilism. In fact, George Carlin was, like the radicals of an earlier age, an idealist – and a patriot --of a deeper sort than is encountered very often these days.
Carlin explained himself best in one of his last interviews. "There is a certain amount of righteous indignation I hold for this culture, because to get back to the real root of it, to get broader about it, my opinion that is my species--and my culture in America specifically--have let me down and betrayed me. I think this species had great, great promise, with this great upper brain that we have, and I think we squandered it on God and Mammon. And I think this culture of ours has such promise, with the promise of real, true freedom, and then everyone has been shackled by ownership and possessions and acquisition and status and power," he said. "And perhaps it's just a human weakness and an inevitable human story that these things happen. But there's disillusionment and some discontent in me about it. I don't consider myself a cynic. I think of myself as a skeptic and a realist. But I understand the word 'cynic' has more than one meaning, and I see how I could be seen as cynical. 'George, you're cynical.' Well, you know, they say if you scratch a cynic you find a disappointed idealist. And perhaps the flame still flickers a little, you know?"
This is for the stupid fucker that called in to Z104.5 The Edge Wednesday morning complaining that there were men kissing on the news and, woe is him, he was a-sceered that his bumpkins would be all messed up over it. Well, I am sure they have more to worry about being raised by a bigoted dimwit. Instead of sheltering the lil' ones, why not explain to them that there are all types of people in this world and that one of the precepts of this country is FREEDOM! Even when you don't like what the other person does with that FREEDOM, they still have a right to it! It absolutely SHAMES me that we have ignoramuses such as these living here in the 21st century. I do hate having to be ashamed of the state I call home. But, I do love it and I want to stay, if only to make it better. Maybe then we won't be a laughing-stock. Oh, dude, btw, we weren't founded as a xtian country. Just look to writings by, oh let's see, Benjamin Franklin (deist), Thomas Jefferson (deist), James Madison (an Episcopalian, no less), John Adams (Unitarian), John Q. Adams (Unitarian), Thomas Paine (deist) et al. If you're going to make a claim back it up. We were founded on Freedom of/from Religion (amongst other freedoms), the separation of church & state was conceived to "keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries," as James Madison so eloquently put it. "...Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear," is what Thomas Jefferson had to say to a contemporary. Ben Franklin shared his view on Jesus: "As to Jesus of Nazareth ... I think the system of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity." So there. And, man, you said you "don't mind gay people" as long as they are in the closet; like that makes you some pragmatic libertarian. It doesn't. It still makes you a bigot. I would much rather people such as yourself remain in the closet of your ignorance. See, being gay (no matter what anyone says) is not a choice, while being a ignorant simpleton is. You have the choice to be apart of society and contribute to it (by being open and learning about others), yet you detract from it with your ignorance. That's a bigger shame and affront to true morals than what you claim being gay is. Oh, and btw again, you should check out the university study wherein they found that homophobic men are homophobic because they hate what they SEE IN THEMSELVES.
. . .being with someone for 51 years, no matter what their sex is. Patience is having to wait those 51 years to say "I do" and having it recognized. I wish this couple all the best and may the married years that follow be filled with the love that sustained them for an amazing 51 years. These women are role models for any couple, gay or straight.
Same-sex weddings start with union of elderly San Francisco couple
(06-16) 18:33 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- Cheers filled San Francisco's City Hall shortly after 5 p.m. as longtime lesbian activists Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, partners for more than 50 years, began their second wedding - and their first legal union.
Mayor Gavin Newsom, who officiated the ceremony in the reception area of his office, said it was a fitting way to memorialize last month's state Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in California, which took effect at 5:01 p.m.
Lyon, 83, and Martin, 87, were the first couple married four years ago when Newsom told the county clerk's office to start offering marriage certificates to same-sex couples. Eventually more than 4,000 same-sex couples were married in San Francisco that year, but those unions were later nullified by the court. Today, the couple, and dozens of others, had their first chance to make their unions truly legal.
In at least five counties around the state, other couples were pronounced "spouses for life" once the clock chimed 5.
In Alameda County, Emeryville couple Kenny Latham, 47, and Keith Boadwee, 46, wore pink peonies in their lapels as they became the first gay couple in that county to marry. In Sonoma County, a giddy Mark Gren, 42 and Chris Lechman, 37, of Guerneville, applied for a marriage license at 5:01 p.m. And in Los Angeles County, lesbian couple Robin Tyler and Diane Olson - who were plaintiffs in the lawsuit that led to the high court's May 15 decision - donned matching white suits to tie the knot in a traditional Jewish ceremony.
Newsom waited until exactly 5:01 p.m. to begin the San Francisco ceremony, the only one in San Francisco tonight. The women were declared spouses for life at 5:07 p.m. in front of about 50 friends and family members. Martin came into the area in a wheelchair but stood for the ceremony.
The couple made their way out of the office and onto the balcony area where a cake - and large crowd- was waiting. Rose petals fluttered down from the ceiling as the crowd cheered and cameras flashed.
"This is an extraordinary moment in history and extraordinary moment in time" Newsom said to the crowd. "They are extraordinary people who have lived extraordinary lives and spent half a century fighting for justice and equality."
Lyon drew laughter with her comments.
"When first got together, we were not really thinking about getting married, we were thinking about getting together," she said. "I think it's a wonderful day."
"Ditto," Martin said.
Just before 5:30 p.m., the couple cut their cake.
Although Lyon and Martin's ceremony is the only one at City Hall tonight, hundreds of couples are expected to flood the domed building Tuesday for the first full day of legal same-sex marriage. Elsewhere in California, most clerks are waiting until Tuesday to begin the same-sex weddings.
This evening in Sonoma County, dozens of county staff members and supporters counted the seconds down from 10. And at 5:01 p.m. - with a cheer - Gren and Lechman stepped up to apply for marriage license.
A few minutes later, the couple entered a small room adjacent to the clerk's office to take their vows - "in sickness and in health, for better and for worse, come what may" - then both men said "I do."
Outside, Unitarian Church members handed out little bunches of flowers, while another 18 couples and their families waited for their own special moment.
Joe Balestreri of Santa Rosa said he came just to witness the first wedding.
"Now that I have the choice it doesn't mean I am going to rush in to it," he said, laughing.
Oakland Mayor Ronald Dellums also planned to officiate about a dozen ceremonies at Oakland City Hall this evening, while another 35 couples are expected to wed at the Alameda County Clerk-Recorder's office on Madison Street.
By 5 p.m., the lobby of the clerk's office was packed with couples and their friends, everyone antsy to start the ceremonies. Around 5:20 p.m., the first couple, Latham and Boadwee, finished filling out their wedding certificate and made their way upstairs for the ceremony.
The Emeryville couple celebrated their 10-year anniversary in May, and chose traditional vows for their ceremony.
Janet Appel, a volunteer deputy marriage commissioner, officiated the wedding, telling the men that "no other words are as tender as these vows or important as these vows."
Latham described the moment as a "victory."
"We've been together so long, we know what it means to be a couple," Boadwee added. "However, now we have the legal protection, wherever we go throughout the state people will recognize it."
Not everyone is happy about the state Supreme Court decision, which ruled that denying gay and lesbian couples the opportunity to marry was a violation of their civil rights under the California Constitution.
Outside San Francisco's City Hall, hundreds of raucous opponents and supporters of same-sex marriage filled the sidewalk.
A woman from the church of Kansas pastor Fred Phelps - whose followers are known for their anti-gay slogans - stood behind several police barricades put up in Civic Center. Along with two of her children, the woman loudly sang while waving derogatory signs. Another protester drove around the block in a truck painted to look like an American flag with a sign that read "Sodomy is sin."
Luong Do, who said he drove up from San Jose, held a giant sign that read, "homo sex is a threat to national security."
"We want to tell people this lifestyle they're living is a death style that will get them diseases in this life and eternal hell in the second," he said.
Others were there to support the pending nuptials. One man strummed a guitar and sang "Going to the Chapel," while Kathryn Werhane threw rose petals on some of the protesters.
"We want to support these weddings. It's love and tolerance for real," she said. "Any proclamation of love is good with us. Why are they crashing our party?"
Inside the building things were more subdued, though the excitement was palpable even earlier in the day.
Martin and Lyon's friends started gathering early. Arlene Rusche, 68, and Clara Brock, 80, sat on a bench outside the mayor's office shortly after 3 p.m. and planned to witness the wedding. Brock was one of the first members of Daughters of Bilitis, a lesbian-rights group that Martin and Lyon founded in 1955.
"I never thought this was going to happen to tell you the truth," Brock said.
"This is so, so big," agreed Rusche, Brock's partner for 17 years. "I never thought it would happen in our lifetime. It just shows we are making progress."
Several feet away sat a couple on vacation from Ireland who happened to stumble on the historic event. Christine Yearsley said she planned to stay at City Hall the rest of the afternoon to witness as much as she could.
"This gentleman just told me there are two elderly ladies who are getting married today after being together for 50 years," she said. "They're obviously committed! I think it's terrific. They're an example for heterosexuals, I think."
Chronicle staff writer Heather Knight contributed to this report. E-mail the writer at mlagos@sfchronicle.com.
hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
