“San Francisco and Massachusetts are proud”

THE DEBATE over same-sex marriage moved out of the margins Thursday. It's no longer a matter of whether "separate but equal" — civil unions, domestic partners, marriage by any other name — is the moral and legal equivalent of a state-sanctioned declaration of "husband and wife." San Francisco finally, officially, cut to the essence of the issue Thursday by issuing marriage licenses at City Hall to same-sex couples. It may seem premature to some Americans, but for 83-year-old Del Martin and 79-year-old Phyllis Lyon, it was a long time coming. The lesbian couple, together for about a half-century, became the first in the United States to marry with the full recognition of a government body. Tears flowed during the historic moment at City Hall. There was no doubt that the euphoria of this revolutionary action will soon give way to a long, potentially tedious legal battle that may ultimately end up in the U.S. Supreme Court. The issue was forced by Mayor Gavin Newsom, who is showing extraordinary mettle in his first weeks of office. Newsom declared that his reading of the California Constitution left "no room for any form of discrimination." There is no doubt that many Americans remain highly uncomfortable with the idea of same-sex marriage. Some members of Congress, with an assist by President Bush, are pandering to this unease by proposing a constitutional amendment to restrict the rights of gays and lesbians. Democrats are clearly worried about it becoming a wedge issue in the presidential race. Democratic front-runner John Kerry has been taking the typically hedged position of most politicians, supporting an expansion of rights but adhering to a narrow definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman.

FOR LONG DAYS last February, thousands of gay and lesbian couples stood happily in the rain and cold outside City Hall, waiting to be married.  When this city welcomed the unions, the couples came by foot, bus and limo, carrying flowers and bringing along parents and children to mark the day. A decision by the California Supreme Court nullifying the marriages will slow but not stop this human surge. The some 4,000 couples who were married here will be disappointed at the ruling.  Advocates of conventional marriage will see the decision as a satisfying victory.  But the movement to make same-sex unions legal and equal hasn't ended.  It will now head in other directions, not dissipate. Mayor Gavin Newsom's bid to issue wedding licenses to thousands of gay and lesbian couples always hung by a narrow thread.  Newsom argued that the "a man and a woman" rules for marriage were unconstitutional and unfairly restrictive.  He was duty-bound, he said, to act on his convictions.  Instead of forms listing bride and groom, there should space for two partners, gender unspecified. It was a risky attempt, especially since more conventional challenges were advancing through the legal system, brought by same-sex couples who considered the state law discriminatory.  To Newsom, the pace was too slow, especially in an atmosphere turned chilly by a backlash against a similar same- sex-marriage trend in Massachusetts. The 5-2 ruling from the California high court contended that if city leaders could ignore state laws based on personal beliefs about their constitutional worth, the message would be "confusion and chaos,'' according to the court. The decision's wording was tailored to its San Francisco audience by making hot-button liberal comparisons to make the central point.  Do you really want an elected official invoking his or her own judgment of the constitutionality of assault-gun bans or coastal development?, the justices asked. As promised in an earlier ruling, the court noted another aspect of the gay-rights debate: It may be stopping the issuance of wedding licenses for now, but the court was not ruling on the larger question of whether gays and lesbians were entitled to marry.  That question, which lies at the heart of the fight, remains to be decided. The court action is a valuable chapter in a continuing debate on same-sex rights.  It does undercut San Francisco's bold move by invalidating the same- sex marriages, but it also reminds the public that the courts, not politics, should have the final say.  California voters chose in 2000 to define marriage as between a man and a woman, a stance echoed by Missouri voters last week.  But judges in Oregon and Washington, along with those in Massachusetts, have sided with same-sex marriage arguments. Eventually, a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court will be needed to lift the question out a political mud pit and place it on the higher ground of personal rights and basic equality.  That would be the right ending, at last.