Four years ago, San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses. Mayor Gavin Newsom wrote a letter on 2/10 asking the clerk to issue the licenses:

Dear Ms. Alfaro,

Upon taking the Oath of Office, becoming the Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco, I swore to uphold the Constitution of the State of California.  Article I, Section 7, subdivision (a) of the California Constitution provides that “[a] person may not be . . . denied equal protection of the laws.”  The California courts have interpreted the equal protection clause of the California Constitution to apply to lesbians and gay men and have suggested that laws that treat homosexuals differently from heterosexuals are suspect.  The California courts have also stated that discrimination against gay men and lesbians is invidious.  The California courts have held that gender discrimination is suspect and invidious as well.  The Supreme Courts in other states have held that equal protection provisions in their state constitutions prohibit discrimination against gay men and lesbians with respect to the rights and obligations flowing from marriage.  It is my belief that these decisions are persuasive and that the California Constitution similarly prohibits such discrimination.

Pursuant to my sworn duty to uphold the California Constitution, including specifically its equal protection clause, I request that you determine what changes should be made to the forms and documents used to apply for and issue marriage licenses in order to provide marriage licenses on a non-discriminatory basis, without regard to gender or sexual orientation.

Respectfully,

Mayor Gavin Newsom

What followed was one of the most inspirational months in my life. People stood outside City Hall for hours in the rain to get married. It brought a real face to what had been a nebulous concept. It made people understand that the LGBT community are not some source of evil, but rather real people that want to build lives together.

As Mayor Newsom says in the video, there is only one consistent and moral position here. Eventually all of America will come to see that as well. The full transcript of the video over the flip.

Q. So to pivot a little bit towards something more local — coming up in a little less than two weeks from now is the four year anniversary of —

A. Yeah, it’s four years.

Q. — of the marriage debate.

A. Yeah.

Q. You brought up in a letter —

A. Yeah, I got in trouble.  

Q. Yeah.  That’s on there too.  You might have gotten blamed in 2004.

A. Yeah.  How do you like that?  I woke up after Election Day and then had to deal with that one.  Looking around, seeing 6 billion people on the planet are pointing fingers.  It’s pretty extraordinary, let me tell you.  I was thinking about this the other day.  You have every single presidential candidate save maybe one — I haven’t frankly checked in with Huckabee on this, though someone quickly can find out — that all appear reasonably open to civil unions.  And I remember, it wasn’t that long ago, when Howard Dean in his book referenced a conversation he had with Bill Clinton, who said — Bill Clinton did, and I didn’t appreciate this, but we can agree to disagree — he said, “You have given up your right ever to be president of the United States, Governor Dean, because of your support of civil unions.”  He was the maverick, remember, on civil unions.  

Now it’s the mainstream position. Dick Cheney shares it, we know that, as do all the presidential candidates on the Democratic side.  So we have come an enormous way in just a few years; an extraordinary way.  We had a hard time in San Francisco when I started in local politics.  Domestic partnership was just — people were going insane.  Catholic charities had — they said, “We’re going to pull out of investing in your city.”  The Salvation Army got out of the city.  The sky was going to fall in.  These big multinational corporations saying, “This is the end of the world as we know it.” That was domestic partnership.  That wasn’t many years ago; Democrats had a hard time with it.  

Now a domestic partnership seems insulting.  I mean, talk about separate and unequal.  Now it’s civil unions.  I’m convinced we’re going to look back at civil unions as we did domestic partnerships; that’s separate and unequal.  Boy, that’s insulting.  You can’t have two institutions for the same thing.  Marriage is marriage.  Civil unions are civil unions.  I don’t see any presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican, that supports civil unions.  That is calling to get rid of their marriage certificate and call for a civil union.  There’s something about marriage.  And as long as there’s something about an institution that not everyone can join, only on the basis of sexual orientation, let alone race, ethnicity, that is fundamentally flawed, fundamentally wrong, and for me fundamentally unconstitutional.  Until we have a Constitution that is advanced for all Americans, and then we can have a foundation on which to grow all these other proposals that we’re talking about. So to me this is sacrosanct, and I’m very intense about it.  And again, I disagree with my good Democrats on this, but I think it’s politics more than it is (IA)  

Q. It’s a big leap of faith and a leap of courage to actually go out and say this is what’s right, and good policy and good politics.

A. Yeah.  And you know, it shouldn’t be.  The same thing was said in 1967, when 16 states denied inter-racial marriage — ’67, not ’30 something, not ’20 something — 1967.  16 states, until Loving vs. State of Virginia finally threw that out in the Supreme Court.  And it’s very interesting.  It’s a true story; people need to remember this.  Blacks couldn’t marry whites.  Whites, Asians, African-Americans, etc., couldn’t marry in 16 states in the United States in ’67.  An overwhelming majority of Americans opposed inter-racial marriage at the time, because it was not traditional marriage.  What’s next?  Again, the sky is going to fall in.  And there was a famous decision where a judge said the following.  He said — I’m not sure he said this directly to the Loving family, but said it in the lawsuit.  “God, sir, put different races on different continents for a reason.  God never wanted the races to mix.”  Are you kidding me?  That was in my lifetime.

Q. Wow.

A. So we use God, we use religion, we use tradition, we use all those things.  And then we use hyperbole about the world coming to an end, and dogs will marry cats, and pomegranates will marry watermelons, and what’s next?  No one is arguing for anything next.  If you believe in gay rights — and it sounds to me like all these politicians do — they acknowledge inherently something about two people of the same sex having some rights.  If you’re going to acknowledge some, but can’t acknowledge all of them, then you’re running in the 90-yard dash, and that’s not American, and it’s certainly un-Democratic.  And that’s my party’s Democrat, not democratic in the context of America.  

And I don’t think the Democratic Party will long stand on a separate but unequal platform, and that’s why I think we’re in trouble on this unless we just cut to the chase and do what Kucinich, and do what Mrs. Edwards has done, do what everyone else has done and just get it out of the way.  Say we’re for equality, period, move on to the next thing and let’s talk about education, health care and the environment and other things, because that’s what most people care about.

Q. And we might find out soon here in California if the City wins its case.

A. Yeah.  Well, we’ve got those judges there, my friends.  My father was in the Court of Appeals for years.  I wish he was still on there, though he would have to be recused.  He was one of those activist judges.  It’s ironic, most of these activist judges have been Republicans that have read the Constitution.  It’s interesting.

Someone else who apparently has read the Constitution is the President.  And it’s suggestive the President is pretty upset about the Constitution that he always is talking about embracing because he wants to change it.  He wants to write discrimination — I love this.  Here’s these guys, there’s Pat Buchanan and all these serious folks on Fox Network.  We’re going to — you know, and they ask the questions of the Romneys and the McCains, I’m going to appoint constitutional constructionists, not one of these activist judges who are writing laws. Yet their own President is arguing to change their Constitution. Seems to me a little disconnected for Mitt Romney and others that believe these constitutional amendments (IA).  It seems that someone should do a follow-up question and try to square that:  Sir, what is wrong with the Constitution that you need to feel it needs to be changed?

And there’s a reason it needs to be changed.  They’re right.  There is nothing in the Constitution that allows people to be discriminated based on their sexual orientation. And so that’s kind of an unfortunate position for the Republican Right in this country, and that’s why ultimately there’s going to be gay marriage. And that’s a wonderful thing, because everyone should be treated the same way.

Q. Your list to nine judges’ ears.

A. Yeah, please, I know it’s tough, but do the right thing.  You’ll be known in history for having done the right thing.  That’s courage; that’s nobility.