Gavin Newsom, the 40-year-old mayor of San Francisco who famously made gay marriage legal for a brief period in 2004 before the California Supreme Court stepped in, is engaged to his girlfriend, the actress Jennifer Siebel, 33. (You can learn everything you've ever wanted to know about her, from the death of her sister to her affection for Jane Goodall here on her personal website.) Mayor Newsom's formal engagement to a woman (he proposed while they were vacationing in Hawaii -- how much more old-fashioned can you get?) just goes to prove how traditional marriage will continue to thrive in spite of the existence of gay marriage -- as will affairs and divorce, which Mr. Newsom also knows something about.
Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for years now, with no evidence of damage to the institution of marriage. As of this week, New Hampshire is upholding civil unions. Meanwhile, all of us straight married people have not had our rights infringed upon by the slow extension of marriage to our gay counterparts, have we?
And we suspect that even if (when?) gay marriage becomes legal across the country, there will be no end to the nuclear family -- nor the bickering car trips and in-law visits that go along with it. Being married is wonderful and hard, and more people should do it, not less.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 2)
1. Ada - Help me understand? Did you pick the headline? If so, what were you thinking? How to get people to read a minor piece of news?
alan at 10:05AM on Jan 3rd 2008
2. I think Mayor Newsom is going to be our next president (in 2012) and that we should look at his wife-to-be as our next first lady. Go, Gavin!!
dorothy at 10:13AM on Jan 3rd 2008
3. Mrs. Calhoun,
While I agree wholeheartedly with your belief that gay marriage ought to be considered in exactly the same light as straight marriage, I must disagree with your statement that Mayor Newsom's engagement "proves" anything, as well as the quality of light with which you attempt to illuminate the issue. Love and commitment are possible outside of marriage and, while there is strong statistical evidence to support the belief that both are reinforced by marriage, there is nothing to say that this is inherently so. The institution of marriage is, from a historical perspective, a primarily financial one. The cachet it has earned in our society is more the result of its familiarity (no pun intended) than any critical evaluation, and its success is, I imagine, the result of said cachet meeting a dearth of reliable alternatives. Nevertheless, congratulations are in order for the future Mr. and Mrs. Newsom, no matter how newsworthy the event may or may not be.
Willum at 11:14AM on Jan 3rd 2008
4. For the truth about gay marriage check out our trailer. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & creates an interesting spin on the issue: www.OUTTAKEonline.com
Charlotte at 11:32AM on Jan 3rd 2008
5. Hey! so nice discussion , BUT NEW YEAR is coming, how to celetrate the wonderful days? you love to try something new? http://interracialsingleonline.com you will be surprised there
keily222 at 12:08PM on Jan 3rd 2008
6. Congratulations Gavin on your engagement. I hope that you and your fiancé will sit down and take a look at www.civillywedd.com The site is not just for G-L.B.T.'s whom you support very well. Go no, live on, and love on!
Michael at 12:25PM on Jan 3rd 2008
7. No state or man has the right to redefine marriage. Marriage is a covenant made before GOD and therefore as defined by GOD, who established it, is between a man and woman. If there is a desire to form civil unions for those in same sex relationships then that is their choice but it is not now nor will it ever be a marriage.
Nikki at 12:51PM on Jan 3rd 2008
8. I don't know anything about this guy, other than based on this picture...Uhhhhh la,la is he a looker!
If he ever does make it to Washington, he needs to stay away from all those closet gay republicans!
Rose at 1:06PM on Jan 3rd 2008
9. Marriage is not always a covenant made before God. The state has the legal authority to define marriages. Marriage is defined by LAW and not by God. It just so happens that many states define marriage as a Legal union between a man and a woman. Also, there is a part in the Constitution that says that the government will neither establish nor endorse a religion.
Many people have civil-marriage ceremonies and when they take their wedding vows, it is not always before God or any other higher-power. Atheists and Agnostics get married and I would hope that they don't make a vow in the name of something that they don't believe, because that would be in-genuine. A marriage can also be performed by people who are not of any specific spiritual title or affiliation, in many cases a marriage can be conducted by a public official.
I am writing this as a Christian who understands the separation between church and state.
justi7553 at 1:37PM on Jan 3rd 2008
10. I have been a resident of San Francisco for 8 years.
Mayor Newsom is by far, the greatest mayor anyone could ever ask for. He stood up against the close-minded President, when Bush he proclaimed: "Marriage is between a man and a woman".
That belief is 2,000 years old...you cannot quote the Bible, and try to prove your point today...it was written for a certaqin set of people, with beliefs that are no longer operable on the planet! Mayor Newsom is a breath of fresh air...besides being the most handsome, suave, charming hot man that he is! We will see him in the White House in 2012! I love that man! THE BEST MAYOR IN THE U.S.A.!!!!!!!!
vince at 2:21PM on Jan 3rd 2008
11. People profess to be Christians so much yet seem to pick and choose what they will follow in the bible. I totally disagree with the comprising words of the professed Christian. That is the problem with our society, they want to have one foot in the world of God and one foot in the world. You can't have both worlds. This is not about separation of church and state this is about the definition of marriage which alone comes from God as stated in Mark 10:6-9.
Nikki at 4:11PM on Jan 3rd 2008
12. #11 - Nikki - Help me understand. It appears from your post that which is in the Bible comes above secular law and that we must obey everything in the Bible. Do you still sacrifice animals? Do you eat pork and shrimp? Do you mix cotton and linen? Do you pray three times a day? The list goes on.
What should we do about those pesky people who do not, for some reason or other, believe in the same Bible as you?
alan at 5:39PM on Jan 4th 2008
13. Alan, those list of rules from the Bible were gotten rid of when Christ was hung on the cross. This ushered in a new covenant between Christ and the believers.
If you take the Bible's advise on what to do with those "pesky" people who believe something else, then you would love them and treat them like you would a friend. Unfortunately most people who claim to be Christians don't do this. The Christians that actually do that are usually undermined by people claiming "just like so-and-so politician, eventually the truth will come out about what they like to do behind closed doors."
Thanks for asking, I hope I was helpful!
Nathan at 8:17PM on Jan 4th 2008
14. Ada - I guess my #1 comment was wrong. This topic was able to generate some discussion. I guess that is why you are the blogger and I am the commenter. My apologies.
alan at 8:19PM on Jan 4th 2008
15. #13 - Nathan - Thanks. Please continue my education. Is there someplace I can read that lists or describes the rules that must still be followed and the ones that don't?
How do we reconcile the rules that still must be followed with the rules or lack of rules followed by someone of another or no faith? That is, are those people under any obligation to follow the rules if they are neither secular laws nor beliefs of their faith? If they are, are we bound by their religious rules which are not ours?
I know that I sound like a pest, but I would like to understand where you and Nikki stand on this.
alan at 8:25PM on Jan 4th 2008