Silicon Valley Leaders Celebrate Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

This morning, following the historic Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage, District 4 Supervisor Ken Yeager proudly raised the rainbow flag above the County Government Center.

Yeager, a longtime advocate for LGBTQ rights, was “filled with joy and gratitude over the court’s ruling,” he shared in a statement from his office.

He officiated the first legal same-sex marriage in the county in 2008, and then again in 2013 after Proposition 8 was overruled. In 2007, he also pushed for, and achieved, equally priced ceremonies in the county’s wedding chapel, after discovering price discrimination against commitment ceremonies.

Unlike Justice Scalia—whose laughable dissent likened the majority opinion to “the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie—there are no sour grapes around City Hall. Numerous San Jose politicos have joined Supervisor Yeager in commending and celebrating the 5-4 decision.

“The Supreme Court has finally delivered on a long overdue obligation of our Constitution to the millions of our brothers and sisters who seek legal sanction for their personal life commitments,” Mayor Sam Liccardo said in a statement. “There are few human rights so core to our being, or so worth protecting.”

Liccardo is a member of Mayors for Freedom to Marry.

Assemblyman Evan Low—sworn in six years ago as the nation's youngest Asian American openly gay mayor before election to the state legislature—said the 5-4 ruling finally puts the country on the right side of history.

“The U.S. Supreme Court ruling is a victory and celebration for all who stand for equal justice and equal opportunity," Low said. "The California Supreme Court has already allowed same-sex marriage in our state, and this morning's ruling just reaffirms the hope and promise that all people could marry. This is a great day in the country and today, we stand on the right side of history. Love is love.”

“It’s a banner day for equality in America,” Anna Eshoo, Congresswoman for California’s 18th District, added in an announcement. “Today our nation has taken a giant step forward to make good on the words of our pledge of allegiance, ‘with liberty and justice for all.’”

San Jose City Councilman Ash Kalra also praised the decision via Twitter.

Apple CEO Tim Cook, who came out as gay last fall, took to Twitter to say how the decision "marks a victory for equality, perseverance and love."

Social media lit up with celebratory tweets, status updates and rainbow memes.

“Facebook is a proud supporter of pride and the LGBTQ community,” the company said in a statement.

In celebration of the decision, and LGBTQ Pride Month, the social media giant launched an optional rainbow filter for profile pictures. They further shared that 6 million of their members in the United States identify as gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender or gender non-conforming.

Amidst the celebration, Eshoo also noted that attention must not fade from the issue.

“Our work, however, is not yet complete to bring full rights to the LGBT community," she said. "We must continue to fight for the full protections long overdue to LGBT Americans, who can still be fired for who and what they are.”

The congresswoman called for a civil rights bill to address this inequality.

In another coup for equal rights, on June 16, the Santa Clara Board of Supervisors approved funding for an Office of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer Affairs, the third such in the nation. The initiative has been praised by local LGBTQ activists and leaders, and hiring for the office will begin in July.

"For those eager to celebrate, a rally organized by the Bay Area Municipal Elections Committee, a bi-partisan LGBTQ political action group, will be held at San Jose City Hall tonight at 6pm. Marriage licenses are available today at the County Clerk-Recorder’s Office until 4:30pm. Just be glad Justice Scalia won’t be officiating.

25 Comments

  1. AAaaaand while we’re all celebrating gay marriage or fighting over flags, this is happening.

    US to deploy heavy weapons in eastern Europe for first time amid growing tensions with Russia
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-24/us-to-deploy-heavy-weapons-on-nato-eastern-flank/6568698

    Anyways, I’m happy for the LGBT folks, and I worry about the repercussions over the Dixie flag. Too many armed, young, unemployed Rednecks, or borderline Rednecks out there with nothing better to do than go around shooting their guns at people.

  2. > Too many armed, young, unemployed Rednecks, or borderline Rednecks out there with nothing better to do than go around shooting their guns at people.

    Speaking of stereotypes, did you check this one out of the Southern Poverty Law Center lending library?

    • Stereotyping poor rural working people in the South as violent “Rednecks” doesn’t make me happy.

      Does it make you happy?

      Does it make you feel . . . superior?

    • That’s very intriguing… we can probably go through recorded history and find many many instances where people or movements stood on truths which put them ‘on the wrong side of history’ … later it turned out that this making “history” were thw ons who were actually wrong…. truth always prevails.

      • Maybe you could just read a book and educate yourself instead of reading and posting Internet jibberish?

  3. What is “laughable” is not Scalia’s dissent but the majority’s spurious justification for its decision. With its claim that the right for gays to marry is contained in the 14th Amendment the justices would have us believe they discovered — in the most heavily scrutinized document in existence — a right that has been hidden from view since 1868. One wonders what next they will find? Maybe a right justifying Hillary’s secret email account.

    One thing you can be sure they won’t find is any reason to uphold the Constitution’s very clear mandate about states’ rights. The court has made “laughable” the notion that residents of a state have any real authority to uphold or define their cultural values. The collective decisions of the people, be they made by representative legislators or via the ballot box, will stand only until the Supreme Court decides to overrule them. That’s good news for liberals, at least for as long as the court has a liberal majority. But should the day come when the court sees the world through a different lens, then we’ll see how much liberals celebrate its all-mighty power.

    Today, the people of the United States lost an invaluable layer of insulation from federal hegemony, and some of them are dumb enough to celebrate it.

  4. What a Great day to celebrate, I can now marry my 93 year old mother and keep her fortune for my self instead of sharing it with my greedy brothers and of course redistributing it to the greedy government.

    HaHaHaaaaaaaa!

    Its never over!

    Plural marriage is next on the list.

    • > Plural marriage is next on the list.

      We’re virtually there already,

      Easy “no fault” divorces, quickie weddings, casual “living together”, and sequential “common law marriages” have created what amounts to serial polygamy.

      This is especially true for the underclass with no assets to fight over. The welfare check, section 8 housing voucher, and EBT card come from the government, and “marriage” has nothing to do with any of it.

    • Ted Cruz had it right when he said the Supremes should resign and become legislators.

      It’s not that I completely disagree with the end result of their decision on this and the healthcare rulling, but I definitely disagree with HOW they came to that decision.

      And whatever happened to States’ rights?

      We now have nine people who effectively are not imposing their own political opinion on the direction this country takes, when in reality their job is to interpret laws in light of the Constitution.

  5. Now what, Lindsey?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent

    “The term age of consent rarely actually appears in legal statutes; it has sometimes been used with other meanings, such as the age at which a person becomes competent to consent to marriage, . . . ”

    “Age of consent laws vary widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, though most jurisdictions set the age of consent in the range 14 to 18.”

    So, in jurisdiction (A), where the age of consent is 14, a 42 year old person and a 14 year old person can be “married”.
    But in jurisdiction (B), where the age of consent is 18, this relation would be considered pedophilia.

    What is Justice Kennedy’s explanation?

  6. Your still a child till 26 as far as Obama care is concerned. 18 to go to war with hand grenades and a machine gun,
    but 21 to buy a hand gun, beer, or a cigarette in Hawaii, not to mention medical marijuana.
    Shouldn’t medicine be available to anyone who is sick regardless of age?

    I would guess lowering the age of consent to 12 or 13 is so politicians can get into your kids pants at a much younger age and not worry about getting shot.

    So standardization of controversial laws to the most liberal interpretation is likely going to create a lot of gray hair for the anti second amendment crowed.

    Just a thought, any of you happy gay folks planning on getting married at your local Mosque?

  7. Dear haters, I’m going to take a page out of your notebook from around November 5, 2008: YOU LOST. GET OVER IT.

    Remember that?

  8. Polygamy has been recognized in hundreds of cultures/societies for thousands of years. Plus it is a form of family recognized in nature – which is based on the continuation of the species via the formula found in nature – the XX and XY chromosomes – without which there is no continuation of species – – this is what evolution is. As Chief Justice Roberts points out – “Same sex marriage are not seeking to join the institution but are seeking to change the institution” and we know once you change something – more change is inevitable. So using the courts ruling with the 14th we can expect a host of new types of marriages – including polygamy, etc, etc The door has been cracked open.

    Before we had SCOTUS, or any government or any religion – we had RECOGNITION of this basic law of nature – it takes at least one XX and XY – – this “recognition” in very early tribal gatherings – on the savannas, caves – must have been celebrated – “hooray, the tribe will live on” dancing around fires, singing, chantings – where the earliest marriages – RECOGNITION of nature and evolution.
    Later we got religion – which recognized this basic fundament of nature and worked it into their program. For people of no religion, little faith or little time governments got into the marrying business.

    It took government and politics to expand the definition of marriage to include same sex – but may help explain why so many are against it. It is not in their DNA – going back countless generations of evolution – – to RECOGNIZE intuitively the fundamentals of what produced and keeps our species going (and all other species as well for that matter).

    For the record I take no stand – I merely point out the dilemma – do we recognize the origin of marriage in nature and evolution or what politics and current popularity give us? what/where is the satisfactory balance?

    • > Polygamy has been recognized in hundreds of cultures/societies for thousands of years.

      One of the curious things about the “same sex marriage” issue is that almost everyone is missing a fundamental premise.

      And, if you’re going to tell me that I’m the only human who thinks this, yeah, I know.

      The same sex message debate has focused on “sex” because, in my opinion, tribalists (i.e. “leftists:) are obsessed with sex.

      Primitive human beings of 10,000 years ago, lived in small tribes, made a living by hunting and gathering in the forest, listened to, believed, and obeyed the shaman, ate, slept, and had sex.

      It didn’t maker who had sex with whom, or who children belonged to, because all children served the same purpose: hunting and gathering.

      The sexual practices of the tribe were basically those of a hippie commune, and Hillary’s belief that “It takes a village to raise a child” was probably child rearing reality.

      Then, somewhere, the First Capitalist discovered agriculture and herding, and the logic of private property for fields and pastures, and things changed.

      The First Capitalist produced excess grain and goats, which became recognized as “wealth”. Wealth created the problem of what to do with the wealth when the capitalist expired. Returning the herds and pastures to the tribe would result in rapid consumption and dissipation. Transferring the herds and pastures to someone who would keep the going business going, would continue to increase the food supply (and wealth)

      Thus there was an imperative to define rules and laws to transfer wealth from one generation to the next, and those rules were tied to who the wealth transferor knew, trusted, and relied upon: likely his “breeding partner” and progeny.

      Bottom line, the purpose of marriage is not sex, but to define inheritance in a capitalist society.

      Which explains why the left is so fervid to attack “traditional marriage”: because it is an attack on inheritance and private property and, ultimately, an attack on capitalism.

      The leftist oligarchy conscripted gays to be their instrument in battering down the institution of marriage, because mostly childless gays had little connection to the issues of inheritance. The paradox is, as gays “experience” marriage and learn that it’s about more than sex, they may begin to appreciate more the purposes and advantages of property and inheritance — and become more capitalistic.

  9. The Way It Is, Was Or Should Be

    After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process.
    The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. The latter has not happened.
    The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures. When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action. A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). The Archivist’s certification of the facial legal sufficiency of ratification documents is final and conclusive. The President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval.
    So, as you can see, it is simple to amend the Constitution and change any conduct of the President, Federal Courts, Supreme Court, the States, Congress or the President on any matter.

    28th Amendment to the Constitution of The United States
    Marriage shall be between and amongst two human beings, one born as a physiological and biological male and one born as a physiological and biological female determined at the time of each of their conceptions.

    29th Amendment to the Constitution of The United States
    The Federal Government and State Governments shall not require, force or penalize in any way persons within the United States or its Territories for refusing or failing to purchase or provide Medical Insurance for themselves or any other human being.

    30th Amendment to the Constitution of The United States
    The existence of a physiological and biological human being begins at the moment of conception and that human being acquires all the rights and privileges of the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights when conceived within the United States of America.

    31th Amendment to the Constitution of The United States
    American citizenship can only be acquired by a human being whose birth takes place in the United States of America or its Territories between American Citizens or those human beings Naturalized under the laws of the United States of America.

    31th Amendment to the Constitution of The United States
    That I will be King for life.

  10. Do have it YOUR way.We have destroyed decency, and let a small minority gain governance over the majority. The Romans did that and where are they today. Can’t make it in a structured society so we tear the strong structure down and replace it with free wheeling behavior. Doesn’t ever work. No one should discriminate against anyone in any way and laws should be enacted to protect everybody’s rights but if you want to correct it, do it the right way. Wait till you see what happens when the Supreme Court says “The words can’t be held to the meanings assigned by the people who wrote them”. Well is under the influence .08 or did the Legislature mean 8.0 depends on what the drunks on the State Supreme Court re determine it to mean when they are DUI’d.

    • Oh, and what’s the “right way”? People are not just going to be all nicey-nicey, just out of the goodness of their little, blackened hearts. The responsibility of the judicial system is to administer justice and ensure that people’s rights are protected.

  11. …and the lawyers win again. With the divorce rate hovering at 60% in the U.S. It is no wonder the lawyers argued for this case ( more divorce/litigation money for them….) it’s a win-win-win lawyer friendly decision. Congrats to all! Good Luck! Make sure the the check is signed and in the mail. Ignorance is indeed bliss.

  12. Wow,
    What a bunch of haters. Good thing the good ole boy GOPers are literally dying off in droves each day, most of whom are between the age of 60 & death…Southsidebubblehead, Natehater, please fly your Confererate flag & NRA flags at your residence so your neighbors know what bigoted, ignorant haters they live next too… By the way, do you two fall within the GOP age range??? I’m sure you do and hopefully your both near the end of your obviously miserable lives…

    • Larry:

      My feelings are hurt.

      You didn’t like what I said, did you.

      > By the way, do you two fall within the GOP age range???

      Not sure. What is the GOP age range?

      Do any of these people fall within the GOP age range?

      Hillary Clinton, 67

      Bernie Sanders, 73

      Dianne Feinstein, 82

      Barbara Boxer, 74

      Nancy Pelosi, 75

      Mike Honda, 74

      Zoe Lofgren, 67

      Jerry Brown, 77

      And, by the way, what is the best age range to have an opinion as smart as yours?

  13. We are not free until all of our citizens have the same rights. If we preform civil marriagaes for some it should be for all.