Newsom Fires at President’s Proposal

Mayor Gavin Newsom came out swinging Tuesday at President Bush’s call for a federal constitutional amendment that would limit marriage to heterosexual couples, calling the announcement a “shameful” attempt to politicize the U.S. Constitution.

“The Constitution protects citizens, not politicians in an election year,” an angry Newsom told reporters at a City Hall news conference. “He can fly to an aircraft carrier whenever he wants, but he should keep his hands off the Constitution.”

Newsom’s comments came just hours after Bush expressed his support for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages and urged Congress to swiftly approve it. In citing reasons for the amendment, Bush pointed to San Francisco, which under Newsom’s direction has issued more than 3,200 marriage licenses to same-sex couples since Feb. 12 in apparent violation of state law.

Newsom directed the county clerk to issue gender-neutral licenses to gays and lesbians, saying that to do otherwise would be discriminatory and a violation of the California Constitution, which, along with the U.S. Constitution, he swore to uphold when he took office less than six weeks ago.

“I took the same oath of office that [Bush] took to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution,” Newsom said. “The president has chosen to say, ‘I bear true faith and allegiance -- subject to a change that I want to make.’ ”

The president’s proposal turned up the heat on Newsom, who has received kudos from many civil rights activists and Democrats, but worried others who fear the same-sex marriage issue could hurt Democrats in the upcoming election and ultimately harm the cause of gay and lesbian equality.

Newsom spokesman Peter Ragone said that his office had been in contact with some members of California’s congressional delegation, state lawmakers and civil rights groups Tuesday, and all opposed the amendment and continued to support Newsom. Ragone declined to identify those officials. U.S. Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer have already expressed opposition to same-sex marriage.

Conservative groups that have challenged the unions in court said Bush’s move proves what they have been saying: that Newsom’s actions would backfire.

“What Mayor Newsom has done in San Francisco ... has in fact energized and motivated those who support marriage between one man and one woman,” said Mathew Staver, president and general counsel of the Florida-based Liberty Counsel.

Attorney Benjamin Bull of the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund -- which filed a separate legal challenge in the matter -- said: “We’re happy that the moral authority of the president has weighed in.... What San Francisco has done has fueled support for a Federal Marriage Amendment.”

Bush’s proposal opened a new front in the battle over the same-sex marriage issue here, as gay and lesbian organizations announced plans to demonstrate at the Federal Building throughout the week.

In West Los Angeles, a protest called Tuesday night by the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center attracted hundreds to Santa Monica and San Vicente boulevards.

Los Angeles Councilman Eric Garcetti told the crowd he would ask the council today to officially oppose the Bush proposal.

“In America, we have always added rights to the Constitution,” Garcetti said. “It would be a terrible thing if the president went backwards simply for political gain.”

Also Tuesday, Bull’s group announced it would go to the California Supreme Court today to seek an immediate halt to the marriages.

Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer had previously announced plans to take the matter to the state’s highest court Friday, arguing that the same-sex unions violate state law.

Lockyer initially chose to stay out of the fray, but was pulled into the dispute when the city filed suit against the state alleging that family code statutes limiting marriage to between “a man and a woman” are unconstitutional.

University of Santa Clara law professor Gerald Uelman, an expert on the California Constitution, said it is unlikely the state Supreme Court will take up the matter until the trial court acts.

The two Superior Court cases will probably be consolidated. The city is to return to court March 29 to argue its position.

Times staff writer Cynthia Daniels contributed to this report