From this moment...

Finally, some photos from our Big Day.

Photography by Kara A. Reilly

California Supreme Court Grants Review in Prop 8 Legal Challenges

from EqualityCalifornia, eqca.org

Court to Determine Constitutionality of Prop 8

Yesterday the California Supreme Court granted review in the legal challenges to Proposition 8, which passed by a narrow margin of 52 percent on November 4. In an order issued today, the Court agreed to hear the case and set an expedited briefing schedule. The Court also denied an immediate stay.

On November 5, 2008, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit challenging the validity of Proposition 8 in the California Supreme Court on behalf of six couples and Equality California. The City of San Francisco, joined by the City of Los Angeles, the County of Los Angeles, and Santa Clara County, filed a similar challenge, as did a private attorney in Los Angeles.

The lawsuits allege that, on its face, Proposition 8 is an improper revision rather than an amendment of the California Constitution because, in its very title, which was “Eliminates the right to marry for same-sex couples,” the initiative eliminated an existing right only for a targeted minority. If permitted to stand, Proposition 8 would be the first time an initiative has successfully been used to change the California Constitution to take way an existing right only for a particular group. Such a change would defeat the very purpose of a constitution and fundamentally alter the role of the courts in protecting minority rights. According to the California Constitution, such a serious revision of our state Constitution cannot be enacted through a simple majority vote, but must first be approved by two-thirds of the Legislature.

Since the three lawsuits submitted on November 5, three other lawsuits challenging Proposition 8 have been filed. In a petition filed on November 14, 2008, leading African American, Latino, and Asian American groups argued that Proposition 8 threatens the equal protection rights of all Californians.

On November 17, 2008, the California Council of Churches and other religious leaders and faith organizations representing millions of members statewide, also filed a petition asserting that Proposition 8 poses a severe threat to the guarantee of equal protection for all, and was not enacted through the constitutionally required process for such a dramatic change to the California Constitution. On the same day, prominent California women’s rights organizations filed a petition asking the Court to invalidate Proposition 8 because of its potentially disastrous implications for women and other groups that face discrimination.

In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court held that barring same-sex couples from marriage violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and violates the fundamental right to marry. Proposition 8 would completely eliminate the right to marry only for same-sex couples. No other initiative has ever successfully changed the California Constitution to take away a right only from a targeted minority group.

Over the past 100 years, the California Supreme Court has heard nine cases challenging either legislative enactments or initiatives as invalid revisions of the California Constitution. In three of those cases, the Court invalidated those measures. For more information on these cases, click here.

In memoriam

The Sanctity of Marriage

June 16, 2008 - November 4, 2008

The Marriage of

Geoffrey P. Gamble & Kevin P. Metzger

October 11, 2008 - *

*There's no piece of paper or "law of the land" that's going to tell us who we love. Ironically, however, the California State certified copies of our Marriage License arrived in the mail yesterday and will be displayed in a prominent place in the home we build together.

With 15% of the precincts reporting...

Kevin and I go to bed as ballots for Proposition 8 continue to be counted. On this election day and in this race, I find myself thinking:

"Separate but equal" doesn't work

There is no other honest way to put it. Stripped to its core, Proposition 8 is designed to make discrimination — against loving, committed citizens — part of the state constitution.

-- Jon Mendelson

from "The Ugly Core of Proposition 8"

24 October 2008

Prop. 8 would back pretzel logic

By Michael Fitzgerald
Record Columnist
October 24, 2008 6:00 AM

Every age offers its people a chance to evolve or to stick in a haven of outmoded ideas.

Which brings us to Proposition 8, which would amend California's constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

Prop. 8 should be defeated. And it can be defeated without any defeat to religion, to personal moral convictions or to "traditional" marriage.

All can flourish. All should.

Prop. 8 is wrong because - let's not kid ourselves - civil unions are not the equal of marriage. They do not bestow the same dignity, respect or exalted status as marriage.

And if the law is treating citizens unequally, the discrimination must stop, even if tradition supports it, even if a majority prefers it.

Tradition in the case of same-sex marriage, it has been said, is just discrimination that has been passed down.

And a majority, no matter how strongly held its views, is not reason enough for a state to enshrine discrimination in law. A state needs a better reason than that. Same-sex marriage presents none.

It is not for the majority - for anybody - to deny a person's deepest, most intimate relationship and commitments. To deny them their most fundamental right.

Why should we? "Traditional" marriage is not protected by such a ban; those desiring traditional marriage are free to marry. Same-sex marriage will not restrict anyone's rights.

But banning it will, and unfairly. Because sexual orientation bears no relation to a person's ability to contribute to society.

Here in our own city we have entrusted a lesbian Councilwoman with a multimillion-dollar treasury of our dollars, our public safety and the growth and future of our city.

What does it say about us as a community that we find her competent to shoulder this responsibility but not deserving to marry her partner of 20-plus years?

How can a person be an esteemed leader and a second-class citizen? That is pretzel logic.

And what about the children of same-sex couples? The state permits same-sex couples to adopt. Clearly the state recognizes same-sex couples can be good parents.

So what is it like for children when society tacitly says their parents rank below others? What is that like on the schoolyard? Can discrimination against children be "family values?"

No. Even if Yes on 8 is thundered from the pulpits. Religious leaders opposed to same-sex marriage are not rendering unto God what is God's; they are telling Caesar how to run the secular show.

Well, it is a democracy down here, and the right to disagree includes the right to live according to different values. That is not disrespect. That is 1776.

The Connecticut Supreme Court, upholding same-sex marriage, recently wrote that decisions about such things as marriage, procreation and child rearing are the very essence of individual freedom, in fact, of individuality itself.

"At the heart of liberty," the court wrote, "is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe and of the mystery of human life. ... Belief about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the state."

The chance to end marriage inequality is like the choice to give women the right to vote, or to hold them unfit because they were born women.

It is a historic chance to renounce a long history of discrimination, not to mention violence, against homosexuals. Or to perpetuate it.

Permitting same-sex marriage also is a chance to re-interpret our law so it does not petrify into irrelevance but remains a living force for basic human rights in modern life.

People opposed to same-sex marriage are free to live according to their religious beliefs or personal moral convictions. But one thing no one can do is champion American rights by denying them.

This column from "The Record" is reprinted in distinct, easy-to-understand chunks, for the dim-witted "Yes on 8" crowd. Kind of like speaking slowly. You can contact columnist Michael Fitzgerald at (209) 546-8270 or michaelf@recordnet.com.

"ProtectMarriage," my ass

Ron Prentice, Edward Dolejsi, Mark Jansson, and Andrew Pugno are petty thugs and extortionists.

These ProtectMarriage.com executive committee members -- their campaign chairman, executive director of the California Catholic Conference, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and one of their attorneys, respectively -- have "warned" businesses that have given money to California's largest gay rights group that "they will be publically identified as opponents of traditional unions unless they contribute to the same-sex marriage ban, too," noted the Associated Press.

So, it seems that the umbrella group behind the pathetic "Yes on 8" campaign is resorting to blackmail in the final days up to the election November 4. And you were unclear how gay people and their supporters have been threatened and discriminated against in this day and age?! Take it in.

"Make a donation of a like amount to ProtectMarriage.com which will help us correct this error," read their ransom-note-like letter . "Were you to elect not to donate comparably, [...] the names of any companies that [...] have given to Equality California will be published."

The list of "No on Prop. 8" supporters include Pacific Gas & Electric, Levi Strauss, and AT&T. Donations for the good cause can be directed to http://www.eqca.org/.

Stop the HATE! Vote NO on PROP 8!

"Hello. I'm a Mac?"

In the news

Uncertain unions

Written by Jennifer Wadsworth
The Tracy Press, Saturday, 18 October 2008

Some same-sex couples rush to marry, while others hang on the edge of their seats as a vital vote about their relationships — also known as Proposition 8 — approaches.

The marriage of Tracy residents Jeff Gamble and Kevin Metzger last weekend was legal, thanks to an early June California Supreme Court ruling. But like many among the 11,000-plus same-sex couples statewide who exchanged vows since the court decision to legalize gay marriage, 45-year-old Gamble and 36-year-old Metzger are left to wonder about the future legality of their union.

Depending on whether Californians vote for or against a ballot measure to ban same-sex marriages, their certificate could prove null and void come Nov. 5.

"On a personal level, of course it’s meaningful," Metzger said. "But this is about civil rights, really, and what rights we have as a married couple."

Though California Attorney General Jerry Brown said he doubts that same-sex marriages performed before Nov. 4 would be annulled, Proposition 8 supporters could challenge the validity of those unions if the measure passes, according to legal experts from a few political action groups both for and against the measure.

So some same-sex couples have decided to marry before Election Day, said activist Nicole Devencenzi, 25, a San Joaquin Delta College student and spokeswoman for Marriage Equality USA San Joaquin Chapter, a group that supports same-sex marriage. A few have decided to wait until after the vote, she added.

It’s hard to spot a trend, though, especially with the absence of an official record on a local level of the number of same-sex marriage licenses issued.

"People are uncertain," she said. "But it’s hard to see how they tend to react as a whole. It’s hard to break that down."

Unlike a few California counties, the San Joaquin County Clerk-Recorder’s office has kept no record of the number of same-sex unions since the early summer court decision that permitted them, officials said.

Some counties in Southern California that do track the number of same-sex unions have noticed a spike in pre-election ceremonies, according to recent news reports.

Local activists, though, sense the number of local gay marriages has started to taper off.

"I think a lot of people are unsure of what to do, and that uncertainty has held them back a little," said Martina Virrey, also a member of Marriage Equality, a group that supports same-sex unions. "I think they’re hesitant to enter into something that’s legally ambiguous. At least that’s my sense of it."

What also remains to be seen, she added, is whether the state would immediately write off same-sex unions solemnized the day after Nov. 4. It’s possible, clerk-recorder employees noted, that there could be a little leeway even if Californians vote in favor of the proposition, because it takes about a month for some election results to become final.

A Secretary of State spokesman said the ballot measure would indeed become official the day after the election, if voters approve it, but officials with the county clerk’s office said they would continue to issue marriage licenses to anyone who asked until the California Department of Health Services — the office in charge of marriage records — tells them to stop.

Wife-and-wife Tracyites Colleen Brown, 45, and Lorraine Lorio, 46, decided to marry last month while it’s still legal.

"We ‘rushed’ into it after 21 years together," joked Brown, who this week propped up a "No on 8" sign on her front lawn. "But really, we wanted to marry while we still could, because we just don’t know. That’s really what it gets down to, is the uncertainty."

More than their own uncertainty, the couple worries about confusion among voters about what the proposition really means, a confusion they say is worsened by misleading TV ads from proposition supporters and a lack of civil public debate before the Nov. 4 decision.

Statewide, support both for and against the measure appears nearly even, though opponents have outraised supporters by a few million dollars, according to campaign finance reports released last week. Supporters of the "protect marriage" measure have raised more than $22 million. Those against it garnered at least $27 million.

Even if voters choose to undermine the legal weight of the framed marriage license in the Metzger-Gamble home, the newlyweds said their union "is more than a piece of paper."

"It’s a commitment," Gamble said this week over coffee cake and sparkling cider left over from his weekend wedding. "It means more than what the state tells me it does."

_______________________________________

In a comment on the Tracy Press website, a supporter eloquently writes:

i've grown to live

to love and laugh

i'm quite the man

to know and have

struggle and fight

is to sacrifice

let's have the right

to have suffice

to marry the one you love

initiates a bond till death

married or not

i'm there till your final breath

a crime it is to love someone

what a twisted world this is

they could never bring us down

for love will always exist

Congratulations Jeff and Kevin!

Today's the day...

special, rare and precious
that is what i think about us
us being you and i

i was blessed with a gift that lifts my spirits and makes them soar
i adore you

you have always been in my corner
brighter than the sun
when the sun forgets to shine
finding my faults acceptable
accepting all that i give
and i give all

such a small price to pay for loving you
you are priceless
i didn’t think a love like ours existed
i lived years of loneliness
only to find bliss
I’m content to call you a friend
who understands
the demands
i have made along the way

i love you
i say that with careless abandon
you have never abandoned me
even when i could not see
where you were going
always knowing the
right and wrong direction
loves pressures are heavy indeed
i have always needed you

you tame my wild heart
a part of which is yours
everywhere i go
you will also be
we see life
from the same distorted view
you and i had the same broken heart
once upon a time
when i met you

you heard the cries
i had been screaming for years
never shedding a tear in frustration
i patiently waited for my gift from above
i see god's love when i see you
you love me beyond words
all i did was put my heart in your hands
my prayers had been heard

-- Treina Alexander-Hudleton

We are gathered here today, in the presence of these witnesses – our friends and family – for the purpose of uniting in love and matrimony Geoffrey Paul Gamble and Kevin Paul Metzger.

At some point in our lives, we begin to understand that love is more than verses on a Valentine’s Day card and romance in the movies. We begin to know that love is here and now, real and true, and the most important thing we can find. Love is the creator of our favorite memories and the foundation of our fondest dreams; a promise that is always kept, a fortune that can never be spent, and a seed that can flourish in even the most unlikely of places. Although time goes on, Love’s radiance never fades, and this mysterious and magical joy is the greatest treasure of all – one that is known only by those who truly love.

For many throughout the world, the contract of marriage is something that has been easily taken for granted. That, and no other reason, has corrupted its value and its sanctity.

Here in California and on this day, the right to marry is not only a celebration of Kevin and Jeff’s deep commitment to each other, but the symbolic end of a struggle hard-fought for all and a rekindling of what it means to betrothed.

The contract of marriage is one most solemn. It is not to be entered into lightly, but thoughtfully and seriously, with a deep realization of and commitment to its promises, obligations, and responsibilities. Love, loyalty, and understanding are the foundations of a happy and enduring life together, and Jeff and Kevin, no other human ties are more tender and no other vows more important than those you are about to pledge.

By entering into this marriage, you are pledging yourselves to a lifetime in which each of you will support and enrich the life of the other. You will be partners, standing together to weather the difficulties of life and to celebrate its blessings.

Rejoice in your partner’s graces. Nurture each other and your marriage with care, and watch it grow with grace.

The I, Ching says:

When two people are at one
in their inmost hearts,
they shatter even the strength of iron or bronze.
And when two people understand each other
in their inmost hearts,
their words are sweet and strong,
like the fragrance of orchids.

Jeff and Kevin, now that you have joined yourselves in marriage, may you both strive all your lives to meet this commitment with the same love and devotion you now possess. For love is truly the greatest gift we are given to share. Love’s compassion is the glory of life. Delight in each other’s company, and never take the other for granted, for you are destined to enjoy the blending of your two lives. And remember:

Two are better than one, because they have a good return for their toil. For if they fall, one will lift up his fellow; but woe to him who is alone when he falls and has not another to lift him up. Again, if two lie together, they are warm; but how can one be warm alone? And though a man might prevail against one who is alone, two will withstand him.

And now, in as much as you Kevin and you Geoffrey have given and pledged your love and faithfulness, each to the other in the presence of your family and friends, and have declared the same by joining hands and exchanging rings, by virtue of the authority vested in me as Deputy Marriage Commissioner by the State of California, I now pronounce you legally married and spouses for life.

Feeding the troops

With our families arriving from Virginia, Kentucky, and southern California, we'll be commandeering a local Italian restaurant for our pseudo-rehearsal dinner and first "Gamble/Metzger" event.

Good food. Good fun.

Strings Italian Cafe

2541 Naglee Road, Tracy CA 95304

(209) 835-9040

Vote, bitch!

Finally, Sarah Palin says something that makes sense!

You betcha!

Cast the first stone

Two are better than one, because they have a good return for their toil. For if they fall, one will lift up his fellow; but woe to him who is alone when he falls and has not another to lift him up. Again, if two lie together, they are warm; but how can one be warm alone? And though a man might prevail against one who is alone, two will withstand him.

-- ECCLESIASTES 4:9-12

Love's in bloom...

Karen's Flower Kottage

31109 Mission Blvd, Hayward, CA 94544

Toll Free: 877-558-5633 Local: 510-471-7434 Fax: 510-471-4849

Staying in Tracy for the Big Event?

Friends and family who plan on staying in Tracy for our wedding weekend can get a great room at a great rate at the Hampton Inn, located at 2400 Naglee Road.

A block of 10 rooms are being held for us from Thursday, October 9th through Monday, October 13th at the following rates:

$69 plus tax, per room, per night Standard King
$79 plus tax, per room, per night Standard Double Queen
$89 plus tax, per room, per night King Study

All rooms include: Superior Hot Breakfast, Wireless Internet, close proximity to shopping and dining, discounts at local restaurants, access to work out facility, indoor pool and spa and gym.

Click on the Hampton Inn logo or this link to go to our "Personalized Group Web Page," or call the hotel directly at 209-833-0483 and mention the Gamble/Metzger Wedding and the dates of stay to ensure proper group rate.

All rooms that have not committed by Wednesday, September 24, 2008, at 6:00pm will be released into general inventory and subjected to non-group terms and conditions.

24-hour Cancellation policy: room must be cancelled by 6pm, 24 hours prior to the day of arrival, or a non-refundable late cancellation fee equal to one evenings room and tax will be charged to the method of payment used to guarantee the reservation.

Discover what's truly possible...

Transform your life and your love of it in a mere three days and an evening.

Say 'cheese'...

"The best and most beautiful things

in the world cannot be seen...

or even touched...

they must be felt with the heart."

Wedding photography by

Kara A. Reilly

714.865.1793

karegrl21@rock.com

Drop by our post-wedding celebration

With some of our friends unable to get off work to attend our ceremony and classic cable car ride on Saturday, October 11th, we've decided to hold a post-wedding celebration the following evening, on Sunday, October 12th, as well.

Our friends at Harry Denton's Starlight Room have graciously said they would hold the event in their restaurant, located at 450 Powell Street (at the corner of Sutter Street, just north of Union Square), on the 21st floor of the Sir Francis Drake Hotel. The view of the City from up there is amazing.

Kevin and I will be there to welcome our friends and family starting at 7:00pm, getting one last day's use out of our tuxedo rentals, cutting and serving the proverbial wedding cake, and watching everyone else get drunk and dance. It's a "no host" affair, so come prepared. We love ya, but not enough to get you sloshed at our expense. Hehe.

The Sunday celebration is open to all and does not require a formal invitation and RSVP, but feel free to let us know via email that you'll be dropping by anyway.

Where'd ya meet?

Would you believe us if we told you:

It's true. And neither one of us had to take them up on their "Six Months Free" guarantee. Money well spent.

________________________________________________

* Liberties have been taken with the official match.com logo.

We're here. We're queer. Get used to it.

It was no accident

Our wedding day, October 11th, coincides with "National Coming Out Day." Is there something you want to tell us?

Take the vow... Vote NO on Proposition 8

By invitation only*

The honor of your presence
is requested at the marriage of

Geoffrey Paul Gamble
and
Kevin Paul Metzger

on Saturday, the eleventh of October
two thousand eight
at two o’clock in the afternoon

at San Francisco City Hall’s Civic Center
at the intersection of Larkin and Fulton Streets
San Francisco, California
with a three-hour Classic Cable Car tour
of the City to follow

*Formal invitations to intended guests forthcoming via U.S. Mail, beginning Monday, August 18, 2008, with traditional RSVP required by Friday, September 19, 2008.

Just doing our part

12 Reasons Same-Sex Marriage will Ruin Society

1. Homosexuality is not natural... much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.
3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children... because straight parents only raise straight children.
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful... since Britney Spears's 55-hour, just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.
6. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts... because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of the official state religion are always imposed on the entire country.
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay... in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.
9. Legislating gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. Please may even wish to marry their pets, because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.
10. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name, are better... because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays and lesbians.

THINK about it. Take a STAND.

Copyright and reprinted from GatorGSA.org

Save the date: October 11, 2008

Saturday, May 24, 2008

California's top court legalizes gay marriage
By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer -- Thursday, May 15, 7:45 PM ET

SAN FRANCISCO - California's Supreme Court declared gay couples in the nation's biggest state can marry — a monumental but perhaps short-lived victory for the gay rights movement Thursday that was greeted with tears, hugs, kisses and at least one instant proposal of matrimony.

Same-sex couples could tie the knot in as little as a month. But the window could close soon after — religious and social conservatives are pressing to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in November that would undo the Supreme Court ruling and ban gay marriage.

In its 4-3 ruling, the Republican-dominated high court struck down state laws against same-sex marriage and said domestic partnerships that provide many of the rights and benefits of matrimony are not enough.

"In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority in ringing language that delighted gay rights activists.

"It's about human dignity. It's about human rights. It's about time in California," San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, pumping his fist in the air, told a roaring crowd at City Hall. "As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation. It's inevitable. This door's wide open now. It's going to happen, whether you like it or not."

The justices said they would direct state officials "to take all actions necessary to effectuate our ruling," including requiring county marriage clerks to carry out their duties "in a manner consistent with" the court's decision.

James Vaughn, director of the California Log Cabin Republicans, called the ruling a "conservative one. The justices have ensured that the law treats all Californians fairly and equally. This decision is a good one for all families, gay and non-gay," Vaughn said.The case was set in motion in 2004 when the mayor of San Francisco — the unofficial capital of gay America — threw City Hall open to gay couples to get married in a calculated challenge to California law. Four-thousand gay couples wed before the Supreme Court put a halt to the practice after a month.

Two dozen gay couples then sued, along with the city and gay rights organizations.

Citing a 1948 California Supreme Court decision that overturned a ban on interracial marriages, the justices struck down the state's 1977 one-man, one-woman marriage law, as well as a similar, voter-approved law that passed with 61 percent in 2000.

California's secretary of state is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signatures to put the gay-marriage amendment on the ballot.

Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has twice vetoed legislation that would have granted marriage to same-sex couples, said in a statement that he respected the court's decision and "will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."