San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom came out roaring against what he termed President Bush's shameful call Tuesday for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and challenged fellow Democrats to stand firm against the proposal.

The president has "tried to divide this country in order to advance his political career by messing with the Constitution,'' Newsom said at a City Hall press conference after Bush's comments from the White House.

SHAMEFUL San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom holds a press conference at City Hall, February 24, 2004. A defiant San Francisco mayor, who has allowed thousands of gays to marry in the past 12 days, called President Bush's call for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage 'shameful.' (Kimberly White/Reuters)

"It's fundamentally wrong on principle, and we've got to have the courage to stand up and say enough, stop. And that's what we're doing here in San Francisco, and that's what I hope Democrats across this country will do as well,'' he said.

Newsom's decision two weeks ago authorizing city officials to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples reignited the national debate over the volatile issue that raises social, political, legal and religious questions. Since the first same-sex couple married in the city on Feb. 12, nearly 3,300 more followed and hundreds more are waiting their turn as the legal battles play out.

The mayor said he was acting to uphold the equal protection rights guaranteed by the California Constitution.

He said the presidential push for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution must be rebuffed.

"I can't believe people of good conscience, from any ideological perspective, can honestly say that the Constitution should be used to take rights away from people when the Constitution was conceived to advance the rights of people in this country,'' said San Francisco's 36-year-old Democratic mayor. "It is a terrible day because of what the president of the United States has decided to do to divide the United States of America. That, I think, is shameful.''

Newsom's position is shared by most other officeholders representing San Francisco, one of the most liberal cities in the United States.

"We're witnessing a historic moment of change in American life,'' said Carole Migden, a former assemblywoman who chairs the state Board of Equalization. "President Bush is choosing to cater to his far-right conservative base instead of liberating a massive group of people who've suffered from discrimination.''

Some same-sex supporters responded to Bush's decision by quickly organizing a rally in the early evening at Castro and Market streets.

About 200 people showed up, waving signs that declared, "We deserve the freedom to marry,'' and cheering speakers who rebutted the religious, political and legal arguments against same-sex marriage.

"The Constitution has ... been amended ... usually to expand people's rights," Bob Kearny, assistant director for the ACLU of Northern California, said to the crowd at Harvey Milk Plaza. "Only one time has it been amended to limit rights -- Prohibition -- and you can see how well that turned out."

Kearny waved a bound copy of the Constitution and denounced the possible amendment. "It is unprecedented. It is unnecessary. It is wrong," he said.

As the crowd cheered and drive-by supporters honked horns, a woman sat quietly on top of a newspaper stand with a hand-made message for Bush and supporters of a constitutional amendment that would bar same-sex marriage: "Amend Your Mind."

San Franciscan Joe Pawlicki, 41, said supporters of Bush's amendment were hypocritical to oppose a Massachusetts court decision in favor of same-sex marriages. He held a sign stating, "Activist Judges' empowered Bush," referring to the court decision on the 2000 presidential election.

"The court system is in this country to protect the minority," Pawlicki said. An amendment against same-sex marriages "will enshrine discrimination into the most respected document in this country."

Many speakers compared the fight for same-sex marriages to the civil rights movement and the overthrow of state laws that once banned interracial marriages. Molly McKay, executive director of Marriage Equality California, said she was not discouraged by polls that showed a vast majority of Americans oppose same-sex marriages.

"If government had acted then as if civil rights were something that can be subject to popular vote, we would not have the freedoms we have now," McKay told the applauding crowd. "We need the courts to protect us from the vote of the majority."

Earlier in the day, San Franciscan Celia Sack, 34, who was in City Hall to marry Paula Harris, 46, said that as an American she was saddened by the president's resolve to deny her the right to marry.

She noted that the battles to integrate schools and give women the right to vote were not resolved quickly or easily.

"I think this is something that 20 years down the line a lot of politicians are going to be ashamed for the stance they took,'' said Sack.

Newsom has had few prominent Democrats support his rebellious act to defy a state statute that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The mayor suggested that Bush would have pushed for a constitutional amendment regardless of San Francisco's action.

Newsom noted that Bush hinted at his coming position in his State of the Union address last month, and numerous news accounts reported that the White House leaked word to conservative supporters prior to the first same-sex wedding at San Francisco City Hall.

San Francisco Archbishop William Levada, one of the most vocal critics of Newsom's edict to sanction same-sex marriage, applauded the president, echoing the position of the Catholic Bishops of the United States.

"Only a constitutional amendment can now assure that marriage between a woman and a man, and the family they raise, can remain into the future a foundational element of our society,'' Levada said.

The president's resolve to change the Constitution put the San Francisco Republican Party in a difficult position. Local GOP Chairman Mike DeNunzio said, "President Bush is the leader of the Republican Party and we're not going to oppose him.''

But when pressed on whether the local chapter supports a constitutional prohibition on gay and lesbian nuptials, DeNunzio said his group doesn't want to take a position on an issue of national significance, but instead focus on such areas as improving the city's economy.

What the polls say

Recent polls have examined how the public feels about homosexuality, same- sex marriage, civil unions and efforts to ban same-sex marriage. Among their findings:

• Americans are closely divided on whether homosexual relations between adults should or should not be legal.
  
• A majority of Americans, sometimes by as much as a 2-1 ratio, say they oppose legalizing same-sex marriage.
  
• Americans are divided on whether homosexual couples should be allowed to form legally recognized civil unions, with slightly more people opposing it.
  
• People are evenly divided on the question of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage -- an attitude that has shifted in the last month from majority opposition.

A month ago, when people were given the option of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage or letting states make their own laws, almost 6 in 10 favored letting states deal with the issue, while almost 4 in 10 favored a constitutional amendment.

The results on homosexual relations come from a January CNN-USA Today- Gallup poll, the results on same-sex marriage come from several recent polls, and the results on civil unions and a constitutional amendment banning same- sex marriage come from an ABC News-Washington Post poll out in January.

©2004 San Francisco Chronicle

###