HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/17/2004 - STAFF REPORTS (33) Denise Blotter
From:
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 1:08 PM
To: ginnyf@ci.palm-springs.ca.us
Cc: chrism@ci.palm-springs.ca.us; RonO@ci.palm-springs.ca.us; michaelm@ci.palm-
springs.ca.us; stevep@ci.palm-springs.ca.us; CityManager@palm-springs.ca.us;
CityAttorney@ci.palm-springs.ca.us; CityClerk@ci.palm-springs.ca.us
Subject: Your Gaffe Re: Marriage Amendment
Council Member Foat, yours was a very telling slip of the tongue when
you
requested the drafting of a resolution "in regard to our opposition" to
a
constitutional amendment. Did you mean to say, "my opposition"? If
not,
who were you referring to? Other council members? I haven't missed any
publicly noticed sessions, and I have never heard this issue discussed.
It
will be interesting to hear the discussion if such a proposed resolution
ever does make it to an official agenda. Any vote which might occur
would,
of course, be substantively meaningless. By way of a copy of this
message
to the City Manager, I would ask that he consider the propriety of
committing staff resources to a request of this nature, made my a single
council member, where there is no publicly-voiced consensus among the
other
members.
Jerry Wayne Howard
R�
1
Denise Blotter
From: franklin weston [franklinweston@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 10:08 AM
To: C1tyC1erk@ci.pa1m-springs.ca.us1.,,� ; ,.,
Subject: Gay Marriage
The New York Times
March 17,2004
NEWS ANALYSIS
Bans on Interracial Unions Offer Perspective on Gay Ones
By ADAM LIPTAK
rthout a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages, President Bush warned on Feb. 24,
there is a grave risk that "every state would be forced to recognize any relationship that
judges in Boston or officials in San Francisco choose to call a marriage."
The president invoked the Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause, which requires states to honor
court judgments from other states, as the basis for his alarm.
But legal scholars say that an examination of the last wrenching national debate over the definition of
marriage -when, only 50 years ago, a majority of states banned interracial marriages - demonstrates
that the president misunderstood the legal terrain.
"No state has ever been required by the full faith and credit clause to recognize any marriage they
didn't want to," said Andrew Koppelman, a law professor at Northwestern University and the author
of"The Gay Rights Question in Contemporary American Law."
Indeed, until the Supreme Court struck down all laws banning interracial marriage in 1967, the nation
lived with a patchwork of laws on the question. Those states that found interracial marriages
offensive to their public policies were not required to recognize such marriages performed elsewhere,
though sometimes they did,but as a matter of choice rather than constitutional compulsion. That
experience is instructive, legal scholars say, about what is likely to happen when Massachusetts starts
performing gay marriages in May.
Attorney General Eliot L. Spitzer of New York has provided an example of what the analogous
patchwork in the gay marriage context might look like. Mr. Spitzer, in an informal advisory opinion
issued on March 3, said he expected New York to recognize gay marriages from other states because
they are not "abhorrent to New York's public policy." Thirty-eight other states, on the other hand, in
enacting Defense of Marriage Acts,have expressed the view that such marriages do offend their
public policies.
Mr. Spitzer based his assessment on state law and not the federal Constitution, and he based his
description of New York's public policy on a single decision of a Manhattan trial court last year that
3/17/2004
���
is still under appeal.
There is a second reason same-sex marriages in Massachusetts are likely to have a more limited effect
than the president suggested. An obscure 1913 law in that state makes void all marriages performed
there where the couple is not eligible to be married in their home state. That law, too, was born in part
from an effort to prohibit interracial marriages.
Last week, the California Supreme Court stopped the gay marriages being performed in the second
place cited by the president. The court will hear arguments on the question later this year.
In 1967, when the United States Supreme Court shuck down all bans on interracial marriage, it acted
on the most fundamental constitutional grounds, saying that the laws violated both due process and
equal protection.
No one believes that the court is likely to say anything like that about gay unions anytime soon.
What is notable about the 1967 decision for the gay marriage debate, then, is that it did not mention
the full faith and credit clause. Although the case involved a Virginia couple prosecuted for violating
that state's ban on interracial marriage by visiting the District of Columbia, which allowed such
marriages, the Supreme Court did not suggest that Virginia was obligated to recognize the marriage.
To the contrary, the decision affirmed that marriages are generally a matter to be left to the individual
states. That is consistent with hundreds of decisions over centuries, based on state rather than federal
law, that allowed states to decline to recognize marriages that violated their own strong public
policies.
Indeed, in the context of interracial marriages, courts in states that banned such unions routinely
declined to recognize those performed in states where they were legal.
But the decisions were not uniform. Indeed, the way courts treated interracial marriages illuminates
how gay marriages are likely to be treated.
The decisions fall into broad categories, generally turning on whether the couple in question intended
to evade their home state's laws. That principle, legal experts say, is likely to govern many disputes
about gay marriages perfonned in Massachusetts.
"The Jim Crow judges were horrifyingly wrong about many things," Professor Koppelman wrote in
the Texas Law Review in 1998, "but they did understand the problem of moral pluralism in a federal
system, and we can learn something important from the solutions they devised."
Opposition to interracial marriage in the last century was in many ways more vehement than
opposition to gay marriage today. It was, for instance, a criminal offense in many states. None of the
38 states that expressly forbid gay marriage by statute today go that far.
Yet in cases where evasion was not at issue, courts were often surprisingly receptive to the
recognition of interracial marriages.
In some cases, an interracial couple who were legally married in their home state moved, after years
of living together, to a state where such marriages were harmed. Court decisions about whether to
3/17/2004
recognize such marriages were about evenly divided.
In other cases, such a couple never left the state where they were legally married but sought to use the
courts in a state where their marriage was theoretically invalid in an injury, property or inheritance
case where something turned on their marital status. In such cases, the courts very often recognized
the marriage.
William Rubenstein, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said a theme ran
through the cases.
"The less you look like you're playing games," Professor Rubenstein said, "the more likely a court is
to recognize the relationship."
The entire discussion may be academic in the case of Massachusetts, given its 1913 law.
Linda Hutchemider, president of the Massachusetts Town Clerks Association, said her group was
awaiting legal guidance on the meaning of the law and how to enforce it.
"We're not the marriage police," Ms. Hutchem-ider said.
But the law would seem, she continued, to void marriages of out-of state gay couples. "It really seems
to fit," she said.
She added that Mr. Spitzer seemed to have overlooked the Massachusetts law, which appears not to
allow New York couples to be married there in the first place.
"It becomes a chicken and the egg thing," Ms. Hutchenrider said.
Matt Coles, director of the American Civil Liberty Union's Lesbian, Gay Rights and AIDS Project,
said he was reluctant to compare the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement.
"One struggle has never been like another, in overriding ways," Mr. Coles said. "That said, interracial
marriage draws a more powerful analogy than any other."
Franklin A. Weston
Stanley K. Pearce
68895 Lozano Court
Cathedral City, CA 92234
Tel &FAX: 760-325-7668
e-mail: FranklinWeston@hotmail.com
e-i-nail:StanleyPearce@hotinail.com
Get tax tips, tools and access to IRS forms - all in one place at MSN Money!
3/17/2004
Mar 17 04 11 : 32a
p. 1
fl
n
w a
March 17, 2004
Mayor and City Council Members
City of Palm Springs
California Fax: 760-323-8282
Re:Resolution Against a Federal Marriage Amendment
Greetings:
Please be advised that the undersigned, as permanent residents of the City of Palm
Springs since 1972, strongly oppose any action by the City Council pursuant to the
proposal, adoption, or legislative implementation of a resolution, motion, or action to
oppose aFederal Marriage Amendment codifying same sex marriage.
Sincerely,
Richard F_ McCarthy, Jr.
Marilyn W. McCarthy
2373 South Camino Real
Palm Springs CA 92264-9480
Denise Blotter
From: Tony Cantalini [cantalini@earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 12:17 PM
To: GinnyF@Ci.Palm-Springs.CA.US; Michael M@Ci.Palm-Springs.CA.US; ChrisM@Ci.Palm-
Springs.CA.US; SteveP@Ci.Palm-Springs.CA.US; RonO@CLPalm-Springs,CA.US
Cc: Cityclerk@Ci.Palm-Springs.CA.US
Subject: Councilwoman Foat's Resolution...
TO: Mayor Oden, City Councilmembers Foat, Mcullough, Mills, Pougnet,
and
City Clerk:
As a native of Palm Springs, and a voter, I am writing to express my (;1�� �':`
support
for Councilwoman Foat's resolution condeming President Bush' s support
for an
ammendment to the United States Constitution banning same sex marriage.
The Constitution has always been ammended to broaden the rights of all,
not
to diminish them.
I am asking that the Mayor and the City councilmembers support Ms.
Foat's
resolution in front of them tonight at the City Council meeting.
Thank you for your support,
Tony G. Cantalini
2288 Caliente Drive
Palm Springs, CA 92264
cantalini@earthlink.net
1
Page 1 of 1
Denise Blotter
From: KEVINCITO@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 10:18 AM
To: RonO@ci.palm-springs.ca.us; CityClerk@ci.palm-springs.ca.us 2;1i,W
Subject: Resolution before the City Council
Dear Mayor Oden,
I would like to encourage you to vote in favor of the City Council Resolution condemning President Bush's call
for a Constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. To alter the US Constitution in such a
detrimental manner is both un-American and hateful. I believe it is important for all Americans to voice their
unhappiness with this type of"leadership" and let the President know that this type of political move will not be
tolerated.
Please let the City of Palm Springs go on the record as being opposed to this Constitutional amendment and
vote for the proposed Foat Resolution.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Kevin D. Sweeney, M.D.
69255 Tamala Ave.
Cathedral City, CA 92234
3/17/2004
Page 1 of 1
Denise Blotter _
From: Bousquet1333@aol.com ---
°' s
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 9:21 AM ST I-',I
To: ron@ci.palm-springs.ca.us
Cc: cityclerk@ci.palm-springs.ca.us; chrism @ci.palm-springs.ca.us; ginnyf@ci.palm-springs.ca.us;
michaelm@ci.palm-springs.ca.us; stevep@ci.palm-springs.ca.us
Subject: Resolution proposed by Councilmember Fout re: constitutional amendment
Dear Mayor Ron Oden,
We, a gay couple in a committed relationship of 15 years, are aghast that the President even thinks about a
constitutional amendment which would take away rights of a citizen. Please support Council member Fout's
resolution.
Al Bousquet
Don Ricart
1080 E Suntan Lane
Palm Springs, Ca 92264
3/17/2004
Page 1 of 1
Denise Blotter
From: Rlscalienteps@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 7:25 PM
To: CityClerk@ci.palm-springs.ca.us
Subject: I strongly urge you to support the resolution before you tomorrow nite regarding
I strongly urge you to support the resolution before you tomorrow nite regarding opposition to a constitutional
amendment barring same sex-marriages. As Rosie O'Donnell stated on the steps of the San Francisco City
Hall, "And liberty and justice for all.
Thank you,
Ronald L. Sousa
Arturo C Chavez
68138 Seville Ct
Cathedral City, Ca 92234
3/17/2004
` Page 1 of 1
Denise Blotter '
From: KeithCNorris@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 7:50 PM
To: CityClerk@ci.palm-springs.ca.us
Subject: Please support Councilwoman Foats' resolution for Marriage Equality
Please support Councilwoman Feats'resolution for Marriage Equality. We want nothing less.
Keith C Norris and Doug Quigley(partners for 4 years)
69714 Northhampton Ave.
Cathedral City, CA 92234-2590
760-202-4936
3/17/2004
Denise Blotter
From: Wade Curl [wcurl@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 12:07 AM
To: RonO@ci.palm-springs.ca.us
Cc: CityClerk@ci.palm-springs.ca.us
Subject: Please Support Council Member Foat's Resolution, Stop Ammendment
Dear Mayor Oden,
Please do not assist President BushAmendmentg our nation in changing our
Constitution to exclude any class of person. As a registered voter and
tax
payer, I ask for your help in stopping this divisive constitutional
amendment. I believe that my registered domestic partner and I deserve
equal rights on a local, state and federal level.
Very truly yours,
Wade Curl
63 Vista Mirage Way
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This document and the attachment (s) accompanying
this
e-mail/fax transmission contain information belonging to Wade Curl of
Steven
Hirsch and Associates and are confidential and/or legally privileged.
The
information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity
named
above. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent
responsible, please deliver it to the intended recipient. You are hereby
notified that any disclosure, copying, dissemination, distribution or
the
taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this transmission
information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail/fax
in
error, please contact the sender at: (760) 324-6862 phone/fax.
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now!
http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200415ave/direct/Ol/
40*& zpw'�
Page 1 of 1
2
Denise Blotter
From: DOUG HAIRGROVE [woodyw8976@msn.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 6:49 AM
To: RonO@ci.palm-springs.ca.us; chrism @ci.palm-springs.ca.us; ginnyf@ci.palm-springs.ca.us;
michaelm@ci.palm-springs.ca.us; stevep@ci.palm-springs.ca.us; CityClerk@ci.palm-springs.ca.us
Subject: Proposed resolution by council member Ginny Foat
We want you to know that we strongly support the proposed resolution by Council Member Foat. We urge the
council members to vote in favor of this resolution. We will be at the council meeting and will remember your
vote on this resolution when we vote on your job performance during future city council elections.
Doug Hairgrove and Warren Wood
Partners for 43 years
3/17/2004
Denise Blotter
From: David Milbrandt[david@pattondesignstudio.coml
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 4:01 PM
To: rono@ci.palm-springs.ca.us; chrism @ci.palm-springs.ca.us; gin nyf@di.palm-springs.ca.us;
michaelm@ci.palm-springs.ca.us; stevep@ci.palm-springs.ca.us
Cc: cityclerk@ci.palm-springs.ca.us
I would like to voice my support for Ginny Foat's proposed resolution
regarding gay marriage and urge all of you to vote in favor of it.
For me, gay marriage isn't just an issue of marriage but an issue of
equal - civil rights. Our country has experienced issues of this type
in the past and has always come thru by making fair and equitable
decisions. Our current President's proposed constitutional amendment,
even if it doesn't pass, has sent a clear message to all Americans that
gay people are not equal and that placing us into a second (and lower)
class is acceptable.
He is trying to set us back 50 + years as a Nation, back to when
African-American people were required to drink from separate fountains
and even further back to when women were unable to vote. If President
Bush gets his amendment passed, he will succeed in only one sure thing,
a Nation divided. However, although he may deter my ability to legally
marry the one I Love, he cannot stop me from Loving the person I choose.
This is your chance to make a change on a local level. Letting the rest
of the country know that Palm Springs will not stand for bigotry and
discrimination. As our elected officials, we need your support.
Thank you.
David S. Milbrandt & William R. Brief (Married in our hearts for 6 yrs. )
2580 E Tahquitz Canyon Way #101
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Page 1 of 1
Denise Blotter
From: Mark Schmitz[markgreg@dc.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 3:13 PM i
To: Ron Oden
Cc: cityClerk@ci.palm-springs.ca.us
Subject: Proposal
Please support the resolution proposed by Council Member Foat to condemn the proposed amendment and to
endorse marriage equal rights.
Thank you
Mark Schmitz
Greg Ruehrwein
877 El Cid
Palm Springs, Ca. 92262
3/16/2004
Page 1 of 1
Denise Blotter
From: DGWEBBECK@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 3:10 PM fi
To: RonO@ci.palm-springs.ca.us
Cc: CityClerk@ci.palm-springs.ca.us
Subject: Support of the Resolution
I support and urge you to also, the resolution.
Donald R. Beck and Geoffrey G.Webb 438 Avenida Hokona, Palm Springs, Ca. 92264
3/16/2004
Page 1 of 1
Denise Blotter
From: harriet baron [harrietbaron@verizon.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 12:55 PM
To: cityclerk@ci.palm-springs.ca.us
Subject: The Marriage Amendment
I would greatly appreciate it if you would distribute this e-mail to the members of the City Council, as
I do not have their addresses.
I noted that on tomorrow night's City Council agenda there is an item dealing with the proposed
constitutional amendment bamling same-sex marriage. I am not certain whether I will be at the
meeting, and therefore,wanted to take the time now to express my strong support for the resolution
put forth by Councilwoman Gimry Foat opposing this amendment.
Our constitution was created to enshrine rights for our citizens, not to discriminate against them.
This is a blatant misuse of our Constitution and a denial of rights for law-abiding and deseiving
citizens desiring nothing more than equality. I vehemently oppose this amendment and encourage the
City Council to come out in opposition to it, vis a vis Ms. Foat's resolution.
Thank you for the opportunity to express my opinion.
Harriet Baron
Palm Springs
x4ezolt
4914?
3/16/2004
Page 1 of 1
e,
Denise Blotter
From: Loren Berthelsen [loren.berthelsen@berlintech.comj
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 1:49 PM
To: RonO@ci.palm-springs.ca.us
Cc: CityClerk@ci.palm-springs.ca.us
Subject: Please vote for the proposed resolution to oppose the constitutional amendment to limit marriage
Dear Mayor Oden,
Discrimination is wrong and the proposed amendment supported by President Bush to limit marriage to one
man and one woman will use the United States constitution to discriminate against a single group of people.
Our constitution has always been used to expand rights not deny rights.
Please vote in favor of the proposed resolution and add the official voice of Palm Springs to the growing
numbers opposed to the amendment.
Thank you,
Loren Berthelsen
65920 12th St
Desert Hot Springs, CA 92240
760-880-7470
loren.berthelsen@berlintech.com
V'
3/16/2004
Page 1 of 1
a�I�
Denise Blotter
From: Mark Nichols [mark@pattondesignstudio.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 1:55 PM
To: RonO@ci.palm-springs.ca.us; ", chrism"@ci.palm-springs.ca.us,; ginnyr@ci.palm-springs.ca.us,;
michaelm@ci.palm-springs.ca.us
Cc: CityClerk@ci.palm-springs.ca.us
Subject: Gay Marriage Resolution
I urge you to support the right of every American to marry, including gay, lesbian, bisexual and
transgender couples. I believe that marriage and other civil rights protections are essential to
making all families safer and more secure.
Thank you for your support of the resolution by Council Member Foat
Mark Nichols
313 Forest Hlls Drive
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
3/16/2004
Page 1 of 1
Denise Blotter
From: Pelkeyl3l@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 2:10 PM
To: rono@ci.palm-springs.ca.us; chrism@ci.palm-springs.ca.us; ginnyf@ci.palm-springs.ca.us;
michaelm@ci.palm-springs.ca.us; stevep@ci.palm-springs.ca.us
Cc: cityclerk@ci.palm-springs.ca.us
Subject: Gay Marriage Amendment
To: Mayor Ron Oden
Mayor pro tem Mills
Council Members Foat, McCulloch and Pougnet
I urge you to support the resolution brought forward by Council Member Feat condemning President Bush's
proposal supporting an amendment to the US Constitution prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying.
Sincerely,
Joe Pelkey
282 N. Hermosa Drive
Palm Springs, CA 92262
dix!iaffmaw
40
3/17/2004
Page 1 of 1
�ID'b h
Denise Blotter B 7 2'uA -J
From: Latransdad@aol.com ' ' �D
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 20044:19 PM
To: RonO@oi.palm-springs.ca.us; chrism @ci.palm-springs.ca.us; ginnyf@ci.palm-springs.ca.us;
michaelm@ci.palm-springs.ca.us; stevep@ci.palm-springs.ca.us
Cc: CityClerk@ci.palm-springs.ca.us
Subject: (no subject)
No on legalized discrimination!
We support Councilmember Feat's proposed resolution.!
After being married for 41 years,we have absolutely no concern that marriage for our gay and lesbian brothers
and sisters can be harmful. In fact, the opposite is true. Gay marriage can strengthen all marriage.
Robert and Sonja Marchand
68340 Camino Jalan
Cathedral City, CA 92214
Oro
3/17/2004
Same-Sex Marriage
Our country has long prided itself on upholding the principle of separation of
Church and State. The current firestorm of discussions addressing the issues of
same-sex marriage, however, has generated arguments whose logic is
hopelessly convoluted.
I would like to say a few words this evening restricted to the `State' aspect of this
issue. Three days ago, the former Surgeon General, Dr. Elders addressed the
issue of same-sex marriage. She said:
"I see no problem with gay couples marrying. It's a decision between two
people — the government has no business interfering. I remember when
it was against the law for blacks and whites to be married— and that
wasn't very long ago."
The actual date was 1967 and I am old enough to remember the arguments
supporting the mixed-marriage ban. Surprise, surprise, the number one argument
was in effect what it would do to the "sanctity of marriage" and the number two
argument was the negative impact it would have on the children born to those
unions.
Fortunately we have learned that the number one factor leading to a successful
marriage is love, not ethnicity. We have also discovered that the primary
ingredient in successful child rearing is love, not racial heritage. Unfortunately
the heterosexual community has apparently totally missed the point, as currently
more than 50% of marriages end in divorce. This in spite of the fact that
according to the General Accounting Office of the Federal Government, 1049
special privileges/responsibilities are automatically granted to married couples. I
remind you that we are not asking for special rights, just equal rights!
Dr. Elders also stated:
"The moment you see something wrong and don't say anything, is the
moment you start to die."
Well, I did not move to Palm Springs to start to die. What I and many others here
tonight have done is to start, or continue to fight for equal rights for all Americans.
I consider any attempt to modify the constitution to deny rights to a specific
segment of society as despicable!
Advocates of same-sex marriage have been referred to as the Rosa Parks of the
215t Century, and I am telling you now that there is NO way that I will be forced to
sit in the back of the bus!
Robert R. Van Etten
03/17/04
c .
rF.
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS,
CALIFORNIA, OPPOSING A FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
AMENDMENT BANNING SAME SEX MARRIAGE
WHEREAS, on February 24, 2004, President Bush called for an amendment to the United
States Constitution banning same-sex marriage, and
WHEREAS, laws governing marriage have always been a matter for the states to decide and, in
fact, various states are grappling with this issue at this time, and, in California, Superior Courts
have begun to consider the issue of same-sex marriage and the State Supreme Court will be
asked to rule on this issue, and
WHEREAS, given these facts, an amendment to the United States Constitution is unnecessary
and represents a diversion of precious time and resources that would be better used to address
the more pressing issues facing our nation, and
WHEREAS, specifically, by unanimous vote on January 5, 2000, the City of Palm Springs City
Council passed an ordinance to the Municipal Code to establish a policy extending to unmarried
domestic partners certain rights afforded married couples, and
WHEREAS, proponents and opponents of a proposed constitutional amendment agree that
such an amendment could undermine and/or wipe out such domestic partnership protections
and recognitions, and
WHEREAS, marriage confers over one-thousand rights and benefits that are unfairly denied to
same-sex couples, harming them and their families, such as access to healthcare, tax credits,
pensions, inheritance rights, etc, and
WHEREAS, the Palm Springs City Council recognizes and embraces diversity, as many
members of our community are in a committed gay or lesbian relationship and would benefit
from a same-sex marriage legal framework, conversely, they would be harmed by a
constitutional amendment prohibiting the same;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Palm Springs City Council does not
support legislation at any level of government that could limit individual rights, or contribute to
cultural bias in any form.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Palm Springs City Council does hereby resolve to
fervently oppose a Federal constitutional amendment prohibiting same sex marriages.
ADOPTED THIS day of , 2004.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
By: City Clerk City Manager r 4