I thought this comment from GP Reader “DSH” in San Francisco was so well written and insightful… I wanted to make it a posting of its own. Thanks DSH!
Two truths about politics are univerally recognized: (1) All politics is local, and (2) timing is everything.
In 2000, the people of California voted on a referendum that passed by 60% of the voters. It declared that marriage was exclusively between a man and a woman. The voters of California are very proud of their referendum system: One only has to marvel at the success of Proposition 13, the 1970s referendum that controlled state spending, a victory that has been repeated in numerous other States. Californians are also very protective of their will expressed in these referenda. Try to bypass or override the public’s will, and everyone involved pays.
Still, Californians are generally a fair, empathetic, and equitable people. They have generally responded favorably to very recent legislation by Democrat legislatures and Governor Schwarzenegger that provides Domestic Partnerships for gays. It’s the broadest piece of pro-gay legislation written to date. Only ultra-right wing politicians and the religious right opposed the legislation.
The opponents of Domestic Partners vowed to take the matter to the voters. Led by the homophobe zealot Lou Sheldon and the operatives of James Dobson and Pat Robertson, these zealots claimed that Domestic Partners was really just a ploy by “liberals” to sneak gay-inclusive marriage under the radar by a different name. They will collect enough signatures to place a constitutional amendment banning support for all things gay: Not just gay-inclusive marriage, but Domestic Partners as well, and some versions go so far as to deny equal housing and employment. Before the gay-inclusive marriage, few people thought it would pass.
Then comes Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), my representive from the Castro district, who’s also gay. No sooner does he and other gay representatives succeed in passing domestic partnership, which the Governor signs, that he decides one good turn deserves another. Even before DP is a year old, he attaches gay-inclusive marriage bills to all sorts of omnibus bills, and it succeeds against considerable odds solely with Democrats’ support in passing the bicameral legislature. The Governor claims the bill is counter to Proposition 22, which is the fullest expression of the will of the people, and he vetos the legislation.
The maxims raise their usual heads: The local gay activism of San Francisco, Berkeley, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood is now poised to be opposed by much of the rest of the State. Plus, the timing illustrates the opponents’ contention that gay-inclusive marriage was the real homosexual agenda all along; that domestic partnership was a ruse; and one can no longer discriminate against GLBT in housing and employment. But if the opponents’ referendum passes, all this will be gone. Ironically, public opinion polls show support for domestic partners, but opposes gay-inclusive marriage. But the opponents will wrap the whole thing into one package, and it is likely to pass.
So the short-term gain by Leno may set back long-term gay rights for years to come. What Leno and others failed to realize is that the public opinion is shifting, but not enough time has passed for opinions to become more favorably settled. The timing could not have been worse nor the provincialism more obvious. To paraphrase: One small step forward, one giant step backward. Thanks Leno.
I agree… timing is everything. For all of his faults, President Clinton was a master of political timing. The current leadership of the LibDem Party perhaps has the worst timing. The gay marriage issue in California is just a local manefestation of the feeding frenzy LibDem approach which turns off the majority of Americans, no matter what the issue.
-Bruce (GayPatriot) – gaypatriot2004@aol.com
Again, “Oh yessa, Massa. Sho nuff right!.”
Maybe us Black folk have a whole different perspective on civil rights and mob rule.
NRO’s The Corner passed on this:
No more excuses.
this would be nifty if it wasn’t for the facts on the ground. you and the bigots on the far right (i say bigots because they are the same people attempting to remove dp from california entirely after saying ‘it was only about marriage)
the fact you and this DSH person are skipping? that the polls show a sea change, something the whitehouse or arnold would kill to see in their own numbers.
AN EVEN SPLIT (46%) OF THOSE WHO SUPPORT MARRIAGE EQUALITY AND THOSE WHO DON’T.
read that line again. and then see that it was 60% -38% AGAINST in 2000.
the part again you guys conveniently ignore is that FIVE years have passed. yes, you can trumpet how ‘californians don’t want their will overturned’ blah, blah (every freaking state resident trumpets this about their state as if it’s only unique to their silly borders, but it is a fallacy in the first place, and NOT unique to one state). but opinions change, and that in turn changes politics and elections. that is so elementary it’s sad to have to bring it up. but hey, let’s take it further
there have been elections since 2000. these are representatives who were elected AFTER prop. 22 was passed. AFTER.
read that line again. AFTER.
that said, i am not surprised by arnold’s veto at all. he is in the dumps in the polls, and the legislature is even lower. he has to save his ass for a special election for which only conservatives and moderates need to turn out.
and your reaction is not surprising either because you guys always cry and cry about some backlash that doesn’t really hold true.
what bothers me is just that. so, just look at gay marriage in massachussets: the majority of those residents (who i think don’t like their will being overturned!!) are not in favor of dimwit romney’s call to repeal it.
read that line again. THEIR OPINION HAS CHANGED. gasp!
it’s not smart to intermix pocketbook issues about property taxes with social issues that don’t affect most people in california who are not gay or biblically challenged or bigoted. as spain and canada have shown us, times have changed. for the better.
one more point. you and some other folks have bandied about this meme of “wait until the people agree/are comfortable with it in the majority”, etc (skirting again founders discomfort with mob rule or judicial review, but that’s another issue). how, then, do you trot out this ‘people don’t want their will overturned’ thesis? just WHEN is an opinion change of note to you? when it’s 100%? if an approval uptick of 8 points had happened for george bush, something tells me you’d be trumpeting here that as solid evidence of his base, leadership, and overall mountain biking ability.
so for you to accept a change of opinion (a drop of nearly 15 points in those who are against gay marriage), what do you need? how do you mix that with your agreement that ‘the people don’t want their will overturned or there will be backlash’? do you need 100%? a signed document saying ‘i have changed my mind about prop 13 AND gay marriage, signed every single adult voter even though a few mil of those have been dead for years?’
i wonder how you’d deal with interracial marriage in the early 60’s, but i’ve ranted at you on that before (and you’ve skirted that one, too).
clearly peoples opinions change.
but by your standards, even if opinions change, like they have in california, i wonder if for you it’s still not enough, because you are a) going to choose to support your republican governor no matter what, or b) you just simply don’t understand the seriousness of public opinion shifts, or c) you’re not comfortable in your own skin.
based on the evidence i’ve seen here, i think it’s a combo of all of those things.
If you enjoyed DSH’s writing Bruce, I could be wrong here, but from the initials plus the writing style, I’m wondering if you couldn’t could google “D. Stephen Heersink” to find more!
—————————–
And I could be WAY off base here, but based on that, I am beginning to wonder about the identity of angry “Stephen” we know from earlier. I have a vague recollection (which again could be totally WRONG) of other/earlier chatrooms and blogs where I’ve seen a “D. Stephen Heersink” turn very snarky at times. Pure speculation – based only on (a) similarity in a name, and (b) a personal recollection so vague that it could be wrong, (c) a speculation given above that could be wrong.
I can be more and more sure of the top half of my attribution in #5. There is only one “DSH” in San Francisco who writes in that writing style, on these topics.
(And Stephen, so much for my being “oblivious” 😉 )
If that’s the case, in_the_middle, raise a voter proposition to repeal Proposition 22. Put your money where your mouth is instead of trying to use the courts or the absurdly-unrepresentative California Assembly to do your dirty work. Put it to the voters and see how it holds up.
Meanwhile, as for Gregg, I’m still waiting for you to explain whether or not you think John Kerry’s call to ban gay marriage in Massachusetts and his support of other state antigay constitutional amendments qualifies.
Direct democracy run by direct marketers.
HAVE ANY OF YOU SO-CALLED “CONSERVATIVES” READ YOUR EFFING BURKE?
Jesus christ. I’m a liberal, and even I can figure out what your ideological principles should be better than you.
Civil rights are worth defying the majority for, especially when it’s an elected legislature and not a court.
(this “Joe” isn’t me)
(I meant, the above “Joe”)
Of course, the legislature can circumvent the governor’s veto and put the issue on the ballot as a referendum for the people of California to vote on directly — with no threat of executive veto. The advantage to doing it this way is to demonstrate that public support has really changed.
Let’s see how many Hispanic legislators will still support such a measure, since gay rights, and gay-inclusive marriage in particular, seem especially problematic with catholic Hispanic voters. It was only because of the Hispanic legislators’ last-minute vote changes that got the measure to the governor in the first place.
It’s relatively easy to vote for something someone has promised in advance to veto; it’s also easy to pass difficult law through omnibus laws that often camoflage matters. Either way, one’s vote doesn’t count against them with their constituency. But if these same legislators have the courage of their convictions, let them place the very same proposal on the ballot as a proposition in an upcoming election — say 2006, the next general election.
Are we really convinced that at least 10% of the electorate has changed its mind in just five years? If so, the above scenario will test the truth.
I am a Christian conservative who thinks that he should sign this bill. This is why.
Hi Glen,
Read your post quickly, and I am not sure we agree on some underlying points of fact. In order:
– I believe Ahnuld has already vetoed the bill (not “plans to”).
– Just to be clear – Ahnuld is not proposing a new vote. (In his mind, 5 years after a decisive 61-38 defeat for an idea isn’t enough time for the issue to be considered ‘open’ with the voters.)
– This is open to interpretation, but I really don’t think Clinton signed DOMA against his judgment, because polls said to. I think he signed DOMA because he himself, Clinton, really agreed with it. I think you’re making the same mistake as gay liberals, i.e., thinking “Clinton must be secretly on the side of gay equality.” Too many actions have accumulated to prove he’s not.
– Ahnuld does have convictions and, if not a wonderul leader, has been somewhat better and more consistent than Gray Davis was. I say this as a CA resident. Ahnuld’s convictions have to do with bringing back economic opportunity and common-sense government; solving CA’s awful budget crisis (which he did, with help from the Bush economy); reining in out-of-control bureaucracies and legislators and unions; etc. Also, Ahnuld is moderately (but consistently) pro-environment.
Regarding gay marriage, I believe the following is Ahnuld’s position. He was in a restaurant, and somebody asked him. He said “I have no position.” The person made a comment about him perhaps ducking. He looked them in the eye and said, “No, you don’t understand. I REALLY have no position. I REALLY don’t care what happens with this issue, one way or the other. Whichever side wins is fine with me.” (Quotes not exact.)
Now, I say that is a kind of position and conviction. His position/conviction is that he would rather spend his Governorship on other things – like, again, making a better environment for business and job creation, or the natural environmental (within reason). His message to gay marriage supporters and opponents alike is, “I’m explicitly not one of you. I explicitly DON’T care.” The politician’s usual message is “I care!” (even if he totally doesn’t and is phony), making Ahnuld a rarity in today’s world.
In conclusion – I do think Ahnuld should have signed from the standpoint that gay marriage is the right thing to do. And, somewhat in conflict with myself, I’m also relieved that he didn’t – because it would have provoked a real backlash – a “bigger” California action against gay marriage, perhaps a CA Constitutional amendment, and/or perhaps banning the civil unions / domestic partner laws we already have.
We (gay marriage supporters) need more time to get people used to the idea. I think Ahnuld has been clear and consistent in his position, even if it’s not the one I wanted, and at least he hasn’t stoked the fires of the backlash.
Afterthoughts – Ahnuld has his own “reform agenda” of initiatives on the California ballot this November. If you’re looking for a selfish angle – i.e., how would Ahnuld benefit politically from what he did? – The one proposal that makes sense to me would be if Ahnuld were simply trying to defuse the gay issue or make it less important this November – so as to keep his own agenda front and center. That would be consistent with his other behavior/principles I’ve mentioned.
I believe Ahnuld has already vetoed the bill (not “plans to”).
According to a press release from this monring – he has only planned to veto it – Yahoo story
This is open to interpretation, but I really don’t think Clinton signed DOMA against his judgment, because polls said to. I think he signed DOMA because he himself, Clinton, really agreed with it. I think you’re making the same mistake as gay liberals, i.e., thinking “Clinton must be secretly on the side of gay equality.” Too many actions have accumulated to prove he’s not.
This is so true, I have made this arguement with my liberal gay friends time and time again – Democrats are not as “gay friendly” as they like to make us think – Kerry is another great example – he was in favor of the Massachusetts amendment to ban gay marriage.
Democrats are our (gay people) friends when they are behind closed doors and collected a check at a fundraiser, but once they are out of site, they change their tune. I know – not all are – but is the ones that matter that bother me ie. Clinton and Kerry
Oh – and don’t forget about “don’t ask, don’t tell” signed by our dear friend, DEMOCRAT Bill Clinton
Okay, but do you really think that a constitutional amendment would pass in California?
It aint exactly the Bible belt you know.
Actually, in regards to Clinton. I don’t think he believes in anything, except interns.
The anti-gay-marriage initiative in 2000 passed by a 61-38 margin.
I think it was sort of “ordinary law”. I think CA Constitutional amendments can also be passed by initiative; but I’m not sure if they need special qualifying requirements, or a super-majority, or anything like that. Someone who knows more should step in here.
north dallas thirty: why is this somehow my dirty work?
in your distorted world, you believe majorities rule in every case. if you’d care to read some of the framers intent (particularly mr. james madison), you’d note the discomvert with the mob rule you seem to believe is the only way for a law to change.
question: if the california legislature (which has had elections in 2002 and 2004) does not represent the people (i know, there is that representative democracy stuff you don’t seem to get, but i’ll try to keep it simple), who does?
if they are not elected to pass laws, then i’m sorry, can you tell me again who is?
oh wait, you’re in favor of mob rule. i forgot. sorry.
i meant discomfort, not whatever mush i typed above. sorry.
So what you’re saying is that the vote of several dozen elected representatives of the people, is enough to overrule an actual vote by (millions of) the people themselves.
Well, I guess it makes sense if you’re a liberal.
yeah, i’m a huuuuge liberal.
my point, frank ibc, is that there continues to be this denial of the existence of a representative government. fine, if that makes you feel good (maybe read this to help with your constitutional law. north dallas could maybe use the lesson.
if people had the chance after 2000 not only to CHANGE THEIR MINDS (is 15% not enough for you? ask karl rove if he wants 15% bumps in the polls?) but to ELECT PEOPLE TO MAKE LAWS THAT REPRESENT THEM, then how again is this not about representative government?
quick. and avoid the name calling or assuming i’m a liberal (cuz i ain’t).
don’t like what your reps passed? throw em out. pass another initiative to overturn their law. whatever. (or you can call it ‘dirty’ work and ask that the people whom prop 22 was acted to discriminate against, overturn it, but the two issues, again, are technically not in conflict)
sure, it might have negative consequences. and this screaming for over a year by gaypatriot and north dallas and others about this so-called backlash has simply been a blip (they continue to ignore massachussetts shifts in opinion, and didn’t even so much as sniff at spain or canada’s laws, because it would expose the fallacies outright).
It’s all about making whatever arguments seem good, Frank. I don’t think there’s any rhyme or consistency to in_the_middle’s arguments.
On another issue where a voter initiative had favored gay rights, and the Legislature voted against, I’m sure in_the_middle would be making totally different arguments, and insulting us gratuitously (without knowing our real views) as elitists out to deny democracy.
The bottom line is:
(a) California voted overwhelmingly against gay marriage in 2000.
(b) In bucking that after only 5 short years, the Legislature may be wrong….or they may be right….We won’t know until the next voter initiative…
(c) Which is coming soon. An initiative is in the works to repeal all civil unions, domestic partners, etc. Defeating that initiative won’t necessarily be a voter affirmation of gay marriage (as voters may simply want to preserve civil unions); but it would re-open the question. Conversely, passing that initiative would re-affirm the 2000 voter statement against gay marriage.
#24 – There is only one poll that counts, in_the_middle, and that’s the one on Election Day. If there is one thing the Bush administration has shown consistently, it’s that they don’t care about all the dumb little polls in between – only the Election Day one.
(#26 mentioning Bush Administration and polls in response to your Karl Rove comment)
Please take the time to educate yourself on California law prior to making your statements, in_the_middle.
Here, in pungent prose, is the issue (emphasis mine).
Proposition 22, approved by 61 percent of the voters in March 2000, declared, in full: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Because it was passed by initiative, it can’t be amended without another public vote, under state constitutional rules that protect the public’s right to make laws at the ballot box.
Furthermore, farther down….
In a ruling in April that upheld new rights for domestic partners in California, the Court of Appeal in Sacramento said Prop. 22 “ensures … that California will not permit same-sex partners to validly marry within the state.” Unless the issue is submitted to the voters, the court added, “the Legislature cannot change this absolute refusal to recognize marriages between persons of the same sex.”
The entire argument of the looney left in pushing this is that Californians only meant Proposition 22 to apply to out-of-state marriages and not to in-state ones — in short, California cannot recognize gay marriages from out of state, but can recognize ones in-state, without violating Proposition 22.
What it means is that Leno has sniffed too much of his own hairspray and has gotten people like yourself, whose analysis of law begins and ends with “I hate Republicans”, to argue that Californians should a) be denied their state constitutional rights and b) be subject to a lunatic interpretation of what is a very clear statute.
I think if this was ‘using the gay marriage to bash the governator’ that others have mentioned a) It gives a real disservice to people fighting for gay marriage, and seperate but equal types like moi. and b) could backfire on the legislature, that ballot to have a neutral party draw the maps is still on there isn’t it?
As an aside, I heard that there’s a movement in MA to ammend the constitution to remove gay marriage from there. Anyone know anything about that?
yes, livewire, that little massachussetts ballot initiative is being pushed by mit romney, although the polls have suggested (or the public opinion that people here want to use as a reason that it’s ‘too much too soon’ for gay marriage but also want to dismiss it ‘it only matters on election day’) that people in mass. are actually okay with gay marriage. from the boston globe article linked above:
oh goodness, that sure doesn’t back up the ‘backlash’ theory, now does it, north dallas?
but that’s just me. i hate republicans. and kittens, too. and north dallas thirty always does his research before he starts calling people petty names. but he’s too busy picking and choosing paragraphs from news analysis that even contradict his conclusions (perhaps hoping people would take his egregious linking habit as proof he’s right about something):
sure, narrow definition. but not this conclusiveness you’ve jumped all over. the article goes on to state “California courts have not yet defined Prop. 22 conclusively.”
no, we’ll still talk about ‘backlash’, even though this dp initiative that is coming up for vote in CA was brought up by the same people gay patriot and north dallas thirty have defended as only being ‘against marriage’ (oops, they actually are just against gays having ANY rights), and as long as we didn’t ASK TOO MUCH TOO SOON, they would let us keep domestic partnerships…. uh huh.
maybe take some time to read some other opinion, livewire, about ‘will of the people’ here, here, and here. further thoughts on this ‘too much too soon’ crowd and some alternative thinking can be found here. (and no, i’m not the owner of that blog, just an admirer of folks who are not too chickensh*t to walk outside their party’s line, especially when they are boxed into a corner by it).
but then again, apparently i start and end my arguments by saying i hate republicans. did i mention puppies?
also, ndt: you didn’t answer my question about your thoughts on representational government in california and just what these elected officials (considering the two elections since prop 22 passed) are supposed to be doing?
link away.
for some reason, perhaps i’m being penalized for linking to other blog entries, i’m not able to post a comment that is showing up in the comments section when you click on the permalink…. oh well.
In theory, in_the_middle, we won’t be able to answer the question until the 2006 election cycle. Let’s see how far said bill gets next year when Assembly members are actually accountable to their districts, just like it’s died every other time it’s been brought up.
Also, if it’s so “representative”, why was Leno unable to bring this up except as an unrelated attachment to another bill? Couldn’t it stand a committee or floor vote?
you can read the comment in gp’s permalink of this post, north dallas thirty, because it has some pungent prose right back at you, and i think you oughta read it. you too, livewire 😉
as far as ‘representative’ goes, here is the explanation. no different than what happens at the national level. and last time it failed by a mere 4 votes.
saying that this shows it isn’t representative is disingenouous and immaterial. the fact is the vote happened. the representatives, however much you feel they are ‘unaccountable’, voted.
and, north dallas, i suppose people who voted for bush or some other politician and have since dropped their support of said politician makes them ‘unaccountable’ right now as well?
more here.
So you’re saying that the vote of the people themselves is less important than the vote of their representatives who are supposed to be representing them.
Cla-a-a-a-a-a-ro…..
Why not just have representatives elect themselves, since the vote of the people doesn’t matter?
#37 aren’t we almost there with the gerymandering (by both parties)
in-the-middle (can I call you Malcom?) I’m not sure what you’re referring to in the permalink. I don’t know what would bother me more from that comment from NRO if I were a ‘gay marriage now’ kind of guy; That it was introduced to score points on Arnie, or that people jumped ship to score points on Arnie. It would be like if someone entered an honesty in government bill here in Ohio, not because they believed in accountability, but because they wanted to score points on Taft. (and don’t get me started on Taft)
Sadly, even though I’m 100% in favor of gay marriage, it’s hard to argue that the proposed gay marriage law flatly contradicted Proposition 22.
What’s particular great about things like Proposition 22, of course, is it allows anti-gay-marriage types to dodge the issue. Rather than having to say, “Well, I’m against gay marriage because gay marriage will damage straight marriage in some hypothetical and completely unspecified way,” they can just appeal to the infinite and superior wisdom of the voter. “Oh, well, my opinion is utterly and completely irrelevant and the voters are always right and the voters have never in the history of California made a decision with which I do not agree (except of course returning Democratic majorities to both houses of the legislature year after year). Otherwise, the voters are Solomon-like in their awe-inspiring wisdom. Nothing to do with me. Let’s not talk about it.”
There’s such a thing as a bad law.
Posted too fast. “… it’s hard to argue that the proposed gay marriage law did not flatly contradicted Proposition 22.”
frank, you know full well i’m not saying that. but gp and ndt and apparently you are saying that there is no legitimacy in an elected representative’s vote. you can read the prop 22 as you choose, ndt is wrong that it has been decisively cemented by the courts (in fact, just read the link he provided and you can see he picked and chose his favorite lines)
while i am no fan of the cal. legislature, the passing of legislation is not illegal in california, nor is it to be dismissed with the wave of a hand whining about ‘will of the people’, because the ‘people’ elected these folks (two elections between prop 22 and now), and while voter initiative can certainly overturn laws in california, laws passed in the legislature are not de facto subject to a majority rule.
in this case, it’s a majority, incidentally, that has very much eroded in five years, and the ability to get enough votes in california’s state house indicates things have changed there as well (you can spare me the ‘accountability’ baloney: that’s what elections are for in every corner of this country).
my initial point was addressing what gay patriot posted about ‘timing’ and the sad fact that many here both want to dismiss polls as immaterial BUT refer to the five year old one at the same time as if it’s some sort of static gauge of sentiment in that state… and further compare it to issues of material importance to every homeowner in california (prop 13) as if the two can be conflated.
while i see lots of silver lining with arnold’s feeble and politcal (arguably poll based, ahem) maneuver, the far right (and many on this blog) continue to move the goal posts for reasons i don’t quite comprehend, including what constitutes ‘good timing’. some call it self-loathing, but i would just say it’s a combination of reflexive cheerleading for their party wonks at all cost combined with a dash of constitutional and american civics denial. my hope that most people will be more honest like boi from troy, who basically said ‘this is not the guy i voted for’.
i’m not a ‘gay marriage now’ kind of a guy. but i’m also not a ‘mob rule’ guy, nor am i subscribing to this fallacy of inherent backlashes (the sheer proof lies in massachussetts with 56% now in favor of gay marriage in that state), because the extreme zealots on the right were, before this vote, already busily working to pass a law in california that is not ‘just about marriage’, but about removing rights that have existed in california for years without harm.
fantasy: it’s just about marriage (gosh, guys, if we’d just been nice, shut up, not held hands in public, or had been nicer to the governator…. someday we could get 100% in favor of us, really!)
reality: it’s all about bigotry.
Posted too fast. “… it’s hard to argue that the proposed gay marriage law did not flatly contradicted Proposition 22.”
Comment by Christophe
======================
So if Arnold wanted to have those activist judges make the decision, he should sign it and let the appeals fly.
So if Arnold wanted to have those activist judges make the decision, he should sign it and let the appeals fly.
Yes, he should have. But that was never, ever going to happen.
You know what?
I realized it’s been MONTHS since I’ve uttered the phrase “Sheep Marriage”.
🙂
In the middle: you’re fighting a losing battle here. The Patsies, who are by and large, just as good a folk as any, simply picked the wrong political party (or had it picked for them at birth) — much like a kid settles somehow on a baseball team and forever after, finds it impossible to let go, no matter what. They’re stuck with the GOP now, arguing for anything it stands for. You should have been here to read them defending the absolute indefensible position for gay people: Bush’s proposal for a Constitutional amendment to forever ban marriage equality. That’s all you need to know about where they’re at. God bless them, there are some smart ones I’d love to have a beer with and argue this stuff (just as I sometimes do with two of my best friends — both straight, both GOP, and both far more supportive of marriage equality than any of our Patsie friends). But the Patsies are frozen in this GOP stuff and not likely to change. So, again, it’s a losing battle.
I realized it’s been MONTHS since I’ve uttered the phrase “Sheep Marriage”
Thirty slaps with a pair of lanolin-scented underwear for you.
Some wierd arguments on separation-of-powers (people-legislature-governor-courts) going on here.
Frank (#23) — Yes, of course the vote of “several dozen elected representatives” overrules the vote of “the people themselves” when we’re talking about writing laws — unless the California constitution explicitly states otherwise (I’m hearing conflicting things on this, and haven’t researched it myself — the California Supreme Court might have had to rule on this.). That’s the system we’ve got — and for good reasons.
Where’d you stand on the 2000 election, when “the People” voted for Gore (popular vote) but their elected representatives (the electoral college) voted for Bush?
Whether the legislators ought to overrule the electorate on this specific issue is a number of different questions (should the state recognize same-sex marriage; is this strategically the way to get there and keep it; is this in the political interest of an individual legislator, etc..) — but certainly they have the legal authority to pass unpopular laws, and not pass very popular ones.
.
In_The_Middle (do you prefer ITM, item, or the previously-proposed Malcolm?)-
Three points.
First, While the legislators are indeed elected to perform this function (passing laws for the people) — the Governor is also elected to perform this function (signing some laws and vetoing others).
I absolutely wish the Governor had signed this bill (though I might have come to regret wishing that, if he had)… but the reason he gave (Prop. 22) is perfectly reasonable — in fact, it would have been perfectly reasonable if he’d said, “I was elected Governor, and I think this is the wrong law at this time.” Particularly reasonable given that the electorate is about to revisit the issue.
Second, while there are absolutely bigots involved in this debate, it’s absolutely not the case that everyone who comes down on the anti-left side of any vote on gay rights is a bigot. The reality most certainly is not that this is all about bigotry, especially in California.
Third, in regards to goalpost-shifting and cries of “not yet!” — this isn’t the exclusive preserve of the right. Recall when Mayor Newsome started issuing marriage certificates in San Francisco (for Valentine’s Day, no less — the Winter of Love). I said then, and continue to believe, that this was a brilliant protest — it completely reframed the public picture of the debate, from S&M perverts wanting to mock a sacred institution to happy couples in tuxedoes lined up for days in the rain desperate for recognition of their families. Barney Frank, of all people, was screaming that it was bad timing. I suppose he’s an apologist for the “Religious Reich”?
Reader-
For the record… like a large number of Republicans (and relatively fewer Democrats) I grew up in the other party. I began to switch around the middle of President Clinton’s first term in office.
Part of growing up is assessing your political and religious beliefs independently of what authority figures (parents, teachers, dominatrixes, and so on) tell you to believe.
Part of growing up is assessing your political and religious beliefs independently of what authority figures (parents, teachers, dominatrixes, and so on) tell you to believe.
A point that will probably be lost on people who do nothing but copy/paste Talking Points from the DNC, Michael Moore, the NYT editiorial page, and Daily Kos.
In_The_Middle (do you prefer ITM, item, or the previously-proposed Malcolm?)
How about “Unlucky Pierre”? 🙂
I have to say I agree with Clint on pretty much everything he said. Well spoken.
I understand and sympathize with those frustrated by America’s inclination to marginalize anyone who’s not a Bible-carrying homophobe. Let’s face facts: In the last election cycle, all anti-gay-inclusive marriage referenda passed handily. The only close state was Oregon. Politically, gays still haven’t mustered clout with the voters who still cite Leviticus as their raison d’etre for denying gays equality. (I wish we would throw Deuteronomy 21:18-21 back in their faces, but we seem too impotent to do even that.)
The last time I looked at the Federal Constitution, especially the 14th Amendment, I didn’t notice any clause that said, “except homosexuals.” One would think that our strength as a minority, indeed the strength of all minorities, is in equal protection and due process for all Americans. You’d think the Constituion was our best friend. Yet, with the originalist (cf., literalist) mindset of Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas (Kennedy and O’Connor have shown movement), we can’t even get the guarantees enshrined for us mustered in the most fundamental document of our country. Ergo, politically and judicially, we’ve been screwed. I can only hope that Roberts will show some fortitude in seeing that the Constitution is colorless, genderless, and orientationless. But let’s not die holding our breath.
So, with both the political and judicial avenues for equality blocked, we must work with those who are our allies, whether conservative, liberal, or independent. Schwarzenegger has demonstrated his alliance and may have signed the bill he vetoed IF (1) the bill hadn’t tried to overwrite the State Constitution, which it can’t, and (2) if he had some idea how the state’s judiciary is going to rule on several gay-inclusive cases presently before it. I know this upsets the orthodoxy of some to always blame others, but frankly I think we all know that the bill sent to him could not do what it intended to do, viz., circumvent the initiative process. At some point, WE need to take the matter back to the state’s voters with an initiative that has a good chance of passing. The present polls are not sufficiently comforting, but they’ve shown movement. So hope is not lost.
Meanwhile, Schwarzenegger has been with us on several fronts: He signed into law THREE pro-gay bills in the last year, including the most progressive domestic partner law in the country. If he was trying to appeal to his conservative base, believe me, those bills did just the opposite, and the religious reich is furious with him. That’s why they’re in the process of circumventing both him and the legislature by starting a virulently homophobic initiative that not only decries gay-inclusive marriage, but would repeal the domestic partners. I think it would be a grave mistake to write-off the governor in our cause. Whether or not he’s 100% behind us, he’s accomplished much more than Gray Davis did. Based on his record, not some ideation of it, he’s demonstrated his support for gay-rights. Let’s not go off the deep end over a futile matter in the first place.
Also, let’s not stab one of our best supporters in the back for doing what was reasonable under the circumstances. Even if Leno doesn’t know that one can’t reverse a voter initiative by legislative fiat, the governor does. And when the time is right, in the not-so-distant future, when there are enough of us to get our own initiative on the ballot, we can take equality to the voters too. But let’s make sure there are enough of “them” to support us. Otherwise, we waisted precious political capital. And we can point to the success with domestic partners and say: See, we can improve YOUR marriage.
Lastly, I know we’re an impatient lot, and we have a right to be. Equality is nothing to cavil over. It’s our birthright as Americans. Unfortunately, many Americans are more loyal to their Bibles than to our Constitution. For heaven’s sake, a plurality still believe gawd created earth in six days, despite overwhelming facts and theory of evolution that demonstrate the contrary. If they won’t accept mainstream science, how can we expect them to support equal rights for all? We have a major P.R. campaign ahead of us. Let’s continue to be forceful, but realistic. Let’s never surrender, but also be wise. We have a lot of bigotry and intolerance to overcome, but it will come. Canada, Holland, Spain, and Belgium are just the beginning.
You should have been here to read them defending the absolute indefensible position for gay people: Bush’s proposal for a Constitutional amendment to forever ban marriage equality.
Go ahead and link to that, Reader.
Meanwhile, I will be glad to show you gay people defending the indefensible, as in protecting Democrats who voted for the FMA and MPA — and then you gushing over the actions of these individuals.
It’s amazing how these liberal Democrats are so quick to fling phrases like “defending the indefensible” and make vague insinuations about “you should have seen them doing this”, but ignore their own.
Politically, gays still haven’t mustered clout with the voters who still cite Leviticus as their raison d’etre for denying gays equality. (I wish we would throw Deuteronomy 21:18-21 back in their faces, but we seem too impotent to do even that.)
The problem is, DSH, as I blogged yesterday……..what is equality and what isn’t depends entirely upon the political party of the person doing it.
Succintly put, a Republican vetoing a gay marriage bill is antigay and awful; a Democrat supporting state constitutional amendments to block and strip gays of marriage rights is “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
#53 – Nicely written Stephen and I totally agree with your conclusion….Ahnuld is not the devil, gays need 2-party progress and let’s get it, etc.
I do think your first 2 paragraphs over-emphasize the negative, or express the blame/victim mentality that you decry a few paragraphs later. As a balance to that, let’s take a look at how the glass is half-full.
– I never thought I would see civil unions in my lifetime. They’ve started.
– I never seriously thought we would be talking about gay marriage in my lifetime. (When I started thinking and advocating about this issue in the mid-90s, I was largely alone). Now we are. And Massachusetts has done it.
– I never thought I would see the invalidation of all sodomy laws in my lifetime. It happened.
– I was not at all sure we would win Romer v. Evans. It happened, and a man who volunteered to help formulate and coach the Equal Protection arguments in our favor is now Bush’s nominee for Chief Justice.
– I never thought I would see all that gay-friendly TV in my lifetime.
– I never thought I would see a religious candidate for President switch from saying, “Homosexuality is caused by sin / personal choice”, to saying “None of us can say what causes it and we must treat everyone with respect, including gays”. The latter being what Bush said (in sense – not the exact quote) when asked “What causes homosexuality?” in a 2004 Presidential debate.
Bottom line:
– America is shifting, slowly but surely, in our favor. It is already way different than 15 years ago.
– We aren’t “judicially and politically screwed” or however you put it.
A country where gays are screwed would be Iran, where we are strung up to die. Or any Islamo-fascist country (take your pick). That’s part of the reason I love America, and part of the reason I support the war on Islamo-fascism.
Now, do I like it that states passed anti-MARRIAGE (not anti-gay) amendments? No way. I’m just advising myself and others to look at the big picture. The people of different states can take as long as they want to, in a federal system, to get used to gay marriage. Their position against it is wrong…..And because it’s wrong, and younger generations know it, we will eventually win it all. I don’t care if we have to call it “civil unions” or not for 30 years while the process unfolds.
Oh, and P.S. – now that I agree with you, you can shoot the choir 😉
Let’s get over the political party affiliation nonsense. George Pataki, William Weld, and Rudi Guiliani are all pro-gay rights and Republicans. Conversely, the ones who want to enshrined gay discrimination into the Constitution are also Republicans, i.e., GWB’s constitutional amendment crap. And add insult to injury, the once favorably-disposed McCain has now been exposed for his hypocrisy.
The Democrats, on the other hand, have not been especially keen on gay rights either. Kerry opposed gay marriage in MA. Hilary Clinton is on record supporting heterosexual-only marriage. Bill Clinton, while his heart was in the right place, but with his head in the wrong place, came up with the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell compromise. Yes, a number of Democrats have supported gay equality, but their poll numbers have never been legion.
Equal gay rights are obviously transcendent of particular party politics. And party politics, not individual agendas, are what work in this country. And neither party has a stellar record on gay equality. If anything, it’s been Republicans who have actually gotten the most positive legislative agendas accomplished, but given their alliance with the religious reich, I’m not sure there’s much future there. But let’s not cut off our noses to spite our faces. That’s why I admire the Log Cabin Republicans; despite party hostility, they’re in-your-face, I’m here, and I’m queer, politics.
Yes, we have accomplished a great deal, but until there is equality, all these “other” accomplishments are relatively superficial. And achieving equality will take perserverance and supporting those who support us. Obviously, not all of us are one-issue individuals. But until equality is ours, we must befriend every politico that looks our way, regardless of our other agendas.
OK, opening myself up to flames here, so I ask for kindness.
Re: The various DOMA ammendments
I can only speak for the Ohio ammendment (since I live here I studied it extensively) and I voted for it. The consitution of Ohio is (surprisingly) easy to amend, IMNSHO, and I found that reserving the right to redefine marriage, seemed to outweigh the arguements against the amendment. Specifically the arguments that it would ruin any form of domestic contract was invalid, since the DOMA has the exact same language. I’d also be one of the first to sign the petition to recend the amendment. I’ve said before, I’m in the seperate but equal camp. *shrug* I have a lve e-mail address, if you want to get into my thougts, please feel free to e-mail me
Oh, and Clint,
a) if the mayor of SF had been arrested for breaking the law in making those marriage certificates, do you think he should have gone quietly, ala MLK, or fought?
b) I find it funny that someone can say religious reich and S&M perverts in the same post. Some of us belong in one, the other, or both catagories. 🙂 It’s also a straw man. S&M types can, and do, get married.
Please don’t take any of the above as personal attacks. They aren’t meant so, and I’m trying to be civil.
Livewire-
b) Sorry if I was unclear. I was talking in shorthand about the changing perception of the issue in mainstream America. If you asked a typical middle-aged woman in Iowa in 1980 what came to mind when she thought about “gay marriage” she might have expressed it as “S&M perverts mocking a sacred institution,” framing the anti-gay bigots as ordinary folks just trying to protect marriage from “those sickos”. The onset of marriage in Mass. and the protest in SF (and in several small towns in the Northeast over the last few years…) both put pictures on the nightly news of two average men in tuxedoes sharing one of the happiest moments of their lives. Any decent person knows to smile fondly and say “congratulations”. Pan across the street to the hateful bigots, exposed to the light of day.
Anyway — shorter answer: Of course I have nothing at all against “S&M perverts.” (Except the ones that think Dennis Kucinich would be a great President. *shudder*) Don’t be silly.
Livewire-
a) Interesting question. (Short answer: MLK)
Legally, I’m fairly sure there is no statute under which he could have been arrested. If it’s true (as it probably is) that he had no legal authority to issue those marriage licenses, then the legal remedy is to get a judge to issue a restraining order. (This was done, and he obeyed the order — had he not, then he could have been arrested. But much of the point was to have that order issued, so he could challenge it in court — this case is still working its way up to the California Supreme Court.)
In practice, if state police had shown up at City Hall with a valid arrest warrant, of course he would have gone along peacefully. (See, for example, his obedience to the restraining order, which he knew was coming.)
Politically, of course, that would never have happened.
But if it had — the spectacle of State police taking San Francisco’s mayor out of City Hall in handcuffs for supporting gay rights — the same City Hall where less than thirty years earlier Mayor George Moscone and Harvey Milk were shot and killed (symbolically, at least, by the police) for their support of gay rights — would have resulted in immediate riots. The symbolism would just have been too powerful.
If you don’t know that story — shame on you, google Harvey Milk and learn about your heritage.
#58 – “…achieving equality will take perserverance and supporting those who support us…”
Which includes patriotism – Supporting the American people has a whole. Why? You can look at the difference between a George Bush (who wants an FMA) and a Howard Dean (who played a key role in Vermont civil unions, for which I’m grateful, whatever kind of ugly monstrosity Dean has devolved into) and it seems large. And so we get these screaming, ranting posts from the victim-minded in these forums (not yours here, but others) about how poor our situation is, politically and judicially. But I look at a different comparison. In no way, shape or form does George Bush want to kill us. Anyone who claims he does is a crazy, pathetic drama queen; I will call them that here and now; it’s that obvious. It’s far more interesting and important to compare Americans generally with true gay-haters and gay-killers, namely, Islamo-fascists. On a “world scale of homophobia”, where Howard Dean is a 1 and Islamo-fascists are a 10, George Bush is, in reality, a 2 at most. Now, Fred Phelps is a 10, but (a) he’s in no way mainstream, (b) as Wikipedia tells us, Phelps is if anything connected to Gore – i.e., not to Bush.
So mainstream American politics today encompasses relatively little homophobia – “relatively little” compared to real homophobes, like the Islamo-fascists – and I, for one, am glad about that. So I support America in its long-term fight with the IFs. If gay rights is truly my concern (and it is), any other course would be insanely dumb and wrong.
Prop 22 was a democratic process. The assemblymembers are elected, so their vote is part of the democratic process, as is the Gov’s veto. If Californians support gay marriage, they will vote for an amendment that establishes it. The assembly’s vote shows typical liberal contempt for the public, like their bill to allow drivers licenses for illegals, which Arnold will also veto. All they’re doing is ensuring his reelection.
The assembly is also pissed about Arnold’s support for a ballot measure calling for tough tracking of sex offenders. Carole Migden, the Stalinist assemblydyke from SF, gave away the game by sniffing that such issues should be handled by the enlightened legislature, NOT the voters. Proving once again that liberals despise populism
Joe-
Good point. (on Patriotism)
Clint, I’m familiar with Harvey Milk a bit. That said, I don’t quite think of it as ‘my heritage’. *shrug* Wonder Woman is closer to my heritage 🙂
and I didn’t take offence, just struck me as funny to see those two together.
I am glad that the mayor did back down, since I’m not big on anarchy.
Ok, it’s after 11:00 and my brain’s shutting down, thank you for your patience. 🙂