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.

Good point. (on Patriotism)

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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”.

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.

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.

How about “Unlucky Pierre”?

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.

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.

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”?

Thirty slaps with a pair of lanolin-scented underwear for you.