Not normally in favor of legislation which limits our freedom, I find myself in an odd position today, delighted about a new California law banning the use of handheld cellphones when driving taking effect. While many Golden State drivers have learned to operate a motor vehicle while talking on their phones, all too many cannot. Their erratic driving increases traffic for their fellow drivers and threatens the safety of their fellow citizens.

It’s unfortunate that this law will prevent such drivers from using this skill they’ve acquired, allowing them to multi-task on the road. But, having lived in LA now for nearly nine years, I’ve seen the problem getting ever worse over the years, with other drivers, indeed, an increasing number of such drivers talking on their cell phones while slowing down traffic and risking other people’s lives.

And I’m not the only one.

Friends complain about drivers missing lights because they’re chatting away. Just a few weeks ago, I found myself following a pickup truck lumbering along a residential street at about 10-15 MPH. When I finally passed the guy, he was busy talking on his cellphone while barely paying attention to the road.

And there was the woman who couldn’t make a tight enough turn and nearly hit a pedestrian standing on a street corner. (He fortunately had the foresight to step back.) Or another woman who couldn’t control her car as she made a similar turn, nearly hitting a car whose driver (not on the phone as she) has the sense to swerve before she arrived in his lane, weaving all the while.

It would be nice if the state could just use existing laws on distracted driving to cite such individuals. Or perhaps offer a test requiring an individual to show proficiency in driving while on the phone before getting a permit to do so.

Sometimes, however, laws are necessary to promote safety. This, I believe, is one of those times.

(more…)

Along with Jonathan Rauch, Dale Carpenter is one of those rare advocates of gay marriage who can make a compelling case for “this expansion of the meaning of marriage” (as the editors of the LA Times puts it) to a conservative audience. (Basically, if you see Dale’s name on a column, just read the piece.)

Going through my accumulated e-mail (and finally emptying out all my e-mail boxes), I discovered a draft of a column Dale had written two weeks ago on the impact of the California Supreme Court decision mandating the Golden State recognize same-sex marriages. When I wrote him to commend him on the piece, he wrote back, pointing out that it (long since) been published.

Observing that “proposed amendment [defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman] was going to be on the ballot in November anyway,” Dale finds the “the main effect of the court’s decision has been to change the context in which the vote will occur:”

The question is, what effect will this reality have on voters? On the one hand, whatever they think of gay marriage, some voters may feel that it would be unfair to strip existing married couples of their rights. Voters may also be reassured by seeing that nothing bad happens when gay couples wed.

On the other hand, seeing gay couples actually marry may anger some voters. The sight of two men or two women kissing, no matter how joyous the occasion to those involved, is still shocking to a lot of people. They may vote “yes” as a way to stave off what they see as growing decadence and immorality. Five months just isn’t a lot of time to normalize what people have spent their entire lives believing is abnormal.

Other voters will be angry at what they see as judicial activism and vote “yes” as a way to rebuke the courts.

It’s impossible to predict now what the net political effect of all these gay nuptials will be. But it is possible to say what the stakes are.

Rather than have me tell you how Dale sees the stakes, click here and read it yourself. You may not agree with everything he has to say, but you will agree he understands the potential impact of the Supreme Court ruling — and the ballot initiative.

When working on his piece on presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain’s letter supporting Proposition 8 which would enshrine the traditional definition of marriage in the California constitution, LA Weekly writer Patrick Range McDonald contacted me for a comment on this decision.

As I considered my response, I came up with something a little longer than the sound-byte he may have sought. Given the time I took to craft the statement, I decided to include it below, but first wanted to comment on some of the things McDonald said in his article. Even though I don’t agree with everything he has to say (indeed take issue with the general thrust of his argument), I recommend you read in its entirety. He makes some good points and does so in a civil manner.

It’s nice to see a gay writer take on a Republican without the bile we are accustomed to see in such opinion pieces.

McCain may well, as McDonald puts it, be “making a national political play for fundamentalist Christians,” but the Arizona Senator has hardly blown any opportunity on the marriage issue, as McDonald suggests. Many people oppose gay marriage without harboring animosity toward gay people. The Hartford Courant noted as much in its article on gay marriage as the Connecticut legislature considered the state’s landmark civil unions legislation.

Simpy put, many people understand marriage as it has long been understood as the union of one man and one woman. And John McCain has been very clear to say he supports the traditional definition. In doing so, the presumptive Repubican nominee has also made clear his support of federalism and has refrained from attacking gay people as have all too many advocates of traditional marriage.

I focused on that in the statement I sent to McDonald (which I reprint here because he could not possibly have included all my thoughts in his post):

Obviously, I’d rather McCain had remained silent on the California ballot initiative on marriage. While he has shown a willingness to meet with gay people and showed some sensitivity to our concerns, he is not perfect on issues of concern to the gay community.

Remember, this is a man who attended the funeral of Mark Bingham, a gay man and hero of United Flight 93, and who wished Ellen DeGeneres “every happiness” in her relationship with Portia de Rossi. Indeed, in that interview, he, unlike some opponents of gay marriage, showed an understanding some of the basic issues involved in state recognition of marriage.

While, I — and many other gay Americans — applaud Senator McCain for leading the fight against a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage, we have long known he does not support state recognition of gay marriage. In 2006, he backed the Arizona ballot initiative which would not only have prevented the state from recognizing gay marriage, but would have also barred civil unions, a measure far more draconian than the one on this fall’s Golden State ballot limiting marriage to its traditional definition.

Support for such a measure is not inconsistent with opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment. He had opposed the latter because it would bar states from defining marriage. John McCain believes states should decide these issues. Right now, he’s just saying he believe the people of California should decide this issue — and not the courts.

Taking issue yesterday with Patrick Range McDonald’s criticism of the current campaign to defeat this fall’s California ballot proposition which would amend the state constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, Alex Blaze of the Bilerico Project suggests that Golden State LGBT activists are neither tone deaf nor political amateurs as McDonald claims. As proof of this, he points out that they “got same-sex marriage passed by the state legislature two times in the past several years.“

I will grant that state LGBT activists are hardly political amateurs, that is, when it comes to lobbying. They do a good job influencing elected officials Sacramento, but the legislature there is hardly a normal one.

Our state Senate districts are bigger than our congressional districts. Our state Assembly districts have (on average) only 50,000 fewer people than does the entire state of Wyoming. Our state House is one of the smallest while the state has a greatere population than any other. Montana, North Dakota and Vermont, each of which send one only Representative to the U.S. House, all have larger state Houses than does California which sends fifty-three.

And these districts are so gerrymandered that in the past two elections, not a single seat shifted sides.

As a result, we have a tone-deaf legislature where the Democratic majority continues to cook up new means to regulate the economy and increase the size of state government while facing fiscal crisis after fiscal crisis. There’s not enough money to pay for the programs already on the books, but instead of trying to reduce their costs, our legislators seek to invent new ones.

Just as they give short shrift to our financial woes, our legislatures also take little heed of the popular will. Twice they voted for gay marriage without once considering what the citizens, who had overwhelmingly voted against it, thought. Had they considered the people they represent, they would have referred the matter to them by putting a measure on the ballot repealing the measure the citizens favored (Proposition 22).

(more…)

In January, after attending a meeting the Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center announcing a new initiative, LetCaliforniaRing, to promote gay marriage in California, I faulted the group’s campaign video for doing little that is likely to “change minds.” Their campaign seemed designed not to those voters skeptical of changing the state definition of the institution to include same-sex couples, but to make gay activists and their supporters on their left feel good about themselves.

If those spearheading that initiative are in charge of the campaign to defeat the initiative on this fall’s ballot proposing to amend the state constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, the proposition is all but certain to pass.

I’m not alone in this belief. Pointing out that “gay activists have lost nearly every fight to stop gay marriage bans,” Patrick Range McDonald, who blogs at the LA Weekly, faults the language of the initiative’s opponents:

Equality For All seems to be rolling out a decidedly partisan message. On its web site, for example, the coalition repeatedly cites “extremists” and the “right-wing” as the enemy. (The Human Rights Campaign also sends out emails seeking donations with references to “our right-wing opponents.”) These are political buzz words that will undoubtedly turn off Republican voters, much in the same way Democrats see red whenever Republicans disparagingly say “liberal,” and the gays cannot afford to needlessly offend anyone–no matter what the current polls say.

It never really is a particularly good idea to insult the people whose votes you’re trying to win:

All in all, the fiery language suggests political amateurs or the politically tone deaf are currently running the show for the gays. Even worse, veterans of past gay marriage defeats may be at the helm.

In many cases, those “veterans” sought to demonize the proponents of the traditional definition of marriage. They may help them feel good about themselves by projecting their own insecurities on their ideological adversaries, but it won’t do much to make those currently wary of gay marriage feel good about about voting to change the longstanding definition of the institution.

The idea is to show why gay marriage is good not just for gay people, but for society at large. I’ve said this before. And so have others. Now, the idea is to turn this message into a political campaign, one that changes minds in order to win votes.

Those who read my marriage posts carefully will note that I, who love to use the George Eliotan “we” in my writing, don’t use that term as readily when discussing this institution. That is due, in large part, to my ambivalence on the issue.

While I favor some sort of state recognition of same-sex relationships, I’m not sure marriage is the right term to define them. As I have noted previously, the essence of this institution is establishing a lifelong bond between two individuals of different genders. Let me rephrase this and repeat the idea for emphasis, gender difference has long been a defining aspect of the marital bond.

At the same time, I have opposed all state referenda and initiatives so defining the institution. I believe such policies are gratuitous. I’ve always opposed unnecessary legislation such as this. Not just that, they more difficult for the various states to recognize same-sex partnerships.

Eight years ago when we Californians last voted on gay marriage, one could have voted against such a ballot proposition and opposed gay marriage.

With the initiative slated for this fall’s Golden State ballot, however, the situation has changed. This proposal would amend the state constitution to include the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and so overturn the state Supreme Court’s presumptuous decision.

A “no” vote (how I intend to mark my ballot) would serve to uphold that decision, giving us gay marriage in the Golden State. Thus, I will be effectively be voting for gay marriage. It is thus the first time when any state is really voting on gay marriage. “No” votes in other states would not have mandated gay marriage. The citizens of Arizona so voted and they don’t have gay marriage.

As I noted at the outset of this piece, when I have blogged on gay marriage, I have refrained from using the first person plural, thus not including myself among those advocating gay marriage and have defined its proponents as such (in the third person plural). But, in voting against this proposal and thus for gay marriage, have I thus become an advocate of this new definition of this ancient institution?

I have often noticed how big things happen when I’m out of town, or at least, things of significance to the scope of this blog.

I recently learned that Deborah Kerr, one of my favorite actresses, died while I was driving cross country last fall. Some of my friends from graduate school picked SuperDuper Tuesday as the night to see a modern theatrical representation of the Arthur myth/Grail Legend in Vegas.

Well, while I was away with some of those same friends socializing and doing research for my dissertation, we received confirmation that California would be voting on amending the state constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, thus overturning the recent California Supreme Court decision.

As you can imagine, I have much to say on this topic, primarily noting how that decision impacts this fall’s vote. I had long believed the proponents of this amendment would gather enough signatures to place their initiative on the Golden State ballot. Before the unfortunate ruling, the issue would have been simple: does such language belong in the state constitution? I believe it doesn’t. At the time, I thought the amendment had a good chance of being defeated.

Now, the issue has changed. A vote against the amendment now becomes a vote to keep that decision in place and hence in favor of gay marriage. Back in 2000, when we Californians voted on Proposition 22, many people opposed to gay marriage joined those in favor and ambivalent on the issue to vote against the Proposition because they believed it superfluous, given state statutes already defining the institution as the union of one man and one woman.

As the debate now moves from the court room to the public square, gay marriage advocates need retool their strategies. In the past, they have tailored their arguments to sway judges eager to issue landmark rulings, so earning themselves a place in history books while winning accolades from the media. Now, the task is to convince a populace less concerned with impressing liberal opinion makers, but familiar with the reality of this ancient institution.

(more…)

The California secretary of state confirmed yesterday that proponents of a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage have collected enough signatures for the measure to appear on the ballot this November, removing any doubt about whether or not California voters will be able to weigh in on the state Supreme Court’s recent ruling permitting same-sex marriage in the state.

Proponents of the measure needed to submit more than 1.1 million signatures to qualify for the ballot and the California secretary of state certified that a sufficient number of the gathered signatures were valid.

If voters approve the amendment, it would place in legal jeopardy any same-sex marriage licenses obtained in California after June 17, when California is slated to being issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. (Washington Blade)

Whether you agreed with the ruling by the California Supremes or not, the People will definitely have their say on same-sex marriage now. Whether the amendment wins or loses it’s in their hands to decide this issue for probably a generation. It is premature forcing a fight on this now in my estimation but it is upon us now and despite the perilous wisdom of all this: cry havoc, O Noble Harry, and loose the hounds. It almost feels like the Chinese curse has come alive and that we do indeed live in interesting times.

UPDATE (6/4/08): The California Supremes refuse to stay their ruling until after the November ballot. Look for a number of same-sex couples to marry in California now and the legal challenges to explode afterwards.

– John (Average Gay Joe)

Well, you just KNOW I salivated at this story on the California Gay Marriage issue in the LA Weekly!

California GOP:  The Queer Enablers of Gay Marriage - Patrick Range McDonald & Michael Fleischer

For two weeks [October 1991], queer Angelenos rebelled against a Republican governor [Pete Wilson] they believed had double-crossed them. But two months earlier, on July 29, 1991, Wilson made a crucial decision for the historic advancement of gay rights, something no one could have foreseen: He appointed Judge Ronald M. George to the California State Supreme Court. Nearly 17 years later, the moderate Republican jurist would become a national gay hero.

Last Thursday, it was George’s carefully written majority opinion that legalized same-sex marriage in California. By nightfall, at the same West Hollywood intersection where a dummy of Pete Wilson went up in flames, gay activists stood on a stage and publicly lauded the judge as “courageous.” Speaker after speaker also praised another Republican, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, for promising to “fight” against a November ballot measure that could still outlaw gay marriage in the Golden State.

<….>

Powerful Republicans, through happenstance and well-orchestrated public policy, were leading the charge for the legalization and defense of same-sex marriage in California. It was something state Democrats, the seemingly natural allies of the gay-rights movement, could never completely pull off.

You KNOW you want to read the whole thing now, don’t you!   Read it, READ IT! 

Bottom line for those popping champagne at the California court decision — in order to be true to reality, you must clink your glasses in honor of two Republican Governors — Wilson and Schwarzenegger.

Delicious, no?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

For the past few weeks, I have been letting my e-mail accumulate, saving most of the bulk mailings that cluttered my box as they might have some blog-worthy tid-bit. As I read through them this afternoon, I kept coming across stuff from various gay sources about the likely fall ballot proposition to amend our state’s constitution to define marriage as it has long been defined (as the union of one man and one woman) as well as releases on the California Supreme Court’s decision redefining that institution to include same-sex unions.

Before that decision, I thought the initiative had a 50-50 chance of passing. With the decision, I think the odds have increased for those who favor amending the constitution. And if the gay groups who sent out those e-mails have anything to do with the “No” campaign, the odds with increase even further.

Take a gander at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force’s (NGLTF) April 24 press release. It calls the petition drive a “mean-spirited attack.” If they think it’s mean-spirited, they have little understanding of their opposition on this issue. Yeah, there are some mean-spirited voices in the anti-gay marriage crowd, notably Randy Thomasson of VoteYesMarriage.com, but his group failed to gather enough signatures for a proposal which would have overturned the state’s domestic partnership program as well as limited marriage to different-sex couples.

Advocates of gay marriage must not forget that while the state may recognize gay marriage during the course of the campaign, they’re the ones pushing to change the way American jurisdictions, indeed world political institutions, have defined marriage for as long as they have recognized the institution. As I wrote before, the burden is on those proposing the change.

They need to recognize that most Californians who oppose gay marriage don’t do so out of bigotry or hatred but because they see insitution as the union of two individuals of different genders. Those who organize the campaign to defeat this proposition won’t get much mileage if they campaign against social conservatives. That may win them accolades in San Francisco, West Hollywood, San Diego’s Hillcrest neighborhood and on university campuses, but it won’t win them votes in cities like Fresno and Bakersfield and the suburbs of Los Angeles, Orange County and San Diego.

(more…)

Sometime this week (or was it last?), I sorted through the clutter of notes on my desk and made a list of posts I’d like to write on marriage. With yesterday’s California Supreme Court decision, the clutter has grown as I’ve been scribbling down myriad ideas for new posts to add to that list.

As soon as today, I hope to start fleshing out the ideas on that list and posting here on marriage. I do hope to promote a conversation more serious than we have generally seen on both sides of the issue where proponents of gay marriage accuse their adversaries of wanting to write “bigotry and hatred . . . into the California Constitution” and proponents of the traditional marriage accuse their adversaries of wanting to destroy the institution.

Let us hope (I fear this is a vain hope) that those coming forward to debate the issue are like Jonathan Rauch (for gay marriage) and David Blankenhorn (for the traditional definition), individuals who value the importance of the institution and understand (and oftentimes even respect) their ideological adversaries.

I hope to contribute to the debate in the manner that these two individuals have. Yesterday, I didn’t like having to write my Pajamas piece in haste because I wanted to take the time to think seriously about the issue.

Sometimes when we blog, we rush to get an idea out there because the nature of this medium is such that we need get these ideas out there as quickly as possible. People want to hear our ideas right away! But, with a potential social change of this magnitude, we need a more prolonged conversation.

(more…)

In the wake of the California Supreme Court decision to strike down the state’s provisions recognizing only traditional marriages, Pajamas asked me to offer my thoughts on the topic. I offer the first few paragraphs here:

Earlier today, holding current “statutory provisions” limiting “marriage to opposite-sex couples” unconstitutional, a divided California Supreme Court overturned the state’s retention of the traditional definition of the institution. In short, the court mandates that the Golden State recognize same-sex marriages.

The court found the existing domestic partnership legislation affording same-sex couples “virtually all of the same substantive legal benefits and privileges” and imposing “virtually all of the same legal obligations and duties” violated the state’s equal protection clause.

As a gay man who supports the ideas the institution of marriage embodies, I should be pleased and to some degree, am grateful that this issue has received the attention it is getting, but feel nonetheless troubled by the decision. To be sure, the court makes some valuable arguments about the merits of recognizing same-sex unions, but, I believe those arguments should be made to the citizens of the Golden State, 62% of whom voted in 2000 to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Now that I’ve whet your appetite, click here to read the rest of the post.

Ever since I moved to LA, I have been represented by one of the most obnoxious Democratic partisans in the House, Henry Waxman. He seems to see it his mission as the Chairman of the Oversight & Government Reform Committee to investigate any Republican he happens to dislike, alleging corruption or law-breaking where there is only the barest hint of impropriety.

I did gain some respect for him when in March 2003, he wrote a letterto then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi informing her that he could not support the reelection of his fellow Democrat (and my former Congressman) Jim Moran for his “offensive . . . and ignorant” statements suggesting Jews were responsible for the Iraq War. (That wasn’t the Virginia Democrat’s only anti-Semitic comment.)

And now I find another reason to like Mr. Waxman. He is the only Democrat on a list of members of the House of Representatives who have have sworn off earmarks. Kudos, Congressman. I guess you recognize that the entertainment industry — and not the federal government — should be funding projects in Hollywood and Los Angeles’s Westside. (Via Instapundit.)

Tomorrow, March 4, 2008, the California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case combining the lawsuits “by nearly two dozen [same-sex] couples . . . and . . . by the city of San Francisco” demanding that the state recognize their unions as marriage.

While advocates of gay marriage are giddy about the coming hearing, those pushing for state recognition of same-sex marriage through the courts are incredibly short-sighted, especially in a state which in 2000, voted overwhelmingly for a proposition preventing the state from recognizing same-sex marriages performed outside the Golden State. Clearly, California voters expressed opposition to same-sex marriage.

If, as gay marriage advocates contend, people’s views have changed on the subject, then they should put another referendum on the state ballot overturning Prop. 22 and changing the definition of marriage. But, at the event I attended in January launching a new initiative to promote “marriage equality” in the Golden State, activists were determined to keep a referendum banning gay marriage off the ballot, preventing the Californians from having a say in the matter.

Not just that. Those who push recognition of same-sex marriage ignore history. Gay activists may blame Karl Rove for placing a raft of referenda on state ballots in 2004 defining marriage there by its traditional definition, the union of one man and one woman. But, they’re more to blame than he for the success of their referenda.

Only after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court handed down Goodridge v. Department of Public Health on November 18, 2003, requiring the Bay State to recognize same-sex marriage, did social conservatives to put those referenda on the ballot in several states.

Had the Massachusetts court not mandated gay marriage, these social conservatives would never have been able to rally people in other states to support such referenda.

(more…)

A few days ago, when I opened the latest issue of The Advocate, I was delighted to see a letter from Editor-in-Chief Anne Stockwell, headlined, “Our New Hero . . . Arnold?” I had assumed it would be a balanced piece, noting that despite Governor Schwarenegger’s veto of gay marriage, he had compiled a pretty decent record on issues, signing a number of bills (many endorsed by the left-leaning gay advocacy group, Equality California) designed to benefit gay people.

In her piece, however, Ms. Stockwell mentions none of those bills, nor even references the Governor’s strong support for the state’s landmark domestic partnership program.

Instead, seething with contempt for the President of the United States, she faults the Bush Administration for holding that the new federal energy law prevents states from enacting their own fuel-efficiency regulations. And she commends the Golden State’s Republican governor for daring to defy this order. Commending him not for his record on gay issues, but for standing up to the Bush Administration. On a non-gay issue.

For this, Stockwell writes, “On this issue, at this moment, it behooves us to kiss and make up with Arnold.” Making up with Arnold because he’s defying George W. Bush.

I guess we know what’s really important to this magazine which styles itself as a voice of the gay and lesbian community.

And it’s not just conservatives taking note of the Advocate’s agenda. A liberal reader wrote in*:

All these years of reading The Advocate, I assumed it was a magazine devoted to gay and lesbian issues. Now you seem to indicate that the main focus is to be the environment?? Get real!!!

Actually, the main focus (at least of the opinion writers)for the past few years, has been criticizing the Bush Administration and Republicans while heralding those in the entertain industry who also engage in Bush-bashing. I mean, Bill Maher as their 2006 Man of the Year, a year when unheralded activists in Arizona actually accomplished something to benefit gay people (defeating a state initiative banning gay marriage and civil unions). George Clooney as their cover boy?

Both men are known for their vitriolic anti-Bush comments, rhetoric similar to the language of Ms. Stockwell’s post.
(more…)

While people are dealing with flooding in the Pacific Northwest and cold weather in the Northeast, I had to put on sunscreen to vote. Now, given that I live in LA, you would expect that I would drive to the polls as they are more than two blocks from my house. But, parking near there is lousy, so I put on my sunscreen, sunglasses and my Reaganesque straw cowboy hat (needing to protect my fair skin from the California sun) and walked to my polling place. It’s in the 90s here.

It’s such a chore voting in California, given the number of offices up for election — as well as thirteen “State Measures.” I even voted for a Member of the West Basin Municipal Water District.

I actually had to “void” my first ballot because I accidently voted “Yes” on Proposition 87, a measure which would place a tax on state oil producers. The election officials were very cool about my error. They merely wrote “VOID” with what appeared to be a SHARPIE pen (or maybe a small magic marker) on my original ballot and gave me a new ballot. This time I was more careful with my ballot and double checked to make sure all the inked circles corresponded with those on the Sample Ballot I had filled out at home.

The election people reported heavy turnout at my precinct in eastern West Hollywood. Not sure what to make of that. My neighborhood is very Democratic, but has a number of Russian immigrants who do sometimes vote Republican. That may not necessarily be bad for Arnold. I talked to two friends this morning, one a Democrat and the otheer a Democrat-leaning Independent. Both had voted to give our good governor a second term.

Myself, I voted a third time for Arnold Schwarzenegger, the first time being in the recall in 2003, the second in the Republican primary earlier this year. It felt good to vote for the one-time action hero who has really succeeded in turning the Golden State around.

In the end, I voted straight Republican. I have been impressed with most of the candidates for the statewide offices, but have little stomach for our party’s nominee for the United States Senate. I had briefly considered voting for Democrat Dianne Feinstein because, while she has a very liberal voting record, she is a decent person and has worked with her Republican colleagues on a number of initiatives. I quite literally pinched my nose when I voted for Dick Mountjoy, electing him over the Libertarian alternative, seeing it more as a vote against Harry Reid than anything else.

In a surprisingly even-handed article for the LA Times, the local daily to which I no longer subscribe, reporter Amanda Covarrubias profiles Peter Hankwitz, an openly gay Republican running for Congress in California’s San Fernando Valley. (H/t: OpinionJournal’s Political Diary (available by subscription).) Alas that I cannot vote for this good man — and that he has little chance of winning in his gerrymandered district.

Hankwitz, like me wants to return the “the GOP to a Barry Goldwater conservatism that emphasizes fiscal over social policy,” contending, “the federal government has no business being involved in social issues.”

A television producer, Hankwitz has observed something that I have also noted:

It’s so much easier to be openly gay in the Republican Party than to be a Republican in Hollywood.

While he has only received a few pieces of hate mail, it seems the missives he receives are similar in tone to those that Bruce and I have received (and similar in tone to some of our comments):

The only ones who bring it [his sexuality] up are gay Democrats who have a problem with the fact that I’m a Republican,” he said, adding that those writers have accused him of being the equivalent of a black KKK member or a Jewish Nazi.

Seems I’ve heard such slurs before — on more than one occasion.

Anyway, this will be one of the few times when I recommend you read an LA Times article and encourage you to vote for Peter Hankwitz if you live in California’s Twenty-Seventh Congressional District.