The Republican mayor of San Diego, Jerry Sanders, has reversed his opposition to gay marriage, noting that his daughter is gay (here's video of his announcement). As the AP reports:
[Sanders] fought back tears as he said he wanted his adult daughter, Lisa, and other gay people he knows to have their relationships protected equally under state laws. ''In the end, I could not look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationships-their very lives-were any less meaningful than the marriage that I share with my wife Rana,'' Sanders said.
So much for the good news from the Golden State. Unfortunately, California Gov. Schwarznegger has said he will once again veto legislation that would give same-sex couples the right to marry, as he did two years ago, and pledges to keep vetoing the measure as long as lawmakers send it to him (so much for those who claim same-sex marriage is always imposed by activist judges superceding the legislative process). Conservative groups, naturally, warned Schwarzenegger to take a strong stand against the bill.
Mayor Sanders is up for re-election next year and the religious right is mobilizing against him. A victory could send an extremely positive message to the party. (Here's more, from the San Diego Tribune, looking at the election implications for Sanders.)
22 Comments for “Power of Love”
posted by Mark on
Yes, Arnold has promised to veto the gay marriage bill. However, even if he signed the measure, it would almost certainly be struck down by the courts as violating Proposition 22. Defenders of the bill legalizing gay marriage continue to make the bizarre legal argument that Proposition 22 only bars California from recognizing out of state gay marriages. Unfortunately, nobody thought that at the time it was passed. This new ex post facto interpretation sets new standards for legal sophistry.
The fact remains that Proposition 22 needs to be repealed by the voters before gay marriage can be legalized. A ballot measure will need to eventually be put on the ballot, where it will actually stand a good chance of passing as public opinion is shifting.
I do realize that the Constitutionality of California’s ban on gay marrige is before the courts at the present time. However, the smart money is on this argument not going anywhere.
The other point that needs to be kept in mind is that California’s Civil Partnership law now creates de facto marriages. This is currently a fight about a word.
posted by Rhywun on
> This is currently a fight about a word.
Are “civil partnerships” equal to marriage in every way? I doubt it. I also doubt the US government would recognize such a “partnership” for immigration purposes. Until then, it’s about more than a “word”.
posted by Brian Flynn on
Although I do think it is more than a fight about a word, the issue about partners and immigration is not really a good example. Even in Massachusetts where same sex couples can be legally married, this does not help people with non-citizen partners because immigration is purely federal law Unfortunately, this issue of equity needs to be addressed at the federal level and certainly under the current administration there is no hope of this happening. To my knowledge–though I could be wrong here–no one has really pushed the democratic candidates for president to state a position on this matter.
posted by Mark on
California domestic partnerships carry all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage under state law. However, the Federal government does not recognize any gay relationships as having any legal standing under Federal law.
posted by Casey on
Hate to burst everybody’s bubble, but there are several significant legal differences between CA domestic partnerships and marriage, including the requirements to enter into once, the dissolution process, a cohabitation requirement, the existance of a publicly searchable public registry for DPs that includes couples’ addresses, the fact that gay couples are forced to come out on any document asking about marital status, the inability of state employees to purchase long-term care insurance for their partners, and a lack of protection for the property rights of DPs equivalent to that of spouses… the list goes on. For more information, see Lambda Legal’s supplemental brief for the current CA marriage cases – http://data.lambdalegal.org/pdf/legal/in-re-marriage/Res_Supp_Brief.pdf. We do ourselves no favors when through ignorance we concede more than we should. This is definitely about more than “just a word.”
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Oddly enough, Casey, the vast majority of those are fixable by a simple expedient; amend the domestic partner rules.
If you don’t want the state registry, abolish it.
If you don’t want the cohabitation requirement, remove it.
If you want to force gay couples into the more difficult process of forming and dissolving domestic partnerships legally, change the requirements in the DP law — because, as it stands, gay people enjoy all the rights and responsibilities of marriage while being forced to do LESS to create and dissolve the relationship. Then add the “putative spouse” requirement.
If you want long-term care insurance, rewrite the DP law that forbids it.
If you want a confidential registration option, add it.
The “come out” thing is a laugh; first, DPs are not necessarily limited to gay couples, and second, following that logic, STRAIGHT couples are being required to indicate their sexual orientation when they put “married” on their forms.
The state of California cannot require the Federal government or any other state to recognize their domestic partnerships.
What all this adds up to is that the vast majority of what Lambda is whining about can be changed by the Legislature — the same body that is supposedly in support of “marriage”, but which apparently opposes making changes to the domestic partnership law.
As that shows, this battle is over a word. Lambda and its associated leftist organizations don’t care one whit about these issues; if they did, they would have been after the Legislature that allegedly supports them to fix them, given that the DP law has been in place for YEARS with these conditions on it.
Isn’t that amazing? The Democrat Legislature can pass unconstitutional and illegal marriage bills, but it can’t seem to find it in itself to change the domestic partner laws, which it fully has the right and capability to do, to eliminate so many of these things that Lambda is screaming “oppress” gay people.
Makes you wonder if Lambda WANTS them to fix the problem — or if they’re perfectly content to let gay couples suffer so that they can exploit that suffering for their own ends.
posted by Brian Miller on
Sanders did the right thing (and is extremely popular with both Republicans and Democrats — he has no chance of losing his seat or the primary).
Ironically, once again the LCRs were AWOL. They didn’t release a congratulatory press statement until DAYS after NGLTF (and Sanders’ Democratic Party council rivals) praised him. Think about that for a minute.
I can see the pseudonymous Republicans are still posting their excuses and blather — get back to me when they’re organizing to do what they’re exhorting the rest of us to do (and providing their real names).
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I love how “Brian Miller” again uses his psychic powers to determine that no LCR members or leadership contacted or congratulated Sanders for his decision. He should visit BlogCabinCA sometime; he might learn something, like how the governor is appointing these selfsame LCRs that Miller claims to loathe to prominent positions.
And I also see that “Brian Miller” is spinning for his Democrat allies, trying to explain why he and his fellow lefties haven’t demanded that the Legislature change all of these things that they claim are making them suffer so in the domestic partnership laws — something which they CAN do without running afoul of Proposition 22.
posted by Bobby on
He must have a great relationship with his daughter to change his mind. Bob Knight (is that his name) a governor of California for 20 years, has a gay son and he never became pro-gay by any means.
posted by Mark on
North Dallas has a good point—why isn’t the legislature fixing the alleged flaws in the DP law instead of sending veto bait to the governator?
posted by Xeno on
Bob Knight (is that his name) a governor of California for 20 years, has a gay son and he never became pro-gay by any means.
I think you mean William J. Knight, the one who started proposition 22. Robert Knight was a concerned woman. Also William J. Knight was never governor of California. Not surprised you got them mixed up, you can’t really distinguish vileness anyway. It’s all the same shit heading straight to hell.
posted by Casey on
NDT – please note, I didn’t way one way or the other if I felt that it was the court’s job to fix these issues. All I was saying is that it is an error to claim that CA domestic partnerships are the same as marriage in all but name. There are some significant differences – and personally, I’m really not found of the requirement that I live with my partner in an intimate relationship for a certain span of time before “marrying.” It’s a moral issue, sure, and I may be old fashioned, but it draws a pretty ugly line between me and the rest of my church community, and is seriously complicating my moral calculus. Say whatever you want, but don’t say that it’s just a word.
posted by The Gay Species on
Please note: The Governor’s veto is not a personal preference, inasmuch as he favors inclusive marriage, but because a 2000 plebiscite bars recognition of other states’ same-sex marriage. The Governor rightly believes this proposal should be addressed by plebiscite, not through the legislature. In California, a plebiscite (direct democracy) trumps representative democracy, a lesson Rabbi Leno has yet to learn. If the 2000 initiative excludes CA itself, and the governor signed inclusive marriage into law, rest assured its opponents will have an initiative on the ballot within a year. The Democrats, alas, knowing the Governor’s veto and his reasons, play this gesture for its histrionics, but GLBT thank Schwarzenegger for not biting. If Rabbi Leno and Equality California are confident of prevailing statewide, not with gestures, let them collect signatures and put the matter to direct democracy. Maybe the Field Poll gives them pause, with equal for and against, and 10% undecided. The histrionics only make the drama queens look silly. But the Rabbi is not from California and still seems resistant to learning its ways than has Schwarzenegger, who is not originally from this country, and whose instincts and following laws safeguards the rest of us from their theater and what that drama could produce.
posted by D.Stephen Heersink on
Mark’s first comment is on target. The initiative process trumps the legislative process. That the legislature does not know the Constitution of the State pretty much illustrates their “show” of the Democrats. If confident of statewide approval, why not submit inclusive marriage to plebiscite?
posted by Bobby on
Forgive me, Xeno, but I don’t live in California, so I’m not going to be an expert in that so-called “progressive” state.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
There are some significant differences – and personally, I’m really not found of the requirement that I live with my partner in an intimate relationship for a certain span of time before “marrying.” It’s a moral issue, sure, and I may be old fashioned, but it draws a pretty ugly line between me and the rest of my church community, and is seriously complicating my moral calculus.
I totally understand.
That is a vestige of the olden days, when you had to demonstrate some degree of responsibility for each other’s welfare in order to register as domestic partners, mainly because it wasn’t legally binding. Now, since it’s a legal process and is binding, that’s an unnecessary vestige — and, as you aptly pointed out, it discriminates against you based on your religious beliefs.
So call Leno and have the DP law amended.
posted by ETJB on
Hmm… Maybe the CA LGBT Republicans and Democrats would lobby for the chnages in the DP benifits. To advance equality AND disprove all those things being said about which group of gays is more savy and active politically….
posted by Brendon Gill on
I’m not surprised that so many people OUTSIDE California seem not to know who is who, what is what, and why is why. Gay Marriage will come, but it will come by the initiative process, or be denied by it. When people cannot distinguish Knights from Queens, Rabbis from Governors, maybe those who profess to know and know nothing should not profess their ignorance.
Rabbi Leno actually trades on the “Knight” confusion, claiming he was statewide chair for defeating the “Knight Initiative.” Which “Knight Initiative,” rabbi? Proposition 6 of 1978 or Proposition 22 of 2000? Proposition 6, which would have barred GLBT from teaching in California’s public schools, owes its defeat to one, and only one, individual: Ronald Reagan.
That Rabbi Leno “means” Proposition 22, which HE LOST, and people confuse for Proposition 6, which REAGAN defeated, says more about ignorance and historical revisionism than anything else. But what does a kid from Brooklyn via Jerusalem know about such things? Apparently, little.
posted by The Gay Species on
Frankly, second-class, or “marriage-lite,” as advocated by some of the respondents suggests why second-class ain’t even in the same class. Why barter for second-class citizenship?
The Constitution does not say “equal process” EXCEPT for gays, lesbians, bi, and transgender. Even if Barack Obama assures GLBT that something is better than nothing, then why was the “back of the bus” so repugnant to Rosa Parks?
The Defenders of second-class include Hilary and all the Republicans. At least Arnold defends marriage equality, but only when achieved legitimately by the initiative process, not by an end-run around direct democracy that brings the queers out for shouting, theater, and histrionics.
Frankly, I reject “marriage” in all its forms, even for GLBT, but if it’s available to non-GLBT, equality demands it be available to ALL AMERICANS. But “equality” seems something that politicians barter, not defend. When Mike Gravel and Denis Kucinich are the only presidential candidates that “sound” like the Founders, why are they ignored, by the Hypocrites in Drag, while Hilary, the popular choice among the Losing Class, gets all the publicity? Are Democrats suicidal as well as stupid? (Pelosi and Reid answer that question affirmatively.)
It’s hardly foreign for HRC, a political action committee (PAC), rather than a non-profit human rights advocacy, to support a hypocrite and all her failures. After all, HRC is an extension of the DNC. But when TWO liberal politicians speak to EQUALITY and mean it, why have GLBT organizations done everything to bury their inclusion? We know why Murdoch and the Eastern media oppose such “liberals,” because of their support of foreign interventionism. But when the “black” kid tells the gay kid to enjoy the “back of the bus,” and GLBT advocate “marriage-lite” as “better than nothing,” I wonder if Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, and Hamilton would have DARED to speak in such placating terms to GLBT?
“No one is equal, if all are not equal.” And here we have GLBT arguing over how unequal to accept their second-class status? “Separate, but ‘unequal'” speaks to whom? The SCOTUS who gave us Bush when Gore won? Who wrote “separate but equal” is close enough? HRC promotes Hilary because it’s a PAC, but why do GLBT buy the “package,” when second-class is the best she has to offer, and HilaryCare II is worse than Hilary Care I.
Maybe “lemmings” make for clout, or it makes for belief that “something is better than nothing.” Even Edwards had a difficult time after hearing Obama say those words on the Logo-HRC forum. Shaken, but unchanged, even he did not like what he heard, and here we have people accepting “something” as better than “nothing.” Where in the Constitution is THAT guarantee?
posted by Mark on
I think one has to draw a distinction between those candidates who are “personally opposed” to gay marriage and those who want to outlaw it via Federal law.
posted by Timothy on
To set the record straight, Proposition 6 of 1978 was not the Knight Initiative. It was the Briggs Initiative.
Further, I find the term “Rabbi Leno” to be disturbing and it seems to hint at anti-semitism. Mark Leno was not ordained as a rabbi and thus the use of the title only serves to accent his Jewish heritage for what seems to be a less-than-admirable intent. I hope I’m misreading this.
posted by Jorge Ruben on
is there anyone who help me regarding immration laws, regarding visitor visas, can some please help, my email is havok561@mac.com