Gay Marriage archives
After the presidential race, the most closely-watched election in America is Proposition 8, the California Constitutional Amendment which would eliminate the right to marry for same-sex couples. For the gay and lesbian community, the lap-dogs of the Democratic Party for decades, the debate over how to direct its limited resources is about to come to a head.
A few weeks ago, it became clear that for the first time, Proposition 8 had a genuine chance of passing in November when we learned the measure's proponents had raised $25 million to the opponents' $15 million. But that same day, the Barack Obama for President Campaign announced a $5000-per-plate fundraiser with Joe Biden in the heart of West Hollywood. It's set for this week.
Immediately conversation at the debate-watching parties switched from conversation about the dullest presidential debate in memory to a new, hotter topic: What should be more important to gay Americans, electing Democrat Obama or defeating Proposition 8?
I, for one, was shocked to even hear there was a debate. The Religious Right, and especially the Mormon church, decided long ago that buying the election in California and defeating Prop. 8 was more important than sending John McCain and Sarah Palin to the White House. They've put their money where their mouths are.
But in gay enclaves like West Hollywood, the answer for many gay and lesbian Americans isn't so clear. The reaction to Biden's visit has fallen into two camps: those who argue that Obama will do more good for gay and lesbian equality if he is elected, and those who want to say, "Please, Joe, Don't Go!"
By scheduling a big-ticket fundraiser in the heart of the Golden State just week's before the election, the Obama campaign has turned the debate over civil rights for gays and lesbians into a zero-sum game. Should the $5,000 contributions be going out-of-state to elect Barack Obama? Or should they be going to buy television ads to protect the freedom to marry?
Sending Biden to West Hollywood in the heat of the battle over Proposition 8 is either a tone deaf decision or a stroke of genius. Either way, it's a signal that Democrats thoroughly understand the political aspirations of America's gay and lesbian community - and are going to take full and complete advantage of their long-time supporters.
In her debate with Biden, Republican Governor Sarah Palin adopted Barack Obama's position of supporting hospital visitation rights. Contrast that to Biden's saying he was opposed to marriage equality for same-sex couples, and that he believed that domestic partnerships can be constitutionally equal. By contrast, those like me who oppose Proposition 8 and are working actively to defeat it, are making the argument that marriage does matter - socially and in the eyes of the law.
The choice for gay and lesbian Californians should be clear. Do they want to remain full citizens of California with full equality under the law, or would they prefer to elect a Democrat to the White House who promises little more than what some communities have been offering for more than two decades, the right to "register" their partnerships at city hall?
To anyone thinking of writing that $5,000 check without doubling or tripling the amount to stand up for their own rights first, I have one comment: "Say it Ain't So!"
Can California being seeing a repeat of electoral history with this year's ballot measure on same-sex marriage?
Back in 1982, when Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley was running for governor, California voters told pollsters that they intended to vote for the African American candidate, but on election day, they pulled their levers for his opponent, George Duekmejian. With the chance to vote for Barack Obama the "Bradley Effect" is back on the political radar.
This year, we may well see the "Ru Paul effect." She's the drag queen everyone loves from a distance but might not want as a next door neighbor.
Campaign consultants, including myself, on both sides of California's Proposition 8 - the initiative which would eliminate the right to marry for same-sex couples - are facing a similar gap between how people say they'll vote and what they'll actually do on election day.
Following the release of last week's Field Poll, which showed Proposition 8 losing by seventeen points, Yes on 8 campaign manager Frank Shubert spun the results this way, "Recent polls published by California media outlets claim that Proposition 8, restoring marriage in California as between a man and a woman, is trailing among voters. These polls, including the Field Poll released this week, suffer from the same historic problem that other polls on this subject around the country have had: they do not accurately reflect the true support for traditional marriage."
According to Shubert, the Field Poll mistakenly underestimated support for Proposition 22 - the last state measure to "define" marriage - by nine percent. And he hints at something like Bradley in his reasoning: "I can't say for sure why polls almost always understate support for traditional marriage, but I believe it is because the media portrays same-sex marriage as being politically correct," Schubert said.
"Supporters of traditional marriage don't want pollsters to consider them intolerant, so they mask their true feelings on the issue. The result is that support for traditional marriage rises considerably when voters cast their ballots in the privacy of the voter booth. It is my opinion that the same thing will happen in California when voters cast ballots on Proposition 8."
Shubert's point is that Californians inherently believe that no person should be treated differently under the law, so they will tell pollsters that they're against Proposition 8, when they really are leaning towards voting for it. He may be onto something.
Just five years ago, California held a recall election where a famous action-film star was on the ballot. Human polling vastly underestimated the support for the actor, now Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger. By eliminating the human element, however, some robo-polling was able to get the numbers right long before the October election. People, it seems, were embarrassed to admit that they supported a movie star - especially one with a colorful, over-the-top body builder's past - to be their next governor.
It wasn't the first time that human pollsters were tricked by the psychology of an election. After all, Ru Paul's pronouncements - Work it! - are great on the runway but, well, not universally appropriate or appealing. So, it's not unrealistic for Shubert and the crowd who wishes to re-define marriage in California, to rely on the hope that people are at their core indecent and would lie about it to a stranger.
For the No on 8 Campaign, opponents must reinforce people's inherent belief that, regardless of how they feel about marriage equality, it's wrong to treat people differently under the law - a message which is at the core of their new ad campaign.
But if poll after poll after poll keep returning the same result, maybe people need to start trusting their veracity.
Last week, I proudly joined a number of current and former Republican Party officials in Los Angeles to condemn an L.A. county GOP event promoting California's Proposition 8 - the measure which would eliminate the right to marry for same-sex couples.
Now, the role of the local political party plays California is to help elect its members to office. Which is why another, less heralded ballot measure, Proposition 11, is much more important - now and for decades to come. Proposition 11 is on California's ballot this fall but it's not just a California issues, as a look at a number of large states' (Texas) voting districts demonstrates. The ways in which legislative districts across the country are drawn is a wonky - but important issue - for anyone interested in politics.
Here in Los Angeles, County Republican Chairman Linda Boyd defended the "Town Hall Forum" on Proposition 8 as a good way to elect more Republicans by energizing the volunteer base. But even if Boyd is correct, in the long-term she's dead wrong. Not only will Proposition 8 eliminate constitutional rights for many loyal Republicans, but if the party wanted to elect more Republicans, it should focus instead on passing Proposition 11, the ballot measure designed to end gerrymandering by creating a fairer process for drawing voting districts.
Although the California Legislature and the U.S. Congress are less popular than President George Bush in California - a Herculean feat - almost no member of either body is seriously worried about losing his or her job eight weeks from now. Under the current scheme - which some say was a cynical deal by the legislature and the state's Congressional delegations - exactly zero legislative and only a few Congressional seats have changed parties. I can't think of a better testament to the broken system California has for drawing its legislative boundaries.
State legislators draw the lines for the seats they will sit in every ten years and those incumbents draw lines creating election districts that don't foster real competition. Only in one case of gross malfeasance by an incumbent Congressman have we seen a seat in Congress change hands
So California elections - our primaries, really - have become a race to the ideological extremes. Democrats must only compete for the votes of Democrats and Republicans must only compete for the votes of other Republicans within the boundaries incumbents have drawn for their own and their parties' benefit. November victories are decided not by a vote of the people, but by a vote of 120 politicians when who drew the assembly district boundaries nearly a decade ago. Party activists - the folks who really turn out for primaries - seal these agreement every Spring.
There is no incentive for any politician in Sacramento to reach across the aisle, because the risk of a primary challenge to a perceived "maverick" is greater than the risk of losing in November. And there is no substantive political discourse in Sacramento because no one needs to satisfy any but he hardest of hard core party loyalist. Which is why - and this is just this year's example - there is was state budget for nearly three months.
If the Republican Party's mission is to elect more Republicans, then it's Proposition 11, not Proposition 8, which matters most. If approved by the voters, Proposition 11 will take the power to draw political boundaries out of the hands of politicians.
With fairer, more competitive districts, both Democrats and Republicans will have to compete for the hearts and minds of the voters - real voters with real issues on their minds and - perish the thought- an interest in issues, not party loyalty. That can only be a good thing for the voters, and ultimately California.
Standing up for the voters' right to choose their elected officials may not win any seats in November 2008 and it doesn't give the party's conservative base any quick-and-dirty talking points. But Proposition 11 will give Republicans a chance to make their case to voters in November 2018, November 2028 and beyond. And that, my friends, should be the mission of the Republican Party of Los Angeles County.
The motto of the United States Marine Corps is simple and profound: "Semper Fidelis", Latin for "always faithful." And, as any Marine can tell you, there is no such thing as being a "former" member of the corp. "Once a Marine," goes the saying, "always a Marine."
But the government these men and women serve does not always live up to the promise of loyalty it asks its members to make. That's a sleeping problem for the thousands of gay and lesbians who have served our nation honorably in the Marines, or any branch of the Armed Services. At any time, a recent veteran could risk losing his or her health, education or other benefits, even after years of service and their spouses will never be treated equally under the law.
Even after the California Supreme Court's historic decision granting marriage equality, not all Californians have the right to marry - and those who don't are the ones who deserve the right most. With a nervy nonchalance, in it's Q&A on Gay Marriage, the Los Angeles Times states that, "Marrying or attempting to marry a person of the same sex is grounds for dismissal from the service."
That just seems just plain wrong particularly since the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policies let many gays in the military serve with honor and distinction. But the awkward compromise of the Clinton era doesn't just apply to those on active duty. According to the Service Members Legal Defense Network, an organization that fights for equal rights for gays in the military, the injustice of Don't Ask, Don't Tell extends far beyond one's enlistment. It covers veterans of all wars and of all ages.
Regardless of when they served, gay and lesbian veterans and their spouses are denied equal treatment in life and death. Although my grandfather violated military laws by joining the Army before he was eighteen, the enthusiastic soldier lays buried in the cemetery at Fort Sam Houston. Next to him lay my grandmother, who never served a day in her life but was entitled to be buried next to her husband as a dutiful - and legally recognized - spouse. Such a privilege would not be afforded to a gay draftee from World War II or Vietnam.
It is even worse for the men and women who are just now returning from Afghanistan and Iraq. While nearly three thousand service members have been dismissed under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" since the beginning of the Global War on Terror, tens of thousands more have left the service after their first enlistment. Although they survived in the closet for years and finished their active duty honorably, as they return to civilian life, they must still keep the closet door shut, or risk being discharged and imperiling their veterans' benefits. Soldiers, sailors or marines who are no longer on active duty are subject to the provisions of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". So are veteran members of the National Guard, Reserves or Individual Ready Reserves even after they have left active duty and are allegedly living civilian lifestyles. For all these men and women, that means no statements regarding their sexual orientation, nor sodomy, nor hugging, nor hand-holding...and most certainly no marriage!
The burden on these veteran reservists is already great enough. After putting their lives on the line to defend our freedom in combat, they are returned to civilian life with a years-long noose around their neck: the threat that, one day, they may very likely get called back to duty.
For some, this burden can result in a near paralysis, where the uncertainty of their future keeps them from making any commitments beyond the time that they know they have for certain in civilian life. And for our gay and lesbian veterans, the military is telling them that they must go it alone. Anyone who says they support the troops should find this contradiction morally repugnant.
According to SLDN, not only is gay marriage out of the question, but so are accepting domestic partnership health care benefits, joining a group like the Log Cabin Republicans, or being added to a partner's USAA policy (or vice versa), if the law is strictly followed. And these are rules governing civilians in strictly civilian settings.
For gay and lesbian veterans, the unfortunate reality is that, until "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is repealed, they must hope that the ones they love, and those that love them, are more abiding by the spirit of Semper Fi than the government they've so loyally served.
Today, the California Supreme Court has decided that, on equal protection grounds, the State cannot discriminate on gender when it comes to marriage. That's a great victory for equality. While opponents will decry the changes such a decision will have on the institution of marriage, few have pondered what such a decision will mean for gay and lesbian culture.
I think we'll see two changes, one's a fad - gays are good at that - the other, a true shift in gay culture.
Between June 15 and November 3, 2008 it will be possible for anyone, regardless of their sexual orientation, to get married in California. This summer, gays and lesbians will be coming to California to gain legal recognition of their relationships just as they did on Valentine's weekend 2004 when San Francisco issued same-sex marriage licenses. And like that romantic weekend get-away, they had better make plans fast.
With a November 3rd Constitutional Amendment looming, the joy felt today will soon be replaced with a sense of urgency. On election day, the state's voters will consider a ballot measure to rescind that right. Previous rulings in Hawaii and Massachusetts have not fared well once they're out of the courthouse and in the political discourse.
But what good is a right if you cannot exercise it? The right to marriage on paper is nice, but knowing that that right might be lost may lead people to make decisions they otherwise wouldn't. "Now we just need someone to marry!" one friend messaged me, pretty much summing up the conundrum facing gays and lesbians over the next six months.
In some respects, gay marriage in California is no different than the George Bush tax cuts. Inherit an estate in 2011, and pay nothing. A year later, your estate tax will go up to 65%, and a $3 million dollar estate becomes a $1 million inheritance. Imitating the Menendez brothers could be the cultural phenomenon of the new decade; worried about inheriting, too many folks may pull the trigger instead of waiting for nature to take its course.
Likewise, a gay or lesbian who may not be quite ready to make a commitment like marriage two weeks ago could feel that the opportunity is too good to pass up. The prospect of wasting the right to marry now must be balanced against the cold reality that the opportunity could be lost forever once the state's voters have spoken. I see a summer filled with rice-tossing and bouquet-throwing in my future as friends pair up - just for the sake of getting married. Talk about your shotgun weddings!
Still, this rush to the altar may lead to one of the largest shifts in gay culture since the Stonewall riots in New York in 1969.
Until today, there has been no archetypical relationship for gays and lesbians across America. Nothing to look at and say "That's what I want." Only in tiny Massachusetts could a gay man like me even think about getting married and then consider with whom to form that union. This lack of a model or structure for legal, recognized partnerships created the impression that promiscuity was the norm for the gay community. And, I would argue, contributed to the spread of AIDS and other plagues on the gay community.
But today, all that has changed.
There is something higher to aspire to in gay relationships, and it is real, accessible, and free to all. The discussion about partnership shifts from "Mister Tonight" to "Mister Right." It's a change that can only be good for society, gay or otherwise. At least, for another six months.
Last Friday, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger shocked a ballroom full of gay Republicans - and perhaps an entire state - when he announced that he would oppose a constitutional amendment to ban equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians in California. The religious right screamed "betrayal" from a governor who twice vetoed legislation to make marriage equality the law, and liberal Democrats were befuddled by what they saw as a shift of position.
Outside of California, the announcement to the Log Cabin Republicans was seen as a change of position, making the California Governor seem like the enigmatic maverick he has endorsed for president. But in reality, Schwarzenegger has never changed his position on gay marriage and gay rights; indeed he's signed into law more pieces of gay rights legislation - 19 in all - than any other governor. Instead, he has but slowly revealed how he feels about an issue mired in the complexities of California lawmaking.
Schwarzenegger's position on gay marriage comes from a wholly California perspective. As he sees it, there is a difference between marriage equality as a constitutional amendment versus a legislative statute or an initiative statute. That's why he twice vetoed legislative statutes granting marriage rights. But it's also why he said he would support an initiative statute if the people decided the issue at the polls.
Of course, given his record, it came as a shock when Schwarzenegger announced in 2005 that he would veto a bill from the legislature designed to grant gay couples the holy grail of civil rights: the right to marry. During the month that followed that announcement and his actual veto of the bill, gay rights groups led by Democrats thought they could win him over by comparing him to Governor George Wallace--an attempted scare tactics that in the end proved only to get the door to Sacramento's Horseshoe slammed in their face. He is, after all, The Terminator.
When he vetoed the marriage rights bill, Schwarzenegger was very forthright in his reasoning. Because the voters had passed Proposition 22, defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, the legislature could not, constitutionally, override the will of the people. Only the courts, or the people themselves with another ballot initiative, could do that.
Schwarzenegger subsequently said that if the people decided to make marriage equality the law, he would be for it.
So let's review the Governator's positions on marriage equality. He is against a legislative statute allowing it, acknowledges the fact that there is an initiative statute banning it on the books, would support a court decision or initiative statute making it law, and is against a Constitutional ban on gay marriage.
But until Friday, Schwarzenegger had not taken a position on whether gays and lesbians should have equal marriage rights. This is why there has been so much confusion. Early statements outlined the governor's positions on how the legal means used to grant such rights, not on their merits.
On California's November ballot, there may will be a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage which would make the debate over legislative versus initiative statutes irrelevant. Governor Schwarzenegger said that he thought that such a measure would not only be "a waste of time" but that he would fight against it - creating room for a solution to the procedural problems that give gays the right to marry - and drawing rancorous applause from the Log Cabin audience.
It's not as easy as saying Schwarzenegger is "for it" or he is "against it" when it comes to same-sex marriage. And if Democrats weren't trying to score political points in their attacks, they might even call his positions "nuanced." The reality is that Schwarzenegger's position is as complex as California's government itself. A telling statement on the the governance of the state as a whole and why it can be so difficult to get anything done in Sacramento.
Once again, the presidential candidates got together but, for a refreshing change, “debate fatigue” was not the headline.
Debate fatigue had set in among the American chattering class over the last few months because of the sterility of the environment in which these so-called "debates" are held. Moderated by media professionals who did not wish to appear biased for or against any candidates, the debates' lines of questioning had grown tired, reflecting an inside-the-beltway view of what was important to America.
This time, when the Democratic presidential candidates took questions from the American people - thanks to the power of YouTube - we learned that the public can come up with some engaging and challenging questions. They were the kind of questions reporters and TV anchors are often, well, afraid to ask.
You can expect a return to timid questioning in a few weeks when the Democrats candidates will meet for another debate, hosted by gay rights advocates at the Human Rights Campaign and Viacom’s Logo television network. Although the event is being billed as “historic,” chances are there won’t be too much news made at the forum. Why? Well no one will be too anxious to rock the, er, boat.
The Gay political establishment - of which HRC is the keystone - would like its followers to believe that there is a simple dichotomy when it comes to Republicans and Democrats. One party represents good and the other, evil. But as with most politics, there are many shades of gray. If there weren’t then there would be no need to have a Democratic debate over gay rights to begin with.
If the Logo/HRC debate were a truly historic event, there are at least four questions the candidates should be asked. You’ll probably won't hear them asked in Democratic party circles so I'll ask them here.
1. If gays and lesbians deserve full rights and protections under the law, then why should you be debating gay rights at all?
From the time someone comes out and receives their “gay card,” they’re told that Democrats support gay rights and deserve the community’s vote. If that were true then there would be no need for Democrats to be debating gay rights. Of course, it’s not and there is.
Not one leading candidate will step forward and say, “I agree, there should be no debate that all Americans should be treated equally under the law.” Unless HRC thought they’d get that answer from John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, they won’t ask the question.
Edwards, for example, says that he supports equality for gays and lesbians, but when asked about marriage rights, he says that it is a personal journey for him to reconcile his religious opposition with his policy positions. Hillary Clinton tortures herself over whether to oppose her husband's own policies of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act. If Democrats truly believed that gays and lesbians were Americans deserving the full rights and responsibilities of citizenship--as they'd like the gay community to believe--there should be no such gray area.
2. Will you continue the Drug Enforcement Agency’s crackdown on dispensaries in states where the legal distribution of medical marijuana conflicts with federal law?
Here in California, the Bush Administration has been widely criticized for enforcing federal law and shutting down medical marijuana dispensaries. Will the Democratic candidates, if elected, enforce Federal law or give precedence to states’ rights? Somehow, I doubt that the local gay community wants to know the answer to that question.
The question of State's rights is at the heart of the AIDS treatment debate, as well as that over marriage equality. The first President Clinton wiped away States rights on the marriage issue with the Defense of Marriage Act, which he signed in 1996. While States like Massachussetts and perhaps soon California may recognize equal marriage rights, when it comes to filing taxes, collecting social security or immigration issues, no such rights exist--federal law takes precedence.
3. Why did no one in the Democratically-controlled U.S. Senate try to get recognition for gay and lesbian couples during the immigration reform debate earlier this summer?
One of the leading items for gay activists in recent years - including the Human Rights Campaign - was to give gay and lesbian couples equal treatment under the law when it came to immigration. Bi-national heterosexual couples can marry and get a green card but those who are born gay do not get that option. Surprisingly, not one senator tried amending the McCain-Kennedy Immigration Bill to make gay couples equal under immigration law.
4. Will you, as president, allow the discriminatory estate tax to return in 2011 even though it will harm gays and lesbians?
Few gays can admit that George Bush has done anything for the community. However, when Bush eliminated the estate tax, he also took away one of the federal benefits of marriage. With no estate tax gay and lesbian couples do not face the discrimination in the tax code they did before Bush was elected President.
All of the major Democratic candidates talk about repealing George Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy but in doing so, they’d be reinstating taxes on gay and lesbian couples. How can that be fair?
Don’t expect the Human Rights Campaign to ask these questions of the Democratic candidates. They don’t want to know the answers. Merely asking them and challenging the candidates to respond contradicts the story they’re trying to tell to their members, contributors and legislative supporters: that the Democratic party is the only friend gay Americans have in politics.
In the end, the Democratic Candidates really are not on the same page as groups like HRC, who want to portray them in a positive light, especially when compared with Republicans. Organizations like HRC fear that if they asked the tough questions, the “gay debate” would be “historic” because it would be the last.
They have to play nice, or they can’t play ball.
Barely a week ago, political pundit Ann Coulter barely registered a blip on the internet. Over the past week, she has had the blogosphere all in a tizzy, simply for her use of one word last Friday at the Conservative Political Action Conference. But the criticism of Coulter by Presidential Candidates on the right and the left rings hollow when you look at the facts.
If you have not seen the clip or read the news, here is what has gotten all of us hot and heavy for Ann this week. Here are her exact words: "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I'm - so, kind of at an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards, so I think I'll just conclude here and take your questions."
Coulter was making a reference to the case of Isaiah Washington, the Grey's Anatomy star who was sent to rehab after an angry tirade against a co-worker then used the term at the Golden Globes before checking himself into rehab.
Others have pointed out that Coulter did not call Edwards a "faggot" as implied in media accounts and that she does not realize how offensive the term can be when describing people, not cigarettes.
The general consensus, however, was that the term was inappropriate, and following Coulter's 2006 "raghead" remarks on the very same dais, it got conservatives wondering if Coulter was the best ambassador for the cause. From bloggers to Presidential candidates, there has been outrage and condemnation.
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who was seen on video chumming up with Ann before her speech responded saying through spokesman Kevin Madden, "[i]t was an offensive remark. Governor Romney believes all people should be treated with dignity and respect.”
John Edwards' campaign responded, saying, ""Ann Coulter's use of an anti-gay slur yesterday was un-American and indefensible. In America, we strive for equality and embrace diversity. The kind of hateful language she used has no place in political debate or our society at large. I believe it is our moral responsibility to speak out against that kind of bigotry and prejudice every time we encounter it." Then they launched a fundraising effort on their website based on the incident.
What's funny, however is how wildly inconsistent these statements are with the candidates actual policies. As Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney's idea of "dignity and respect," was to try to strip away legally-granted rights from gay and lesbian couples, thereby denying them equal protection under the law.
Senator Edwards idea of embracing "equality and diversity" when he ran for Vice President in 2004 was to take a position on gay rights that was to the right of the man many liberals compare to Attila the Hun—his Republican opponent, Dick Cheney.
If the "F-word" is going to now have equal status as the "N-word" in the American lexicon, shouldn't F's be granted all the same equal rights as N's? Candidates and others can give lip service to tolerance, but when their policy positions don't back them up, someone needs to point it out.
Across the nation, voters turned on Republicans in yesterdays elections; from Congress to the State House, voters "threw the bums out," replacing them with anyone with a (D) after their name—with one major exception. In California, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger won resoundingly over State Treasurer Phil Angelides.
They say you should be careful what you wish for, and boy do I know that feeling today! Last April, I wrote that, " if the GOP is going to get beat in this election, I hope they get beat good." And a nationwide, Republicans were beat as badly as Democrat Angelides in California.
Many are already asking whether Schwarzenegger could serve as a model for Republican success. His progressive-libertarian approach to politics—combined with bipartisan cooperation with willing leaders across the aisle—changed the course of California history in just twelve months.
Against all my wishes, I doubt that the Republican Party will all of a sudden boldly scoff at the Religious Right, as Schwarzenegger has, or adopt a pro-environment agenda if it will cost business a dime.
But if President Bush and Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi wish to succeed in the next two years, they would be well-served to take a page from Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and California Speaker Fabian Nunez.
Working together, Nunez and Schwarzenegger were able to do great things this year—fighting global warming, raising the minimum wage, expanding civil rights and more. Likewise, there are a number of areas where Pelosi and Bush can compromise and leave a legacy for the President and extend her speakership beyond one term:
Immigration Reform. The main obstacle between President Bush and reforming immigration policies last year was not the Democratic Party—it was House Republicans running from their shadows in what they thought were heavily-gerrymandered conservative districts. Pelosi could send the McCain-Kennedy compromise to the President's desk in her first 100 hours and few would object.
Healthcare Reform. The last time Congress tried to "fix" the healthcare crisis, we invented HMOs. However, as Schwarzenegger looks to models to provide universal healthcare without raising taxes next year, Bush and Pelosi could follow suit.
Alternative Energy. Bush has been trying to push Energy reform for years—and has been stymied by Democrats who oppose drilling in Alaska. Compromise here could focus on propping up American industries that promote clean energy to help such technologies become viable in the free market.
Minimum Wage. In a trade-off for pro-business tax measures—like extending the tax cuts of 2001—the President has said he will sign off on a raise in the minimum wage. Pelosi should send it to his desk.
"Protecting" Marriage. George Bush's push for a Federal Marriage Amendment is all but dead. However, he can nullify the need for one by signing a Federal Civil Unions bill—which confers the rights of marriage upon same-sex couples without redefining marriage. This would nullify the equal protection argument which "activist judges" have used to rule on. Moreover, voters in Arizona showed that this third-course was one which they prefer when they rejected a ban on gay marriage AND civil unions Tuesday—the first such defeat in the nation.
It may be a pipe-dream to think that any or all of these issues could result in a compromise. Short of compromising with the President, the new Democrat-controlled Congress will quickly regulate itself to "do-nothing status."
To show that they're serious about moving the nation forward, I propose that President Bush and Speaker-elect Pelosi should travel to California, sit down with Governor Schwarzenegger and Speaker Nunez and ask them how they did it. Now that he has a Democratic Congress, Bush may finally have a chance to be a "uniter, not a divider."
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger met publicly with a gay and lesbian group for the first time since taking office nearly three years ago, and although they were gay Republicans he spoke to, the real elephant in the room was Gay Marriage. It's widely assumed that Schwarzenegger's veto of marriage equality legislation in 2005 was a slap to the gay community—but what if Arnold in vetoing the bill had a better grasp on how to achieve equal rights than Log Cabin, Equality California or any other groups?
Speaking to the Log Cabin Republicans, Governor Schwarzenegger said, "Today we need a higher level of understanding, not lower. We need a sense of tolerance that is stronger, not weaker. I pledge to you that I will continue to promote these values as your governor, as your fellow Republican, and as your friend."
And after reminding the crowd that despite their shared values they may disagree—twice—Schwarzenegger pulled a line out of his campaign commercials, stating that we need to move the State forwards, not backwards.
What if, in the context of promoting Marriage Equality, vetoing the bill last September was actually the Governor's attempt to move the issue forward?
Before you tell me that's crazy talk, consider this. Just six years ago, California voters chose overwhelmingly (70% in favor) to recognize out-of-State marriages only if they were between a man and a woman.
Whether Arnold had signed the marriage bill last year, or (god forbid) a Governor Phil Angelides signs similar legislation next year, one thing will be certain—the measure will be sent to the voters in a referendum.
While the gay political establishment has done a good job electing 41 Democrats to the State Assembly who support the cause, little has been done to change the hearts and minds of most Californians…let alone Republicans. You could put your money on such a law being overturned at the ballot box—just like voters rejected Universal Healthcare in 2004.
Just fighting the battle at the polls—let alone suffering a defeat—would be ten big steps backwards for civil rights in California.
On the other hand, Governor Schwarzenegger, in vetoing the marriage bill last fall, said that the issue should be decided by the courts or the voters.
Within the year, the State Supreme Court will assuredly get a case challenging the discrimination in the State's Family Code based on the equal protection provisions in the California Constitution. To overturn such a decision, voters would have to strike the equal protection clause from the State Constitution—which I believe would be a much tougher sell.
Who knows what's really going on inside Governor Schwarzenegger's head when it comes to equal rights for all Californians, but listening to him speak, you get the sense that it's something he struggles with. Sensing that, it's possible to reach the conclusion that, indeed, Arnold knows best.
As many Americans celebrate Valentine's Day (that's today, Dad, if you're reading), my mind remains riddled by a question that came to me over the weekend at the uber-Republican Conservative Political Action Conference: If we Republicans are the party of limited government, why would we want the state to micromanage our most intimate personal relationships?
On Friday at CPAC, the Heritage Foundation's Matthew Spalding called for a Constitutional convention to federalize marriage. Conservatives have been loathe to call for a constitutional convention for even their apple pie issue, flag burning out of fear that such a meeting would formalize such atrocities as Abortion for All and Equal Rights for Women. But marriage is under attack, and only the Feds can save it!
Whatever happened to the worst phrase anyone can hear is, "I'm from the Government and I am here to help?"
So, let's get serious on this day about serious love. If you don't trust the Government to regulate business, provide healthcare, or clean the environment then why would you want it to have jurisdiction over a blessed, religious sacrament that involves your most intimate relations with another person?
Ah, there's the rub. The Republican Party, it turns out, has always wanted government control instead of religious freedom when it comes to marriage.
As the Family Research Council's Peter Sprigg pointed out, the original platform of the Republican Party demanded that the Federal government recognize only the traditional two-person, Judeo-Christian understanding of marriage. In fact, Utah statehood was held up for years until the state (and its mostly Mormon political leadership) banned the practice of polygamy—even though local religious customs recognized it.
At its core, marriage should be a religious—not a governmental—institution. Those, like Sprigg and Spalding, who demand that we "protect" marriage really want the Federal government to protect their religion's definition of marriage. And that definition leaves people whose Church, synagogue or other place of worship has other definitions of what constitutes a marriage out in the cold. Were marriage returned to its proper domain—houses of worship—arguments about polygamy or marrying my dog would be irrelevant as such relations would be given the same legal standing as they are today.
State courts here in California are weighing the measure on Equal Protection grounds. Elseswhere 'privacy" is the issue. And you have to wonder: is recognizing one religion's definition of marriage at the expense of others, the establishment of religion by the state? And isn't that a more fundamental violation of all our constitutional rights? Of course, Sprigg and Spalding don't mind using this yardstick. They're trying to establish their own religion as the law of the land.
If the Republican Party were truly the party of limited government, out leaders wouldn't be trying to force one religious view on all Americans, they'd realize that the best way to "protect" marriage is to return it to the provenance of the Church, the Temple, the Mosque or whatever religion chooses to bestow the sacrament.
