Gay Marriage Archives
|
 |
Here's an interesting little bit of trivia about the fight for gay marriage rights and the folks who are waging it: Almost everyone involved is Roman Catholic. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom? Yup. City Attorney Dennis Herrera? Ditto. How about the judge? Yup, says the San Francisco Examiner. This, of course, is a vestige of the city's past. In a state colonized by the Spanish, San Francisco was a city built (and rebuilt) by the Irish and Italians with just a little teeny bit of French thrown in.
Judge Richard Kramer, appointed to the bench by Pete Wilson – you can't call him Liberal and you can't denounce him as an "activist" and mean it -- has issued a very interesting legal opinion in this case. It's well written and it's not too long and if you have any doubts about the legal validity of same-sex marriage, it's well worth your time to read.
I'm not a big fan of reading legal decisions but this is one is an exception. The arguments that Kramer addresses, clearly, succinctly and with an open-mindedness that refreshing, will be echoed again and again as this case moves forward. He is asking a few key questions. And to my untrained legal mind, he's asking them directly of the U.S. Supreme Court using language – and cases – that echo a lot of what the justices have been saying recently.
Did the Supreme Court mean it when it said that prohibitions against interracial marriage – a case less formally known as "Loving," for the plaintiff's names – is discriminatory? This is aimed at Justice Thomas not because he is in an interracial marriage but because his most notable statements from the bench have been on the subject of racial discrimination. If the court hews to Loving, Kramer argues, it has little choice but to rule that laws banning same sex marriage are equally biased. That's important, because many members of the current Supreme Court are big on precedent. Members of the court, particularly judge Anton Scalia, have also spoken about the court's need to uphold traditions. Here, too, Kramer was clear: Tradition is different from legal precedent. And in breaking with tradition, same-sex marriage is not breaking the law.
Wed 10:01 AM | permalink | printer-friendly version | email this article
|
|
San Francisco-based political consultant Eric Jaye got himself a little national limelight in The National Journal's Hotline last week talking about gay marriage and the strategy Democrats should employ. Jaye has advised San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom on this and other issues and given today's news -- that California's gay marraige ban is unconstitutional -- Jaye's comments are well-timed.
Update: Here's text of the decision up at the San Francisco Chron's site to accompany Jaye's comments.
Hotline's access is restricted to subscriber but Jaye emailed around a version of the piece late Friday. So here it is. It's a nice response to some of the criticsm that Newsom has been getting over this issue.
National Journal's Hotline
March 10, 2005
Same Sex, Different Response
In our ongoing "Great Debate" series, we tackle the Dem response to gay marriage. To kick off the conversation, we asked CA-based Dem consultant Eric Jaye, an advisor to San Fran Mayor Gavin Newsom, to share what he's learned.
-- Jaye's been on the frontlines on this issue, not just with Newsom, but also working against inits in places like OR and Topeka, KS. Jaye believes Dems are in a box because too many have tried to find a middle ground on this issue when voters don't believe there is a middle ground.
-- Jaye's prescription: own up to being for gay marriage/civil unions. Turn it into a leadership issue, a la Pres. Bush model on other issues and gamble that there aren't that many one-issue gay marriage voters that were somehow in the Dem camp. To some, Jaye's advice might seem perfectly reasonable, to others, too risky of a gamble. But is the bigger problem for Dems that because the party itself is split, the public will always view the Dems as pro-gay marriage no matter what an individual says?
One of the Dem consultants whose on the frontlines on the gay marriage issue is Eric Jaye, founder of Storefront Political Media, a CA-based firm specializing in general consulting and media. His recent campaigns and clients include No on 36 in OR (a gay marriage ban), the MI Dem Party and Gavin Newsom for Mayor of San Francisco. Because gay marriage is among the cultural issues that many Dems believe is the cause of many of their problems, we thought it would be good to see what consultants and strategists are advising on this issue. We asked Jaye to share the advice he's giving in column form.
Among the arguments Jaye makes on the gay marriage issue is that no campaign against a gay marriage ban is going to succeed if those campaigning against the ban are not making the case FOR "something else." The something else, in his opinion, is gay marriage or civil unions. This is a topic Dems all over the country are wrestling with; we hope Jaye's article starts a debate and we're open to printing the responses from other strategists who are trying to figure out this issue.
(Jaye's piece is after the jump)
Continue reading "Reprint: Eric Jaye on Gay Marriage"Mon 12:08 PM | permalink | printer-friendly version | email this article
|
|
About a year ago, when San Francisco's gay marriage madness made headlines, it was pretty clear to those of us in San Francisco watching the reactions around the country that gender equity – for real, this time -- was at the heart of even the most well-meaning straight Liberal's queasiness with the whole idea.
Today, David Frum, writing on the National Review's website weighs in supporting those suspicions. Using changes in Canadian law that would ban the use of the words "husband" and "wife," Frum goes on a tear about how gay marriage is the end of the institution of marriage as conservative like him know it. I don't know about that. Don't most people say "spouse" these days, anyway?
Frum, of course, assumes a man's superior economic and physical strength gives him the lead household role. Which says more about him than it does about most of the straight marriages I'm familiar with. And, never one to let a sleeping gay marriage dog lie, Andrew Sullivan weighs in with a long-drawn out philosophical discourse that states the obvious: Marriages are between two people who negotiate their own terms and conditions. The state shouldn't interfere in that relationship.
Continue reading "Catching Up: Gay Marriage Edition"Mon 11:34 AM | permalink | printer-friendly version | email this article
|
|
San Francisco City Hall is bathed in red this evening for St. Valentine's Day. In the dusk – the sun sets just about at the same latitude as the city's enormous Beaux Arts wedding-cake complex – it almost glows; a sweet, blushing reminded of the history that was made here last year.
It's impossible to have missed the coverage but, hey, in this modern world anything is possible. So here's the PoliticsFromLeftToRight archive. This piece received particular notice.
Continue reading "An Anniversary"Mon 07:48 PM | permalink | printer-friendly version | email this article
|
|
Just in time to commemorate San Francisco's Love Spring -- or Weddingpaloza or Marriage Madness or, most self-importantly of all, the Great Gay Marriage Revolution – Goeff Callan and Mike Shaw have popped up a website previewing their documentary "Rush to the Civil Altar."
The film isn't done. It needs a new name, no? But the trailer that's up at the site (download warning: it's a huge file) has some nice inside footage and a priceless interview with couples – two older lesbians in particular – talking about just how dull they are. It's true. Ask anyone in San Francisco. Our gay residents are some of our stodgier couples.
Continue reading "Chapel of Love: The Movie"Fri 11:06 AM | permalink | printer-friendly version | email this article
|
|
The SacBee sent one of its enterprising reporters to Berkeley to interview "Progressive" heart-throb George Lakoff to hear what a real Lefty "intellectual" sounds like but if you really wanted to hear the voice of Liberal authority, I recommend today's San Francisco Chronicle.
That's where San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera talks about why his office is pursuing the city's right to grant marriage license to same-sex couples. Herrera has already talked the talk now he's walking the walk because the San Francisco City Attorney does not have to take this on. He could just stand down. That's why Herrera's actions are a refreshing break from what I'm going to start calling Lakoff Liberalism, which is nothing more than talk and fuzzy feel-good thinking.
Continue reading "Listen Up"Wed 11:57 AM | permalink | printer-friendly version | email this article
|
|
Did San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom sink Democratic Presidential nominee John Kerry?
A few readers seem to think so.
"I nominate Newsom as the new Democratic goat of 2004," writes Mike Duffy. He had more to say:
That gay marriage stunt that Gavin Newsome pulled last year mobilized the Christian evangelicals to vote family values in Ohio. The "defend traditional marriage" initiative in Ohio (Proposition 1) was the single biggest reason that conservative Ohioans came out to vote. It even scored higher than terror. Kerry ought to give Newsome his thoughts on the matter.
Regular reader Dave Zinman, a moderately Liberal Democrat here in San Francisco, wasn't quite that caustic.
Continue reading "Blaming Newsom"Thu 09:55 AM | permalink | printer-friendly version | email this article
|
|
Comes now The New Yorker to weigh in, evaluate and look at our youthful mayor. This is, by the way, what comes of appearing on Charlie Rose. Same crowd, different media tools. And it speaks well to Mayor Gavin Newsom's political future as well as his ability to raise money.
The New Yorker piece is their "Letter from California" which should really be called "A Letter From Brooklyn about California" and no, nothing's available on-line but Usual Suspect-in-Chief Alex Clemens has had a PDF file of the story tucked under a bright red headline. You can go over there, download and read it.
There is one little teeny blooper that might go unnoticed by New York readers. Newsom tells the gentleman from Brooklyn that there was no polling done on "Care Not Cash." Uh. Not true. There's was polling. It might not have been done by Newsom or his campaign but it was done 'cause I read 'em.
UPDATE: Comes now, not a minute too soon, The San Francisco Chronicle to report on the reporter who wrote the Nesom profile. There's even less here than usually meets the eye in The Chron but if you want a great example of provincial journalism -- "They like us, they really like us. They know where we live!" -- this is about as good as it gets.
Sat 01:36 PM | permalink | printer-friendly version | email this article
|
|
Back in May when I outlined the scenario under which Vice President Dick Cheney would be replaced, people said I was crazy.
Well. Who’s nutty now? Moderate Republicans are on the war path – they want their party back – that’s what all this ‘dump Cheney’ stuff is about. I still think it could happen, particularly since the New York Times played its Cheney-replacement story on the front page, just barely above the fold. That’s a subtle sign they, too, think it’s possible something about the ticket could change.
Other stuff worth reading and thinking about this weekend:
Continue reading "Odds 'N Ends"Sat 11:55 AM | permalink | printer-friendly version | email this article
|
|
It's huge fun, isn't it, to see all these people who really want to get married getting hitched for all the right reasons?
Now you know why it made us so cheery. It's just fun. And good politics.
Which reminds me: We really are offering a chance to win a specially printed, signed by the artist "Justly Married" poster commemorating this country's first gay marriages.
It's a reward for filling out the reader survey (see button on right). The survey is anonymous for those of you who choose to remain in the shadows. And one lucky person (for this we need your email) will get a $50 gift certificate to Incanto and two others will get to hang copies this nifty piece of art on their wall. So, go ahead, answer a few questions. It'll be a great help keeping this site up and running.
Tue 11:45 AM | permalink | printer-friendly version | email this article
|
|
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Christopher Newsom is hitting the big time. Hard. Thursday night he got himself on Charlie Rose.
Rose is famous for getting folks he meets at Manhattan dinner parties to repeat, on air, their private conversations. Last time he did it with Steven Brill who predicted (correctly) a slam-dunk conviction for Martha Stewart. All of which means Newsom’ stock with an important crowd has just gone waaaaay up. In San Francisco, it’s already sky high. Three months into his first term, Newsom’s approval rating is a breathtaking 75 percent, according to recent polls.
Continue reading "Leverage"Sun 11:54 AM | permalink | printer-friendly version | email this article
|
|
Juxtapose two stories in two out-of-town papers and you get a pretty good look at the ramifications and a little bit of perspective on the gay marriage debate.
The New York Times’ front page has a piece on every parent’s nightmate: Custody fights over children. No one’s made the argument that gay marriage – and the legal rights it confers, including the right to divorce within a recognized and accepted framework – protects children. But someone should. Consider this: Gay couples who can’t work out their differences can’t sue in Family Court where their privacy is protected. The often find themselves in California’s civil court system where open records – financial medical and the like – are aired for all to see. Somehow, it seems, that sexual orientation shouldn’t be the keystone for that sort of stuff. The Times pieces goes a long way toward fleshing out the protections argument. Gay folks have been adopting for a while now and that adoption process is what, at it’s heart, is fueling much of the emotion around the issue – one that’s simply not going to go away regardless of what Congress thinks.
The second story on the city’s history of “activist” lawyers isn’t going to surprise anyone walking down McAllister Street. But it places, in a smart context, the city’s history as a force for social change, relying heavily on former City Attorney Louise Renne’s ultimately successful tobacco lawsuits. Renne, of course, is an advisor to Mayor Gavin Newsom. She ran his transition committee.
Wed 10:58 AM | permalink | printer-friendly version | email this article
|
|
It’s stupid. But completely in character.
Rachel Gordon, the reporter in question, and her new wife, photographer Liz Mangelsdorf, should march right down to the San Francisco Human Rights Commission and file a complaint for being discrminated against on the basis of their sexual preference and domestic arrangements.
If ever there were an illustration of the need for legal protections for gay people, this is it. More than 60 percent of San Francisco residents favor gay marriage putting Gordon and her partner in our little mainstream out here.
UPDATE: P.J. Corkery has some choice comments for Bronstein. And a smart observation: If the Chron's current policy about conflicts has been in place when Randy Shilts -- the paper's best-known and best-respected reporter -- was writing about the "gay plague" And the Band Played On would never have seen the light of day.
UPDATE II: Here's a letter from Harvey Milk Democratic Club President Robert Haaland.
To the editor,
Thanks for your recent editorial on the Chronicle‚s decision to remove a lesbian reporter from covering the same sex marriage issue because she got married.
I would guess that most of the LGBT community reacted with disdain for their decision. All of us have faced unconscious and conscious discrimination in our daily lives and on some gut level, we know it when we see it.
I can't help but wonder who the paper thinks will be objective on this issue? Will they assign a married heterosexual reporter or does that person face objectivity questions as well? Will he or she be "threatened" by the notion of same sex marriage and be unable to report in a nuanced, objective way? Perhaps they will find an unmarried reporter who doesn‚t believe in marriage? Arguably, this person isn't objective under their criteria either.
Will female reporters not be able to report on issues facing women since they will not be objective or can only men be objective about women's issues?
[San Franscico Sentinel Editor Pat]Murphy is right to call on LGBT groups and LGBT elected officials to denounce the Chronicles action. Unfortunately, I'm guessing that the editorial board will not understand. Perhaps in ten or twenty years when there is greater understanding, the paper may look back and regret this, but my guess is that they will continue to justify their discrimination under the guise of the need for objectivity.
Robert Haaland
Wed 09:08 AM | permalink | printer-friendly version | email this article
|
|
Our very own Little LoveSpring (also known as Wedding-stock) -- 29 days of same sex marriage bliss -- has come to an end. We here in San Francisco are going to miss it.
It’s time for the lawyers to take over the gay marriage fight. Time to put away the flowers and the tuxedoes and the hastily bought wedding dresses. The guys and gals in the nicely cut grey cashmere suits will be at this for a good long time. And while I’m no attorney, I’d say you can look for the San Francisco cases to hit the U.S. Supreme Court in about a year – well after the election but in time to have a further beneficial effect on San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s political future. No matter what the courts decide,he wins.
Continue reading "What a Swell Party It Was"Sun 06:41 PM | permalink | printer-friendly version | email this article
|
|
San Franciso Mayor Gavin Newsom has caught the eye -- literally -- of Gaypornblog.com, a link you might not want to hit while you're sitting in the office.
They're running an election and once again, ironically enough, just like our little municiple election, Newsom's facing another Green Party opponent, Jason West the Mayor of New Palz, N.Y. for the title of "hottest mayor."
Do you think these guys are getting sick of being judged on their looks? Oh, well, at last look, Newsom was ahead, er, winning.
(link via Gawker)
Wed 04:06 PM | permalink | printer-friendly version | email this article
|
|
If it weren’t for the growing popularity of gay marriage – yesterday you could get married in New Palz, N.Y., today it’s Portland, tomorrow, who knows? – next Wednesday’s SF Bay Guardian would probably carry this headline:
Until Gavin Newsom told city officials to start granting marriage licenses to same sex couples, his credibility as a mayoral candidate was wrapped up in passage of a “workforce housing,” initiative.
Continue reading "Party On"Wed 03:54 PM | permalink | printer-friendly version | email this article
|
|
Much is being made – outside San Francisco, as far as I can tell – about Judge James Warren’s being gay. Like anybody around here cared until now. But now, Warren, grandson of legendary U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, is one of two California Superior Court Judges to have the gay marriage issue before him. At least for now.
Here’s some that’s even more important that sexual orientation when it comes to judges, anyway. They get the job by appointment but after that they have to stand for election. For Superior Court judges like Warren and Ronald Quidachay, the Superior Court Judge with the other marriage case, that comes at the end of a six years term. For Supreme Court judges – you know the Supreme Court is here in San Fran, too -- it’s at the end of 12 years.
The latest polls show that 66 percent of the residents of the city and county of San Francisco County favor gay marriage. Now, the first thing you learn in politics is counting. Counting votes. And I'm betting that's not something any of those on the bench need to learn twice.
Mon 10:12 AM | permalink | printer-friendly version | email this article
|
|
Middle America, or at least its spokespeople seem to be doing just fine with the transition to same-sex couples.
On an Oscar-show promo, Barbara Walters called Kelli Carpenter, the woman who married Rosie O’Donnell last week right here in San Francisco her “wife.” Walters, of course, has the exclusive post-nuptial interview with Carpenter, or is that Mrs. O’Donnell?
Too bad the president of the United States is on record as not watching TV or reading papers. His trusted advisors are going to have to tell him about this one.
Mon 10:03 AM | permalink | printer-friendly version | email this article
|
|
1.Having read President Bush’s comments calling for a constitutional amendment to define marriage while maintaining states’ rights (baby: split), I’m standing by my that much of the tension underlying gay marriages is over the changing role of women.
C.V. Nevius turns in a nice column sort of making this point in today’s Chron by quoting a bunch of religious scholars who point out that marriage has changed – a lot – in the past 2,000 years. And while I’m saying nice things – hey, it happens -- about the crowd down on Mission Street, please note their coverage of the gay marriage issues has been complete, smart and, every once in a while – Nevius today, for example – useful.
Continue reading "Stuff We Knew. Misc. Entries."Wed 11:57 AM | permalink | printer-friendly version | email this article
|
|
Gay marriage replaced missing weapons and missing National Guard records on the political blogoshere this week but precious little of it has addressed an important underlying issue: women’s independence as it relates to their legal relationships with men. (This is no doubt due to the paucity of women’s voices in political commentary in general but that’s another rant for another day.)
Like it or not, realize it or not, society’s understanding of that relationship is fundamentally changed by the idea of gay marriage. And it’s high time we started talking about it. If nothing else, it could help Democrats and other well-meaning Liberals understand why some people – some of them – have such qualms about the marriage of two people of the same sex.
For starters, marriage publicly signals the beginning of an active adult sex life. It used to be called pre-marital sex, remember? In some places it still is. Marriage makes bedroom activity – and its consequences – legitimate. Not everyone looks at marriage this way but most people do, subconsciously or otherwise. And straight people don’t like to think about gay sex. TV shows about dykes end up being vaguely titillating (Showtime’s “The L Word" is being marketed under the banner "Same Sex, Different City") while shows about gay men reduce them to fashion-obsessed stereotypes ("Queer Eye for the Straight Guy”). Straight people often say that knowing someone’s orientation is none of their business. What they’re really saying is that they don’t want to be reminded of something – sex between two people of the same gender – that they don’t want to think about.
Continue reading "Free. At Last?"Sun 11:48 AM | permalink | printer-friendly version | email this article
|
|
The TV news was aflutter last night. Gov. Terminator had spoken on gay marriage! America’s most hetrosexual man had issued an edict! Man the ramparts! The culture war has come to town!
So, what did Schwarzenegger actually do after a week of headlines, merriment bordering on the silly, and more than 3,000 same sex marriages including Board of Equalization’s Carol Migden? He stood up in front of a group of Republicans gathering for their state convention in San Mateo -- on a Friday night so he'd be sure to make the never-read Saturday papers -- and he punted, long and deep to California Attorney General Bill Lockyer. Lockyer, a Democrat, once a good friend and supporter of the governor’s, got in hot water over some ill-considered comments about the groping stories circulating about the former movie star now politician. So maybe this is pay back? Could be. Could also be that by doing nothing more than giving a speech to the party faithful (most more conservative than he is) and writing a “strongly worded” letter – and taking his sweet time about that – Schwarzenegger is signaling his lack of interest in defending the state on this issue. Could be. In fact, probably is.
Schwarzenegger directed the A.G. to figure out what’s going on in San Francisco and put a stop to it. Pronto! Like last week! Only faster! If people keep getting married we could have anarchy! Domesticity is breaking out all over.
Only a few problems with this edict as a lapsed action hero might define it. One, Lockyer’s already working on the issue. As California A.G., his office is the one that gets to respond to the city’s suit against the state, not that that was Lockyer's idea. Secondly, Schwarzenegger has no authority over Lockyer. Not because he’s a Democrat. Because he’s an elected official. He’s got his own gig, according to the state constitution, that same document San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom is invoking as the city issues same-sex marriage licenses.
Sat 01:30 PM | permalink | printer-friendly version | email this article
|
|
What happened when the gay marriage protestor went to San Francisco City Hall?
He ran into a queen.
As recounted by both The Chron and The Ex, marriage officiant Bill Jones gave no snaps up to Jake Olthof, a 37-year-old who drove up from Santa Cruz to make a citizen’s arrest.
According to The Chron:
The man proceeded to follow Jones down the hall, saying he was performing a citizen's arrest.
"I thought he was kidding," said Jones, of San Rafael. "I was giving him all this campy stuff, saying, 'Yes, arrest me -- I love a man in uniform.' "
The Ex gives Jones the last word:
"The guy was serious, I mean he was dead serious. I'm the one who was laughing him off," Jones said. "But the point is, I have tickets for the Lion King tonight and I didn't want to spend it in the whose cow [jail]."
Fri 11:35 AM | permalink | printer-friendly version | email this article
|
|
The President of the United States is says he is “troubled” by San Francisco’s decision – and make no mistake, this is citywide feel good movement – to marry 3,000 (and counting) gay and lesbian couples. His wife is “very, very shocked."
I know exactly how they feel.
Because when I look at Washington, D.C. I am very, very shocked and troubled. Some days, even after 15 or so years as a political reporter, I’m beside myself.
It’s disturbing that the government of this country has corrupted the process of gathering intelligence, misinterpreted (or shaded) the data it collected to launch a war.
That it probably used this corrupt data to corral another government – the United Kingdom – to cooperate in this scheme is worrisome. Oh, and that a distinguished U.S. diplomat was allowed to make false statements to the international community based on this intelligence is more than shocking, it’s appalling cynicism.
It bothers me that after statements about Iraqis dealing in special weapons grade uranium were disproved, the U.S. government launched a campaign to smear a former diplomat and his wife, a CIA agent.
It’s surprising that this same government has put off looking into the process by which it was misled by its own intelligence until well after the November election. With the war on terrorism you’d think the people who run this country would want to make sure the process by which they gather information is secure,, wouldn’t you? That’s a bit upsetting, isn’t it?
And it’s dismaying that a special commission set up to investigate the events of Sept. 11, 2001, has met with little cooperation – and then only grudging – from the Bush administration.
It’s alarming that the U.S. government has somehow confused and conflated the events of Sept. 11, 2001 and the Iraqi War. There are a host of sins hiding under this banner; some could have been prevented with good leadership. Others not. But, let’s keep things simple for the time being and talk about money. In the name of fighting terrorism, this country has run up a $500 billion (or $2.4 trillion depending on how you count) deficit only a small part of which has gone to actually defend this nation here, where it was attacked. State and local governments faced with alarmed citizens – citizens who, perhaps, read false FBI alerts? – are carrying the burden of anti-terrorism defense at the same time they find themselves collected lower taxes because of a weaker economy.
In the name of defending against terrorism, young men have been captured and held far from their homes, in isolation, in prisons and special security compounds awaiting a formal, closed and secret hearing that goes against the fundamental legal and human rights established by the founding of this nation. Their lawyers and their religious counselors are spied upon.
But you know what’s really troubling, what’s very, very shocking? That all of this – from the shaded intelligence to the funny economic numbers to the civil and human rights violations – doesn’t seem to bother anyone in Washington. But a bunch of people who have been living together for years and want to get married so they can pay taxes together and raise their kids as a legal and social unit recognized by the laws of this country? That’s got the president on the warpath.
Thu 05:18 PM | permalink | printer-friendly version | email this article
|
|
We now know the answer to the quiet questions asked about San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s national political ambition.
Yes. He does have them. In abundance. That didn’t take long, did it?
With his decision to allow San Francisco to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Newsom has deftly corralled the city’s contentious gay community as his first step onto the national stage. It’s a very smart strategy and it’s been well executed at all levels. Watching Newsom on BBC America Saturday evening, you knew the mayor and the city had changed. And think, just the other day I was starting to miss former mayor Willie Brown.
Regardless of what the courts rule and rule and rule again; (this is a classic test case headed straight at the Supreme Court), Newsom has earned himself friends and fundraisers – politically minded gays give and give generously -- for a long, long time.
This is the stuff that makes political careers: good timing, smart politics and, not to be too coy about it, properly orchestrated grandstanding and intelligent media manipulation. Newsom got himself and his city a full slow news worth weekend of national and international ink and pretty much everybody involved looks good. After all, who doesn’t like a wedding? Unlike the usual San Francisco displays, Newsom’s piece of political theater – Gay Weddings on Valentine’s Day, how corny, how memorable, how sweet –- concerns a pressing issue of our time. The right to marry, the legal and social protections the institution affords couples is an issue that affects millions of people, their parents and their children. Newsom’s decision will resonate farther than the cheers that greeted almost every couple that appeared on City Hall steps holding their freshly signed marriage licenses aloft. It’s a mountain. It’s not a molehill.
The city politics are obvious. Newsom has consolidated support within the city’s gay community, a group that was divided debating his liberal credentials. Mayoral rival Matt Gonzalez is going to have a hard time calling Newsom a Republican or suggesting that his ideology or ideas are superior. Of course, Republicans are going to have a hard time dismissing Newsom’s decision to allow same-sex couples to marry. A straight, good-looking Irish Catholic with a beautiful wife and a lot of rich friends, well, uh, he’s almost one of them, isn’t he?
As for the state politics, again, Newsom has good timing. You’ve noticed how quiet it is out there? Me too. There are a couple of reasons for this. Gov. Schwarzenegger needs support for his bond issue propositions which will be on March 2 ballot – the day of what looks like it might be a pretty hot Democratic primary. He can’t alienate Democrats right now. He needs them and he will continue to need them until the state’s budget woes are resolved. So Schwarzenegger can’t exactly land on Newsom with both feet for violating the state’s constitution. Not that he would, anyway. The governor’s on record – I believe his exact words were that he didn’t “give a shit” who people sleep with -- as being pro-gay rights.
That leaves the most the national Republican Party, itself divided on this issue as Schwarzenegger, New York Times columnist David Brooks and blogger extraordinaire Andrew Sullivan regularly illustrate, to take Newsom on. Win or lose as he goes up against the right wing, Newsom looks good to his supporters, especially those newly converted liberal gays. So he boxes in his local critics. He gets more media exposure, nationally and internationally, which gives him political clout locally and across the state. More importantly, he very quietly, gets points from the Democratic Party for taking the heat on this issue so national figures – like oh, possible presidential candidates from Massachusetts where gay rights is also hotly contested – can duck while the party gets credit for doing the right thing by the gay community.
In a slight paraphrase of the great Al Davis: It’s just a win, baby, just a win.
UPDATE: Want to see how much media coverage we're talking about? See the links Alex Clemons has culled for The Usual Suspects which provided the leads for some of the links in this post. Thanks, Alex!
Tue 11:41 AM | permalink | printer-friendly version | email this article
