|
|
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
|
|
SAN FRANCISCO FOLLIES (RELOADED)
Randy Thomasson, the founder of Campaign for California this week said of the gay wedding spree currently ongoing in San Francisco, "Gavin Newsom is a renegade. And the word "equality" is being misused to rob all the sacred things of their uniqueness. What's next -- legalized heroin? Prostitution? Polygamy? Incest?" My response to all of those things would be, sure....Why not? I'm a firm believer in allowing consenting adults do whatever they want so long as that conduct inflicts no physical injury on an unconsenting third party. Right down the line, even to legalized heroin, prostitution, polygamy and incest. So long as everyone is a consenting adult, who cares? That is the basis for my support of same-sex marriage. Anyone who believes that gay marriage is a threat to their marriage is an idiot and too dangerously stupid to be married in the first place.
I deeply resent that I have to agree with Thomasson on anything but I do. Actually, I'd go even further than Mr. Thomasson on one point, Gavin Newsom isn't so much a renegade mayor as he is a criminal one. Newsom, on CNN's Late Edition Sunday did one of two things; He either demonstrated that he's a far sight dumber than I think he is or a whole lot more duplicitous.
Newsom was asked whether he acted legally or even within in the scope of his authority when he unilaterally interpreted the California constitution and then violated state law in accordance with that interpretation. When asked if should've gone to the courts first, he responded that the matter is before the courts and that courts haven't stopped him. This is extremely misleading. The County and City of San Francisco is before the courts as a respondent to two separately filed lawsuits over the issue. The courts did not file a immediate injunction but neither did they endorse the marriages as Newsom suggests.
The mayor is setting himself up as a political martyr of the most cynical sort in this conflagration as well. On Sunday he made the following statement to Wolf Blitzer,
"But I will not abdicate and step back and say what we were doing 10, 15 days ago before this action is appropriate. I do not believe it's appropriate for me, as mayor of San Francisco, to discriminate against people. And if that means my political career ends, so be it. Stand on principle."
As we all know, catering to the gay community in San Francisco is political dynamite! Yeah, that's a real career ender, Gavin. The first sentence of that statement raises some interesting questions though. For example, if the courts rule against him in the now four separate lawsuits (two filed by conservative groups against the city, one filed by the state against the city and one filed by the city against the state), will he refuse to follow the court's order as Judge Roy Moore did in the Alabama "Ten Commandments" case? Will he resign rather than stop? All indications are that he'll do neither. Newsom has said he'll stop the marriages if ordered to do so and has made no statement either way regarding resignation. That, in and of itself, should dispel any notions that this is an act of "civil disobedience."
The continued use of the phrase "civil disobedience" bothers me. Firstly, if Newsom is considered to be engaged in a courageous act of civil disobedience, why wasn't Judge Moore? I'm also uncomfortable with the idea of government officials breaking the law using the phrase, "civil disobedience" as, in some bizarre way, it places the actions of George Wallace on the same plane as those of Martin Luther King. Would it be "civil disobedience" if say, the Orange County Sheriff's Department stopped conducting background checks for firearms purchases because it doesn't fit with his interpretation of the Second Amendment? I doubt that Mayor Newsom would think so. Some might argue that marriage and guns are different in that marriage doesn't harm people and guns do, but that's a moral and not a legal or constitutional argument.
When I wrote on this subject last week, I noted the probable political consequences of Newsom's actions. From Friday through this morning, they have pretty much played out as I had predicted. Governor Schwarzenneger came out forcefully on the issue, which he had hoped to avoid due to his sympathies toward the gay community (or "fag business" as he referred to it in his now famous 1977 Oui magazine interview.) But Newsom left Schwarzenegger no choice on the matter.
This was an exchange between Schwarzenegger and Tim Russert on Meet the Press" on Sunday,
MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you what is happening in the second-largest city in California. These are thousands of Californians lined up in San Francisco being married against the law...
(Videotape, last week):
Unidentified Woman: ...pronounce you spouses for life. Congratulations.
Unidentified Man: Thank you.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: ...by city officials. How can you as governor tolerate the breaking of the law?
GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: Well, I don't. As you know, I'm very much against that. I believe very strongly in domestic partnership rights. I was all for-all throughout my campaign, I spoke out for it, but at the same time, we have also a law that says that we do not accept, you know, same-sex marriages which was passed by the people, Proposition 22, and so that is the law. So we cannot have, all of a sudden now, mayors go and hand out licenses for various different things. If it is--you know, in San Francisco, it's the license for marriage of same sex. Maybe the next thing is another city that hands out licenses for assault weapons. And someone else hands out licenses for selling drugs. I mean, we can't do that. We have to stay within the law. There's a state law that says specific things, and if you want to challenge those laws, then you can go to the court and you can either challenge it there and let this neutral party, someone that can interpret the law, if there's a dispute of it, make the decision. And I think this is all a legal matter now, and I directed Attorney General Bill Lockyer and said, you know, that he should now take care of this problem.
Scchwarzenegger and California's two U.S senators, Barbra Boxer and Dianne Fienstien - who support civil unions or domestic partnerships - have effectively been neutralized by Mayor Newsom's actions. Any movement in furtherance of civil unions from them now will be seen as appeasement of Newsom or an endorsement of his lawbreaking. This is what Representative Barney Frank (D-Mass) meant when he came out publicly against Newsom on the issue. And you're not likely to find a more thoughtful or outspoken advocate of gay marriage than Barney Frank.
This morning President Bush did as anticipated when he came out in support of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. In doing so, he specifically cited developments in San Francisco.
"In San Francisco, city officials have issued thousands of marriage licenses to people of the same gender, contrary to the California family code. That code, which clearly defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, was approved overwhelmingly by the voters of California. A county in New Mexico has also issued marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender. And unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials, all of which adds to uncertainty."
And the president is on safe political ground here. A recent poll showed a full 64% of Americans opposed to gay marriage. There is no immediate danger of an amendment passing. That requires two-thirds of the House and the Senate and two-thirds (Editor's Note: I've been corrected by the lovely and eligible Kilgore Trout, it's actually 3/4 of the state legislatures) of the state legislatures to pass it. That could take decades, if it happens at all. But it does put proponents of civil unions on the defensive. Several, including Senator Boxer, are up for re-election this year and will have to explain the distinction between civil unions and gay marriage and why, if they're opposed to gay marriage, are they also opposed to a constitutional amendment. That is very hard semantic ground to cover in the context of a sixty second debate response or a thirty second campaign ad. Several Democrats in close races in the midwest and the south are going to have no choice but to support the amendment or face annhilation in November. And that support is going to be held over their heads for the duration of the careers.
Not that matters at this point. Civil unions and domestic partnerships are dead issues now. It's gay marriage or bust. Televised ceremonies made both sides too obstinate to back away to a reasonable accomodation. The fact that those ceremonies were televised in an election year have now made it impossible for the issue to recede. I'm not suggesting that the issue is going to be resolved this year, in fact, I think it's going to get a whole lot uglier. Particularly when the "God Hates Fags" types show up at the party conventions in August and September.
All because Gavin Newsom wanted to be a hero.
|
|
|
| |
