|
|
Thursday, February 19, 2004
|
|
SAN FRANSICO FOLLIES (REPRISE)
Now that San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has had his week in the national spotlight, and a profile in the New York Times, he has resorted to the action he should have started with. Mayor Newsom is challenging the state of California's prohibition on same- sex marriage in court. This is a departure from the position Newsom took just yesterday.
This from today's New York Times:
With business acumen, money, good looks and friends in the right places, Mr. Newsom has been promoted by many Democrats as a rising star. Some people suggested he wait and let the courts tackle the issue.
But Mr. Newsom said he had no patience for a long court battle.
"It was an easy argument, I imagine, between 1948 and 1967, when we all waited around for the courts of this country to recognize interracial marriages," Mr. Newsom said. 'There are certain principles in life that transcend patience, and one of them to me is the obligation not to discriminate against people."
Why the shift? I suspect, as I wrote on Saturday, that the Mayor's motives are far more political than moral. It should be remembered that Newsom only won election against the Green Party in a campaign where he was painted as the "conservative" candidate. To hear Newsom tell it, he was unaware of gay marriage being a major issue until the state of the union address on January 20th. This despite the controversy over "civil unions" legislation in Vermont, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruling which , in effect, legalized gay marriage in Canada and the ruling of the Supreme Court of Massachussettes. This has been a major political issue for over 3 years now. Yet Mayor Newsom was unaware of it.
Horseshit.
Newsom is a professional politician. As such, he knew instinctively that once George Bush came out against something, he could glean great political capital in coming out for it. There are few activities safer than opposing Bush in San Francisco. There are other benefits to his stand as well. San Francisco has an enormous gay population. Gays tend to be very very politically active as a demographic. When you were framed as the conservative in your last race and only squeeked by as consequence, having a large, active community in your tent is certainly not unwise.
The Mayor could have made the same point by filing the lawsuit before issuing the licenses, as he has done this afternoon, but he chose not to. This is also a political decision. Lawsuits don't have the sex appeal that pictures do. Had Newsom acted in accordence with the law, he would have filed suit and it would have appeared in the back of every newspaper outside of the Bay Area. Instead, he has been on the front page of most newspapers and gained hour upon hour of exposure on cable news networks.
Gavin Newsom is now an international celebrity and an icon of the gay rights movement. These are formidable advantages for when he's up for re-election. The Mayor is politically positioned exactly where he wished to be.
But there are consequences.
And it's the unintended consequences that tend to bite you on the ass. The national Democratic party wanted to stay as far away from this issue as they humanly could. They have everything to lose and nothing to gain from it. They already have the gay vote. Does anybody think your average gay man or lesbian is going to vote for Bush/Cheney? But the Democrats can't be assured of anything in the south or the midwest, where they have to make headway if they have any chance of winning the presidency ever again. Now with Newsom's action and the ruling of the Massachussettes Supreme Court, they won't be able to dodge the issue. And remember, the convention this year will be in Boston.
Democrats are better than average at reading opinion polls, and with two-thirds of Americans currently opposing gay marriage, they have two choices; either come out strongly against gay marriage or don't and lose the election. National Democrats are now going to have to move closer to the president's position. It's not unrealistic to expect that more and more Democrats in vulnerable districts will begin to support the Federal Marriage Ammendment.
Governor Schwarzenegger, who campaigned as being supportive of "domestic partnerships" or "civil unions" now has lost the latitude within his own party to act.
With the video footage coming out of San Francisco over the last seven days, conservatives and large segments of the midwest and south are going to be much less supportive of changing the status quo. It is instructive to remember that every action has an equal reaction. Perhaps the movement's advocates believe they can rely on the courts. But it should be remembered that the courts in Hawaii struck down domestic partnership laws and the state assembly responded with a constitutional ammendment. If prodded by the people, legislatures can and will act, especially when there is not much of a percieved price to pay for doing so.
There's also the very real possibility that the City of San Francisco can lose in court. Having neutralized the governor, the cause will be far worse off than it was eight days ago. As I write this, Mayor Richard Daley, Jr. of Chicago has declared that he would have "no problem" if the Clerk of Cook County began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Daley is in a much different position than Newsom though. Firstly, he's not seen as being in front of the issue, the County Clerk is. Secondly and more importantly, when was the last time someone named Daley lost an election in Chicago?
|
|
|
| |
