Next Tuesday, Texas is likely to become the eighteenth state to pass a constitutional amendment barring the state from recognizing same-sex marriages. The proposed amendment, appearing on next Tuesday’s ballot, would also prevent the Lone Star State from recognizing domestic partnerships as well. Last year, voters in thirteen states (eleven in November, Missouri and Louisiana earlier in the year) approved ballot initiatives defining marriage the union of one man and one woman. Since then, voters in Kansas followed suit.
Although every such referendum that appears on state ballots has passed, usually by a comfortable margin, advocates of same-sex marriage continue to offer the same strategy to defeat these measures. And they continue to lose. Given their repeated defeats, one would expect gay rights’ leaders to assess the damage and develop a new strategy. Perhaps a few leaders should take responsibility for their failure (to defeat a single one of these initiatives) and step down as did British Foreign Minister Lord Carrington when, a week after he refused to grant the Royal Navy permission to send a fleet to defend the Falkland Islands, Argentina invaded that British territory.
Lord Carrington acknowledged his mistakes. Those spearheading the opposition to the Texas Amendment are repeating those made by gay marriage advocates in other states. Under the leadership of a liberal former state representative, Austin’s Glen Maxey, opponents have put together “No Nonsense In November,” a coalition of left-wing groups. Law professor Dale Carpenter, one of the few who understands what’s at stake in the marriage debate, calls this “a losing coalition” in “a conservative Republican state.”
It’s not just the coalition that’s the problem, it’s the message as well. On the No Nonsense website, Dale finds that:

the very first argument against the marriage amendment is one that practically cribs from press releases of the state Democratic party. No Nonsense argues that instead of passing a marriage amendment, the Republican-dominated state legislature should have concentrated on “real solutions” like child healthcare and equalization of public-school financing.

Seems these activists are more interested in attacking Republicans than in defeating this pernicious proposal. Not a good idea in a state that voted to re-elect the president with 61% of the vote.
[Read more…]

Just before leaving my apartment today for a meeting and errands, I read that in a constitutional convention, Massachusetts’ legislators voted 157-39, a margin of more than 4-1, against a proposed constitutional amendment which would overturn that state’s Goodridge decision mandating gay marriage, but would also establish for civil unions for same-sex couples.
While I understand that some legislators may have voted for this amendment because they did not want the state to recognize even civil unions, I think this is most significant vote on gay marriage yet in the United States. More significant that the votes in both houses of the legislature in the Golden State for two primary reasons, the first, is that the Massachusetts legislature is closer to the people than that here (in California). Their House of Representatives has twice as many members as ours (160 vs. 80) while the state has one-fifth as many people.
The second reason is that legislators have had time to consider the measure. Because of Massachusetts’ rules for amending its constitution, a joint session of the legislature must pass an amendment in two consecutive sessions before sending it to the voters. Legislators first voted on this last year.
I have long believed that we must trust legislatures — and to the people of the various states — to deal with the issue of marriage. While I believe that Goodrich was wrongly decided, the elected legislators of the Bay State have had now voted on gay marriage. Given that legislative districts there are much smaller than they are here in California, those legislators are closer to the people and thus, less in thrall to special interests than are our officials in California.
Moreover, in the year since they first voted, as legislators considered the issue, they also surely discussed it with their constituents. Perhaps, this truly does represent the will of the people in the Bay State. We could find out in 2008 should Massachusetts’ citizens succeed in placing an initiative on the ballot to amend the state’s constitution to bar gay marriage and civil unions altogether.
For now, it appears that gay marriage in Massachusetts is a reality. Let us hope that gay marriage advocates use their success here to move beyond the rhetoric of “rights” and talk about the meaning of marriage. Should they do that, they may well succeed in convincing other Americans of the merits of their cause.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

I thought this comment from GP Reader “DSH” in San Francisco was so well written and insightful… I wanted to make it a posting of its own. Thanks DSH!

Two truths about politics are univerally recognized: (1) All politics is local, and (2) timing is everything.
In 2000, the people of California voted on a referendum that passed by 60% of the voters. It declared that marriage was exclusively between a man and a woman. The voters of California are very proud of their referendum system: One only has to marvel at the success of Proposition 13, the 1970s referendum that controlled state spending, a victory that has been repeated in numerous other States. Californians are also very protective of their will expressed in these referenda. Try to bypass or override the public’s will, and everyone involved pays.
Still, Californians are generally a fair, empathetic, and equitable people. They have generally responded favorably to very recent legislation by Democrat legislatures and Governor Schwarzenegger that provides Domestic Partnerships for gays. It’s the broadest piece of pro-gay legislation written to date. Only ultra-right wing politicians and the religious right opposed the legislation.
The opponents of Domestic Partners vowed to take the matter to the voters. Led by the homophobe zealot Lou Sheldon and the operatives of James Dobson and Pat Robertson, these zealots claimed that Domestic Partners was really just a ploy by “liberals” to sneak gay-inclusive marriage under the radar by a different name. They will collect enough signatures to place a constitutional amendment banning support for all things gay: Not just gay-inclusive marriage, but Domestic Partners as well, and some versions go so far as to deny equal housing and employment. Before the gay-inclusive marriage, few people thought it would pass.
Then comes Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), my representive from the Castro district, who’s also gay. No sooner does he and other gay representatives succeed in passing domestic partnership, which the Governor signs, that he decides one good turn deserves another. Even before DP is a year old, he attaches gay-inclusive marriage bills to all sorts of omnibus bills, and it succeeds against considerable odds solely with Democrats’ support in passing the bicameral legislature. The Governor claims the bill is counter to Proposition 22, which is the fullest expression of the will of the people, and he vetos the legislation.
The maxims raise their usual heads: The local gay activism of San Francisco, Berkeley, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood is now poised to be opposed by much of the rest of the State. Plus, the timing illustrates the opponents’ contention that gay-inclusive marriage was the real homosexual agenda all along; that domestic partnership was a ruse; and one can no longer discriminate against GLBT in housing and employment. But if the opponents’ referendum passes, all this will be gone. Ironically, public opinion polls show support for domestic partners, but opposes gay-inclusive marriage. But the opponents will wrap the whole thing into one package, and it is likely to pass.
So the short-term gain by Leno may set back long-term gay rights for years to come. What Leno and others failed to realize is that the public opinion is shifting, but not enough time has passed for opinions to become more favorably settled. The timing could not have been worse nor the provincialism more obvious. To paraphrase: One small step forward, one giant step backward. Thanks Leno.

I agree… timing is everything. For all of his faults, President Clinton was a master of political timing. The current leadership of the LibDem Party perhaps has the worst timing. The gay marriage issue in California is just a local manefestation of the feeding frenzy LibDem approach which turns off the majority of Americans, no matter what the issue.
-Bruce (GayPatriot) – gaypatriot2004@aol.com

FOX News Channel is reporting via Associated Press that aides to Governor Schwarzenegger say he will veto the same-sex marriage legislation passed by the California Assembly yesterday.
UPDATE: Yahoo News is now reporting the story.

Schwarzenegger said the legislation, given final approval Tuesday by lawmakers, would conflict with the intent of voters when they approved a ballot initiative five years ago. Proposition 22 prevents California from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries.
“We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote,” the governor’s press secretary, Margita Thompson, said in a statement. “Out of respect for the will of the people, the governor will veto (the bill).”
Despite his promised veto, Schwarzenegger “believes gay couples are entitled to full protection under the law and should not be discriminated against based upon their relationship,” the statement said.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

CA Assembly OK’s Gay Marriage
Log Cabin Republicans praise…. (full news release here)

(Sacramento, CA) – “Log Cabin applauds the California legislature for this historic vote in favor of basic fairness for gay and lesbian families,” said Patrick Guerriero, President of Log Cabin Republicans. The California Assembly followed the California State Senate in passing the historic legislation authored by Mark Leno, which provides civil marriage equality to all couples who want to commit their lives to each other.
“Now that the people of California have spoken through their elected representatives, we call on the Governor to respect this decision and the legislative process, and allow this legislation to become law,” continued Guerriero. “Governor Schwarzenegger has been a committed ally of LGBT equality and we thank him for his support in the fight for basic fairness for our families.”

….while the folks at the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force were overheard to be saying…. “Well, at least Californians that are put in Bush’s gay concentration camps can get married.”
And at the Human Rights Campaign rumors spread that “If John Roberts becomes Chief Justice… same-sex sex will be banned! Happy Hour at JRs tonight!”
My only comment is…. I’m torn between the will of the people and the will of the elected representatives. I think this is an important step. But what do the 61% of Californians who voted against same sex marriage in the Year 2000 think about their elected representatives? I don’t know. I admit I struggle with it.
Of course I still don’t get how gay marriage=equal rights…and none of the GayLefties have fully explained it either (except saying it is George Bush’s fault, of course).
Here’s a round-up of different reactions across the spectrum to the CA legislative decision.
[Read more…]

Today, the first state legislative body in U.S. history passed a bill recognizing gay marriage and while gay rights’ groups & their allies are singing hosannas, I fear this will set back the movement for gay marriage.
If this bill had passed in a state whose citizens had not already voted to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, I would be singing an entirely different tune. I believe that elected state legislatures, rather than courts, should set the criteria for marriage in their jurisdictions. But, certain states, like California, where the state Senate approved today a bill recognizing gay marriage, allow for initiative and/or referenda to amend the state’s constitution or otherwise make law.
In 2000, more than 60% of California voters approved Proposition 22 which “added a section to the state Family Code stating that ‘only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.’” Because the legislature has acted against the will of the people, the Senate’s vote today will embolden those forces opposed to gay marriage and state recognition of domestic partnerships. (If legislators believe the people have changed their minds on gay marriage, as some have suggested, then they should seek to repeal Prop. 22 with another initiative, a repeal I would support.) As I have expressed previously, “I fear that the end result of this legislation will be an amendment to the state’s constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”
Today’s vote does a disservice to those who truly seek state recognition of gay marriage in the Golden State–indeed in any state. Instead of trying to lobby the most out-of-touch state legislature in America, advocates of gay marriage should be making their pitch to the American people. Because if we can change their minds, then we could better create a climate in this nation where state legislatures — and the citizens who elect them — would support state recognition of our unions.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
PS I am on vacation now and will have more to say on this anon.

Since Andrew Sullivan first published his piece, “Here Comes the Groom: A conservative case for gay marriage in The New Republic in August 1989, many people, including a good number of straight conservatives, have come forward to support Andrew’s thesis as articulated in his subtitle–that support for gay marriage is a conservative position. I might agree with his conclusion if those advocating gay marriage moved beyond the rhetoric they are currently using and focus instead on the meaning of marriage, that is, they need to get beyond the demand for equal benefits.
Support for gay marriage would only be conservative if we could be sure that by granting the same benefits to same-sex couples who choose marriage as we do to those who elect traditional marriage that those couples agree to the same responsibilities, including the commitment to monogamy.
In the current debate, few from either side seem to be addressing the real issue in the debate. Advocates of gay marriage feed us nostrums about “equality” and benefits while opponents ominously warn that recognition of same-sex unions will destroy the institution of marriage. Few wish to debate the issue seriously and consider the meaning of the institution. And as I have in the past, I recommend the first chapter, “What is Marriage for,” in the book, Gay Marriage : Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America by Jonathan Rauch, one of the few advocates of gay marriage who has (considered that meaning).
Until advocates of gay marriage (of which I am not (at present) one) follow Jonathan’s lead and talk about the meaning of marriage, they are not making a serious effort to promote the positive social benefits of monogamous relationships to gay people — and to society at large.
[Read more…]

From Log Cabin Republicans’ Press Release (not yet up on their website):

(Washington, DC) ? “Log Cabin Republicans applaud the bi-partisan passage of civil unions and non-discrimination legislation in the Oregon Senate. Log Cabin calls on the Oregon House Majority Leader, Karen Minnis, to bring this bill to the floor, and for the House to follow the Senate?s lead and pass this important legislation that provides basic fairness for all families,” said Log Cabin Republicans President Patrick Guerriero.
The legislation, SB 1000, would provide basic fairness to all Oregon families by establishing civil unions for gay and lesbian couples and prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in housing, employment, public accommodation, and public services. The legislation was co-sponsored by Republican State Senators Frank Morse and Ben Westlund. Senator Morse (R-Corvallis) asked the Senate to refuse ?”ntolerance and hatred” and to “cast a vote for acceptance.” Senator Morse noted that his Christian belief in equality and his experience knowing gays and lesbians guided him to co-sponsor the legislation.
Civil unions would provide hundreds of important protections and responsibilities for gay and lesbian families in Oregon. “All families deserve basic fairness, including gay and lesbian families. Opinion surveys repeatedly show that the vast majority of Oregon voters favor civil unions for same-sex couples. Support for civil unions is so broad that even a majority of voters who supported Measure 36 say they support civil unions that provide all of the rights, responsibilities, and protections of marriage,” continued Guerriero.
“Log Cabin proudly joins with Basic Rights Oregon and other organizations in supporting this important piece of legislation. We will continue working for final passage in the Oregon House,” concluded Guerriero.

-Bruce (GayPatriot) – gaypatriot2004@aol.com

Eva Young linked me to this thoughtful post on gay marriage. It is a long post, but the author, Craig Westover, makes a number of good points. I will single out just two and encourage you to read the whole thing.
First, he articulates a truly conservative case for gay marriage, by suggesting an incremental approach, starting with “some kind of civil union or child protection measures for gay families” and seeing what happens.
Second, he makes an excellent cause against a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman while addressing the legitimate concern that many conservatives have of judicial activism:

If the concern were really activist courts, all that is necessary is an amendment that says state courts shall exercise no jurisdiction over the decisions of the legislature regarding the gender requirements of marriage — or words to that effect. If that were the language, that would leave the legislature and the people free to decide in the future if the state wants to have gay marriage, but take the courts out of it. That’s what conservatives should support, not an exclusionary amendment.

Exactly.
These are only two of the many excellent points he makes. Since Mr. Westover put a good deal of thought in his piece, I repeat, READ THE WHOLE THING!!

Instapundit references a post by a Swiss reader of this blog (who also e-mailed me a heads-up) about tomorrow’s referendum on civil partnership in this European nation. Fran?ois notes how quickly Western attitudes toward gays have changed:

The change of attitude regarding gays and lesbians in the western world is quite extraordinary: it is less than 40 years since a prudent decriminalization of homosexual acts began in Britain (in 1967), following the Wolfenden report. And the very idea that same sex couples should be recognized and supported emerged only in the 1980s, an unlikely side-effect of the AIDS epidemic which forced gay men to go public or die, and society to acknowledge them or reject them (with great risk regarding the spread of the HIV virus). It was enacted into law for the first time in 1989 in Denmark.

Now that I’ve whet your appetite, read the whole thing!
UPDATE: The referdum passed with 58% of Swiss voters approving recognition of same-sex couples for tax and pension purposes.

It appears that the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) have learned nothing from the success of the fourteen state referenda (in the past year) defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Last week, a group of social conservatives led by Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families, started raising money and gathering signatures for the “Voters’ Right to Protect Marriage Initiative,” a proposed amendment to the California State constitution to define marriage as those states have defined it and to prevent the state from recognizing civil unions. HRC has responded with a press release to announce a fundraising drive to defeat this pernicious proposal using the same language of the failed campaigns to defeat similar initiatives last year.
HRC and NGLTF have teamed up with “more than 200 religious, labor and civil rights organizations” from across the Golden State to form the “Equality for All Coalition.” Last week, I warned that the key to defeating this initiative “is to get beyond the language activists have used in the past.” Alas, from the very name of the group, it appears that these gay groups are resorting to the failed strategies of the past year.
Since more than 60% of California voters favored a state law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman in a 2000 referendum (Prop. 22), I doubt the “marriage equality” language will win a majority in 2006. To defeat this amendment, its opponents need to reach out to some of that 60% who, while they may oppose gay marriage, favor state recognition of same-sex unions (under a different name). Since this proposal would also preclude such recognition, we need to focus on that aspect of the proposal, its most extreme element.
[Read more…]

There are times when the tactics of gay activists serve to push back the causes they espouse. Such has been the results of their attempts to push marriage through the courts. And there are times when the tactics of social conservatives push back the causes they espouse. With the proposed “Voters’ Right to Protect Marriage Initiative,” a group of social conservatives in California, led by “marriage protection expert” Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, is doing just that.
He has helped organized VoteYesMarriage.com to raise money and gather signatures to put this proposed state constitutional amendment on the 2006 ballot in the Golden State.
I fear that if he and his allies had proposed a state constitutional amendment which merely enshrined the definition of marriage in the state constitution, it would win as did the initiative adopting a statute defining marriage did five years ago. But, this time, they have tacked on an additional provision onto their proposed amendment which would prevent the state from “bestowing statutory rights or incidents of marriage to unmarried persons.” In other words, in addition to defining marriage as the union of one man and one man, they want to prevent the Golden State from recognizing domestic partnerships as well.
California voters may not support gay marriage, but I believe they do support some sort of recognition of same-sex unions. The Advocate reports that coalition has formed to fight the amendment. If this coalition focuses on the sweeping nature of this amendment, that it not merely adds the traditional definition of marriage to the state constitution but also prevents any state recognition of same-sex unions, then they are sure to defeat it. And score a major victory for state recognition of same-sex unions.
[Read more…]

BoiFromTroy reported yesterday that the California Assembly Judiciary Committee passed by a party line vote the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act which would ensure “equal treatment under the law by allowing same-sex couples to marry in California while continuing to guarantee religious freedom.”
It seems that the legislature is attempting to overturn the will of the people of the Golden State who just five years ago voted in a state law (Prop. 22) to define marriage as the union of the man and a woman.
Under normal circumstances, I would be delighted that the legislature (rather the courts) is taking up the marriage issue. But, given that referendum five years ago–a referendum passed by over 60% of California voters–I fear our posturing state legislature is playing with fire. And that, in the end, they could make things far worse for gay couples in the Golden State.
Indeed, Boi reported today that opponents of gay marriage are already pushing for a state initiative to amend the state’s constitution to ban gay marriage. The “LA TIMES” reports that Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families, believes that if the legislature votes in favor of gay marriage, it “will ignite the majority of Californians . . . [to] override the politicians.”
Even in “blue” California, most citizens, while open to state recognition of gay couples, oppose calling such relationships “marriages.” They said as much in 2000 when they voted for Prop. 22. Because of the liberal initiative laws in the Golden State, the legislature should be very careful in choosing the bills it passes. Should they go against the will of the people, some interest group will organize and put a initiative on the ballot. And sometimes, that initiative will do more than merely undo the unpopular legislation.
Given the California vote in 2000 and given that some polls have, in recent months, shown an increase in opposition to gay marriage, this action by the legislature will likely backfire and we may be far worse off than we were before. I fear that the end result of this legislation will be an amendment to the state’s constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. And that is a result most gay people, including those who do not advocate gay marriage, should wish to avoid.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com