Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.

Learn more about ads.

Our latest headlines

Want more? Dive into the archives.

About Us

David Greenwald, Editor. (Contact David.)
CFC Education Foundation, Publisher. (Contact us.)

Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column?
Contact David here.

About California Progress Report.

Founded by Frank D. Russo (Publisher and Editor, 2006-08).

Books

Leno to Schwarzenegger on Veto of Marriage Equality Bill: "You're on the Wrong Side of History"

By Frank D. Russo

Assemblyman Mark Leno, the author of AB 43, the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, that would have made marriage gender neutral in California had this to say about Governor Schwarzenegger's veto of the bill:

"The Governor's veto of AB 43 once again puts him on the wrong side of one of the major civil rights issues of this generation. History will record that he turned his back on thousands of gay and lesbian citizens when we needed him to show leadership and honor our families and relationships."

Given the polls that show strong support for the freedom of same sex couples to marry amongst younger Californians, Leno is correct in his assessment of the trend. But he made it clear that this is a civil rights issue, and that much like those prior battles, fought for what we now accept as commonplace, this is about a fundamental right and goes beyond the polls.

He said: "A minority's equal rights should not and can not be a mere popularity contest, subject to the same kind of discriminatory inclinations that at another time in history have denied women, ethnic minorities and interracial couples their full equality. Some things are fundamental, like the freedom to marry the person you love."

He concluded: "I am proud to be a part of the California Legislature, a majority of whom voted for the second time to treat everyone as a first class citizen in this free society. There will come a day, not too far off, that all of California's citizens will be treated equally and fairly in the eyes of our government. Unfortunately, this will happen despite Governor Schwarzenegger."

If you look at Governor Schwarzenegger's veto statement and what he has said about gay marriage, you will see that the Governor has not taken a position opposing gay marriage on the merits of the issue, but is raising, one would say "hiding," behind two reasons for vetoing the bill. One of them is that it is for the courts to decide this issue and the matter is now pending before the California Supreme Court. The other is that he has to respect "the will of the people" in having voted for Proposition 22 in 2000 which said in pertinent part that:" "[o]nly marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

First of all, consider the time and the manner that the veto was announced: After 5 p.m. on a Friday. It was not showcased. There was no ceremony or public event where he made additional comments. In fact, it was made in a press release with the announcement that he had signed 21 other bills and vetoed 3 other bills.

Take a look at what he said in his veto message:

"As I stated in vetoing similar legislation in 2005, I am proud California is a leader in recognizing and respecting domestic partnerships. I believe that all Californians are entitled to full protection under the law and should not be discriminated against based upon their sexual orientation. I support current domestic partnership rights and will continue to vigorously defend and enforce these rights.

"In 2000, the voters approved Proposition 22, a challenge to which is currently pending before the California Supreme Court. I maintain my position that the appropriate resolution to this issue is to allow the Court to rule on Proposition 22."

Now, in 2006, the California Court of Appeal stated that, “If marriage is to be extended to same-sex couples, this change must come from the people—either directly, through a voter initiative, or through their elected representatives in the Legislature.” [Emphasis added.] Schwarzenegger could have signed the bill and then awaited the California Supreme Court's word on this question.

So, either the courts will make it clear that this can be done by legislation signed by a governor--or they will throw out Prop 22 as they did with the repeal of the Rumford Fair Housing Act in 1964 and say that the initiative process cannot be used to discriminate against people.

But my question for the Governor, one that I don't think he has ever answered, is: What if we have to go to the ballot--Would you publicly support an initiative with language from AB 43 or the bill you vetoed before, that would legalize same sex marriage in California?

Tht question goes to the merits of the issue, not the procedure.

The California public and voters are clearly split on this question. A September 2006 poll by the Public Policy Institute of California showed that 47% of likely voters supported marriage for same-sex couples while 46% did not. More significant is a Field Poll released in March of this year.

Here is what Field had to say:

"An analysis of statewide Field Poll surveys over the past twenty years by political scientists Gregory B. Lewis of Georgia State University and Charles W. Gossett of California State Polytechnic University, Pomona finds that Californians’ growing support for same-sex unions is due partly to individual attitude change, but mostly to generational replacement.

"Age is one of the strongest predictors of opposition to same-sex marriage in California, but not because people are becoming more homophobic or sexually more conservative as they age. In every age group, people were at least four times as likely to say that they had become more accepting as that they had become more condemning of homosexual relations since they turned 18. Generational replacement is the key. Californians born in each decade tend to be more accepting of gay relationships and more willing to grant them legal recognition than those born the decade before."

At some point, the Governor will have to address the substance of the issue and not the court process or what the voters did in 2000. He should indicate if he would vote for and recommend other Californians voting for a ballot proposition to allow Californians to enter into same sex marriages.

Posted on October 14, 2007

Comments

Thank God it didn't pass.

Posted by: Alex at October 14, 2007 02:33 PM

Mark Leno, an openly homosexual San Francisco Democrat, is actually on the wrong side of history. Governor Schwarzenegger stopped the California Legislature's flagrantly unconstitutional move. A more recent PPIC poll showed likely voters AGAINST gay marriage 48%-46% and all Californians against it 49%-45%. Given the fact that polls routinely understand opposition to same-sex marriage and gay-related issues, it should come as no surprise that support for gay marriage is actually probably lower than this poll indicates. The most recent poll I know of on this in an area of California was conducted by Survey USA for the City of San Diego, where it found that only 34% of San Diego City folk supported gay marriage, while 62% wanted no recognition or just civil unions.

The truth is that gay marriage is probably still quite a ways off in California and that's a good thing. I applaud Governor Schwarzenegger for doing this.

Posted by: Steve at October 14, 2007 02:47 PM

Oh, give me a break... If you're opposed to this issue, then you should at least agree on one thing -- either it is the purview of the courts to make rulings on this question, or it is the purview of legislative bodies. But it's rather ridiculous for California folks to say it should be decided by the Courts, and for Massachusetts and New Jersey folks to say that "activist judges" have decided for the legislators.

If Californians really don't support this legislation, then they should vote out all of the folks like Leno who supported it.

Posted by: Mickymse at October 15, 2007 02:56 PM

Marriage is a civil right. I pay taxes, contribute to the economy, and vote. I should be allowed to access rights and protections granted through the legal institution of marriage as any other citizen, regardless of gender.

Domestic Partnership does not grant rights equivalent to marriage rights. visit www.eqca.org or www.marriageequality.org to learn what rights are not included and why Domestic Partnership is not adequate. But even better than that, ASK SOMEONE who is living through the results of seperate and NOT EQUAL systems. There are about 1,300 rights that make Domestic Partnerships unequal.

I have no doubt that Same-sex Marriage will become law, eventually. In the meantime what do we tell a survivor of a 30+ year same-sex relationship when she/he has to not only deal with the loss of her/his loved one, but the complexities of demonstrating her/his right for survivor benefits, inheritence, shared property, retirement, and other benefits that are also claimed by survivors of heterosexual couple?

It is demoralizing to put someone through that. Separate is still not equal. It wasn't back in the day, it isn't now.

Posted by: Tina at October 15, 2007 04:02 PM

Are you willing to pay for the extra court proceedings we would have to deal with when the young wanne-be, not sure if I am gay, going through a faze, decide to up and get married on a whim? That is exactly what would happen. Our court system would be bombarded by gays like Jack from the show Will and Grace. I am not sure of the correct term for the 'not so serious' gay men. Flamers? It would be a joke! I don't even know of a gay/lesbian marriage that has lasted 30 years, but I know many heterosexual couples that have lasted that long. Regarding property and benefits, it is not even cut and dry for married couples if they have not completed the proper paperwork; all they have to do is create a living will and there would be no problem with benefits and property. Everyone is just getting to be such whiney babies!!

Posted by: Chris at October 15, 2007 08:23 PM

Chris: There are many committed same sex relationships which have lasted as long as traditional marriages between a man and a woman have lasted. And, as you know, many of those who are able to marry under our laws end up divorcing as well. Your arguement, taken to its logical conclusion would lead to ending marriage altogether as an institution. Especially your discussion about property rights. There are many other legal benefits of marriage--intestate succession of property for those without wills, being able to visit your partner when they are in the hospital, tax treatment given to couples when filing, etc.

Even with domestic partner benefits, there is not the same treatment on these issues. Why not make it simple and include same sex couples? Maintaining two separate and therefore inherently unequal systems has a price, and when it comes to discrimination it is not about the costs. This is what we do as a civilized society.

Posted by: Frank D. Russo at October 16, 2007 02:15 AM

Why is same sex marriage required to demonstrate "equality"?

One reason some oppose same sex marriage is because same sex relationships are less significant to society than opposite sex relationships which create children.

So while some talk of wanting "equality", what's often left out of the discussion is that same sex relationships aren't as important to society in the first place.

Posted by: Jackson at October 16, 2007 08:08 PM

If the gay and lesbian lifestyle is your choice fine. Just stop trying to force it down my throat, and by the way...stay away from my kids.

stop the madness
and thank you Arnold- how about California focus on something more relevant????

God bless family values in America--lets not turn this into San Fran.

Posted by: lasonya at October 17, 2007 02:21 AM

Sorry, comments are temporarily disabled. We're doing a bit of server maintenance on the commenting area. We'll be back up and running shortly. Thank you for your patience.

Get Email Updates

Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.

Stat tracker