Let gays begin marrying, Schwarzenegger urges - Sacramento News - Local and Breaking Sacramento News
www.sacbee.comRead Sacramento news, including local and breaking Sacramento news at The Sacramento Bee
A personal blog by a graying (mostly Anglo with light African-American roots) gay left leaning liberal progressive married college-educated Buddhist Baha'i BBC/NPR-listening Professor Emeritus now following the Dharma in Minas Gerais, Brasil.
August 6, 2010 |
Dear Daniel, Moments ago, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown filed motions opposing a stay of Judge Walker’s decision to overturn Prop. 8.This is the kind of extraordinary leadership we need from the next governor and attorney general—the kind Jerry Brown and Kamala Harris will deliver. Thank you to everyone who has signed our petition to Meg Whitman and Steve Cooley, urging them not to defend Prop. 8 in Court. If you haven’t yet, please sign our petition. Demand they refuse to defend Prop. 8 in court. And urge everyone you know to do the same. www.eqca.org/dontdefend8 Having a governor and attorney general on our side is critical to restoring the right to marry for same-sex couples—either in court or at the ballot box. In solidarity, Geoff Kors Executive Director Equality California |
Dear Daniel, Our community is the target of many hateful laws and policies, but one law has come to symbolize the anti-gay cause at its most crass, ruthless and dishonest: Proposition 8. That showdown in California in 2008 pitted a right-wing lie machine against ordinary couples who just wanted to stay married. The lies won out that day. In fact, months later polls would show that many voters still believed them. Proposition 8 was built on lies. This week, United States District Judge Vaughn Walker issued a ruling concluding that California has no legitimate basis for denying marriage to same-sex couples. The court concluded that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. This ruling followed a trial during which every false justification for Prop 8 came under scrutiny. The opinion ticks through each false premise-same-sex couples are not good parents; marriage equality threatens opposite-sex couples-and rejects them all. In the end, all that is left is truth: "plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages." We are all grateful to the brave couples, their acclaimed counsel and the American Foundation for Equal Rights for standing up for equality. Of course, our opponents at the National Organization for Marriage were screaming injustice before the ink on the decision had dried. The group, which is already on a 20-city tour to argue against our equal rights and to prove that they are persecuted (really), has a new message: this court has threatened the voting rights of every American. That’s right-if the gays can get married, then you are disenfranchised. It makes sense if your idea of "right to vote" is "right to discriminate." Good luck with that, NOM. Our opponents do have one thing right: our right to vote is important. Legislators enact the laws that protect us or those that restrict our rights. Some have the power to set public workplace policies and others are responsible for appointing and confirming judges. That’s why HRC works in state and federal elections. It is also why we spoke out again this week against Target and Best Buy-100% CEI companies-who donated an astonishing $250,000 to a political committee that supports a rabidly anti-equality candidate for Minnesota governor. Over 100,000 of you responded to our call to action, asking the companies to make it right. Target's CEO has issued an apology, but has not yet indicated how the company will rectify the situation or prevent future donations to anti-LGBT candidates. When anti-LGBT lawmakers take office and our opponents get laws like Proposition 8 on the books, the federal courts can bring justice and prevent the majority from trampling minority rights. HRC has long been involved in promoting a fair-minded judiciary. Most recently, we endorsed Solicitor General Elena Kagan's nomination to be the 112th justice of the United States Supreme Court. On Thursday, the Senate confirmed her by a vote of 63-37. In the judicial nominations process, you always hear the refrain "elections have consequences." This thoughtful proponent of equal rights is a welcome consequence indeed. Joe Solmonese President, Human Rights Campaign |
The truth is not that Target and its leadership have suddenly turned on their commitment to gay rights. It's more that it never really existed to begin with. Further research shows that Target has funneled significant funding to the most socially conservative of Republicans and that it boasts a frightening culture of anti-gay candidate support from Target's own stable of top executives. We have already noted that CEO Gregg Steinhafel and his wife both maxed out their personal contributions this year to Michele Bachmann and Tom Emmer. But Steinhafel is just the captain of the crew. Target's current group of top corporate officers have supported a murderers row of anti-gay politicians. Even more confusing, some of those anti-gay candidates supported by Target's PAC and its executives don't even represent Minnesota.Read Abe Sauer's complete expose.
Republicans said that dwelling on the issue could become a distraction in the effort to win back the House or Senate from Democrats this fall. At a meeting of the Republican National Committee in Kansas City, Mo., several party leaders and strategists said it would be a mistake for the midterm election campaign to suddenly become focused on gay marriage, immigration or other hot-button issues. The only path to winning control of Congress, they said, rested on making an economic argument. “This election needs to revolve around five issues: taxes, spending, the economy, jobs and debt,” said Ron Nehring, chairman of the California Republican Party. “That doesn’t mean that other issues aren’t important — they are important — but the first issue on the minds of people is the economy.”Also quoted in the above-linked article is NOM's Brian Brown, who vows to make Prop 8 an election issue whether the GOP likes it or not. "I definitely think it’s going to have an effect on the 2010 elections. You’re going to see ads, you’re going to see folks standing up on this issue, and the people that support Walker’s decision are going to pay a price."
Likewise, Murray Clark, chairman of the Indiana Republican Party, said Republicans were acting at their own peril if they suddenly starting focusing on the ruling. A protracted discussion about social issues, he said, could play into Democratic hands. “Can we declare a truce on some of the other issues unrelated to the economy?” Mr. Clark said in an interview in Kansas City, Mo.
“Embarrassing, harassing or demeaning someone with a homosexual orientation or same-sex attraction is a violation of Torah prohibitions that embody the deepest values of Judaism.”and..
“Jews with homosexual orientations or same sex-attractions should be welcomed as full members of the synagogue and school community.”This is a huge step forward for a both the Orthodox Jewish and gay communities.
Judge Walker was first appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, at the recommendation of Attorney General Edwin Meese III. ... Democratic opposition led by Sen. Alan Cranston (D-CA) prevented the nomination from coming to a vote during Reagan’s term. Walker was renominated by President George H. W. Bush in February 1989. Again the Democratic Senate refused to act on the nomination. Finally Bush renominated Walker in August, and the Senate confirmed him in December. ...It almost makes you doubt whether progressives really are smarter and more insightful than the rest of us.
[C]oalitions including such groups as the NAACP, the National Organization for Women, the Human Rights Campaign, the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force worked to block the nomination.
In other words, this "liberal San Francisco judge" was recommended by Ed Meese, appointed by Ronald Reagan, and opposed by Alan Cranston, Nancy Pelosi, Edward Kennedy, and the leading gay activist groups. It's a good thing for advocates of marriage equality that those forces were only able to block Walker twice.
Yet while Kennedy cannot be pigeonholed in terms of "ideology," on this specific topic, he has been consistent in taking a very broad view of the rights of homosexuals. He not only voted with the majority but wrote the majority opinions in two crucial cases: Romer v. Evans (1996) and Lawrence v. Texas (2003). ... Those who see Justice Kennedy's position in Perry as difficult to predict in effect entertain "the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do" with his decisions on the court.Kennedy, too, was a Reagan appointee opposed by liberal advocacy groups.