The problem with Newsom's gay marriage initiative
 |
| Photo: Kim Komenich, SF Chronicle |
The city's political leadership and media continue to sanitize the history on Gavin Newsom's gay marriage initiative in early 2004. At the very least, Dennis Herrera, as City Attorney, should have told Newsom that the city was likely to lose when challenged in court on issuing marriage licenses, which is what happened. Whether Herrera opposed the initiative is an interesting issue, since it will cost him some gay votes if the charge is credible.
This morning's story in the Chronicle refers to Senator Feinstein's criticism of Newsom:
"There was also no shortage of critics of Newsom's decision to issue same-sex marriage licenses in violation of state law. Sen. Dianne Feinstein said it was 'too much, too fast, too soon.'"
What Feinstein and other Democrats---including gay Congressman Barney Frank---were worried about was the political impact of Newsom's initiative, since 2004 was an election year, and President Bush was already using the issue with a proposal for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
Democrats were right to be worried, since 11 states subsequently put gay marriage bans on the ballot, and all 11 passed, which helped reelect Bush in a close election.
The question Newsom has never been able to answer: Why not wait until after the election to make that initiative? Why give Republicans any extra motivation to vote in November, 2004?
Labels: City Government, Democratic Party, Gavin Newsom, Gay Rights, Senator Feinstein, SF Chronicle, The Repugnant Party
posted by Rob Anderson @ 2:37 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
"Did I advise my clients with respect to the legal risks that we could face with city-issued marriage licenses? Of course I did. That's my job," Herrera said.
Bush did not win the election on the Gay Marriage issue. Newsom changed the dialogue and gains have come because of it. The sooner, the better.
There's evidence that the gay marriage issue did help Bush win. Shouldn't Newsom have at least waited until after the election?
The naysayers to Newsom's courageous act are like people complaining about Rosa Parks upsetting the chance for gradual, incremental improvement in rights for blacks in the 60s. C'mon - it was a courageous act that ignited a whole generation of us regular folks. It got 18,000 of us ready to get married during those 5 months of 2008. And despite the Surpreme Court's upholding of Prop 8, all 18,000 of our same-sex marriages stand. If Newsom's actions weren't one of the catalysts in the drive to gay equality, I don't know what is. Thank you, Gavin Newsom.
I'm not complaining about gay marriage but about the timing of Newsom's initiative. Why couldn't he wait until after the November election?
Supporting gay marriage in San Francisco took courage? Hardly.
Post a Comment
<< Home