A Tearful Republican Mayor Comes Out -- For the Freedom to Marry
A Republican from California stood up for the values he believes in -- fairness, equality, love, commitment -- and explained in a powerful, emotional press conference why he now has come to support the freedom to marry for same-sex couples.
No, it wasn't Arnold Schwarzenegger (yet), but the Governor of California should take a few notes from this extremely moving decision by a fellow California Republican politician, San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders. Sanders, the former police chief now in charge of the eighth largest city in the United States, decided to take a stand for fairness even as he prepared to launch his campaign for re-election.
Mayor Sanders' change of heart shows us what happens when people think about how exclusion from marriage affects real people -- rather than just some abstract idea. Despite having said he would veto a City Council resolution joining San Diego to San Francisco, Los Angeles, and the other major cities in California on a brief urging the state Supreme Court to strike down marriage discrimination, Mayor Sanders wrestled, as many Americans have, with the question anew, and came down on the side of justice.
Role-modeling how a political leader can explain such a courageous change of heart, Mayor Sanders explained:
I just could not bring myself to tell an entire group of people in our community that they were less important, less worthy and less deserving of the rights and responsibilities of marriage -- than anyone else -- simply because of their sexual orientation....The arrival of the resolution -- to sign or veto -- in my office late last night forced me to reflect and search my soul for the right thing to do. I have decided to lead with my heart -- to do what I think is right -- and to take a stand on behalf of equality and social justice. The right thing for me to do is to sign this resolution.
Two years ago, I believed that civil unions were a fair alternative. Those beliefs, in my case, have since changed. The concept of a "separate but equal" institution is not something that I can support.
San Diego now joins other California cities in calling on the Governor and Court to follow the lead of the state legislature, which a couple weeks ago again passed a bill to end marriage discrimination -- with even greater margins than in 2005. The bill has now gone to the Governor, who has said he would veto it as he did the last time.
The question now is does Governor Schwarzenegger have the courage and heart that his fellow Republican, Mayor Sanders, has shown?
To follow the example of Mayor Sanders and those around him who prompted his thinking anew and rise to fairness, we all can support the Let California Ring campaign of conversations that brings good people around, at a time when the freedom to marry is within reach in our nation's largest state.
Follow Evan Wolfson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/freedomtomarry
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Congratulations to Mayor Sanders for breaking from the whacked out Revival Republicans, particularly those in San Diego County.
The reality is that Sanders has as much power to change the law as Mayor Newsom did when he allowed same sex marriages in San Francisco, and that is none. Mayor Sanders, like Mayor Newsom can influence and that's about it. And the Governator is correct too. The voters of California overwhelmingly voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman in 2000 by a resounding 61.4% margin--that's definitive and not that long ago.
However attitudes change and if gay civil unions are going to be accepted by voters anywhere in the country, California has the best chance for success. The Field Polls indicate that the public out here is now split 46/46 for its acceptance. It could pass at the ballot box.
Instead of expecting politicians to go out on a limb for what would be overturning the will of the voters, the gay community should work to get an initiative on the ballot and then work for its passage. There is plenty of money within the community and could provide a focal point and a common goal. But expecting others to do the heavy lifting and take all the risks is unreasonable and not going to happen.
It's time for the gay community to quit whining and actually do something if they want it.
Yes, please, Govenator, let's leave it up to the majority to decide what's right for the minority.
Please THINK!
Actually, the voters of California have spoken through their elected officials -- two separate legislatures have twice passed bills removing the different-sex restriction on marriage. The first vote was in 2005. Legislators then face the voters, and not a single pro-marriage incumbent lost, while several pro-marriage candidates won election in the primary and general, defeating more anti-gay candidates. When a new legislature again passed a marriage bill just a couple weeks ago, the measure picked up 22 new votes in the Assembly and five new votes in the Senate compared to 2005. In our constitutional republic, that does count for something as far as popular will.
What you may be referring to is a vote in 2000 on "proposition 22," which mandated discrimination against out-of-state marriages (at a time when same-sex couples couldn't even get married). Courts have held that that is no impediment to the legislature's and governor's ending marriage discrimination in California.
And all of that said, some questions are not (and should not) simply be left to the passions of the moment or transient majority votes. In this case, the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage violates the constitution's mandate of equality and fairness, and lacks a sufficient reason. The case is heading to the state supreme court now.
"It's time for the gay community to quit whining and actually do something if they want it."
are you somehow of the impression that we haven't been working on this?
if that's the case, you simply haven't been paying much attention.
"The voters of California overwhelmingly voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman in 2000 by a resounding 61.4% margin--that's definitive and not that long ago."
Yes, but why let the majority determine the rights of the minority? Why do some people believe their marriage will somehow be less significant if everyone is allowed to marry, rather than just 90% of the population as it currently stands? Why would the marriage between a 16-year-old, pregnant meth addict and her 18-year-old boyfriend be more "sacred" than that between two gay men with a 30-year relationship already behind them?
This is a civil rights issue. Jim Crow is an example of the tyranny of the majority. When you poll homosexual individuals, they overwhelmingly vote FOR gay marriage - and quite honestly, legalizing gay marriage applies only to them. I have some words for people who think preventing gay marriage is somehow their concern - it's actually none of your damn business. The governor does have a historical opportunity. He and the legislature of California can protect the civil rights of tens, if not hundreds of thousands of Americans currently living in their state.
Keep religion out of politics.
No, what you mean is keep religion out of government. Religion has always been a part of politics. It is not always a bad thing when religion is a part of politics. The Civil Rights movement was made up of many, many religious people whose call of justice and equality were predicated on their religious beliefs. There are people whose call for marriage equality is based on their religious beliefs. Unfortunately, they've ceeded too much religious ground to the religious nuts. The problems occur when their is not a clear separation of church and state powers. When the government becomes predicated on religious dogma or some kind of religious test is establishe
get rid of religion all together
The problem, at its core, is that we allow this abstract called a government the right to dictate anything at all regarding the legality of any relationships.
But Crow, haven't you forgotten about The Greater Good? How else will human society conspire to commit atrocities and injustices without that abstract to chase?
Mayor Sanders carries a message forth that is very American, and just, and heartfelt. The James Dobson's of the World will freak, and claim foul, and condemn the City of San Diego, ... but will not diminish the courage in his words.
~
I'm straight, the father of three daughters, a believer, and am in full agreement with this good man, who has done what his heart mandated. He will be condemned, castigated, and probably voted out of office. In those each he should gather faith that his actions were worthy and Human. People just like us have murdered many, from Christ to ML King. The hard part is to do what is right, even when the World demands otherwise. Good man.
i couldn't have said it better myself. it seems that there may be hope after all that republicans can grow a heart and conscience and see that what they are doing is just a different flavor of segregation. all people are equal, period. otherwise, how can we call ourselves the land of the free? how can we call ourselves the best place to live (which i don't know that i agree with right along in now) if all the people who live here don't have the same opportunities for happiness and that ever illusive life liberty and the american dream?
As Seen on TV
"The New Abs-Tract"
with your host Body by Jake
abba dabba do!
Don't hold your breath while you're hoping. Republicans are simply responding to a large segment of the population with strong authoritarian and theocratic sympathies. Those good patriotic red-state Americans who secretly envy Muslim Fundamentalists and wish the Founding Fathers with all their daft Enlightenment values had never been born.
Beside the fact that there's a large and powerful gay population in SD, this guy sees the handwriting on the wall.
Unless the Gay Old Party comes to grips with its own hypocrisy, they are doomed.
Call it a revelation. Call it a epiphany. It's simply smart politics.
"Unless the Gay Old Party comes to grips with its own hypocrisy, they are doomed." Change "unless" to "when." If they didn't have hypocrisy, they'd be relegated back to their old position as the party of the rich, with permanent minority status in Congress.
"Large and powerful gay population in SD"?
What part of San Diego do you live in? Yeah, there's Hillcrest, but let's not confuse the existence of the gay ghetto with a "large and powerful gay population
My guess? His daughter threatened to disown him unless he did the right thing.
Maybe anastasia meant physically large and powerful. You know, big muscle types. That's the only explanation for such a silly assertion.
Maybe anastasia meant physically large and powerful. You know, big muscle types. That's the only explanation for such a silly assertion.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
