The Word from California

The success of California Proposition 8, banning Gay marriage in the state should be a wake up call for a Democratic Party fairly and righteously hung over after the Obama victory celebration.

While Paul Krugman is correct to hail the "end of the Monster Years" of Right wing dominance over the national discourse, the Right did not crash and burn in this election.

The Republicans are however, on the defensive, and if the National Democratic Party has any sense they will spend the next year keeping the Right on the run. The best way to do that is to "flip the script" and take away their issues.

With the failure of so called free market economics -- or "Market fundamentalism" -- along with the disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Republicans have only the "social issues" left in their quiver. Of these, Gay marriage is perhaps the most potent arrow of all.

Clearly, Democrats don't want to reenact Bill Clinton's incredible political blunder in making "Gays in the military" the first thing he addressed as President. But some time in the first year of the Obama Presidency, Democrats should introduce a National Domestic Partners Act, as well as strengthening and passing Barney Franks' landmark Employment non-Discrimination Act (HR3685).

In point of fact Comrade Joe Lieberman (aka "the people's man") has already introduced comprehensive Domestic Partners legislation for Federal employees (S2521) and it shouldn't be but so difficult to extend this same protection to everyone in the country, gay and straight.

While many Americans feel quite content in contesting the "Gay Agenda," far fewer consider themselves out and out bigots willing to deny other people basic Human Rights. Domestic Partnership and Gay Civil Rights are, on balance, political winners that the Democrats should pass and sign into law with all deliberate speed.

The other political no-brainer for Democrats in Congress -- while President Obama stands above politics of course -- are the creation of Financial Crimes and War Crimes tribunals.

The one weakness of candidate Obama all through the primary season was that he didn't connect with working class white or Hispanic voters. In the general election this problem was neutralized by the financial crisis, after which, all Obama had to do was talk like a Democrat to gain instant street credibility.

However already, the President-elect is running into new trouble on this front. The recent economic summit showed incredible -- and uncharacteristic -- political tone deafness on the part of the Obama people. The absence of Labor -- or even Labor economists -- at the summit, signaled the continued hegemony of the failed financial elites over economic decision making in the new administration.

While these elite economists will, no doubt, propose a massive stimulus plan as an ameliorative for the coming economic "nuclear winter," the negative symbolism of Labor's absence from the summit is important.

The pain of the recession is likely to erode good feeling for Obama among the people who will be hit the hardest, and they are the Democratic political base. It will therefore be important for the Democrats in Congress to establish who is responsible for the collapse of the financial system and to hold those parties accountable.

If poor and working class Americans are going to suffer through this economic collapse, then the perpetrators of the disaster -- and especially those who directly profited from it -- should be made to suffer more. And while the elite economists will no doubt mutter about politicians behaving as if this were a "banana republic," establishing responsibility for crimes against society is the way politics is supposed to work in a democracy.

Similarly, when War Crimes have been committed by the previous administration, this is not a time to let bygones be bygones.

These were not, are not, victimless crimes. Hundreds of thousands have died, been maimed or had their lives destroyed as a result of the lies that got us into Iraq. It doesn't seem much to ask that the actual liars should have to bear, at the very least, the legal responsibility for their actions.

And then of course, there was the torture: not isolated instances of torture, but a systematic policy of torture set at the highest levels of our government. In order for America to regain at least a measure of her standing in the world, these crimes against humanity have to be addressed.

The Word from California is... to begin with, Justice.

Comments

[Michale32086]

@suec03

}}}}
No one? How about the US government?? The federal government (Internal Revenue Service, Social Security Administration, etc.) prevents you from calling your domestic partnership a marriage.
{{{{

Well, first off, we aren't talking about the US Government, are we? We're discussing California law..

Even ignoring that for the moment, how EXACTLY can the US Government prevent you from calling your relationship whatever you choose to call it? Are they going to throw you in relationship jail if you call your union a marriage??

I have already pointed out that there ARE issues of rights that need to be addressed..

My only point has been that, defeating Prop 8 would NOT have addressed those issues, as Prop 8 is simply an issue of labeling..

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

I guess what I am saying is this..

What's more important to the gay community?

That they force Californians to call their relationships a marriage??

Or that they insure that nobody can discriminate against a legal relationship, regardless of how the State Of California chooses to define it??

Michale.....

[suec03]

What is important is that all persons subject to the laws of the State of California receive the equal protection of the laws, as guaranteed by our state constitution, rather than setting up a segregated system based on sexual orientation.

[jacqmac]

Fact is: LEGAL marriages are created by a LEGAL document: A marriage LICENSE! Granted-this puny piece of paper is relatively insignificant, but it gives straight couples several hundred legal rights and privileges that are denied outright to gay couples. EVERY SINGLE RIGHT that a straight couple 'enjoys' or at least takes for granted, needs to be given to gay/lesbian couples. I frankly don't care what one calls it but as long as ANY ONE of those hundreds of rights and privileges is DENIED, beginning with the PIECE of PAPER, 'Gay Marriage' is 'pretend', 'separate AND unequal'. Why even call it GAY MARRIAGE?? It's MARRIAGE EQUALITY that we are after here. "Civil Unions" and 'Domestic Partnerships' are the same as 'jumping the broom' was to slaves---a 'pretend wedding'. And I don't care whether a couple gets married in a church or in the middle of the Sahara at high noon--they ARE married in the sight of the LAW, but NOT gays/lesbians! Somehow or another there's a different LAW invoked and it really doesn't have too much to do with GOD'S LAW!!

[mmerose]

I totally agree with your war crimes tribunal idea!

But now that gays have been getting married in churches all over, why do we have to re-define marriage as "domestic partnership?" Why can't gay marriage just be called "marriage?"

Didn't the Supreme Court reject "separate but equal" some time ago?

[Michale32086]

"Seperate but equal" doesn't apply in this situation. It's meant only to address facilities.

There are many many different kinds of marriage. All different, but all equal under the law.. Domestic Partnerships are simply another kind of marriage..

Michale....

[jasonsabio]

Separate institutions are inherently unequal even if they claim to provide the same benefits. Giving one minority in society a different name than the majority leaves that minority separated from society, and held in a different class that is undeserving. It indicates gay people are less important as citizens because they are prohibited from certain social institutions.

As a gay person, a civil union is a move taken to make sure you have legal benefits. A marriage is a move taken to affirm love and strengthen a family unit. Preventing my marriage degrades my love and my family as valid in our society.

[jasonsabio]

Might I also just add that Marriage, by that exact name, has already been determined a basic civil right by the US Supreme Court:

Loving v. Virginia
"Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom is directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, and is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law."

[Michale32086]

Without rancor, hysteria or name-calling, can ANYONE explain to me exactly how Prop 8 "bans gay marriage"??

Especially when California AB205 guarantees it, simply under a different name..

Thanx

Michale.....

[suec03]

Please read the California Supreme Court opinion: In re Marriage Cases found at 43 Cal 4th 757. The court, composed of six justices appointed by Republican governors and one appointed by a Democrat, ruled on a challenge to California's "one man, one woman" marriage statute called Prop 22. After a wide and thorough review of federal and state law, including the reasoning of the US Supreme Court which struck down a ban on interracial marriages in Loving v. Virginia, California's highest court held that Prop 22 created an unconstitutional situation in which some couples were allowed "marriage," while others could only enter into Domestic Partnerships, based on sexual orientation. The supporters of Prop 22 did not pass the constitutional test to show why the government should be allowed to deny marriage to same-sex couples. Now Prop 8 has passed, explicitly adding to our state constitution a sentence that denies to same sex couples the right to obtain marriage licenses and enter into "marriage". Our highest state court has already ruled that Domestic Partnership is not equal to marriage. The IRS and the Social Security Administration recognize married couples, not domestic partnerships or civilly united couples. Same sex couples who formally commit to each other should be respected as "married" and the federal government should treat the surviving member as a widow or widower entitled to draw a survivor's pension based on the social security taxes their late partner paid into the fund just like any other taxpayer.