Joy still reigns in California’s gay community in the wake of a
mid-March decision by a San Francisco Superior Court judge who
ruled there is no
”
rational purpose
”
in banning same-sex marriage.
Joy still reigns in California’s gay community in the wake of a mid-March decision by a San Francisco Superior Court judge who ruled there is no “rational purpose” in banning same-sex marriage.
But greater joy reigns quietly in the Republican Party. Plenty of Republicans gave San Francisco’s Democratic Mayor Gavin Newsom major credit for President Bush’s electoral victory last fall, realizing how much Bush gained from Newsom having his city grant marriage licenses for awhile to all gay couples wanting them. That provided the GOP an issue it milked endlessly all over America.
Even though it will be more than three years before the next presidential vote, the ruling likely will provide Republicans similar fodder for their next national campaign. That’s because the decision will surely be appealed and could end up before the U.S. Supreme Court at election time, 2008.
Republicans love this issue. They are well aware that exit polls showed the Bush electoral margin last year came from voters concerned with values – especially protection of traditional marriages.
Although nothing about same sex marriage poses any credible threat to heterosexual ones, there is a wide perception of such a threat. That’s why California’s 2000 “Defense of Marriage” initiative passed by a 61-39 percent margin, better than a 3-2 edge.
A letter from a 20-year-old Santa Cruz woman formed the heart of the ballot argument in favor of that initiative, passed as Proposition 22. “Someday I hope to meet a wonderful man, marry and have children of my own'” wrote Miriam G. (not identified any further). “By voting yes on 22, I’m doing my part to keep that dream alive.”
Wait a minute… What is there about allowing homosexual men and women to marry that could prevent Miriam G. or any woman from meeting that “wonderful man?” Absolutely nothing, as long as he’s heterosexual. And if he’s gay, chances are Miss G. would likely not find him wonderful at all.
But Miriam G.’s thinking was precisely the kind of “logic” Republicans used on this issue last year, as they implied Democratic candidate John Kerry might somehow bring about the demise of traditional marriage.
That same reasoning will surely rise again in 2008, if the issue remains alive. And such illogic will be at least as powerful then as last year.
Meanwhile, prominent Democrats can’t stay away from this. It’s not just Newsom. U.S. Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer loudly opposed Proposition 22 in 2000, and current Los Angeles mayoral candidate Antonio Villaraigosa signed the ballot argument against it while serving as speaker of the state Assembly.
About the only major Republican coming down against banning gay marriage was Tom Campbell, a former Congressman and U.S. Senate candidate who was then a Stanford University professor and now serves as state finance director. Ideologically, Campbell was never in the mainstream of his party.
There is every reason to believe appeals of the 27-page decision by Judge Richard Kramer will still be in the courts three years from now. They must first work their way through a state appeals court, then to the state Supreme Court before reaching the U.S. Supreme Court. Each step could take a year or more.
There will be political effects all along the way for both Democrats and Republicans. The issue will surely affect Democratic state Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer, whose job is to uphold state laws. If he vigorously pursues an appeal of the Kramer ruling, he will lose gay support when seeking his party’s nomination for governor next year. If he does not, he will lose support from many centrist Democrats. Meanwhile, his principal intra-party rival, state Treasurer Phil Angelides, doesn’t have to say much on this.
Neither does Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, although he’s already on record as tolerating gay marriage so long as it’s legal. That stance won’t hurt him much among Republicans so long as he does nothing to legalize gay unions.
But the main effects figure to come on the national level, where similar court actions in states like Massachusetts, New York and Washington gave rise to a backlash movement for a Constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage.
If that goes forward, as the current Republican majority in Congress appears to want, it could be before state Legislatures by 2008, forming a contentious backdrop for the election.
In short, if Gavin Newsom saved the political skin of President Bush last year – which many Republicans have claimed – then Richard Kramer may already have done the same for whoever the GOP nominates three years from now.
