Gay Couples

Jerry Brown, Pretzel

Joe Mathews — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 16:27:00 -0500

Good politicians have the ability to appear to be on both sides of an issue, but Jerry Brown -- the former governor and presidential candidate, and the current attorney general of California -- is breaking new ground in this realm. Try to follow this: Brown, a likely candidate for governor in 2010, is supportive of same-sex marriage politically. But before the state supreme court, he's defending Prop 8, the just-approved initiative to ban same-sex marriage in California. At the same time, he's defending the marriages of approximately 18,000 gay couples who took the plunge in the past five months, while such unions were legal.

What's interesting about these Brown positions is that it's a safe bet he'll prevail upon all three. It's fairly likely that one of the four members of the state supreme court who voted to legalize same-sex marriage may reconsider when faced with a vote of the public. At the same time, it would be ghastly -- and legally messy -- to void the marriages of gay couples who were married legally. (This is not just a marriage issue; these married couples have changed names, adopted children, planned estates, written wills and bought property together, creating enough legal dilemmas to choke the courts). And in the long term, Brown's political position in favor of same-sex marriage is almost certain to prevail in California (assuming angry same-sex marriage supporters come to their senses and stop marching on churches).

Rights for Chickens and Not People

Joe Mathews — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 20:22:00 -0500

Political consultant Fiona Hutton, of Fiona Hutton & Associates, worked on the campaign to defeat Prop 2, the Humane Society initiative on farm animal regulation. It passed. So did Prop 8, the same-sex marriage ban. And she writes to say she is wondering what this says about California voters:

"Whether you voted for John McCain or Barack Obama, consensus is that we Americans experienced something historic and amazing at the national level. It was all about change and calls for equality.

Many of us, however, are scratching our heads at the decisions that California voters made on November 4th. Californians chose to protect the rights of chickens, but not the rights of committed gay partners. Contrary to what pundits are saying, we didn’t really experience “social change” here in California. And, according to some peoples’ perspectives, we didn’t really vote for social compassion.

Couple this puzzling scenario with the shopping spree voters went on, approving a bagful of bond and tax measures that further saddle our state and local jurisdictions with significant levels of new debt. Aren’t we in the worst economic crisis in recent history? Isn’t our state broke? Voters seemingly made no connection between the ballots they cast and our state’s overdrawn bank account.

We experienced some version of voter schizophrenia that is tough to explain. There was just no consistency. As political professionals, we look for trends and ideological sweeps but really it’s very individualized when voters enter a voting booth.

There was no conservative sweep tied to fears about the economy. If there had been, we wouldn’t have necessarily approved bonds and taxes, and voted for Prop 2’s expensive chicken condos. There was no liberal sweep tied to equity for all. If there had been, would we have approved Prop 8? It’s more like ballot hopscotch.

Proponents of Prop 2 said California’s vote falls in closer line with “values of compassion.” Prop 2 mandates our chickens will now have high-rise, fancy penthouses where they can exercise their right to dust-bathe, peck poo and all things chickens do. On the other hand, a majority of Californians decided gay couples can no longer exercise their right to marry.

Was the electorate so singularly focused on the encompassing presidential campaign that they didn’t truly understand the measures and their impacts? Do they really want to pay more for eggs and potentially get them from Mexico?

Maybe it was the sheer influence of the political campaigns themselves – and their top-line messaging -- that influenced the voters? Arguably, whether you support the policy or not, professionals agree Yes on Prop 8 ran one of the best campaigns in California this cycle.

Maybe it was the flood of new, first-time voters whose values aren’t those of the boomers previously in charge and this vast new electorate, and its changing demographics, are now beholden to no one and no particular ideology?

Political strategists will be analyzing these results for days, weeks and months, trying to decipher what strategies were most successful and how to better play hopscotch with voters in the next cycle."

I’m going to eat chicken for dinner tonight – maybe I’ll make an omelet. Then, I’m going to call my friends who aren’t in the business and try to explain California’s moral compass and voting trends.

Forced Divorces? Protecting Couples in the Same Sex Marriage Fallout

Joe Mathews — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 15:25:00 -0500

If you were disappointed by last night's results showing a victory for a ban on same-sex marriage in California, brace yourself for what comes next. By various estimates, more than 11,000 gay couples have tied the knot in the state. (The real number is probably higher). While it would be wonderful if those marriages are not challenged in court, it's certain they will be. Legal experts are divided on whether the marriages will be ruled invalid because of the now enacted constitutional ban. And the initiative itself, Prop 8, could be thrown out by the courts. But there's a decent chance that thousands of married gay couples will have their marriages cancelled.

What to do? First off, supporters of same-sex marriage need to highlight the issue and fight like hell in the courts. But policy makers also need to plan for the possibility that the court fight will fail. The real trouble is that some gay couples replaced their domestic partnerships with marriages. So a cancellation of their marriage could leave them without any formal legal bond. It might be wise to enact legislation -- and I would hope that supporters of Prop 8 (that is opponents of same-sex marriage) would support this -- that would automatically transfer any and all cancelled marriages back into domestic partnerships. Unless of course, the couple themselves opt out.

The Dangers Of Teaching Same Sex Marriage To Young Children

Joe Mathews — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 15:54:00 -0500

Supporters of Prop 8, an initiative to ban same-sex marriage, claim that if gay couples continue to be permitted to marry in California, schools will have to teach same-sex marriage to young children. Educators and legal experts say that’s nonsense, and there is no such curricular requirement.

The controversy begs a practical question:: What would it be like to try to teach same-sex marriage to kindergarteners? I can only imagine how one might do that.

The scene, a kindergarten classroom, morning

Teacher: This is Mr. Mathews. He’ll be leading today’s lesson on gay marriage.

Little girl #1: J is my favorite letter!

Mr. Mathews: I believe your teacher meant gay, not J.

Little girl #1: What does that word "gay" mean?

Mr. Mathews: Well, it can mean happy…

Little boy #1: I’m very happy. So I’m very gay!

Mr. Mathews: Well, sure, you’re gay in that way. But the word means more than one thing.

Little boy #2: Mr. Mathews (raises hand)?

Mr. Mathews: Yes.

Little boy #2: I have to go potty.

Little girl #2: I have to go potty, too

Teacher: Well, one at a time. Here’s a note for you. (Boy exits). Now, where we?

Mr. Mathews: The meaning of gay. In this case, we’re talking about gay marriage. And gay is a word for boys who like boys. Or girls who like girls.

Little girl #3: I like girls.

Little boy #3: I like boys better. Boys are better than girls.

Little girl #3: No, they’re not.

Little boy #3: Girls are yucky.

Little girl #3: Girls smell better. Boys smell bad.

Mr. Mathews: Hold on there. How people smell is not really the point. I don’t mean “like’ in the sense of friends.

Little boy #1: I like being gay. It’s much better than being sad.

Mr. Mathews: Hmmm. I mean “like” in the way women and men sometimes like each other. They are attracted to each other. I mean “like” in the sense that your mommy likes your daddy.

Little boy #4: My mommy doesn’t like my daddy. She says he drinks too much and should help more around the house.

Mr. Mathews: I’m sorry to hear that. I hope things will get better for your mommy and daddy.

Little boy #4: I hope so too. I’d like them to be more gay.

Mr. Mathews. Happier, sure. We’d all like to be happy. And that gets me to my point. There are some boys, some men really, who are happy living with men, and they’d be really happy if they could marry the other man they live with.

Little girl #4: My mommy says if you think you’ll be happy just by marrying a man, you’ll be sorely disappointed. She says marriage is a trap for women.

Mr. Mathews: Really, she says that?

Little girl #4: Ever since daddy left.

Mr. Mathews: Well, it’s true that marriage doesn’t mean you’ll be happy.

Little boy #1: So how can there be gay marriage?

Mr. Mathews: Well, I didn’t mean happy marriages. I meant gay marriage, in a marriage between two women or between two men.

Little boy #5: Well, why do they want to marry then if they’ll be unhappy? I don’t understand what marriage has to do with being gay.

Mr. Mathews: Traditionally, it hasn’t had anything to do with being gay. If you were gay, in the sense that you were a man and preferred to live with another man, you couldn’t marry the person you really loved. It was against the law.

Little boy #4: My mom says throwing gum on the sidewalk is against the law. But I do it sometimes.

Mr. Mathews; You should obey the law. But in this case, in California, the law changed, and now a man can marry another man, or a woman can marry another woman.

Little boy: #4: And they do this so they can be gay?

Mr. Mathews. Not exactly. They want to do this because they love each other and because they are gay. But it’s not clear if they’ll be allowed to do that. Because there is this thing called Prop 8.

Little boy #5: Prop 8? Why didn’t you say that? We’ve all seen that on TV.

Whole class; TV! Teacher, can we watch TV?

Teacher: Later.

Little girl: #1: But those people talking about Prop 8 on TV aren’t happy at all. They’re very angry. There’s that one lawyer man who says that kids will have to be taught about gay marriage in schools.

Mr. Mathews: That’s why I’m here.

Little girl #1: But gay marriage is not for kids. Plus, I don’t understand anything you’re saying. Gay marriage is confusing.

Mr. Mathews; I’m learning that.

Little girl #1: I think gay marriage is just something that old people get very angry about on TV.

Little boy #1: Let’s talk about something else.

Little girl #3: Like sex. They always have that on TV.

Teacher: Now, boys and girls, settle down.

Little boy #2 (returning from the bathroom): Now that I went potty, I feel much more gay.