California’s Gay Marriage Battle

Due to the 2008 Presidential election’s domination of news coverage these days, it hasn’t gotten much attention in the media. But in California, a state which is known to lead the way for the rest of the nation, an epic battle is underway that could determine the future of the American gay rights movement. Not too long ago, on March 4th, the California Supreme Court began a process that will last 90 days, to hear from both advocates and opposers of equal marriage rights for gay couples. Among the advocates were San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, and John Duran, Mayor of West Hollywood. Among the opposers were State Attorney-General Jerry Brown, and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.  It all began 4 years ago, when Mayor Newsom allowed gay couples to marry in San Francisco despite the fact that California, 4 years prior, had passed legislation that defined marriage as between one man and one woman. Shortly after Newsom began the process of handing out gay marriage licenses, the California Supreme Court ordered for San Francisco to stop, and invalidated all the gay marriages that had taken place. A few gay couples, understandably distraught, filed a lawsuit against the state of California, claiming that the fact they were being deprived of the right to marry was unconstitutional. That leads to where things are today, where the 7 members of the California Supreme Court are deciding on what could be one of the most important civil rights decisions in American history. California is known to lead the nation when it comes to these kind of things. In 2000, after California voted for an anti-gay marriage bill, other states began to vote to ban gay marriage too. In 2001, Gray Davis, the Governor at that time, established domestic partnerships for gay couples, and since then, domestic partnerships (or civil unions) have been established in other states across the country. If the members of the Supreme Court decide to legalize gay marriage, it could be the beginning of a string of successes for the gay rights movement. States which continue to ponder the issue of gay marriage (New York, for example) may be swayed by California’s decision. If the Supreme Court doesn’t legalize it, however, it could strengthen the fight against gay rights, and give ammo to gay rights opposers who will say that “even California, the most liberal state in America, won’t legalize it”.  It’s hard to tell which way it will infact go. Chief Justice Ronald George has indicated his support for legalizing gay marriage. Justice Carol Corrigan, on the other hand, has expressed her doubts about what she feels would be “tampering with the will of the voters”, seeing as California voted against marriage for gay people back in 2000. Whatever happens, it’s certainly going to be interesting, and very important. I understand that people are focused on Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton right now, but this is also an issue to watch. Following it’s development will make you a witness to something that really could make history- and change the dynamic of American politics forever. 

Ralph Nader is the man, contrary to popular belief.

Since Ralph Nader announced that he will once again run for President this morning, the blogosphere has been abuzz with negativity and outright hostility. Glade at Cobalt 6 is quite blunt in stating:

Ralph, you cost Al Gore Florida and the election. You sentenced us to 8 long years of lost rights, environmental damage, misguided war, and the list goes on and on. Ralph you can blast the “liberal intelligentsia” and say Gore should have won Tennessee or that the Supreme Court stopped the vote count. It all sounds hollow. I, for one, will never sign a petition to put Nader on the Virginia ballot.

I couldn’t help but think (respectfully, of course) that the wording of this statement is entirely ambiguous, as it acknowledges the two biggest factors in Al Gore’s 2000 defeat - political thievery and poor showings in states that could easily have gone blue - yet still paints Ralph Nader as the sole culprit. Another major factor not taken into account by Glade is the 250,000 Florida Democrats who jumped party lines to vote for George W. Bush.

I have never subscribed to the theory that Ralph Nader cost anybody anything in 2000. On Meet The Press, Mr. Nader mentioned a GMU professor (Solon Simmons) by name who argues that, by moving Mr. Gore to the left in 2000 with his aggressive, resolutely left-of-center rhetoric, Nader may have actually delivered more votes to the Democrats than he took away.

I have no trouble believing that such was the case, and I expect it to be the case again this year (to what extent, I could not guess). Indeed, that’s the kind of effect that should be welcome by Liberal commentators such as Glade, who has written on Cobalt 6 in support of things like impeachment and single-payer healthcare, but who, on factually unstable grounds, passionately castigates the only candidate for president who supports both impeachment and single-payer healthcare.

I suppose that I’m just too much of a populist to believe that any candidate for any office who raises legitimate issues and makes fair points is anything but an asset to a democratic nation at the end of the day. Therefore, it should come as no surprise to anyone that I also don’t believe that a vote for such a candidate (regardless of their chances of winning) is a wasted one, as long as whomever is casting that vote does so on the grounds that they genuinely believe they are voting for the best candidate.

Lowell at Raising Kaine, with whom I usually agree, says:

In 2000, Nader helped give us George W. Bush as president. Will he help give us Bush Part Deux this year? Check out Meet the Press for the thrilling scintillating news this morning.

He expounds on his position in a subsequent comment:

[I think it’s pretty much an objective fact] that Ralph Nader’s candidacy contributed to Al Gore’s defeat in 2000. Now, whether it contributed 1%, 10%, or whatever, I don’t know, but still, I think we can all agree that it was a factor. By the way, I say this as someone who greatly admires the work Ralph Nader’s done in his life.

Lowell at least words his criticism of Nader’s candidacy in a way that acknowledges the existence of more than one variable in the negative outcome of the 2000 election. Of course, if you subscribe to the theories of scholars like Solon Simmons, then you don’t believe (like Lowell does) that Nader was a negative factor to even the slightest degree. In fact, you believe that he helped the Democratic party. If you do believe that Nader was a negative factor, I hope you’ll take a look at the big picture and also concede that his impact was so truly minimal when compared to some of the other factors in play, that blaming him for the misery of the last 8 years is complete nonsense.

A blogger who I greatly respect, Anonymous Is A Woman, commented earlier on Vivian Paige’s Nader-themed post:

I remember when Ralph Nader was a serious and extremely respected crusader who took on the auto issue on life saving issues. It’s sad that he is destined to end his legacy as a spoiler and the punch line of late night jokes.

I disagree with a couple of AIAW’s points. The first point is her characterization of Nader as a spoiler. I’ve already discussed in detail why I do not consider this to be an entirely accurate assessment of his past presidential bids. Another portion of AIAW’s comment that I didn’t agree with was her characterization of Ralph Nader as a crusader on life saving issues in the past tense. Criticisms of Nader almost always come attached to praise of his early days as an activist; the halcyon days of Nader, if you will. Days fondly remembered, but existing only in the past.

What seems to be ignored, however, is that fact that the days of Nader’s activism and crusading on behalf of average Americans are certainly not gone, nor has he, in my opinion, devolved into the electoral nuisance and laughingstock that he has been accused by many of being.

Most political scientists would probably agree that that the manner in which America was formed - and the manner in which it has evolved - make a two-party system, not only inevitable, but also necessary. Democracy in America depends upon compromise, and that compromise comes from having two major parties that, essentially, hug the middle of the road on every major issue. The Democrats stay slightly to the left of center, while Republicans stay slightly to the right. This creates enough difference between the two parties to allow for contrasts, but leaves a number of similarities between them sufficient to make compromise possible.

Independents and third parties like Ralph Nader have historically played a very important role in this dynamic. That role, of course, is changing the direction of the overall discussion; pressing major party candidates to talk about controversial “third rail” issues, and presenting ideas, some of which might create so much excitement and support that the two major parties have no choice but to react to them, either by adopting the idea as their own or taking a firm stance in opposition to it.

The fact is, I’m a Democrat; a proud one, and one of the duties that I believe comes with applying that label to myself is making sure that everyone’s voice is heard and everyone’s vote counted. From the party platform:

Voting is the foundation of democracy, a central act of civic engagement, and an expression of equal citizenship. Voting rights are important precisely because they are protective of all other rights. We will call for legislative action that will fully protect and enforce the fundamental Constitutional right of every American to vote — to ensure that the Constitution’s promise is fully realized and that, in disputed elections, every vote is counted fully and fairly.

How it is even remotely in step with the Democratic Party platform to tell 2,882,995 people that they wasted their vote, when the fact is that they overwhelmingly voted for him because they believed he was the best candidate? How is it Democratic to say that Ralph Nader - a candidate capable of receiving nearly 3 million American votes - shouldn’t have even run because he was destined to fail? Quite simply, I don’t believe that it is.

Hillary’s Record: Progressive Enough?

Since Sen. Hillary Clinton has based much her presidential campaign around the notion of experience and asked voters to closely examine who has the best record, I think it’s fair if we do precisely that.

Top 10 things you might not know about Hillary Clinton’s record. She has:

10. Supported the death penalty throughout her public life and lobbied for Bill Clinton’s crime bill, which expanded the list of crimes subject to the federal death penalty.

9. Sponsored legislation in December 2005 to criminalize flag burning, despite concerns over first amendment violations raised by fellow Democrats.

8. Supported Arkansas’s law requiring parental notification before an abortion, but changed her position on the issue in 2005.

7. Campaigned as a teenager for Republican Barry Goldwater during the 1964 presidential election, and served as president of the Wellesley Young Republicans during college.

6. Hired union-busting pollster Mark Penn as her presidential campaign’s chief strategist. Penn’s corporate clients have included Blackwater, Countrywide Financial,Texaco, and Monsanto.

5. In October 2007, Hillary was the only Democratic presidential candidate to vote in favor of a Senate resolution to label Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, essentially giving President Bush a blank check to attack Iran.

4. In her 2006 Senate re-election campaign, Hillary received more money from the health care industry than any other U.S. Senator besides Republican Sen. Rick Santorum.

3. Served on the board of Wal-Mart for six years from 1986 to 1992.

2. In 2007 alone, Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign received over $400,000 in campaign contributions from Washington lobbyists, more than any other Democratic candidate.

1. Voted on October 11, 2002, to authorize the Iraq war.

Hillary Clinton is a very accomplished woman who has been a tremendous leader on many important issues, but is she really the kind of progressive change that America needs in this election?

Sources are below the fold.
Read more

Expect the Unexpected

The 2008 Campaign season kicked off obscenely early, and from the very beginning everyone thought they knew how it would pan out. Rudy and McCain would duke it out for the Republican nomination, and Hillary would have a cakewalk to the Dem nod, right? Read more

Fri. December 7th Live Podcast: Mike Connery Interview

We interview Mike Connery of FutureMajority.com as he discusses his new book, “Youth to Power” about progressive youth politics.

Co-hosted by Dan Solis and Mike Rushmore.

[Download MP3]