Opinion L.A.

The best in Southern California opinion journalism,
Monday through Friday

Category: Gay Marriage

After New York, will marriage equality have to wait?

December 2, 2009 |  4:31 pm
The rap on California elections, especially when it comes to same-sex marriage, is that the state's ballot initiative process too ably empowers voters to overturn carefully deliberated decisions made by legislators and judges. New York voters, by contrast, will not get the chance to do so after their state Senate's rejection today of same-sex marriage:

ALBANY -- The State Senate defeated a bill on Wednesday that would legalize same-sex marriage, after an emotional debate that touched on civil rights, family and history. The vote means that the bill, pushed by Gov. David A. Paterson, is effectively dead for the year and dashes the optimism of gay rights advocates, who have had setbacks recently in several key states.

The bill was defeated by a decisive margin of 38 to 24. The Democrats, who have a bare, one-seat majority, did not have enough votes to pass the bill without some Republican support, but not a single Republican senator voted for the measure. Still, several key Democrats who were considered swing votes also opposed the bill. ...

Had the legislation passed, New York would have become the sixth state where marriage between same-sex couples is legal or will soon be permitted. But now that it has failed, New York becomes the latest state where gay rights advocates have made considerable progress only to see their hopes dashed.

Last month Maine became the 31st state to block same-sex marriage through a referendum. The Maine State Legislature had voted to legalize same-sex unions earlier this year, but opponents of gay rights gathered enough signatures to put the measure on the ballot.

Last year, California voters repealed same-sex marriage after the State Supreme Court said that gay couples had the right to marry.

Unlike in Maine, however, New York does not have a referendum process that allows voters to overturn an act of the Legislature.

Read the whole story from the New York Times here.

I still believe the marriage question is one of inevitability (or, to use a cliche, when, not if), and the sense that history is on their side gives same-sex marriage proponents a tremendous psychological advantage. Still, even the most optimistic equality advocates must acknowledge that progress on this issue seems to have hit a wall over the last few years. The pain is particularly acute here in California, where the narrow passage of Proposition 8 dashed (temporarily) the hopes of same-sex couples, who had seen their domestic partnership rights steadily expanded by Sacramento over the previous several years. Several groups are gathering signatures to put on the 2010 state ballot an initiative overturning Proposition 8.

But is 2010 too soon? Should same-sex couples wait longer than they expected for marriage quality? It's a sordid thing for a straight man like myself who cares deeply about this issue to say to gay men and women. Their quality of life is at stake, not mine, and it's completely unfair for them to have to spend any more of their remaining lives as second-class citizens. But when the focus shifted from domestic partnerships to the M-word, conservative activists (and yes, I'm lumping in those of you who say you tilt left but oppose equality) dug in and fought hard -- and, I would say, unfairly.

The question doesn't have an easy answer. As The Times wrote in its Nov. 5 editorial on Maine voters' rejection of same-sex marriage:

Still, we now know that it will take more than well-prepared arguments and savvily run campaigns to bring about wider victory for same-sex marriage. Lifelong marriage traditions and deeply held religious beliefs have a strong grip on many voters. Younger people, who have grown up in a world of greater societal tolerance of different sexual orientations, are far more likely to vote for gay marriage. But even that greater acceptance came about only through years of gay-rights struggle -- legal, legislative and cultural.

The Maine experience indicates that this struggle continues uphill -- and it can't afford to pause now. Gays and lesbians shouldn't have to wait for an entire generation to reach voting age in order to receive equal rights.

-- Paul Thornton


Protect marriage! But ban divorce?

December 2, 2009 | 12:24 pm
License Har dee har har har. The Associated Press has picked up the story of a satirical push for a ballot measure to ban divorce in California. Call it a mockery of the California ballot initiative process, marriage or Proposition 8 supporters, but you can't deny that it's thoroughly entertaining:

In a movement that seems ripped from the pages of [Comedy Central] writers, John Marcotte wants to put a measure on the ballot next year to ban divorce in California.

The effort is meant to be a satirical statement after California voters outlawed gay marriage in 2008, largely on the argument that a ban is needed to protect the sanctity of traditional marriage. If that's the case, then Marcotte reasons voters should have no problem banning divorce.

"Since California has decided to protect traditional marriage, I think it would be hypocritical of us not to sacrifice some of our own rights to protect traditional marriage even more," the 38-year-old married father of two said. ...

Not surprisingly, Marcotte's campaign to make divorce in California illegal has divided those involved in last year's campaign for and against Proposition 8.

As much as everyone would like to see fewer divorces, making it illegal would be "impractical," said Ron Prentice, the executive director of the California Family Council who led a coalition of religious and conservative groups to qualify Proposition 8. ...

Prentice said proponents of traditional marriage only seek to strengthen the one man-one woman union.

"That's where our intention begins and ends," he said.

Funny, what's preventing Prentice (who's written for us on gay marriage before) from using similar logic in his battle against same-sex nuptials? Couldn't he be content with "seeing fewer gay marriages" through advocacy instead of rewriting the California Constitution, just as he does in his efforts to reduce the divorce rate of straight couples?

As for ending marriages, I'd be open to some tinkering with the "till death do us part" system that results in too many expensive, drawn-out divorce battles. In 2007, Amy Alkon (whose recent Times Op-Ed article on unruly children in airplanes spent a good chunk of time on our "most viewed" and "most e-mailed" lists) suggested that marriage contracts ought to be more like driver's licenses: Every few years, couples would have to renew them. An intriguing idea, but a practical one? Post your thoughts in the comments area below.

(Full disclosure: I've been happily hitched since 2007, and I wouldn't hesitate to "renew" my marriage license under such a scheme. As for divorce, my parents split when I was 3 years old -- a move that, on reflection, was in everyone's best interest.)

-- Paul Thornton

Photo credit: Los Angeles Times


In today's pages: Palin, ACORN and gay marriage

November 18, 2009 | 10:15 am

Sarah Palin, Going Rogue, King-Drew, King-Harbor, Jerry Brown, ACORN, Fox News, hidden camera, gay marriage, Catholic Church, shield law, homeland security It's a combination of issues so hot, an op-ed about reopening King-Harbor hospital doesn't even make the top three! Leading off is a pair of op-eds about best-selling memoirist Sarah Palin -- one friendly, one not so much. Matthew Continetti, associate editor of the right-leaning Weekly Standard and author of "The Persecution of Sarah Palin," tops the page with an analysis of the many reinventions of Alaska's erstwhile governor: first culture warrior, then watchdog, reformer, would-be vice president and, now, celebrity:

In fact, we are already seeing the outlines of identity number six: Sarah the free marketer. This is the identity that will be crucial if Palin decides to run for president in 2012.

But Michael Carey, a columnist for the Anchorage Daily News, retorts that Palin's new book shows her to be more of a whiner than a leader:

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Palin, an amateur as a candidate, became a professional victim, blaming others when encountering political turbulence.

Finger-pointing became second nature to her, and it shows in "Going Rogue," just as it did when she returned to Alaska from the campaign and began feuding with legislators, reporters -- and members of the public who alleged she had committed ethical improprieties.

(Are you planning to help Palin's publisher recoup its advance? Take our poll!)

Rounding out the op-ed page, Times columnist Tim Rutten urges the University of California Board of Regents to approve a proposed partnership with the county Board of Supervisors to reopen and jointly oversee Martin Luther King Jr.-Harbor Hospital.

On the other side of the Opinion divide, the Times editorial board gives Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown a dash of sympathy being "trapped in a political cage from which there will be no easy escape." The cause? His office just gave a pass to Brown's former communications director for surreptitiously recording interviews with reporters, and now liberals are pushing him to investigate a pair of independent filmmakers who surreptitiously recorded ACORN employees in California advising them how to set up a prostitution ring (or, in the case of ACORN's Felix Harris in Los Angeles, refusing to help after learning the prostitutes would be minors).

The board also urges the District of Columbia Council not to bow to pressure from the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, which has threatened to stop providing social services if the council approves same-sex marriages in D.C.

(True personal story to illustrate how conservative the Archdiocese of Washington is: I'm a Catholic, and I got engaged to be married while I was living in D.C. But when I asked a priest at my church if I could have the nuptials there in five months, he told me I needed to wait at least a year to receive the church's blessing. And if I didn't receive the church's blessing, my soul would be "lost to perdition." In other words, I'd spend eternity in Hell because I'd gotten married the wrong way. As it happened, my future mother-in-law lived outside Baltimore, and the diocese there accommodated us without hesitation. That was 19 years ago, and we're still happily married. Whether I'm on the road to perdition is a wholly separate issue.)

Finally, the board gives its support, with reservations, to the latest version of a proposed federal "shield law" to help journalists shield the identity of confidential sources.

Illustration: Ken Fallin For The Times

-- Jon Healey


D.C. church's choice: Help the needy or stand firm against gays and lesbians?

November 12, 2009 | 12:18 pm
One of the more absurd arguments against legalizing same-sex marriage goes like this: Gay men and women do indeed have the same rights as heterosexuals -- they can marry someone of the opposite gender.

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington is, in a sense, having a similar argument thrown in its face, as reported in the Washington Post:

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn't change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care.

Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians.

Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city.

"If the city requires this, we can't do it," Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said Wednesday. "The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that's really a problem."

Several D.C. Council members said the Catholic Church is trying to erode the city's long-standing laws protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination.

Read the whole Post article here.

So there you have it: Charities associated with the Catholic Church in Washington do indeed have the same rights as every other group -- to contract with the city to provide services without discriminating against gay men and women. Of course, there's a far more pressing issue facing the archdiocese, as articulated by D.C. Council member Mary M. Cheh: "'Are they really going to harm people because they have a philosophical disagreement with us on one issue? I hope, in the silver light of day, when this passes, because it will pass, they will not really act on this threat."

The Times briefly addressed the conflict between religious charities and legalizing same-sex marriage in its editorial against Proposition 8.

-- Paul Thornton


Married Catholic priests? Yes and (mostly) no

November 10, 2009 |  4:28 pm

It was a blow to Roman Catholic liberals when the Vatican announced last month that it would welcome, en masse, conservative Anglicans who share the pope's opposition to female clergy and traditional views about homosexuality. But there was a silver lining for liberals: The fact that in welcoming married Anglican priests to the fold, Pope Benedict XVI was perhaps opening the door to married priests within so-called Latin Rite Catholicism. (Eastern Rite Catholics, who recognize the pope's authority but follow rites similar to those of Eastern Orthodoxy, do ordain married men, though Eastern Catholics in the United States were pressured to conform to Western practice so as not to "scandalize" their Irish Catholic neighbors).

But the publication this week of the decree implementing the overture to Anglicans suggests that the slope to married Catholic priests isn't that slippery. After saying that married former Anglican priests could be ordained as Catholic priests, the "Apostolic Constitution" stops short of adopting the Anglican practice of routinely ordaining men who want to become priests.

While authorities of the new church-within-a-church will abide by "the discipline of celibate clergy in the Latin Church, as a rule," an "ordinary" (a bishop or former Anglican bishop) may also ask the pope for permission to ordain married men "on a case-by-case basis." This could be a face-saving way to perpetuate the Anglican tradition of a married clergy without saying so, or it could be a warning that married Anglican laymen will be ordained only rarely. Either way, the new Anglican body within Catholicism will not have the autonomy enjoyed by the Eastern Catholic churches.

The more stinging rebuff to Roman Catholic advocates of married priests is this rather mean-spirited provision of a companion document: "Those who have been previously ordained in the Catholic Church and subsequently have become Anglicans, may not exercise sacred ministry in the Ordinariate." In other words, if you left the Catholic Church and now want to return alongside other Anglican priests, you are treated worse than an Anglican priest who never belonged to the Catholic Church in the first place.

Perhaps the purpose of this provision is to prevent married Roman Catholics who want to be ordained as priests to pretend to convert to Anglicanism so that they can go back through the revolving church door and be accepted as married Catholic priests. But how likely is that? And if the church is willing to incorporate Anglican traditions that don't violate Catholic doctrine (as opposed to a mere regulation like mandatory celibacy), why not treat the new Anglican Rite exactly as the Eastern churches are treated? The only justification for that inconsistency is to stifle discussion about ending mandatory celibacy for Roman Catholic priests.

-- Michael McGough


Could Philip Spooner be the key in Maine's same-sex marriage vote?

November 2, 2009 | 10:24 am

Rings An unlikely folk hero has emerged from the debate over same-sex marriage in Maine. On Tuesday, voters will decide whether to go along with the Legislature's legalization of same-sex marriage in the state or whether to kill it via a "people's veto."

If voters defeat Question 1 -- meaning if they affirm the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry -- Maine will become the first state to support same-sex marriage at the ballot box. So far, such marriages have been legalized only through court rulings or legislative action.

Polls have shown an extremely tight race, and supporters of same-sex marriage have been hoping to get a boost from an 87-year-old World War II veteran who has become the Internet face of opposition to Question 1. Close to 600,000 people have watched Philip Spooner on YouTube, recounting in a public hearing earlier this year the wrenching sights of blood and death he saw in action and his belief that the sacrifice was in support of a nation that extends equal rights to all.

Spooner, a lifelong Republican, and his late wife raised four sons, one of whom is gay. It's unthinkable to him, he said in the tremulous voice of old age, that three of his sons will enjoy rights denied to the fourth.

"This is what we fought for in World War II," he said, "that idea that we can be different and still be equal."

Maine residents might be traditionalists by nature, but they also have a reputation as independent sorts who take a live-and-let-live attitude toward life. Spooner is, as gay-marriage supporters see him, the epitome of that fierce independence.

Let's hope Maine voters have been a big part of Spooner's Internet audience.

-- Karin Klein

Photo credit: Damian Dovarganes / Associated Press


In today's pages: Bratton's successor, Trutanich's tactics and Obama's Afghanistan

October 28, 2009 |  9:45 am

Ted Rall The police commission picked three finalists in its search for Los Angeles' new police chief, and the editorial board says each possesses many of the qualities needed to succeed atop the LAPD. Just so there won't be any confusion on that point, the board also describes what those qualities might be. The board also notes that two proposed ballot measures are due to be submitted today to enable and call a state constitutional convention, and it all but endorses them in a near-desperate plea for functional governance in California.

On the Op-Ed page, Raphael J. Sonenshein, former executive director of the city's charter reform commission, accuses rookie City Atty. Carmen Trutanich of not understanding what a city attorney is supposed to do in this town. Columnist Tim Rutten gives a highly nuanced defense of the push to reveal who is contributing to efforts in other states to put Prop. 8-style bans on gay marriage on the ballot. Musing about the Northwest Airlines flight that overshot its destination by 150 miles, Peter Garrison, a pilot and contributing editor to Flying magazine, reveals just how boring it is to fly a modern airline jet. And columnist Doyle McManus dissects the Obama administration's decision-making process on whether to send more troops to Afghanistan:

[T]he number of troops, as both McChrystal and Obama have said, is not the most important thing. More important are the answers to three questions: Will U.S. goals be limited to make them more achievable? Will Obama make it clear that this troop increase is the last one the Pentagon will get? And can the U.S. succeed in nudging Afghanistan toward a more functional, less corrupt government, without which the whole enterprise will fail?

Credit: Ted Rall / For The Times

-- Jon Healey


Who let them in?

October 20, 2009 | 12:49 pm


The Vatican today announced a new arrangement under which Anglicans may enter the Roman Catholic Church while retaining many of their traditions, including married priests and the use of at least some parts of the Book of Common Prayer. (It isn't clear from the Vatican news release whether this means only that already married Anglican priests will be welcome, or that future priests and candidates for the priesthood will be free to marry -- probably the former.)

This is a big deal. First and foremost, it is a reflection of the continued crackup of the Anglican Communion, the worldwide association of churches with roots in the Church of England, which was created after King Henry VIII declared himself the head of the church. (As Protestant kids in Northern Ireland used to spraypaint on Belfast city walls: "One Bible, One crown, No pope in our town.") 

In an attempt at face-saving, Rowan Williams, the Hamlet-like archbishop of Canterbury, said the new express conversion (as George Costanza would say) wasn't a "commentary on Anglican problems" over the ordination of gays and women as bishops. It's lucky he doesn't claim to be infallible, because this is a holy whopper.

But if the "poping" of conservative Anglo-Catholics eases tensions in the Anglican Communion, it is likely to exacerbate them in their new spiritual home. Many Roman Catholic liberals will be aghast at this development, because they too believe in opening ordination to gays and women. And even some moderate Catholics are likely to grouse over the fact that cradle Catholics can't become priests and be married, but Anglican arrivistes can. (Married former Episcopal priests in the United States have been allowed to switch teams for some time, through the creation of an "Anglican Use" -- a church within a church.)

One group of Roman Catholics, which comprises liberals and conservatives on issues of sexuality, will be happy about this development. They are the Catholics (and I'm one of them) who abhor the tone-deaf language of the post-Vatican II Mass in English. The Anglican Book of Common Prayer is one of the wonders of the English language. Asked what he missed most about his former church, an Anglican-priest-turned Catholic supposedly replied: "The Mass in English."

After today's announcement, I suspect a lot of cradle Catholics in other countries will be sneaking off to "Anglican Use" parishes on Sundays.


-- Michael McGough


March of the penguin love triangle

July 16, 2009 |  4:27 pm

Penguin They aren't the infamous Tango's dads (we'll get to that later) but the forces opposing same-sex marriage see vindication in nature--or at least in the San Francisco Zoo, where a couple of male penguins who formed a long partnership have split.

Harry and Pepper shared a burrow together for six years, even hatching a surrogate chick, until Linda the widow came along, newly bereaved by her (male) partner Fig's death and Harry decided to, uh, chase some tail. The two burrowed in together and Linda laid two eggs.

A sign that gay couples are doomed, as the Proposition 8 supporters claim? Let's check 3,000 miles acorss the continent where a much more famous pair of male penguins live at the Central Park Zoo. Roy and Silo not only hatched an egg together, and raised baby Tango, but they all became characters, alternately celebrated and maligned, in the children's book "And Tango Makes Three." The zoo never got back to me with official word about the ornithological literary figures, but an employee told me informally that the two are still alive and well and together. But their book has been banned in numerous schools.

So this makes what of the whole argument about same-sex marriage for humans? Perhaps only a reminder that penguins do not seem as inclined to judge their peers' preferences as humans are.

Photo of two king penguins who are cute but not Harry, Pepper, Roy or Silo by Martin Meissner/AP 


Rippling through the blogosphere

June 19, 2009 |  3:54 pm

Here's a look at the blogosphere's reactions to the work of the Times' Opinion Manufacturing Division this week:

The Opine Editorials, a blog in defense of marriage, disagrees with this week's Times' editorial about the California Marriage Amendment, chiding its remarks as "marriage neutering."

In this post, the No More Tobacco Taxes blog puts forth a different take on the proposed tobacco tax, arguing that tobacco should not be targeted because it's "PC." This -- and the press release from the International Premium Cigar and Pipe Retailers also posted on the blog -- both mention the Times editorial, which favors the tax and the much-needed revenue it would generate for California.

Global Americana Institute President Juan Cole's blog, Informed Comment, linked to Babak Rahimi's op-ed in its broader discussion of the media coverage of the political turmoil and protests in Iran.

John Brown's Public Diplomacy and Press and Blog Review, Version 2.0 included Ben Ehrenreich's op-ed on torture as part of America's tradition in his roundup of blogs related to public diplomacy.

The Mahablog picked up on Douglas W. Kmie's op-ed that stated substituting the term "civil union" for "marriage" in the ongoing struggle for gay marriage legality would be a win-win situation. The Mahablog counters that the two terms are not the same, "marriage" implying that the status is backed by both the state and a religious entity while "civil union" only ensures the former's support.

American Chronicle cited the Times' June 17 editorial against the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to deny prisoners access to DNA testing, saying the editorial voiced the "dismay of millions within US and rest of the world on the subject."

Finally, KCET's blog used two of Tim Rutten's columns on traffic congestion and the implementation of toll roads in its discussion of the equity of congestion pricing in Los Angeles.



Advertisement

About the Bloggers
Opinion L.A. is the work of the Los Angeles Times editorial board.



Recent Posts
Protect marriage! But ban divorce? |  December 2, 2009, 12:24 pm »
Q & A with Lt. Gov.-designee Abel Maldonado |  November 30, 2009, 10:37 am »
White House gate crashers: We are not amused |  November 30, 2009, 9:18 am »

Archives