Blogcabin California

July 24, 2008

Profile: Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty

Posted by Christopher Gilbertson at 3:17 pm .
Filed under: Miscellany

Is Tim Pawlenty the Perfect Evangelical VP Candidate?

by David Brody

June 12, 2008
Yes, yes. Mike Huckabee. I know many evangelicals love him. But could Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty fit the bill for evangelicals too? Think about it. Minnesota is a purple state, he’s popular articulate, young and handsome and an Evangelical to boot. Stop the presses! That’s called the Evangelical trifecta. I believe we actually have reaction from some Evangelicals in this video. Click here.
 Read below from The Minnesota Independent:
Pawlenty became an evangelical Christian in the mid-1980s when he married Mary Anderson, a member of Wooddale Church, an evangelical megachurch in Eden Prairie. The couple were married by the Rev. Leith Anderson, a senior pastor at Wooddale since 1977. Anderson happens to be the president of the National Association of Evangelicals, an organization representing more than 30 million American evangelicals. In fact, Anderson had been the president of NAE from 1999 to 2003, and became the current president after the Rev. Ted Haggard’s troubles involving methamphetamines and gay sex forced him out in 2006.
Despite Anderson’s and the NAE’s promises to keep politics out of the pulpit this year, and despite Pawlenty’s increasingly downplayed evangelism, Pawlenty and Anderson’s close relationship both politically and personally will signal to 30 million evangelicals that Pawlenty is one of them. And the groundwork for that vast network has already been laid. Pawlenty’s already met and spoke with a large number of evangelical leaders.
Pawlenty’s connection to the NAE through his pastor is quite unique for a politician. When Pawlenty goes to church on Sundays, he is also heading to the church that houses a good many of the NAE’s headquarters. 

In 2003, Pawlenty and Wooddale hosted about 1,600 evangelical leaders from around the country for a two-day convention of the National Association of Evangelicals. Pawlenty praised the work of President Bush and his faith-based initiatives, a program that funnels federal funds to religious charities. “If you’re going to change destructive behavior, you’ve got to change hearts,” said Pawlenty, according to the Star Tribune. “Governors can’t do that. We hope you can do that in a God-honoring manner that meets the challenges of our day.”

In 2004, the evangelical Twin Cities Festival drew around 80,000 people to the Minnesota Capitol grounds for a two-day faith event. Pawlenty offered a warm reception, and even held event-organizing meetings with Luis Palau, according to the Pioneer Press. Of the festival, Pawlenty said, “I’m proud to be associated with such an important faith event. Faith is an important glue that holds our state together.” He added that he prayed “that God will bless this weekend and continue to bless this great state.” Mary Pawlenty was a featured speaker at the festival. 

Pawlenty has quietly but firmly put his evangelical beliefs to work in his political life as governor. In 2003, an inauguration ceremony was held at Wooddale just before his swearing in with Anderson saying a few words: “I believe the God of government has brought Tim Pawlenty to the governor’s office in St. Paul for peace and good in the lives of all Minnesotans.” He had a similar ceremony at Wooddale in January 2007 after winning reelection in 2006.

More here. 

Here’s how the Baptist Press describes him and his actions:

Re-elected as governor of Minnesota in 2006, Pawlenty is pro-life and has spoken at March for Life rallies in St. Paul on the anniversary of the infamous Roe v. Wade decision. At the 2006 rally, he told marchers, according to the Associated Press, “We have a dream today that someday soon this will not be an anniversary of sadness, but an anniversary of justice restored.” He also has signed into law several pro-life bills, including one requiring a mandatory 24-hour waiting period before a woman can obtain an abortion.He has received high marks from pro-family officials on a number of issues. This year he vetoed a bill that would have allowed local governments to offer marriage-like domestic partner benefits to their homosexual employees. He also has been a staunch supporter of a proposed constitutional marriage amendment, although it has failed to make it out of the legislature. In addition, he has opposed so-called comprehensive sex education.

He recently vetoed a bill that would have allowed taxpayer dollars be used for embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning, LifeNews.com reported. In his veto message he encouraged the use of alternatives.

“Significant and promising progress continues to be made on the use of adult stem cells. This creates ample opportunity to work toward lifesaving cures,” Pawlenty said. “We should encourage this science.”

He told a gathering of Republicans in 2006 that Minnesota, long considered a left-leaning state, is becoming conservative.

“We’re fighting a tradition that is deeply liberal,” he said. “But it’s changing. It’s changing. And we do not want to go back.”

July 18, 2008

Learning to Love the Gay Marriage Industrial Complex

Posted by Christopher Gilbertson at 1:39 pm .
Filed under: Miscellany

magic8ball.jpg

Poll sees marriage ban trailing, and

other Prop. 8 bits and pieces

Joe Mathews’ Blockbuster Democracy blog has this link to a Field Poll out this morning showing that Californians are leaning against Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment initiative on the Nov. 4 ballot to restrict marriage to a union between a man and a woman. 

If it passes, what would be the effect of the state Supreme Court’s May 15 ruling legalizing marriage for same-sex couples? The court called marriage a fundamental right. Can voters revoke a fundamental right by initiative?

Opponents of Proposition 8 said no, and asked the court to remove the measure from the ballot. On Wednesday, though, the justices declined, without comment.

Los Angeles Superior Court research attorney Kevin Norte has been warning that the court’s failure to act may result in repeated ballot measures to restrict marriage. Even if Proposition 8 fails, he argues, lack of court action to bar similar ballot measures will result in one initiative after another, forever, much like the parental consent/notification measures that Californians have seen three times in the last three years. The latest version, Proposition 4 (also known as Sara’s Law), is on the Nov. 4 ballot.

Norte calls the potential phenomenon the “Gay Marriage Industrial Complex.” Read his quote in the Metropolitan News-Enterprise story.

Meanwhile, there’s an online petition to recall Chief Justice Ron George for the “travesty” in ruling and writing the opinion in the In re Marriage Cases decision, but it’s not an official petition qualified by the secretary of state.

FIELD POLL: Prop. 8 Down by 9 points out of the Gate

Posted by Christopher Gilbertson at 6:41 am .
Filed under: Miscellany

magic8ball.jpg 

http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2278.pdf

“You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.” A. Lincoln

John McCain may want to flip-flop on this issue -word.

July 17, 2008

PEPFAR Scroll of Shame (Senate Version)

Posted by Christopher Gilbertson at 12:23 pm .
Filed under: Miscellany

Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bunning (R-KY)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)

DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)

   

 Kyl (R-AZ)
Sessions (R-AL)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

McCain “Clarifies” Position on Gay adoption

Posted by Bruce at 2:36 am .
Filed under: Miscellany
Dale Carpenter posting at

http://volokh.com/posts/1216175175.shtml

 

McCain backs off on opposition to “gay adoption”:

In an interview with the New York Times published on Sunday John McCain stated that “I don’t believe in gay adoption.” That morning I blogged here about this statement, calling for a clarification from the McCain campaign about whether he really opposes all adoptions by gay individuals and couples. It seemed to me unlikely that that was really his view and that, in the context of the culture war, he was really expressing a preference for opposite-sex adoptions.

Today the McCain campaign issued a statement on gay adoptions, sent to Andrew Sullivan’s blog:

McCain could have been clearer in the interview in stating that his position on gay adoption is that it is a state issue, just as he made it clear in the interview that marriage is a state issue. He was not endorsing any federal legislation.

McCain’s expressed his personal preference for children to be raised by a mother and a father wherever possible. However, as an adoptive father himself, McCain believes children deserve loving and caring home environments, and he recognizes that there are many abandoned children who have yet to find homes. McCain believes that in those situations that caring parental figures are better for the child than the alternative. - Jill Hazelbaker, Director of Communications

We could quibble over whether this statement is really a clarification or a retreat. In any event, it’s welcome. First, McCain properly affirms that this is a state, not federal, matter. Second, whereas before McCain suggested that it’s always best for children to be raised by mothers and fathers, he now acknowledges this often won’t be possible since “there are many abandoned children who have yet to find homes.” Third, the seeming insistence on opposite-sex adoptions is replaced by what the campaign calls “loving and caring home environments” and “caring parental figures.” It’s the kind of language about families I would expect to see in a law review article written by a gay activist.

It’s not perfect. It doesn’t explicitly state that McCain “favors gay adoptions” in some circumstances. It tries to mollify religious conservatives by indicating McCain’s “personal preference” for a mother and father in adoptions. (That effort failed: the anti-gay Family Research Council is now concerned that McCain is “muddying the waters” of his earlier opposition to gay adoptions.)

While the new statement could have been clearer in repudiating McCain’s earlier answer on the issue, it does accomplish a couple of important things. It makes it clear that McCain is not opposed to adoption by gay individuals. That was in any event a politically untenable stand since only Florida prohibits adoptions by all homosexual individuals. And McCain’s new statement suggests that adoption by homosexual couples is preferable to leaving children in foster care. If so, that’s a more ambitious stand in favor of gay parenting, since such “second parent” adoptions are now permitted in only some jurisdictions in about half the states. On the whole, unlike the seemingly hard line he took against gay adoption on Sunday, today’s statement is more nuanced and is defensible given the current state of the social science on gay parenting.

Posted by Bruce Albert 

 

July 16, 2008

FRC’s Tony Perkin’s and the Art of Marriage Polling

Posted by Christopher Gilbertson at 6:26 pm .
Filed under: Miscellany
Refer a Friend | July 16, 2008

Weapons of Mass. Destruction

The Massachusetts legislature is pulling out all the stops to recapture its title as the most liberal state in the union on marriage. Yesterday, the Bay State Senate voted to repeal a 95-year-old law that former Gov. Mitt Romney enforced to prevent out-of-state homosexuals from “marrying.” To justify the move, the Senate pointed to a report commissioned by the state that claimed non-resident “marriages” would bring in an estimated $110 million. As groups like FRC have argued, money can’t undo the damage done to society by the state’s campaign to expand homosexual “marriage.”

Massachusetts liberals are hoping to throw open their borders to same-sex couples from the 24 states without marriage protection amendments. The region most likely to take advantage of the invitation is nearby New York, whose governor, David Paterson (D), made the unilateral decision to recognize out-of-state “marriages” without putting the idea to a democratic test.

Marc Solomon of MassEquality brushed off criticism of the Senate vote, saying, “We think this issue has lost some of its edge. It’s just not a big deal. Americans look at this and they wonder why these groups are constantly talking about gay marriage when gas prices and the war in Iraq are so much more critical.” On the contrary, the issue is enough of a “big deal” that Massachusetts senators held a cowardly voice vote on the repeal to ensure that senators votes would be anonymous, and state voters would be unable to hold them accountable. As to this notion that same-sex “marriage” is growing more popular, it’s simply not true. In a July Pew Research Center poll, only 15 percent of Americans surveyed “strongly favored” legislation that would “allow gays and lesbians to marry legally.” More than double that (31 percent) “strongly opposed” the idea.

The bill to overturn the 1913 law now heads to the House, where it is expected to pass before heading to Gov. Deval Patrick’s (D) desk.

 

Pew Research Center for the People & the PressPew Research Center for the People & the Press

Gay Marriage Is Back On The Radar For Republicans, Evangelicals

But Overall Opposition to Gay Marriage is Less Than in 2004

June 12, 2008

PrintEmailShare

The balance of public opinion regarding gay marriage is more positive now than it was during the 2004 campaign. However, Republicans and white evangelical Protestants, in particular, remain staunchly opposed to allowing gays and lesbians to marry, and increasing numbers of Republicans and white evangelicals say that gay marriage will be very important in their voting decisions.

Figure

 

In the most recent People-Press survey, which was conducted May 21-25, 49% of Americans said they oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry while 38% favored gay marriages. In July 2004, 56% opposed gay marriage, compared with 32% who supported legal marriages between gays and lesbians.

The survey, conducted shortly after a decision by California’s Supreme Court overturning the state’s ban on gay marriage, found that 28% of voters view gay marriage as a very important issue, somewhat fewer than did so near the end of the 2004 campaign (32% in October 2004). But gay marriage has increased in importance since October 2007 (22%), with most of this increase coming among Republicans, white evangelical Protestants and Catholics.

Currently, 41% of Republicans say gay marriage will be very important in their voting decisions, up 14 percentage points since last fall. Notably, about as many Republicans now view gay marriage as very important as did so at the end of the 2004 campaign (41% now vs. 39% then). Similarly, 49% of white evangelical Protestants view gay marriage as very important, up 10 points since last fall and identical to the percentage of white evangelicals who rated gay marriage as very important in October 2004.

A greater proportion of Catholic voters also view gay marriage as very important than did so last October (25% now vs. 14% in October 2007); in 2004, 19% of Catholic voters said gay marriage was very important. Nonetheless, just half as many Catholics as white evangelical Protestants rate gay marriage as a very important issue.

Figure

 

Gay marriage continues to rate as a far less important issue for Democrats than for Republicans. Just 22% of Democrats view gay marriage as very important, compared with 27% at the end of the last presidential campaign. In addition, only 17% of white mainline Protestants say gay marriage is very important, compared with 23% in October 2004.

While there is somewhat greater support for gay marriage than four years ago, overwhelming majorities of Republicans (75%) and white evangelical Protestants (81%) oppose allowing gays to marry, and about half in each group strongly opposes gay marriage (48% of Republicans, 54% of white evangelicals). Opinions about gay marriage in both groups are virtually unchanged from July 2004.

Strong opponents of gay marriage are far more likely than voters who oppose it less intensely, or those who favor gay marriage, to say it will be a very important factor in their voting decisions. Fully 55% of strong opponents of gay marriage say it is a very important issue, compared with 29% of strong supporters of gay marriage, and even smaller percentages of voters who favor or oppose gay marriage less strongly.

Trends on Gay Marriage, Civil Unions

Figure

 

Currently, 49% of Americans oppose gay marriage - the first time since the question was first asked more than a decade ago that a majority did not express opposition to gay marriage. Roughly four-in-ten (38%) favor gay marriage, which is little changed from recent years. During the 2004 campaign, opposition to gay marriage ranged from 56% to 63%, while support registered between 29% and 32%.

The current survey finds that a narrow majority of Americans (51%) favor legal agreements that would give gay couples many of the same rights as married couples; 41% oppose such civil unions. Two years ago, in July 2006, there was slightly more support for civil unions (54% favor vs. 42% oppose). During the 2004 campaign, somewhat smaller pluralities favored civil unions. In July 2004, for instance, 49% favored civil unions while 43% opposed such agreements.

Opposition Declines in Many Groups

 

There have been several notable changes in public attitudes toward gay marriage since the 2004 campaign. Women are now fairly evenly divided over whether gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry legally (41% favor vs. 46% oppose); in July 2004, just a third of women favored gay marriage while 56% were opposed.

A narrow majority of college graduates (51%) favor gay marriage compared with 38% who are opposed. Four years ago, a plurality of college graduates (46%) opposed gay marriage. White Catholics are now evenly divided about whether marriages between gays and lesbians should be permitted (44% favor, 44% oppose), a substantial shift since 2004 when 55% of white Catholics opposed gay marriage. Opposition to gay marriage among those ages 65 and older has declined by 10 points, though support has risen only slightly (by four points), as the proportion not offering an opinion has increased.

Figure

 

As noted, there has been virtually no decline in opposition among conservative Republicans and white evangelicals, who are much more likely than others to rate gay marriage as a very important issue in their vote. By contrast, liberal Democrats are more supportive of gay marriage than they were four years ago; fully three-quarters favor permitting gays and lesbians to wed legally (up from 63% in July 2004); 42% of liberal Democrats strongly favor gay marriage, up from 31% four years ago. But fewer than a quarter of liberal Democrats (23%) say that gay marriage will be a very important issue in their voting decision; that is slightly less than the percentage of liberal Democrats who rated gay marriage as very important in October 2004 (28%).

Views on Civil Unions

Figure

 

Public attitudes regarding civil unions for gay couples have not changed substantially since the 2004 presidential campaign. Currently, 51% say they favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into legal agreements that would give them many of the same rights as married couples; 41% oppose such agreements.

There is less opposition toward civil unions than gay marriage in most major demographic and political groups. The differences in opinions are particularly striking among white non-Hispanic Catholics and moderate and liberal Republicans.

White non-Hispanic Catholics are split over whether gays should be allowed to marry legally; by more than two-to-one (64% to 30%), white non-Hispanic Catholics favor allowing gay couples to enter legal agreements that would grant them many of the same rights as married couples. And while a solid majority (57%) of moderate and liberal Republicans oppose gay marriage, just 42% oppose civil unions.

Liberal Democrats and young people - who express relatively positive opinions about gay marriage - have fairly comparable views of civil unions for gays. Liberal Democrats favor gay marriage by 75% to 22%, and civil unions by only a slightly larger margin (78% to 20%). People under age 30 favor gay marriage by 52% to 40%; they support civil unions by 58% to 37%.

Conversely, nearly as many African Americans oppose civil unions as oppose gay marriage. By more a margin of more than two-to-one (56% to 26%), more blacks oppose gay marriage than favor it. The balance of opinion among African Americans regarding civil unions is only modestly less negative (53% oppose vs. 34% favor).

For complete trends on public attitudes toward gay marriage and civil unions, see questions 34-35 in the topline questionnaire for the People-Press survey released May 29, 2008.

News from the Ethically Challenged Liberty Counsel

Posted by Christopher Gilbertson at 3:05 pm .
Filed under: Miscellany
Liberty Counsel
NEWS RELEASE
Contact: PUBLIC RELATIONS DEPARTMENT - 800-671-1776

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 16, 2008

California Supreme Court Upholds the People’s Right to Vote on Marriage in Upcoming Election

San Francisco, CA – Today the California Supreme Court rejected the case brought by same-sex marriage advocates, who intended to prevent California voters from voting on the California Marriage Protection Act (“Amendment”) in November. The court’s decision means the Amendment will stay on the ballot. It also allows the Secretary of State to print voter information pamphlets on the issue.
Last month Liberty Counsel filed a motion to intervene in this lawsuit, asking the court to allow the people to vote on the Amendment. Liberty Counsel represents the Campaign for California Families, Randy Thomasson, and Larry Bowler. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of three voters and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, the ACLU and Equality California against California Secretary of State, Debra Bowen, who certified the Amendment.
On June 2, 2008, the Amendment was certified by the Secretary of State for the November ballot. The Amendment states: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” If passed, the Amendment would nullify the 4-3 ruling of the California Supreme Court issued on May 15 and would ban same-sex marriage in California.
The same-sex marriage advocates were seeking to remove the Amendment from the November ballot, erroneously arguing that “the rules for revising the California Constitution were not properly followed.” Their brief claimed that an initiative was not enough to put the Amendment on the ballot, since it must also be approved by two-thirds of the legislature. The suit also alleged that petitions for the initiative, which were circulated prior to the ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, were misleading because they stated the Amendment would not change existing law and would not have a financial impact on the state. Liberty Counsel’s motion to intervene disproved these claims.
Most Californians want the Amendment. A poll conducted on May 30, 2008, by ccAdvertising shows that 56% of California residents support marriage as one man and one woman. Another poll by the Los Angeles Times similarly revealed that 54% of those polled supported the Amendment and only 35% opposed it.
Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: “If the people have an opportunity to participate in the democratic process, they will vote for marriage as one man and one woman. Those who push for same-sex marriage are willing to destroy both marriage and democracy to achieve a selfish result. Marriage between a man and a woman is best for our children and for our country.”

Christopher: ummmm…..it seems they forgot something?   oh, yes….The Motion By Campaign For California Families, Randy Thomasson, And Larry Bowler To Intervene As RealParties In Interest, filed June 30, 2008, is denied as moot.

 

I am so glad we’re dealing with ethical opponents.

Prop. 8: Not All It’s Cracked Up to Be

Posted by Christopher Gilbertson at 6:47 am .
Filed under: Miscellany

Division Emerges Among Foes of Calif. Same-Sex Marriages

Mike McKee
The Recorder
July 16, 2008

A united front by conservative forces against same-sex marriage in California is showing signs of cracking — or of having been an illusion all along.

Last week, the proponents of Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment that would limit marriage to heterosexual couples, asked the California Supreme Court to prevent another conservative group — the Campaign for California Families — from intervening in a suit that could determine whether that issue stays on the November ballot.

In a short brief filed Thursday, Folsom, Calif., lawyer Andrew Pugno, counsel for ProtectMarriage.com, argued that rather than back Prop 8, the CCF actively campaigned against it for years in favor of another amendment that would have sharply curtailed all gay rights.

“Only now that the act has qualified for the ballot as Proposition 8 do proposed intervenors support it,” Pugno wrote. “Against this backdrop, there is significant concern that the presence of [the CCF] in this action will substantially interfere with real parties’ ability to effectively defend Proposition 8.”

In an interview Monday, Pugno referred to the CCF as “extremists” who want to go beyond the issue of marriage and “strip away gay rights” of any kind.

Mathew Staver, founder and president of the Florida-based Liberty Counsel, which represents the CCF, said Monday he was “disappointed and confused” by Pugno’s motion. But he said his group is determined to back Prop 8.

“People in the past may have had different opinions as to the different approaches,” he said, “but I don’t think those opinions are anything that divides anyone now.”

Although Pugno and Staver insist there is no rift, their opponents see an ideological schism in the conservative position. The CCF and Pugno’s clients, ProtectMarriage.com, had seemed bosom buddies until last week, even presenting the most conservative positions as a tandem during the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage arguments in March.

“There appears to be some disagreement between the two groups,” said Shannon Minter, legal director of the San Francisco-based National Center for Lesbian Rights, one of the groups that filed the lawsuit to challenge Prop 8.

“They realize the tide of history is against them,” he said. “They are becoming more desperate and shrill, and under those circumstances, divisions tend to emerge.”

CCF wants to intervene in the suit, filed June 20 by civil rights groups, and accuses conservatives of misstating the initiative’s purpose. The lawsuit alleges that Prop 8, in reality, seeks a constitutional revision that would require legislative approval.

In their June 30 intervention motion, attorneys for the CCF said the group’s backers want “to protect their interests as longtime proponents of a marriage amendment to the California Constitution.”

But Pugno told the high court that the CCF had fought efforts to get Prop 8 on the ballot. He attached an August 2005 letter sent out by the campaign and others that urged voters to oppose the amendment that would become Prop 8.

In that letter, the campaign called the proposed proposition a “flawed amendment” that “will forever permit homosexual ‘marriage’ by another name in California by allowing all the rights of marriage to go to gay couples.” The letter urged voters instead to support the campaign’s own separate amendment that would limit marriage to a man and a woman, eliminate domestic partnerships and many gay rights already provided by companies and other organizations.

Called the Voters’ Right to Protect Marriage Initiative, it failed to get enough signatures to make the ballot.

Pugno made it clear Monday that his group didn’t appreciate the CCF’s earlier actions and doesn’t want it involved in the legal fight for Prop 8. He called the group a “very small and vocal faction,” and said the opposition to the campaign’s intervention “illustrates the point that while the extremists may want to strip away gay rights, that all we are doing is focusing on restoring traditional marriage.”

Pugno said that attacking gay rights is a gambit that’s “unlikely to succeed in California.”

Stephen Bomse, the Heller Ehrman partner who is working with civil rights groups to legally block Prop 8, said he “chuckled” when he saw Pugno’s opposition to the campaign’s intervention.

He wouldn’t comment further on the dispute, however, saying he and the other legal groups that joined the suit — NCLR, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund and the American Civil Liberties Union — are focused on the merits of the case.

“We filed our own separate opposition,” Bomse added, “that had nothing to do with whatever little internecine skirmish is going on between [the conservative groups].”

The case is Bennett v. Bowen, S164520.

July 15, 2008

Removing the Eight

Posted by Christopher Gilbertson at 7:49 am .
Filed under: Miscellany

 magic8ball.jpg

California’s “Proposition 8 - Limit on Marriage Initiative” Should Be Removed From The Ballot

By Kevin Norte

On June 20th, the attorneys for the victors in California’s In re Marriage Cases, filed an Extraordinary Writ in the state Supreme Court seeking removal of Proposition 8 on two grounds. The first ground is that the wording of the initiative itself is outdated and wrong. The second ground is that the initiative is actually a revision masquerading as an amendment in disguise. 

The first issue is basically whether the initiative that was submitted to the Secretary of State and its language approved by the Attorney General, and reviewed by the Legislative Analyst and the Director of Finance prior to the Supreme Court’s is valid due to the findings of the Supreme Court subsequent to the petition being circulated. Clearly, prior to the ruling, it was true that there would be no change in the manner in which marriages are currently recognized by the state was valid; but that is no longer true. Supreme Court precedent clearly indicates that pre-election review is necessary for wording issues, otherwise, it is waived.  

But the second ground is of particular interest to me because even if the Supreme Court removes it on those grounds, the initiative could possibly come back and create a “Gay Marriage Industrial Complex” in this state which, like parental notification for teenage abortions, could become an initiative staple in the ballot pamphlets for years to come. What I am reviewing is the possibility that the “amendment” may be permanently removed as a voter driven initiative.

In reviewing the issue of pre-election review to seek the removal of the voter initiative, there appears to be only one manner of pre-election review to permanently remove such a voter initiative from the ballot.  It would be for the court to find that the initiative amounts to a constitutional revision and therefore is not proper as a voter signature driven initiative amendment. The California’s Supreme Court (in a 7-0 decision written by the justice who authored the marriage decision) has already unanimously determined pre-election review is not precluded when the challenge is based upon a claim that the initiative may not properly be submitted to the voters because it amounts to a constitutional revision rather than an amendment. 

In 1948, the Court noted that the initiative power reserved by the people by amendment to the Constitution applies only to the proposing and the adopting or rejecting of laws and amendments to the Constitution and does not purport to extend to a constitutional revision. 

Years ago an initiative attempted to strip all prisoners of the constitutional rights under the California constitution and limit their rights to those found in the US constitution. The Court found that the initiative went too far because it effected how the state interacts and operates with its people and was therefore a revision and not an amendment. For a revision to be found, it must necessarily or inevitably appear from the face of the challenged provision that the measure will substantially alter the basic governmental framework set forth in our Constitution. 

I find that same-gender marriage may, on its face, appear to be a relatively simple enactment but it has accomplished such far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan by affecting and broadening an individual’s interest in personal autonomy protected by the right of privacy, the liberty interest protected by the due process clause, and the independent substantive right to marry, as well as equal protection. A simple amendment that, “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California,” is a revision because it amounts to wholesale evisceration and revision of several portions of the California Constitution that are not addressed in the initiative. 

Marriage is not so simple. The right to marry is not properly viewed as simply a benefit or privilege that a government may establish or abolish as it sees fit, but rather that the right constitutes a basis civil or human right of all people. Marriage is a privacy right older than the Bill of Rights. Courts have noted that: 

“We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights-older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects…The policy favoring marriage is ‘rooted in the necessity of providing an institutional basis for defining the fundamental relational rights and responsibilities of persons in organized society.’”  

“Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.” In the Marriage Cases, the California Supreme Court found the “recognition that the core substantive rights encompassed by the constitutional right to marry apply to same-sex as well as opposite-sex couples…”  (emphasis added) 

In fact, the court went on, probably further than necessary for the ruling by stating: 

“In light of the fundamental nature of the substantive rights embodied in the right to marry — and their central importance to an individual’s opportunity to live a happy, meaningful, and satisfying life as a full member of society — the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all individuals and couples, without regard to their sexual orientation.”               

Marriage is a fundamental core right, which now is defined to include the right of same-gender couples to marry.  Therefore, neither the state nor the initiative process can amend the definition of marriage such that it excludes same-gender couples. At best, the state or initiative process can merely amend the Constitution to create incentives to marry, adopting measures to protect the marital relationship or, alternatively, how a marriage can be terminated.  However, anything that goes beyond these measures and intercedes into the now traditional definition of marriage requires a revision of the state Constitution and the institution of marriage itself. The proposed initiative attempts to “change” the California Constitution that would result in removing the fundamental rights discussed by a voter initiative amendment. However, a single sentence voter initiative amendment cannot alter the Constitution’s comprehensive framework. 

A 1962 amendment granted the Legislature the authority to propose either revisions or amendments. With regard to the limitation on amendments and revisions Article XVIII of the California Constitution allows for amendment of the Constitution by the Legislature, or initiative and revision of the Constitution by the Legislature, or a constitutional convention. There is no other method for revising or amending the Constitution. An amendment implies such an addition or change within the lines of the original instrument as will effect an improvement or to better carry out the purpose for which it was framed. 

The revision/amendment analysis has a dual aspect, requiring us to examine both the quantitative and qualitative effects of the measure on our constitutional scheme. Substantial changes in either respect could amount to a revision. An enactment which is as extensive in its provisions as to change directly the substantial entirety of the Constitution by the deletion or alteration of numerous existing provisions may well constitute a revision thereof.  

However, even a relatively simple enactment may accomplish such far-reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision also. According to the Marriage Cases, although our state Constitution does not contain any explicit reference to a “right to marry,” past California cases establish beyond question that the right to marry is a fundamental right whose protection is guaranteed to all persons by the California Constitution. In light of the fundamental nature of the substantive rights embodied in the right to marry - and their central importance to an individual’s opportunity to live a happy, meaningful, and satisfying life as a full member of society - the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all individuals and couples, without regard to their sexual orientation.    

The proposed initiative originally sought to limit the Constitutional right to marry to opposite-sex couples and, thus as originally drafted, it was intended to limit the right to marry to a man and a woman. The Right to Marry presently exists and in light of the recent ruling, the initiative’s unintended consequence is an attempt to revise (as opposed to amend) the Constitution which is a fundamental right to all individuals and couples, without regard to their sexual orientation. 

Whether an initiative constitutes an amendment or revision to the Constitution does not necessarily depend on the number of constitutional provisions it affects, but on the nature of the changes it makes. For a revision to be found, it must necessarily or inevitably appear from the face of the challenged provision that the measure will substantially alter the basic governmental framework set forth in our Constitution. Voters can propose amendments to the Constitution that will be placed on the ballot if the requisite number of signatures is obtained, but they may not propose constitutional revisions. Although the electorate may amend the Constitution by initiative, a revision of the Constitution may be accomplished only by a constitutional convention and popular ratification or by legislative submission of the measure to the electorate.  

It has been suggested the revision provision is based on the principle that comprehensive changes to the Constitution require more formality, discussion and deliberation than is available through the initiative process. In the Marriage Cases, the California Supreme Court noted that the opposition asserted that the common law definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman is constitutionally enshrined in the California Constitution by virtue of language in the 1849 and 1879 Constitutions that employed the terms “marriage,” “wife,” and “husband” in providing constitutional protection for separate-property rights, thereby precluding the Legislature or the people through the statutory initiative power from modifying the current statutes to permit same-sex couples to marry. However history belies the notion that any element that traditionally has been viewed as an integral or definitional feature of marriage constitutes an impermissible subject of judicial scrutiny.   

In light of all of these circumstances, and the court concluded that retention of the traditional definition of marriage does not constitute a state interest sufficiently compelling, under the strict scrutiny equal protection standard, to justify withholding that status from same-sex couples. Accordingly, insofar as the provisions of sections 300 and 308.5 draw a distinction between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples and exclude the latter from access to the designation of marriage, the court concluded these statutes are unconstitutional. 

In other words, the statutory interpretations of marriage at Family Code §§ 300 and 308.5 were unconstitutional because the California Supreme Court interpreted marriage as including the right of same-gender couples to marry.  These rights were probably always there but impermissibly prohibited by the unconstitutional acts of the legislature and the initiative process. A right so fundamentally rooted in society, a right which predates the Bill of Rights must, therefore, be a core element of the state constitution. Indeed, the Supreme Court noted that: 

“It is apparent under the California Constitution that the right to marry — like the right to establish a home and raise children — has independent substantive content, and cannot properly be understood as simply the right to enter into such a relationship if (but only if) the Legislature chooses to establish and retain it.” 

At best, the state can create incentives to marry or, alternatively, to create conditions regulating the termination of a marriage. In view of the public’s significant interest in marriage, California decisions have recognized that the Legislature has broad authority in seeking to protect and regulate this relationship by creating incentives to marry and adopting measures to protect the marital relationship.  The Supreme Court wills most likely rule on the issue by August 8th and a California Constitutional analysis will likely be considered taking into consideration that a Constitutional “change” has occurred to a core element and at least four fundamental portions of the California Constitution by the Supreme Court.  In light of the change, the right to marry is not properly viewed simply as a benefit or privilege that a government may establish as it sees fit, but rather that the right constitutes a basic civil or human right of all people. Taking into account that there are substantial changes in both the quantitative and qualitative effects of the initiative on our constitutional scheme as it now stands, the court could find that substantial changes in either respect could amount to a revision. Consequently, the petitioners should be entitled to know by August 8th if the Court will grant pre-election relief to remove the proposed “Limit on Marriage” Constitutional Amendment Initiative from the November, 2008 ballot.             

And ending on a sad thought, if not a mighty thought, is this:  If the Supreme Court permits Proposition 8 to be placed on the ballot, the Court in fact would have harmed the very institution it sought to protect.  If Justice Ronald George and the California Supreme Court fail to remove Proposition 8 and we win in November, our marriage rights may, NO RATHER WILL, be put up to a simple initiative vote at every major election cycle. Whoever loses will always return. And with that threat, same gender couples will face the continual threat of invalidity, without any of the permanence the framers envisioned for the California Constitution.

Authors Website: www.blogcabinca.org

Authors Bio: Kevin Norte is an experienced research attorney with the Los Angeles Superior Court. Mr. Norte has been employed by the Court since 1991. Any views expressed by Mr. Norte in any article are strictly his own. Working at the busiest Courthouse in California (if not the USA), Kevin, earlier in his career helped organize the research attorneys at the Court into a public sector employee union affiliated with AFSCME. While leaning more toward a libertarian viewpoint of the world, Kevin is a registered Republican and an active member of Log Cabin Republicans. Kevin lives with his partner Don Norte in Hollywood. Both are politically active. Thanks to the late Gretchen Wyler, they both also remain active with The Humane Society of the United States’ Hollywood Office (formerly The Ark Trust).

July 14, 2008

Arnie Steinberg Pours Cold Water on Pete Knight’s Grave

Posted by Christopher Gilbertson at 11:55 am .
Filed under: Miscellany

magic8ball.jpg

Why Prop. 8 is a losing proposition

Political mistakes have put the proposed same-sex marriage ban on the rocks.
By Arnold Steinberg
July 12, 2008
In March 2000, Californians passed Proposition 22, making the Defense of Marriage Act law: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

Now comes Proposition 8, the California Marriage Protection Act, on the Nov. 4 ballot. This too reads: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

Proposition 22 was an “initiative statute”; Proposition 8 is an “initiative constitutional amendment.” In 2000, Proposition 22 won, 61.4% to 38.6%, victorious in 52 of 58 counties. Proposition 8 is most likely going down to defeat in November. All because the folks who brought you Proposition 22 miscalculated in 2000, and now, with Proposition 8, they’ve compounded their error.

Proposition 22, once passed, had the force of law, but, as with all statutes, it was subject to judicial interpretation.

That’s what happened when the state Supreme Court overturned it May 15, ruling that it conflicted with the California Constitution. Writing for the 4-3 majority, Chief Justice Ronald George said, “An individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights” — in this case, the right to marry.

George’s words erased the traditional definition of marriage in California and even negated the state’s legitimate interest in that view, although society — for rational reasons — has a stake in that definition.

Ironically, despite their passionate resistance to same-sex marriage, the politically inept backers of traditional marriage made such a ruling nearly inevitable.

In 2000, they knew they had public opinion strongly on their side. They should have framed Proposition 22 as a constitutional amendment, not a statute. Had they made the right call, the traditional definition of marriage would have become part of the state Constitution; it couldn’t have been easily overturned by the California Supreme Court.

Instead, Proposition 22’s backers opted for an initiative statute — perhaps because fewer signatures were required to get it on the ballot — and thus invited eventual judicial scrutiny. They also gave the other side what turned out to be eight more years to change public opinion.

They did do some things right in 2000. They ultimately ran an understated campaign that was not so much “anti-gay” as “pro-marriage.” In the end, they asked voters to affirm the status quo — the long-held definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman — a moderate and positive approach generally more successful with a risk-averse electorate reluctant to change.

In addition, Proposition 22’s victory margin was magnified because it was on a primary election ballot, and primaries attract fewer voters, who are older and generally more conservative.

Now, fast-forward eight years: Today, the momentum favors same-sex marriage. Polls show that the electorate has become more used to the idea of same-sex marriage; women in particular see it as stabilizing for society, not destabilizing.

And, in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling, homosexuals are marrying at a fast pace. That means it is gay-marriage advocates who are defending the status quo, while traditional-marriage advocates must upset it. At the least, for many voters, the idea of voting against what is already legal could create confusion, and confusion often yields a “no” vote.

And then there’s the matter of timing. Proposition 8’s supporters should have put their remedial measure on a primary ballot years ago. Failing that, they should have started early enough to gather sufficient signatures to qualify the measure for last month’s primary ballot, not the Nov. 4 general election ballot. That’s because with no statewide offices contested, and coming after the high-turnout presidential primary, the June 3 primary was guaranteed to be a low-turnout affair (i.e., older, more socially conservative voters).

On top of that, while no one could have known precisely when the Supreme Court would rule on gay marriage, as it turned out, the May 15 decision also would have energized the traditional-marriage voters who, before the first same-sex marriage licenses were issued June 15, could have stopped the whole megillah by voting for Proposition 8 on June 3.

Putting Proposition 8 on a high-turnout November presidential election ballot is dumb. Trying to pass it once same-sex marriages have become a legal, daily occurrence throughout the state is dumber. And now, if Californians vote it down, conservatives can’t blame judicial tyranny for imposing same-sex marriage on the unhappy masses.

There’s an argument to be made that once this initiative qualified for the November ballot, the court should have stayed its decision and given the people of California a chance to vote on this constitutional amendment. Instead, the mischievous court allowed counties to issue marriage licenses.

Will Californians now vote to render those marriages invalid? I don’t think so.

Arnold Steinberg is a Republican political strategist and analyst.

Dispatches from the Straight Talk Express

Posted by Christopher Gilbertson at 11:43 am .
Filed under: Miscellany

National Security Policy

1. McCain thought Bush’s warrantless-wiretap program circumvented the law; now he believes the opposite.

2. McCain insisted that everyone, even “terrible killers,” “the worst kind of scum of humanity,” and detainees at Guantanamo Bay, “deserve to have some adjudication of their cases,” even if that means “releasing some of them.” McCain now believes the opposite.

3. He opposed indefinite detention of terrorist suspects. When the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion, he called it “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”

4. In February 2008, McCain reversed course on prohibiting waterboarding.

5. McCain was for closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay before he was against it.

6. When Barack Obama talked about going after terrorists in Pakistani mountains with predators, McCain criticized him for it. He’s since come to the opposite conclusion.

Foreign Policy

7. McCain was for kicking Russia out of the G8 before he was against it.

8. McCain supported moving “towards normalization of relations” with Cuba. Now he believes the opposite.

9. McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Hamas. Now he believes the opposite.

10. McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Syria. Now he believes the opposite.

11. McCain is both for and against a “rogue state rollback” as a focus of his foreign policy vision.

12. McCain used to champion the Law of the Sea convention, even volunteering to testify on the treaty’s behalf before a Senate committee. Now he opposes it.

13. McCain was against divestment from South Africa before he was for it.

Military Policy

14. McCain recently claimed that he was the “greatest critic” of Rumsfeld’s failed Iraq policy. In December 2003, McCain praised the same strategy as “a mission accomplished.” In March 2004, he said, “I’m confident we’re on the right course.” In December 2005, he said, “Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course.”

15. McCain has changed his mind about a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq on multiple occasions, concluding, on multiple occasions, that a Korea-like presence is both a good and a bad idea.

16. McCain said before the war in Iraq, “We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was “probably going to be long and hard and tough.”

17. McCain has repeatedly said it’s a dangerous mistake to tell the “enemy” when U.S. troops would be out of Iraq. In May, McCain announced that most American troops would be home from Iraq by 2013.

18. McCain was against expanding the GI Bill before he was for it.

Domestic Policy

19. McCain defended “privatizing” Social Security. Now he says he’s against privatization (though he actually still supports it.)

20. McCain wanted to change the Republican Party platform to protect abortion rights in cases of rape and incest. Now he doesn’t.

21. McCain supported storing spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Now he believes the opposite.

22. He argued the NRA should not have a role in the Republican Party’s policy making. Now he believes the opposite.

23. In 1998, he championed raising cigarette taxes to fund programs to cut underage smoking, insisting that it would prevent illnesses and provide resources for public health programs. Now, McCain opposes a $0.61-per-pack tax increase, won’t commit to supporting a regulation bill he’s co-sponsoring, and has hired Philip Morris’ former lobbyist as his senior campaign adviser.

24. McCain is both for and against earmarks for Arizona.

25. McCain’s first mortgage plan was premised on the notion that homeowners facing foreclosure shouldn’t be “rewarded” for acting “irresponsibly.” His second mortgage plan took largely the opposite position.

26. McCain went from saying gay marriage should be allowed, to saying gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed.

27. McCain opposed a holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr., before he supported it.

28. McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.

29. McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.

30. In 2005, McCain endorsed intelligent design creationism, a year later he said the opposite, and a few months after that, he was both for and against creationism at the same time.

Economic Policy

31. McCain was against Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy before he was for them.

32. John McCain initially argued that economics is not an area of expertise for him, saying, “I’m going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues; I still need to be educated,” and “The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should.” He now falsely denies ever having made these remarks and insists that he has a “very strong” understanding of economics.

33. McCain vowed, if elected, to balance the federal budget by the end of his first term. Soon after, he decided he would no longer even try to reach that goal. And soon after that, McCain abandoned his second position and went back to his first.

34. McCain said in 2005 that he opposed the tax cuts because they were “too tilted to the wealthy.” By 2007, he denied ever having said this, and falsely argued that he opposed the cuts because of increased government spending.

35. McCain thought the estate tax was perfectly fair. Now he believes the opposite.

36. McCain pledged in February 2008 that he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Specifically, McCain was asked if he is a “‘read my lips’ candidate, no new taxes, no matter what?” referring to George H.W. Bush’s 1988 pledge. “No new taxes,” McCain responded. Two weeks later, McCain said, “I’m not making a ‘read my lips’ statement, in that I will not raise taxes.”

37. McCain has changed his entire economic worldview on multiple occasions.

38. McCain believes Americans are both better and worse off economically than they were before Bush took office.

Energy Policy

39. McCain supported the moratorium on coastal drilling ; now he’s against it.

40. McCain recently announced his strong opposition to a windfall-tax on oil company profits. Three weeks earlier, he was perfectly comfortable with the idea.

41. McCain endorsed a cap-and-trade policy with a mandatory emissions cap. In mid-June, McCain announced he wants the caps to voluntary.

42. McCain explained his belief that a temporary suspension of the federal gas tax would provide an immediate economic stimulus. Shortly thereafter, he argued the exact opposite.

43. McCain supported the Lieberman/Warner legislation to combat global warming. Now he doesn’t.

Immigration Policy

44. McCain was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants’ kids who graduate from high school. Now he’s against it.

45. On immigration policy in general, McCain announced in February 2008 that he would vote against his own bill.

46. In April, McCain promised voters that he would secure the borders “before proceeding to other reform measures.” Two months later, he abandoned his public pledge, pretended that he’d never made the promise in the first place, and vowed that a comprehensive immigration reform policy has always been, and would always be, his “top priority.”

Judicial Policy and the Rule of Law

47. McCain said he would “not impose a litmus test on any nominee.” He used to promise the opposite.

48. McCain believes the telecoms should be forced to explain their role in the administration’s warrantless surveillance program as a condition for retroactive immunity. He used to believe the opposite.

49. McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade to saying the exact opposite.

Campaign, Ethics, and Lobbying Reform

50. McCain supported his own lobbying-reform legislation from 1997. Now he doesn’t.

51. In 2006, McCain sponsored legislation to require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. In 2007, after receiving “feedback” on the proposal, McCain told far-right activist groups that he opposes his own measure.

52. McCain supported a campaign-finance bill, which bore his name, on strengthening the public-financing system. In June 2007, he abandoned his own legislation.

Politics and Associations

53. McCain wanted political support from radical televangelist John Hagee. Now he doesn’t. (He also believes his endorsement from Hagee was both a good and bad idea.)

54. McCain wanted political support from radical televangelist Rod Parsley. Now he doesn’t.

55. McCain says he considered and did not consider joining John Kerry’s Democratic ticket in 2004.

56. McCain is both for and against attacking Barack Obama over his former pastor at his former church.

57. McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but then decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks.

58. In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.

59. McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.

60. McCain decided in 2000 that he didn’t want anything to do with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, believing he “would taint the image of the ‘Straight Talk Express.’” Kissinger is now the Honorary Co-Chair for his presidential campaign in New York.

61. McCain believed powerful right-wing activist/lobbyist Grover Norquist was “corrupt, a shill for dictators, and (with just a dose of sarcasm) Jack Abramoff’s gay lover.” McCain now considers Norquist a key political ally.

July 7, 2008

Attention, Congress!

Posted by Christopher Gilbertson at 9:34 pm .
Filed under: Miscellany

Amidst Inaction by Politicians, Former Pentagon Brass Call for Repeal

Date: July 7, 2008
Press Contact: Nathaniel Frank, Senior Research Fellow, The Palm Center, University of California, Santa Barbara, 805-893-5664, frank@palmcenter.ucsb.edu

SANTA BARBARA, CA, July 7, 2008 - A new study released today by a team of retired senior flag and general officers from the U.S. military has concluded that the ban on openly gay service members is counterproductive and should end, the Associated Press is reporting today. The nonpartisan study group has a combined century and a half of military service from all four branches of the military, and it marks the first time a Marine Corps general has ever called publicly for an end to the gay ban. “I believe this should have been done much earlier,” said Brigadier General Hugh Aitken, USMC (Ret.), one of the authors of the report.

The Palm Center, a research institute at the University of California, Santa Barbara, commissioned the new report. The officers reached their findings independently and required a written pledge that the Center would publish their recommendations regardless of the political implications, and would not seek to influence conclusions. The report includes ten findings and four recommendations. Key findings are that the policy prevents some gay troops from performing their duties, that gays already serve openly, that tolerance of homosexuality in the military has grown dramatically, and that lifting the ban is “unlikely to pose any significant risk to morale, good order, discipline, or cohesion.”

General John Shalikashvili, the former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who previously favored the gay ban but reversed course last year in an op-ed in the New York Times, endorsed the officers’ new study, calling it “one of the most comprehensive evaluations of the issue of gays in the military since the Rand study fifteen years ago” and saying it “ought to be given serious consideration by both Congress and the Joint Chiefs.”

Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center, said that “retired officers have surpassed lawmakers in calling for repeal of the current policy,” which allows gays and lesbians to serve only if they conceal their sexual orientation. “What’s standing in the way of repeal is politics.” Belkin said that Democrats, in particular, have taken criticism recently for inaction on repeal, despite a sizable number of them taking public positions in favor of ending the gay ban. He pointed to a group of 52 retired U.S. generals and admirals and a former secretary of the army that signed a statement calling for repeal of the law that locks the military into its current policy. Ending that policy, said the statement “would not harm, and would indeed help, our armed forces.”

The new report is based on discussions the senior flag and general officers held with expert panels in Washington, D.C. over the past year. The group heard from military members who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, scholarly experts on military personnel policy, former senior members of the Clinton administration who played central roles in formulating “don’t ask, don’t tell” in 1993, and a senior Pentagon official from the Bush administration whose primary responsibility was military personnel policy. In addition, prominent opponents of letting open gays serve in the military, including Elaine Donnelly, Robert Maginnis, and the late Charles Moskos, were invited to appear in person, submit written testimony, and/or testify via conference call.

Rhonda Davis, a former Petty Officer in the Navy, testified about her desire to enlist and her memories of serving 12 years in the Navy as a radioman and a broadcaster. She told the group, “I would be in the Navy today if I hadn’t been discharged under the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy.” Davis outlined her experience of serving openly yet she also described the toll of living with the fear and stress that anyone at any moment could derail her career. “Nothing a gay service member tells his doctor, mental health professional, or chaplain is private, and anyone can turn you in at any time and start an investigation.”

Republicans and Democrats have generally been divided in their positions on openly gay service, with Sen. John McCain opposing it while Democratic leadership favors it. Although Sen. Barack Obama has come out in support of repeal, he said in a recent interview that he couldn’t promise to be out in front on this issue, but could “reasonably see” an end to the current policy if he becomes president. Despite partisan differences, over 140 lawmakers in Congress have signed onto a bill to repeal the current policy, including a number of Republicans.

Belkin said that today’s report could renew interest by Congress in taking action on gays in the military. Congresswoman Lois Capps, Democrat of California and Vice Chair of the LGBT Equality Caucus in Congress said “This report represents important voices in the chorus of Americans calling for a repeal of this outdated and unsuccessful policy. Our military is stronger and our country safer when all of our soldiers serve without fear of discharge simply for being who they are.”

In June, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called for bringing together “a cross section of people who understand the military and are committed to nondiscrimination in our country” to review “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Rep. Susan Davis, Democrat of California, has said she will hold hearings on the issue before the end of year.

###

The Palm Center is a research institute at the University of California, Santa Barbara. The Center uses rigorous social science to inform public discussions of controversial social issues, enabling policy outcomes to be informed more by evidence than by emotion. Its data-driven approach is premised on the notion that the public makes wise choices on social issues when high-quality information is available. For more information, visit www.palmcenter.ucsb.edu.