View Comments      Email Article       Printable Version

Published: September 10, 2007

Premature celebration

San Diego City Council will reconsider decision on whether to file brief supporting same-sex marriage, one councilmember who voted no now says she will vote yes.

In a surprise Sept. 4 vote that some local Christians called a miracle, the San Diego City Council deadlocked 4-4 on a resolution to issue a legal brief in support of same-sex marriage. But just a day after the vote was taken, the council announced it would reconsider the resolution on Sept. 18, and Councilwoman Donna Frye, whose unexpected “No” vote prevented the measure from passing the first time, has now announced she will vote in favor of it when it comes back before the council.

The resolution, docketed by lesbian councilwoman Toni Atkins, requested that the City of San Diego issue a “friend of the court” brief in a same-sex marriage case pending before the California Supreme Court that would overturn the people’s 2000 vote on Proposition 22, an initiative that defined marriage as between one man and one woman. San Francisco city attorney Dennis Herrera originally filed the case in 2004.

Joining Atkins in her presentation were, among others, maverick San Diego city attorney Mike Aguirre (a self-described Catholic) and Herrera. To underscore the importance to the homosexual community of passing the resolution, Herrera flew down to San Diego to speak before the council.

“The California Supreme Court has before it a historic case that addresses the issue of whether all Californians will be treated equally under our constitution and fully enjoy all of the legal rights that come to us by virtue of the California Constitution, the United States Constitution, and the policies of the state of California,” said Aguirre. “The decision of San Diego to become involved in this litigation is so significant and so important that the lead counsel on the case, the city attorney from San Francisco, has come here personally to address you and to answer any questions that you have, along with his assistant, Terry Stewart, who has been doing the lion’s share of the work on this.”

Aguirre told the council that, in previous decades, it was “inconvenient” to support civil rights for African-Americans and farm workers, and “now it is inconvenient to be supportive of all of our citizens who want to enjoy their full rights to marriage equality.”

Herrera thanked Aguirre and Atkins for inviting him and asked the City of San Diego to join with “Los Angeles, San Jose, Oakland, Long Beach, and a dozen other California cities and counties in an amicus brief in support of marriage equality for our state’s lesbian and gay citizens.”

Comparing the quest for homosexual “marriage equality” to slavery, Herrera said, “When slavery was abolished in the 19th century, one of the first things former slaves sought to do was to marry. They knew that forming a family with the person they chose and having the state sanction that relationship bestowed great honor on them. It was an honor that said more about their status as citizens than almost any other right. Even then, of course, the states did not allow African-Americans, and in many states Asian-Americans and other racial minorities, to marry across racial lines. It took another century for that to change.”

Taking a few swipes at religious conservatives, the San Francisco city attorney said, “Now I’m sure you’ll hear from folks on the other side of this debate arguing that this is not an issue for the courts to decide; that if the courts decide in favor of marriage equality for same-sex couples, it would be judicial activism. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you go all the way back to the Federalist papers, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison both spoke about the need for an independent judiciary to guard against the tyranny of the majority. It is exactly in that context that judges must act, because the political branches for obvious reasons oftentimes do not.

“I’m also sure that you will hear from the other side about how allowing lesbians and gay men to marry may offend some people’s religious beliefs. That very well may be so, but it is equally true that denying them the right to marry offends other people's religious beliefs. And neither of those is relevant to what the law should be about marriage.”

Herrera likened the denial of marriage rights to homosexuals to the severe persecution of homosexuals in earlier times. “We do not currently burn lesbians and gay men at the stake, yet governments once did, and their oppression was so brutal that homosexuals through the ages were rendered all but invisible,” he said. “Today we have a more enlightened view. We don’t fire gay men or lesbians from their jobs or deny them the right to form families. We recognize that we are all human beings, and that one’s sexual orientation does not affect one’s ability to contribute to society. We also recognize that equality as citizens no longer comports with discriminatory laws that unconstitutionally deny them one of the most important civil rights that adult citizens have: The right to marry the person of one’s choice.”

Local Christian activist and ex-homosexual James Hartline was the first to speak in rebuttal. “Today is a perfect example of why the voters in San Diego must remain ever vigilant over this city council,” said Hartline. “Today is a perfect example of why I’ve announced my candidacy for the city council. Today is yet another example of a city councilperson who is inappropriately using their elected position to pursue a personal agenda that has absolutely nothing to do with supporting the will of the people or the job that they were elected to do on this city council. Once again, we standing here find ourselves being forced to defend our faith, our families and our values because of the radicalized dark vision of Councilwoman Toni Atkins.

“Just seven short years ago, 62.7 percent of all San Diego voters supported Prop 22, the California ballot initiative which states that marital rights shall only be granted to couples composed of a man and a woman,” Hartline continued. “That is and continues to be the overwhelming will of San Diego voters. There is no mandate among San Diego voters to change what the voters established through Prop 22.”

Hartline also told council members that opposition to same-sex marriages crosses standard political battle lines. “In the past five days since we were made aware that Councilwoman Atkins was pushing for this vote today, I’ve received dozens of phone calls and e-mails from voters who are outraged with her actions. Men and women, husbands and wives, Catholics, Protestants, Republicans, and even conservative Democrats do not want this city council to support the redefining of the institution of marriage. Let me make myself abundantly clear: We do not want any action from this city council done in our name to redefine marriage. You on this city council do not have the right to vote to use our name to say that we the voters of San Diego support the ill-conceived lawsuit before the California Supreme Court, where a small group of individuals are demanding that all of society bow to their radicalized vision for redefining family and marriage.”

Sylvia Sullivan, speaking against the motion, told the council: “Today a very vocal and powerful minority seeks to undo the will expressed by the people by forcing us to embrace gay marriage. Powerful? Quite. Just ask the four firemen forced against their will to march and be unmercifully harassed in the gay pride parade. While gays and lesbians cry discrimination, their above-average incomes and political resources belie their empty claims. They are no longer content with the equal rights they enjoy. They now seek to infringe on the right of society to uphold marriage. Radical gays and lesbians work to redefine the well-deserved special status of marriage between a man and a woman down to meaninglessness.”

Barbara Cox, a law professor at California Western School of Law, who came to the podium with her “spouse,” Peg Habetler, spoke in favor of the resolution. Cox said she and Peg went to Canada to be “married” in 2003 in order to gain over 1,000 rights and “a status that would be recognized around the world.” Cox added that 25 years ago, she helped draft one of the first domestic partner ordinances in Madison, Wisconsin.

Harry Mathis of University City appeared at the podium with his homosexual daughter, who held an infant in her arms. “I’m here because I believe in fairness and equality, and I’m against discrimination,” said Mathis. “My wife Mary and I have been married 45 years and produced two daughters. One has been married for 10 years, and she and her husband have blessed us with three beautiful grandchildren from a stable and loving relationship. My other daughter Laura, who is with me this morning, has been in a stable and loving relationship with her partner Wendy for 15 years, and have blessed us with two beautiful grandchildren. The law does not allow them to be married. My wife and I make no distinctions in our love for our daughters and their families, or our view toward their relationships. Why should we? Why should anyone?”

Following comments by the public, Councilwoman Frye, who has marched several times in San Diego’s “gay pride” parade, said she was concerned about the short notice that had been given to the public about the resolution. Sept. 4 marked the first time the city council had returned to chambers following a month-long “legislative break” and the long Labor Day weekend. “I just learned about this issue when I picked up the city council docket on Wednesday, right before the Labor Day holiday,” said Frye. “I think it’s a very significant issue, and I think it’s a very important issue, and I think that the public has a right to have their voices heard, whether it’s for it or against it.

“I know there are very strong feelings on both sides, and I have respect for those feelings, but I think that people need to be given more than four to five days’ notice on probably one of the most controversial issues that this council is ever going to be taking a vote on, and I’m proud to take the vote, but this isn’t about me,” Frye continued. “This is about whether or not the public has had an adequate opportunity in order to participate, and I personally think that the public is not aware that this is happening. My office received approximately five phone calls, which seems rather unusual given the nature of this particular issue.”

Frye reiterated her “great respect for the LGBT community” and Toni Atkins, but insisted that citizens have more time to consider the issue. She then offered a motion to continue the resolution until the following Monday, but it failed. Frye later voted against the resolution, but now says she will vote in favor of it on Sept. 18.

City attorney Aguirre advised against delay and in favor of the resolution. “Basically the issue is a lot of people don’t believe that gay people should have the same rights as people who are not gay,” he said. “That’s really what it comes down to. And they believe that they shouldn’t have the same right to get married as people who are not gay. That’s the entirety of the opposition, and I think that in light of what has been said here, and given the fact that we have had some extremely articulate people on the other side, my goodwill goes out to them. We don’t agree on this issue, but I do not hold them in any low regard or less regard because they feel differently about the principles that I believe in, and I consider myself just as religious as any of them, having been a lifelong Catholic. But I will say that I think it’s a good time to send a message that in San Diego we respect everyone’s constitutional rights, and we don’t need a lot of time to make a judgment call on that.”

In his remarks, Councilmember Jim Madaffer demonstrated how his views have changed over his two terms in office. In his first term, Madaffer, who has two sons in the Boy Scouts and is himself active in the organization, was a staunch opponent of attempts by homosexuals to kick the Scouts out of Balboa Park. In recent years, however, he has consistently voted for pro-homosexual resolutions brought before the council by Toni Atkins, and two months ago, for the first time, marched in the San Diego “pride” parade. Madaffer mentioned “civil rights” no fewer than nine times in his remarks. “Look at what used to be accepted by some: slavery, denying people the right to vote, racial segregation, job discrimination,” he said. “We’ve seen for many years discrimination against the minority by the majority. You don’t have to think too hard, but all you have to do is just look in the last hundred years and see how dramatic the world we live in has changed. And I was talking to my kids and said they used to have a stadium filled with barbarians and you would watch for sport humans being killed, and that was okay. That’s not okay today. What about a woman’s right to vote, racial equality, and so many others? With those changes, we’ve seen people enjoy civil liberties and civil rights, and this whole issue that I heard today, and I kept hearing the words, two words: civil rights. That’s what this is really about. It’s a civil rights issue. And I have a lot of friends of mine, who speak highly about civil rights, and those same friends will probably yell at me for taking the position I’ll take today, but all I can do is think about civil rights.”

This item was provided to California Catholic Daily by Allyson Smith, who writes frequently in the Catholic press. Smith has also prepared a story on this event for Americans For Truth. If you would like to read more on this subject, or familiarize yourself with the content of Americans for Truth, Click Here.

© California Catholic Daily 2007. All Rights Reserved.