[amber]

Originally Posted by Rickypt

I know enough people who are close to him to know that the whole thing was a politically calculated move. One month after taking office, Newsom and his gang made the decision to do something bold that would (1) neuter any attacks on him from the progressives for a long time and (2) win support from gays who voted for his opponent. This is a brilliant decision, as consolidating support among a fairly fractured gay community in San Francisco equals much success in local politics. It also means national fundraising from LGBT community.

So the decision was made to do this act of civil disobedience, even though our own openly gay Assemblyman Mark Leno was moving forward with a state bill to legalize gay marriage and lawsuits were making their way through the system in California.

I was just as moved and inspired as anyone else by the massive turnout for marriages over that Valentine's Day weekend. The nation (world?) saw a side of the community rarely shown and for a moment it felt like a little revolution was happening.

After the dust cleared, however, what we got was the obvious. The courts had to nullify everything because the action was illegal. The thousands of gay couples, many of whom came from other states at great expense, went from having their relationships validated to not. I know many are happy enough with the experience, but I know several who are quite disappointed.

Gay marriage is coming, but it won't happen because of a renegade act of civil disobedience. It will happen because courts will recognize the obvious, which is that the marriage ban is discriminatory, leading to legal methods towards legalizing gay marriage, such as in Massachusetts. In the case of California, it is possible that state legislation will be passed and signed allowing gay marriage even without court intervention.

Newsom's action didn't move any of those efforts forward.

To answer your other questions, I absolutely think Newsom supports full and equal rights for gays, and he has an excellent record on gay rights. I know he supports gay marriage, and even in what I am sure was a political and self-serving act, believed that he was doing a good thing for gays.

In my opinion, the way to win over gay and other progressives who didn't support him in the election was not this stunt, but actions that are meaningful and substantive. And legal, so that they aren't taken away. Such as supporting the hotel strikers, advocating for San Francisco universal health care legislation, etc.

The marriage thing gave Newsom a HUGE honeymoon and for a couple of years it was almost impossible to criticize him. Again, it was a brilliant move, but there was really nothing defiant about it. Totally easy to do in San Francisco and almost no downside for Newsom.

I agree that he's hot, though, amber.

I see what you are saying, and I figured that was the case. However, I disagree that the act of civil disobedience got in the way, or was harmful. I think it was a bold and important thing to do (politically motivated or not - and he's a politician, so).
I think it shows a more powerful front beyond just working within legislation - as you well know, sometimes things can't change for the better until someone gets really pissed off and defies unfair legislation. And even though the civil unions were negated, and people knew that would happen, I think the result of that time, all the attention, was far, far, more powerful than just the okaying of civil unions itself. If that makes sense. In other words, even if the gesture proved in practice to be illegal and rescinded - the gesture itself spoke volumes.

Also, if politicians are going to do things that are politically motivated (and of course they will) I'd rather it be done like Gavin is doing it, then like everyone else. I mean, at least he fricking DOES something, you know? He *somewhat, at least* walks the walk. IMO.

*Wait, you know people close to him? Can they set me up?