SCHWARZENEGGER, MORE MACHINE THAN MAN
Following a tumultuous 2004 that saw a push for the profoundly anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment and nullification of marriages done for gay couples in San Francisco, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republican Governor of California, vetoed state legislation that would have given gays and lesbians the right to marry, on September 29, 2005. In doing so, Schwarzenegger affirmed that he was likely to be more party machine than man, that his meal-ticket to GOP fancy times was more important than aggressive inclusion.
THE APPOINTMENT
Within a few months, Schwarzenegger was willingly tapping Democratic politico Susan Kennedy, under some unknown amount of design/pressure and with some provisos, to be his chief of staff. Kennedy raised eyebrows and ire as she jumped ship, from having been a deputy chief-of-staff for former Democratic Governor Gray Davis and before that as communications director for Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein.
"We have a tremendous opportunity to get past party lines and move California forward. I have come to know this man. I believe in him and where he wants to take this state. I look forward to using my experience and knowledge to work alongside the Governor to get the job done." - November, 2005
Kennedy said this, in accepting the position, knowing that Schwarzenegger was profoundly anti-gay on at least one, key and fundamental issue. That wouldn't be especially compromising, as many Democrats are also walking a knife's edge on the gay-marriage issues, except that Kennedy is also lesbian, who invited "scores of top politicos to her 1999 commitment ceremony with her longtime partner in Hawaii."
THE CAMPAIGN
Problems mounted for Kennedy when she chose to actively campaign (but not fundraise) for Schwarzenegger, during the 2006 election:
the former top aide to Democratic Gov. Gray Davis is unapologetic about her chief priority these days: "To get Arnold Schwarzenegger re-elected.''
"I don't do fundraising,'' she said. "And you betcha, I'm going to work day and night, every free hour, to help get him elected. I believe in this man, I believe in what I'm doing.'' - February, 2006
Such volte face might have worked for anyone who was switching party ideologies or even confessional status, but not for sexuality. Maybe without knowing it, Kennedy was setting herself up for a fall, even as her hero-guy was ushering in the landslide that she had so hoped for him. Unlike a pundit's qualified endorsement, say, she appears to have become deeply allied to his full set of policies, or worse, to him, without visible exception.
Complicating matters, this time around, there was also a political choice on the table. Former Governor Davis, like Schwarzenegger, had an anti-marriage stance, publicly. However, in 2006, main challenger Phil Angelides did not. No longer was this the case of a senior staffer who might be involved in running things or making recommendations, but have little real influence or control over policy. Kennedy had meaningful, big-picture choices, even if the election came only months into her new appointment.
The year after the Schwarzenegger election, 2007, ushered in a repeat of the 2005 veto.
OUT OF GAS
The Governor's rhetorical reliance on a 2000 referendum, prop. 22, looked thin in the year 2007, moreso than it had in 2005. Not only had the main Democratic candidates moved in favor of marriage, even pledging in the 2006 campaigns to sign a bill from the legislature; but the public's attitudes, more or less flat in National polls, had moved in California, by some measures:
A recent statewide poll here shows that voters are evenly split (about 46 percent for, and 46 against) same-sex marriage. Five years ago, 61 percent of voters backed the initiative that defined marriage as between a man and woman. "Moves by the California legislature are part of the national trend toward greater equality for same-sex couples that has been growing coast to coast for the past few years," says Ms. Garrett -September, 2005but not for "good" reasons or because the issue has become less partisan:
California's faster pace of generational replacement helps explain its high and rising support for same-sex marriage. (pdf) March, 2007
Perhaps underscoring the shift or just the tactical timing battle being waged in California, anti-marriage groups failed to get the number of signatures required for a ballot initiative in 2006, but neither did gay organizations get a 'repeal 22' item on the ballot, as they threw considerable time and resources, reportedly, into fighting those advancing Constitutional amendments.
These numbers are just a notch below where Canada was, when it enacted legislation in favor of same-sex marriage:
A Canadian Broadcasting Corporation survey conducted three months before Parliament acted in 2005 found that 52% of Canadians opposed the legislation. But one month after passage of the law, 55% favored keeping it on the books. That number stood at 58% in December 2006.
Nor is there any moral shade hiding behind the pending California Supreme Court cases.
It's incumbent on the Executive and the Legislature to decide, not to leave it to the courts. In fact, it is the epitome of GOP ugliness to decry as "activist" courts that side against them on the issue, but to use an argument that the Executive will follow the Court, especially when the range of likely outcomes is known from other state court precedents. In those cases, no court has held that same-sex marriage cannot be allowed, so there is no tree to hide behind. At worst, the courts merely said it is "o.k." if the legislature and the Executive set up anti-gay marriage laws.
Schwarzenegger's own position, which has been convincing to some, conflicts with itself. On the one hand, he suggests that the law is not settled, because of cases before the courts, so he'll wait. On the other hand, he says he won't sign the bill, because 'we have the law'.
The fallback position that domestic partnerships are sufficient is not benign, when better things are on offer, without cost, even. There doesn't seem to be any irreparable harm to proceeding with policy in advance of a court decision, as some have asserted in the past, like Mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, who refused to proceed on the lame judgment that some people who got licenses might eventually get disappointed.
The effect of Schwarzenegger not signing the bill is to expose his willingness to say one thing, that he would accept gay marriage if the court rules in favor; but do another, to fail to act in favor of it, even allowing that such action itself would be conditioned of the final opinion of the court.
Another impact of vetoing the bill is to be to keep gays and lesbians hanging from a court decision and to avoid putting the legal-action shoe on the foot of the conservative base, which is exactly what would happen as they were forced to bring their own court cases to enforce 'prop 22'.
TIME TO NOT STAND BY YOUR MAN
Sadly, Susan Kennedy's options are stark. Whatever benefit to the gay and lesbian community that she can bring will be overshadowed by a willingness to stand by the Governor. Any behind-the-scene support for the sizable list of friendly measures currently on the Governor's desk or inclusive policies as Chief-of-Staff in charge of hiring is still going to be tainted, and in no small way and not just by petty or small-minded critics. There isn't a moral "bail-out" coming, in terms of an historical Court judgment or even an eventual prop-22 repeal, a way to say to self, "this storm will pass, and when it does, the other good work will get recognized." It seldom happens that way - people don't forget, and everything is eventually tagged.
But, her choices are to resign or to try to visibly, vocally, and stridently announce her opposition to her own boss on this topic. She may have already missed the opportunity to the latter.
It's hard to push aside a period of hard work, an action that engenders great feelings of loss. Yet, gay issues advocates cannot continue to endorse someone who has so closely allied themselves with the obstructionist posture that Schwarzenegger has chosen (unless they think doing so would avoid some greater harm). Advocates for other issues would look for a moral leadership from candidates whose politics are so closely and publicly allied with that of their leaders. Would Planned Parenthood continue to feel solidarity with a candidate they backed, who got co-opted on an issue key to their struggle?
So, it's not really a matter of writing a quasi-defamatory letter about betrayal (not that those emotions don't have currency), it's just a matter of straight forward interest politics, in a context that considers the circumstances and options to arrive at a decent moral conclusion.
At least, for what little it is worth, that's how I would size up the issue, if I were in Susan's shoes or her confidante - although opposing views are always of interest to non-dogmatists!
One last note, as the marriage issue moves forward, conflicts of this type are likely to occur with increased frequency, on both sides of the aisle.
