My plan, as has been reported publicly, was to veto that resolution, so I feel like I owe all San Diegans an explanation for this change of heart.
During the campaign two years ago, I announced that I did not support gay marriage and instead supported civil unions and domestic partnerships.
I have personally wrestled with that position ever since. My opinion on this issue has evolved significantly — as I think have the opinions of millions of Americans from all walks of life.
In order to be consistent with the position I took during the mayoral election, I intended to veto the Council resolution. As late as yesterday afternoon, that was my position.
The arrival of the resolution — to sign or veto — in my office late last night forced me to reflect and search my soul for the right thing to do.
I have decided to lead with my heart — to do what I think is right — and to take a stand on behalf of equality and social justice. The right thing for me to do is to sign this resolution.
For three decades, I have worked to bring enlightenment, justice and equality to all parts of our community.
As I reflected on the choices that I had before me last night, I just could not bring myself to tell an entire group of people in our community that they were less important, less worthy and less deserving of the rights and responsibilities of marriage — than anyone else — simply because of their sexual orientation.
A decision to veto this resolution would have been inconsistent with the values I have embraced over the past 30 years.
I do believe that times have changed. And with changing time, and new life experiences, come different opinions. I think that’s natural, and certainly it is true in my case.
Two years ago, I believed that civil unions were a fair alternative. Those beliefs, in my case, have since changed.
The concept of a ‘separate but equal’ institution is not something that I can support.
I acknowledge that not all members of our community will agree or perhaps even understand my decision today.
All I can offer them is that I am trying to do what I believe is right.
I have close family members and friends who are members of the gay and lesbian community. These folks include my daughter Lisa and her partner, as well as members of my personal staff.
I want for them the same thing that we all want for our loved ones — for each of them to find a mate whom they love deeply and who loves them back; someone with whom they can grow old together and share life’s wondrous adventures.
And I want their relationships to be protected equally under the law. In the end, I could not look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationships — their very lives — were any less meaningful than the marriage that I share with my wife Rana.
Thank you.
Emphasis added. Text provided by Rex Wockner
I look forward to republican candidates like Ogonowski and Romney weighing in with opinions on this. They both seem to value their own families deeply, yet they devalue other’s families by toeing the GOP line of legal exclusion. If only they could be strong enough to value all families equally, as does Republican Mayor Sanders.
It’s bizarre seeing a politician willingly “flip-flop” so quickly to the correct side of an issue. It’s also bizarre seeing a politician cry genuine emotion and not be apologizing for a scandal or resigning.
it reminds me of some of the speeches made by Bay State legislators during the debates over the marriage amendment a few years ago. it must be an incredible feeling, knowing that you can indeed do the right thing you thought you wouldn’t be able to do. and it must be a tremendous relief.
California Gov. Schwarzenegger says he’ll again veto The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection act (AB43), the marriage equality bill recently passed by the CA legislature. Here is his reason
The problem with that statement is that the marriage bill does not overturn Prop 22, which was adopted in 2000. Nor does it conflict with it in any way.
<
p>
All Prop 22 does is prevent CA from recognizing civil marriages conducted outside of CA. Think of Prop 22 as California’s version of the MA 1913 laws. Prop 22 does not and cannot prevent the CA legislature from opening civil marriage to same-sex couples. For Governor Schwarzenegger to make that claim is outrageous and a blatant lie.
<
p>
Details on AB43 can be found here (pdf)
Prop 22 is not like MA’s 1913 laws. Rather, it is sort of the opposite. Prep 22 keeps marriages enacted outside of CA from being recognized there. The 1913 laws prevent out-of-staters* from coming to MA to get married.
<
p>
Sorry for any confusion.
<
p>
*except RIslanders & NMexicans.
You’re welcome!
<
p>
If you know anyone in CA, you might ask them to sign Equality California’s petition. It asks the governor to sign the marriage legislation. So far, they have delivered over 14,000 signatures to him. They quickly surpassed their initial goal of 10,000 signatures.
From Talking Points Memo, I present Steve Benen:
reminds me of a conversation i had a few years ago with my dad. he’s a retired american baptist minister. he said that am. baptists used to be against divorce (they now condone it). i asked what was the basis for that opposition. biblical grounds, he said. then i asked what made the am. baptists change their interpretation of the bible? answer: too many clergy wanted divorces. amazing how something can change from a sacred “don’t” to a secular “do” when the clergy (or lawmakers, or voters) have a personal stake in the outcome.
<
p>
mayor sanders is proof that coming out leads to positive change.
…even in the Wholly Babble divorce is not frowned upon. It is divorce and re-marriage that is the sin–presumptive adultery.
<
p>
The interesting thing is that the CEO (otherwise known as “pasters”) of one of the Atlanta GA megachurches, who is a high muckty-muck in fundie Baptist circles divorced his wife and remarried. I guess they take the tenet “be fruitful and multiply” more to heart.