For years, my cousin seemed uncomfortable, to say the least. She was bright and outgoing as a child, but soon after she hit adolescence, she withdrew, almost seeming anguished when any attention was focused on her. I didn’t think much of it at the time; after all, it’s hardly unusual for a teenager to become moody and self-conscious. But this “phase” lasted for years, until well after graduation, and the years didn’t visibly alter her moods. She was probably about twenty when my sister, who is much closer to her than I am, told me the reason for my cousin’s anguish. She’s a lesbian in a small town, and she couldn’t count on anybody in her environment, whether at home, school, or work, to understand what she felt. Now things have changed for her. She’s told the family about her sexual orientation, and after some adjustment, most of us now accept her as she is. She has a committed partner now. While I have no idea if they would have plans to get married if that were possible, they are probably more committed to each other than some married couples I have known. She is really happy now, the same bright, outgoing person I knew her to be as a child before being interrupted by the confusion of teenage years. And I’m happy she is happy, and I’d like to keep it that way. Which is why I get so angry when the LBGT community gets tossed around like a football every time an election comes up. And why I’m upset with Jay Nixon right now.
More below the fold.
In case you somehow missed it, the California Supreme Court in mid-May struck down the ban on gay marriage in the state. In reaction, conservatives in California will put a ballot initiative forward asking voters to approve or deny a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Matt Blunt and Kenny Hulshof have been taunting Jay Nixon for a few days to file a brief asking the California Supreme Court to delay implementing its decision until voters can weigh in via the ballot initiative. And on Wednesday, Nixon gave in.
If there’s one thing we’ve learned from Republicans over the last 8 years, it’s that they don’t care if you give in, if you agree with them, or if you cave on an issue. They’ll still call you a gay terrorist-lovin’ atheist abortionist. And true to form, Blunt gloated when Nixon caved:
“Though it is nearly a week overdue, I am glad Nixon finally answered my call and joined with other attorneys general as he should have done last Thursday,” Gov. Matt Blunt said in a statement. “Missourians overwhelmingly believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and they deserve an attorney general who stands up for traditional marriage because it is the right thing to do, not because they receive pressure from others.”
At a minimum, why couldn’t Jay Nixon have pointed out that this is a non-issue in the state and the Missouri voters have serious matters before them, like a looming recession, skyrocketing gas and health care prices, and a housing crisis? Pragmatically, I realize that Nixon is not going to push for the repeal of DOMA or the state’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, but to go out of state to fight against same-sex marriage, well, that just feels like he’s kicking my cousin.
I was going to point out that the Democratic AG candidates would also face similar challenges on same-sex marriage from the Republicans, but in glancing at the news before finishing this post, I see that Jeff Harris has already answered Republican Michael Gibbons on just this matter:
“As Attorney General of the State of Missouri, I will consistently work to support and uphold the constitution that governs our state.
“However, the issue being raised by Senator Gibbons is not one that presently affects our state. Senator Gibbons is attempting to distract the voters – notably in the very first press release of his AG campaign – with rhetoric that is more about divisiveness than substance. These are actions I cannot and will not support.
“If I had Senator Gibbons’ record of caving in to corporate interests instead of fighting to protect consumers, I think I would rather talk about a California court ruling, too.”
That’s good. I’ll update if and when anybody else chimes in.
When I heard this news I felt saddened, hurt, betrayed and pissed off. Jay Nixon kicked around gay people like a political football, just like the Republicans. This is entirely unacceptable, and has absolutely no place in the Missouri Democratic Party in 2008.
My frustration was only tampered by an unanswered question: Was the Attorney General’s office somehow legally or constitutionally obligated to send this brief to California? I called the AG’s office yesterday to find out. I spoke with a person who was “not involved in the decision-making process” but did tell me that Nixon was not obligated by the Missouri Constitution or by statute to get involved in this landmark case for LGBT equality. Nixon, he told me, simply thought that California should know where Missouri stands.
So I just wanted to give a big sarcastic “thank you” to Nixon for using the LGBT community as a political tool, for giving in to the right-wing wackos that the Democrats should ignore, for slapping the LGBT community in the face during Pride Month of all times, for taking LGBT money while not advocating for LGBT equality. You are thoroughly disappointing and uninspiring.
I, for one, will vote for Daniel Carroll in the Democratic primary.
on the issue (he shouldn’t use this as a political football) AND on the politics as you point out. He needs to look strong. He needs to not give in to the Republicans.
It is unlikely that the California Supreme Court will accede to this request, but that’s not the point. This is a bad move by Jay. And I hope it doesn’t signal that he’s willing to cave to Republican wedge issue pressure. In this Democratic year the Democrats should be able to act strong.
the only remaining group that one can stigmatize/hate with fear of any repercussions is the LGBT community. We need to respond to Nixon and let him know that we have noticed this bit of pandering and that it has the potential to alienate a segment of his support. I will write a letter immediately expressing my sadness about his unfortunate position.
In the short term, of course, such letters will men nothing because Nixon knows that a larger segment of voters he is trying to reach are either hostile or uncomfortable to gay marriage. But there should always be push-back when an otherwise acceptable politician decides that it is politic to do the wrong thing.