Mayoral Elections And Same-Sex Marriage

03/09/2000 English German

Edition # 20
San Francisco, 03-09-2000

Personalized License Plates A New Kind Of Calendar Crazy About Sneakers Schafkopf in the Valley Internet Connection in the Space Age Electric toothbrush New Year's Eve 2000 Photo News Mayoral Elections And Same-Sex Marriage Presidential Elections Benetton and the death penalty Who Wants To Marry a Millionaire? About Visa and Green Card

Mayoral Elections And Same-Sex Marriage

Figure [1]: Advertisement for Proposition 22 in a neighbor's front yard.

Angelika Because today I particularly want to focus on political topics: The mayor of San Francisco will continue to be Willie Brown -- challenger Tom Ammiano lost the runoff election on December 14th (see November newsletter). I find that very unfortunate. I would have preferred Tom Ammiano as mayor. It's a real pity when you aren't allowed to vote yourself. That's when you realize what a privilege it is to be able to vote. I have long been in favor of allowing foreigners who live in a particular country for an extended period to vote, at least on a local level. And I don't mean this just in relation to the USA, but quite generally. I am also firmly convinced that elections in the USA would turn out completely differently if all Green Card holders (American permanent work and residence permits) were allowed to vote (just a quick reminder: even in the USA, only American citizens are allowed to vote).

But that's just a side note. Back to Tom Ammiano: It is suspected that he couldn't succeed in the election because, for many voters, it was too much that he openly acknowledged his homosexuality. It's like saying: We are liberal, but a homosexual mayor is a bit too much. I'm not sure if that's true, because San Francisco is known as the stronghold of the homosexual movement, and Tom Ammiano already holds a high political office in the city council, which he continues to hold. On the other hand, unfortunately, one hears and reads more frequently about discriminatory attacks against homosexuals lately. Especially the American political right (and I'm not referring to right-wing extremists here), which is strongly supported by various American churches, has declared war on the homosexual movement. In my opinion, this is because conservatives feel extremely threatened as homosexuals suddenly demand the right to marriage and family. For years, the homosexual movement in San Francisco and elsewhere was more about being tolerated and accepted--but also distinguishing themselves from the bourgeois society. Nowadays, more and more same-sex couples want to marry or have decided to have children through adoption or artificial insemination, meaning they want to start normal families.

In this light, the so-called "Knight Initiative" should also be seen. As you may know, a new president will be elected in America this year. Therefore, primaries are currently taking place in various states. On March 7, it's California's turn. This date is not only used for the primaries but also to vote on so-called "propositions" (comparable to referendums). Propositions are numbered for brevity, and you see signs everywhere promoting "No on 5" and "Yes on 42." The Knight Initiative ("Proposition 22") was introduced by a senator named Knight. Knight wants voters to support the inclusion of the following sentence in California's law books: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Now, it must be noted that neither in California nor in any other American state is same-sex marriage currently legalized, meaning the statement is actually redundant. Therefore, critics believe that there are two entirely different motives behind the Knight Initiative. Firstly, there is a concern that other states might legalize same-sex marriage in the near future (this could indeed happen in the state of Vermont), and then California would be obliged, under current law, to recognize a marriage between two homosexuals, for example, one that was conducted in Vermont. Hence, the idea of the Knight Initiative is to explicitly state once again that only a marriage between a woman and a man is valid in California. Secondly, many fear that the Knight Initiative aims to undermine, so to speak, the achievements that same-sex couples have in most cities in California even without a state marriage, such as the ability to adopt children, or for the same-sex partner to be considered like a married spouse for health insurance (a common practice in all Silicon Valley companies and in San Francisco), as well as visitation rights in hospitals, meaning being regarded as a family member, etc. Incidentally, Knight himself has a son who openly acknowledges his homosexuality and publicly opposes his father's initiative. This raises the suspicion that the father cannot cope with the fact that his own son is homosexual. It's all very sad. The Knight Initiative is also heavily financially supported by the Mormon Church (among others), which is known to be very wealthy in the USA. Money plays a crucial role in getting referendums passed. This financial involvement can indeed have consequences, as churches are largely exempt from taxes. They are not allowed to actively finance political initiatives with their church funds. But that's just an aside. One can only hope that California voters will vote against the Knight Initiative. We will let you know in our next newsletter. (Editor's note: Shortly before the newsletter went to press, voters voted 60% in favor and 40% against the proposal. The sentence will therefore be included in the legal text.)