CALIFORNIA YANKEE

Family health issues end the Liz Cheney Senate campaign

Liz Cheney has ended her campaign for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Republican Sen. Mike Enzi. 

In a statement released this morning, Cheney explained she was ending the campaign because of serious family health issues:

Serious health issues have recently arisen in our family, and under the circumstances, I have decided to discontinue my campaign. My children and their futures were the motivation for our campaign and their health and well being will always be my overriding priority.

Phil and I want to thank the thousands of people in Wyoming and all across the country who have supported my campaign.  As a mother and a patriot, I know that the work of defending freedom and protecting liberty must continue for each generation.  Though this campaign stops today,  my commitment to keep fighting with you and your families for the fundamental values that have made this nation and Wyoming great will never stop.

According to the Casper Star-Tribune, one of Cheney’s five children has type 1 diabetes. Cheney wrote in an email that she would not say anything more about the nature of the health issue on Monday.

Cheney announced her campaign less than six months ago in a YouTube video, which you can watch here. Her withdrawal all but guarantees Enzi a fourth term. Wyoming has not elected a Democrat to the Senate since 1970.

As you can see in this video, Cheney's campaign got of to a rough start and wasn't appreciated by the Republican elite.

The very public family squabble between Liz and her lesbian sister Mary, about same sex versus traditional marriage cost Liz more points with the Republican elite struggling to re-brand the party.

I hope Cheney does continue to fight for the fundamental values that have made this nation great. She would have been a great addition to the U.S. Senate.

Obama finally mans up - admits he supports gay marriage

President Obama's politics of expediency -- his penchant for obfuscation and trying to be on both sides of controversial issues, finally caught up with him. Catching heat from all parts of the political spectrum because of his  because of his bodacious gay marriage straddle, Obama finally man-upped and admitted in an ABC News interview that he supports gay marriage:

"I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."

Many are reporting that this is the first time Obama has admitted his support for gay marriage. That is incorrect. During his 1996 run for Illinois state Senate, Obama admitted his support for gay marriage in a written response to a questionnaire from Chicago’s gay newspaper Outlines:

"I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages."

Since then, and until today's admission Obama has been, well, nuanced. In true John Kerry fashion:

• President Obama was for gay marriage [1996].
• Before he was undecided [1998].
• Before he was "not a supporter of gay marriage" [2004].
• Before he was reminded to "remain" open to the possibility that his "unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided" [2006].
• Before he decided that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman [April 2008].
• Before he was not in favor of gay marriage [November 2008].
• Before he was for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act [2009].
• Before he admitted to an evolving attitude toward same-sex marriage [2010].
• Before, at least for now, he was again for it.

How can Obama expect to be taken seriously on any issue when you cannot count on anything he says? When Obama states his position, you can only count on the fact that his position will change, or evolve, depending upon the audience and/or the political expedience of the moment.

Thanks to Politico for tracking down Obama's statements.

Obama's bodacious gay marriage straddle

In yet another attempt to be on both sides of a controversial issue, President Obama refuses to be straight about his position on gay marriage.

During the 2008 presidential campaign Obama said he did not support same-sex marriage and believed "marriage is between a man and a woman." You can watch Obama say it here.

Two years later, on Oct. 27, 2010, Obama revealed that his views on gay marriage are evolving.

"I have been to this point unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of my understandings of the traditional definitions of marriage. But I also think you’re right that attitudes evolve, including mine."

Last year Obama instructed the Justice Department to no longer defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, the legal prohibition on federal recognition of same-sex marriages.

Then, on Sunday, in an appearance on NBC’s "Meet the Press" Vice President Biden said that he is "absolutely comfortable" with gay couples having the same rights as heterosexual couples. On Monday Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said he believes gay marriage should be legal in the United States.

That got the White House press corps so hot and bothered that White House press secretary Jay Carney had to obfuscate president Obama's evolving position on same-sex marriage more than 50 times during yesterday's press briefing. Watch a video of Carney's ordeal:

The reason Obama goes to such lengths to try and be perceived on both sides of the gay marriage controversy is simple --it is his politics of expediency.

Today Gallup reported that 50 percent of Americans believe same-sex marriages should be recognized by law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages. That's down from 53 percent  last year.  Forty-eight percent say such marriages should not be legal. According to Gallup:

President Obama's campaign strategy team obviously is continuing to grapple with how to handle it -- with the vice president on the one hand essentially endorsing legalized gay marriage, while the administration on the other hand stops just short of the same pronouncement.

Two core Obama constituencies -– young voters and African-Americans -- are on opposite sides of the gay marriage divide. Today North Carolina, one of this year's critical swing states, is voting on a constitutional ban on gay marriage. So Obama, even more nuanced than Senator John Kerry, continues to try and be perceived as if he is both for and against gay marriage.

Census Bureau Won't Count Same-Sex Marriages

The U.S. Census Bureau, because of the federal Defense of Marriage Act and other mandates, plans to edit the 2010 census responses of same-sex couples who marry legally in California, Massachusetts or any other state:

They will be reported as "unmarried partners," rather than married spouses, in census tabulations - a policy that will likely draw the ire of gay rights groups.

The Census Bureau followed the same procedure for the 2000 census, and it does not plan to change in 2010 even though courts in Massachusetts and now California have ruled gay men and lesbians can marry lawfully.

When asked to describe their relationships to others in their household, if a respondent refers to a person of the same gender as their "husband/wife" on the 2010 census form, the Census Bureau will automatically assign them to the "unmarried partner" category. Legally married same-sex couples will be indistinguishable in census data from those who chose "unmarried partner" to describe their relationship.

Critics, such as Gary Gates of the Williams Institute, say the refusal to count legal same sex marriages will degrade the quality of the government's demographic data:

Gates, a prominent demographer who was consulted by Census Bureau officials about counting legally married same-sex couples, said one result is that the census will undercount marriages in states with gay marriage. And because the bureau defines a "family" as two or more people related by birth, adoption or marriage, it also will remove many same-sex married couples from being counted as families.

The Census Bureau has no choice. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was signed into law by President Clinton in 1996. DOMA does not ban same-sex marriage. DOMA defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The act also specifically denies federal benefits to same-sex couples. The act states that any federal law that applies to married couples does not apply to same-sex couples.

Gay Marriage Ban Likely On Florida's 2008 Ballot

In next year's Presidential election, Florida voters will probably also vote on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages:

Proponents of the ban are heartened by polls showing that the amendment has a good chance of getting the 60 percent of votes necessary for passage.

"People intuitively understand why marriage should be between a man and a woman," said John Stemberger, head of Florida4Marriage.

Gay marriage is already illegal in Florida because the state adopted the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Nevertheless. Some support the amendment to ban gay marriage so state judges could not find the current law unconstitutional.

Only 13,000 more voter signatures are needed to reach the required 611,009 to get the amendment on the ballot

Bill Vayens, secretary of the Florida Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Democratic Caucus, said opponents have a legal team ready to challenge signatures.

Episcopal Diocese Blesses Gay Unions

The leader of the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut, Bishop Andrew D. Smith, has authorized priests to give blessings to same-sex unions during religious ceremonies:

“I believe in my heart and soul that it is time for this church, this diocese, formally to acknowledge and support and bless our sisters and brothers who are gay and lesbian, including those who are living in faithful and faith-filled committed partnerships,” Bishop Smith said on Saturday in a speech at a diocesan conference in Hartford.

The Bishop's decision, does not authorize Episcopal clergy to officiate at civil unions. Rather, it allows each parish to choose whether to acknowledge same-sex couples during religious services.

Connecticut became only the second state to allow civil unions last year. Vermont has civil unions and Massachusetts has gay marriage.

According to the Times, nine other Episcopal dioceses — in Arkansas, California, Delaware, Long Island, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Vermont and Washington, D.C. — allow the blessing of same-sex couples.

How to deal with homosexuals continues to be a problem for the church. The election of V. Gene Robinson in 2003 as bishop of New Hampshire, the first openly gay bishop in the history of the denomination, strained relations between congregations in the United States and those in the rest of the world.

The Rev. Christopher Leighton, of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church in Darien, one of six priests who rebelled against the election of Bishop Robinson, said yesterday that the new policy complicated matters.

It’s not that we’re against gays. It’s rather that we’re affirming the traditional beliefs that only a man and a woman should be intimate for life in holy wedlock.

Bishop Smith blasted Leighton and the other rectors of the conservative parishes who sued the diocese in federal court. The suit concerns the Bishop's pastoral oversight of churches and property belonging to St. John's Church in Bristol, which the diocese took over after removing its rector.

The Hartford Courant reports gay rights leaders are pleased with this development:

"The Episcopal Church has taken a step to affirm the dignity and humanity of gay people in Christ's name," said Frank O'Gorman, of People of Faith for Gay and Lesbian Civil Rights. "The love between couples gay or straight symbolizes the love of Christ for the church, and the church believes where love is, God is."

O'Gorman was less gracious when the state's civil union law was passed, saying it did not go far enough:

We want to take our rightful place at the marriage table. We don't want leftovers and we don't want second-class citizenship.

NY's Top Court Rules Against Gay Marriage

Gay and lesbian couples have no constitutional right to marry in New York. The state's highest court, the Court of Appeals, in a 4-2 opinion, ruled:

We hold that the New York Constitution does not compel recognition of marriages between members of the same sex.

The deciscion is available here (pdf format).

The decision leaves Massachusetts as the only U.S. state allowing gay marriage. Appeals of decisions upholding same-sex marriage bans are pending in California, New Jersey, and Washington state. In 1999, Vermont determined the benefits of marriage must be provided to same-sex couples and referred the issue to the legislature, which enacted a civil union statute for same-sex couples.

According to the New York Times, the court concluded that the legislature could have "a rational basis" for limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, in large part because of their ability to bear children:

The decision called the idea of same-sex marriage "a relatively new one" and said that for most of history, society has conceived of marriage exclusively as a bond between a man and a woman. "A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted," the decision stated.

"There are at least two grounds that rationally support the limitation on marriage that the legislature has enacted," the court said, "both of which are derived from the undisputed assumption that marriage is important to the welfare of children."

First, the court said, marriage could be preserved as an "inducement" to heterosexual couples to remain in stable, long-term, and child-bearing relationships. Second, lawmakers could rationally conclude that "it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and the father."

"Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like," the court said.

The court rejected parallels to laws barring interracial marriage, and the claim that sheer homophobia lay at the root of current law. "Plaintiffs have not persuaded us that this long-accepted restriction is a wholly irrational one, based solely on ignorance and prejudice against homosexuals," the court said.

Unlike Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court, which in a 2003 decision made Massachusetts the first state to legalize same-sex marriage, New York's Court of Appeals said that state lawmakers are better suited to consider the issue. That is an invitation gay rights activists are sure to accept.

Gay marriage, like abortion, is one of those hot-button culture issues that will not fade away anytime soon. Even in Massachusetts, three years after the states highest court "decided" the issue, the battle over gay marriage still rages on.

Presidential Wannabees On The Marriage Protection Amendment

On Monday, President Bush will once again throw his support behind a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, just before the Tuesday Senate vote on the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA).

The amendment would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages. To become law, the proposal would need two-thirds support in the Senate and House, and then be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures.

It stands little chance of passing the 100-member Senate, where proponents are struggling to get even 50 votes. Several Republicans oppose the measure, and so far only one Democrat — Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska — says he will vote for it.

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the amendment on May 18 along party lines after a shouting match between a Democrat and the chairman, Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa. He bid Sen. Russ Feingold (news, bio, voting record), D-Wis., "good riddance" after Feingold declared his opposition to the amendment and his intention to leave the meeting.

Gay marriage is likely to be one of the hot button issues in the 2008 presidential campaign. Courtesy of the NBC News' “First Read” here is a listing of where the 2008 presidential candidates stand on gay marriage and civil unions. Including, where applicable, how they voted on the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which states that "marriage" can only be between one man and one woman and also whether they voted for or against continuing debate on the MPA back in 2004:

The Democrats:
Bayh: Opposes gay marriage, but said last month that he will not support the amendment in a vote and believes that the Constitution should only be amended when "absolutely necessary." In 2004, a Bayh spokesperson said that if the "Supreme Court ever strikes down the state or national laws prohibiting same-sex marriage, then he believes that a constitutional amendment should be considered." Voted against the MPA.

Biden: Has said he's against the amendment because it calls for revising the Constitution, which he does not support. In 2003, said he supports offering gay couples benefits and that a constitutional amendment addressing the issue would only make it more "divisive." Voted for DOMA and against the MPA.

Clinton: Opposes gay marriage but supports civil unions. Has said she supports "giving people the right to enter into recognized relationships, that whether you call him civil unions or domestic partnerships, enable them to own property, to have hospital visitation. To me, that's a human rights issue." In 2004, told NBC's Tim Russert that the "Republican platform" to deny benefits "for people who are in committed relationships" was "appalling." Voted against the MPA.

Edwards: Opposes gay marriage and thinks that any attempt to alter the Constitution would "divide this country." Missed vote on the MPA.

Feingold: Supports gay marriage and has called the bill "an extreme and unnecessary reaction." "Enshrining discrimination in our state's constitution is, frankly, an outrage," Feingold said at a recent fundraiser. Made headlines last month when he got into a spat with Sen. Arlen Specter (R) as the two discussed the bill in committee. Voted against DOMA and against the MPA.

Kerry: Opposes gay marriage but supports "[domestic] partnerships and civil unions" and is opposed to any federal constitutional amendment forbidding gay marriage because he thinks the decision should be left up to individual states. Voted against DOMA and missed the vote on the MPA.

Richardson: Opposes same-sex marriage but doesn't support a constitutional amendment banning it. In 2004, said that it's a mistake to change "the Constitution on an issue like this that should be left up the states."

Warner: Opposes gay marriage and civil unions.

Vilsack: Has said he would sign a law allowing civil unions between same-sex couples if presented to him. "My view is the state ought to pretty much stay out of the church's business," he said in February. "I think there is a religious connotation to marriage that needs to be respected and understood... 'I don't think you necessarily have to redefine marriage to do it. A civil union set of rights would honor that... Marriage is already defined, and we don't need to change it."

The Republicans:
Allen: Opposes same-sex marriage and has said through a spokesperson that he would only support a constitutional amendment if it's "absolutely necessary." Otherwise, feels that DOMA is sufficient. Voted for the MPA.

Brownback: Was instrumental in pushing the MPA through the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, which he heads. "None of us takes amending the Constitution lightly," he said in November. "The plain fact is this amendment has been exhaustively studied and it really is time to act... We are deluding ourselves if we think these ongoing challenges... will not bear fruit." Voted for the MPA.

Frist: Opposes gay marriage and feels a constitutional amendment is necessary because marriage is "under attack" by "activist judges." Announced in February that he would introduce the MPA in the Senate on June 5. In a statement last week, said that the "American people deserve a full debate on this foundational issue before marriage is redefined for everyone" and said he wants to "ensure the definition of marriage endures and remains true to the wishes of the majority of the American people." Voted for DOMA and for the MPA.

Hagel: Opposes gay marriage but does not support amending the Constitution to ban it, and thinks the decision should be left up to the states. "Every American should be hesitant to let the federal government take rights away from the states," Hagel wrote in a 2004 statement. "If court decisions take away the ability of states to govern the issue of same sex marriage, we may need to address the issue through a constitutional amendment one day, but not today," he said. "Amending the constitution, the founding document of our nation, should always be a final option, not a first." Last month when a district judge ruled that a Nebraska law banning gay marriage was unconstitutional, Hagel said he was "deeply disappointed" by the decision. Voted for the MPA.

Huckabee: Said in 2004 that allowing gay marriages is allowing "lawlessness." "That's my major concern, that we've just got a whole bunch of folks out there that want to make up their own laws," he said. Later that year, said marriage "cannot be redefined to be something that culture wants it to be."

McCain: Said last week that he is against same-sex marriages but would vote against the amendment because he believes states should decide whether to allow them. "I believe in the sanctity of heterosexual marriage," McCain said. But, "the people of Arizona, I hope, would decide that a union between man and woman has a unique status." Voted for DOMA and against the MPA.

Pataki: Opposes gay marriage. When one local mayor began marrying gay couples in 2004, Pataki told reporters, "I've always believed that marriage in New York is between a man and a woman. That's the way it's been for 200 years."

Romney: Most recently, has said he opposes both gay marriages and civil unions. Last August, told MSNBC's Chris Matthews that "if you indicate as a society that you're indifferent between a same-sex couple marrying and a heterosexual couple marrying, then it means our schools and other institutions are going to have to indicate that there... is no difference whatsoever, and that obviously has societal consequences that are important."

President Bush is mistaken if he thinks promoting the Marriage Protection Amendment will regain the the conservative support he has lost over immigration reform.

Schwarzenegger To Veto Gay Marriage

The San Francisco Chronicle reports Governor Schwarzenegger will veto the gay marriage bill passed by the Democrat-led Legislature:

The Legislature’s action trampled over Proposition 22, an overwhelmingly popular 2000 initiative that banned same-sex marriage in California, said a spokeswoman for the governor.

"We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails the vote," said Margita Thompson, Schwarzenegger’s press secretary. "Out of respect for the will of the people, the governor will veto AB 849."

According to the Associated Press, gay rights advocates accused Schwarzenegger of betraying the bipartisan ideals that helped get him elected:

"Clearly he's pandering to an extreme right wing, which was not how he got elected," said Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, one of the bill's sponsors. "He got elected with record numbers of lesbian and gay voters who had not previously voted for a Republican, and he sold us out."

Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said she was not surprised by word of Schwarzenegger's pending veto.

"Any girlie man could have vetoed this legislation," she said.

Same-Sex Marriages Approved By California Lawmakers

California lawmakers, joining a lower court in overruling the state's citizens, became the first in the country to approve a bill allowing same-sex marriages.

Five years ago Californians overwhelmingly voted to limit marriage to a man and woman by approving Proposition 22. The San Francisco Chronicle quoted Assemblyman Dennis Mountjoy as saying:

"What about Prop. 22? What about the 62 percent of Californians who supported it? What about their will?" asked Assemblyman Dennis Mountjoy, R-Monrovia (Los Angeles County). "If this legislation doesn't subvert the will of the people, I don't know what does."

According to the Associated Press, San Francisco Democrat Mark Leno had sponsored an earlier bill that fell four votes short of passing the Assembly in June. He kept the issue alive by adding the language of the defeated measure to another bill that already had passed the Assembly and was awaiting action in the Senate. The Senate approved that bill and sent it back to the Assembly for another vote. Four Democrats who didn't vote the last time tipped the scales.

The Sacramento Bee reported the final vote was 41-35, the bare minimum needed for passage. The Los Angeles Times reports the vote was very partisan:

No Republicans voted in favor of the bill. Forty-one of the Assembly's 47 Democrats voted yes; four Democrats voted "no," and two abstained.

If signed by Governor Schwarzenegger, California will join Massachusetts as the only other state to recognize gay marriages. Massachusetts does so under an order from its state Supreme Court. Connecticut and Vermont recognize civil unions between gay and lesbian couples.

Schwarzenegger has 30 days to sign or veto the bill. If he takes no action, the bill would also become law.

Schwarzenegger's press secretary, Margita Thompson, would not tell the Mercury News, whether the governor would sign the bill. But she told the Times:

The people spoke when they passed Proposition 22. The issue subsequently went to the courts. The governor believes the courts are the correct venue for this decision to be made. He will uphold whatever decision the court renders.

This might seem like one of those no win situations for Governor Schwarzenegger. Public opinion on gay marriage is evenly split, 46% to 46%, in California based on a recent poll by the Public Policy Institute of California. However, that poll also found voters divided along party lines. 56 percent of Independents and Democrats favor same-sex marriages, compared to just 24 percent of Republicans.