Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register

Gavin Newsom’s Morning Marriage Whirlwind Tour

ba_newsom01Super sexy straight boy San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom is spending the morning hitting up radio shows and morning TV programs. Here he is on CNN questioning California’s stupid ballot initiative system. On MSNBC’s Morning Joe , Newsom gave everyone a brief course in the difference between an amendment and a revision. All of the media fun is to make the case as to why Proposition 8 ought to be repealed by the California Supreme Court. Both Newsom and AG Jerry Brown are twittering today’s hearing and just coincidentally, they’re both likely candidates for Governor in 2010. Still, when was the last time you saw politicians pander to marriage equality advocates? Keep it up!

On NPR this morning, Newsom said one of the reasons Prop. 8 passed was that “we ran a lousy campaign. I’ll be candid about that.” Asked if he won the Governorship he’d use his authority to enact gay marriage, Newsom essentially said that he wouldn’t let his “political future get in the way” and that while people might disagree with them, they’ll know where he stands. He then goes on to say that “all the great leaders of the world have done jail time. They had moral authority…”, which would be a great line if Newsom were running for Governor in the universe where Escape From L.A. were a reality.

Listen to the whole interview here.

By:           Japhy Grant
On:           Mar 5, 2009
Tagged: , ,
  • 12 Comments
    • Wolf
      Wolf

      Man I LOVE Gavin

      Mar 5, 2009 at 10:23 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      He was on Bill Maher’s show last week. What a wonderful, handsome man this is and a superb friend of the LGBT community. We need many more in politics just like him. He’d make a fantastic governor too and the best looking one ever. My heart be still!

      Mar 5, 2009 at 10:30 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JoeB
      JoeB

      CA grants the same rights to domestic partnerships as it does to marriage. This isn’t civil rights, it’s semantics.

      Mar 5, 2009 at 10:30 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ChristopherM
      ChristopherM

      @JoeB:

      Sure Joe, because separate-but-equal has such a great history of working well and actually being equal in our country.

      Mar 5, 2009 at 11:06 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chris
      Chris

      @JoeB: You are aware that there’s a difference between state and federal marriage benefits, right?

      Mar 5, 2009 at 11:52 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @JoeB: If it’s just semantics why are you against it? If it’s just semantics than then I guess your life won’t be changed in any way by gay marriage. Thanks for your support!

      Mar 5, 2009 at 12:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      @JoeB:

      Joe, if it about semantics, why is that domestic partners in CA can’t even file a joint state tax return while married couples can, among other things? You’re dead wrong! There is HUGE difference between “partnerships” and marriage, always has been, always will be. Separate is NEVER equal last time I checked. Try telling that to African Americans when they were forbidden to marry white people.

      Mar 5, 2009 at 12:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Faeelin
      Faeelin

      Actually, the next step in litigation, if the Amendment stands, will be to claim Domestic Partnerships are in violation of the constitution. If marriage is only between a man and a woman, how can you claim it’s valid to give two men or a two women the same rights?

      Whether the Court would agree is unclear, but given the past history of opposition to domestic partnerships and civil unions it seems likely to be the next step.

      Mar 5, 2009 at 1:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @JoeB:

      Thanks for your dump and flush.

      Mar 5, 2009 at 6:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 3Dspleen
      3Dspleen

      Attorney General Brown blew it today with his inept representation. That argument was flimsy and inarticulate. Once Justice Werdegar (I think it was) proposed that altering fundamental rights of suspect classes could be a new trigger for requiring revision rather than simple amendment, Christopher Krueger (senior assistant attorney general) should have agreed that that was possible. Instead, he blundered through a weak argument that the revision standard should not be applied, but a more vague prohibition on initiative amendments dealing with the ill-defined “inalienable rights”. He did not say whether a stricter standard should be used to pass such amendment, only that they shouldn’t be passed without “thoughtful consideration”. The Attorney General fails to capitalize on an already existent process for “thoughtful consideration” – namely, the revision process.

      Even if Prop 8 is struck down, it will be no thanks to Brown. If it is upheld, Newsom still has a chance, but I’d say Brown is out after that airheaded defense.

      Mar 5, 2009 at 6:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 3Dspleen
      3Dspleen

      In California, without considering federal laws, Domestic Partenerships are still different from marriages. Beyond the nomenclature, the manner in which DPs and marriages are formed and dissolved is different. With a common law marriage, a couple can file a private (the contents are held in secret) marriage license that does not become publicly available. This is not an option with DPs. I think there were about 6-7 differences between marriage and the generous Californian DPs articulate in In re: Marriage Cases.

      Mar 5, 2009 at 6:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sebbe
      Sebbe

      Robert, NYC – He was great to Real Time with Maher – was by far the best quest that evening. Cummings (who I like seemed to be on something or just drowned out by P. J. O’Rourke), O’Rourke wouldn’t STFU and sounded totally incoherent and definitely not funny.

      Wasn’t the best episode I have seen, but Newsom saved the show as much as he could.

      Mar 5, 2009 at 9:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • QUEERTY DAILY

     




    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.