Scott Wiener Responds; Gay Marriage Court Decision ...Jun. 26‚ 2008To the Editor: I write in response to Beyond Chron's article "Wiener Support for Plan C Could Shape Democratic Race." The article takes issue with a contribution that I made to Plan C. Indeed, the article makes it seem like my entire political existence consists of that one contribution. That caricature is highly inaccurate. I have made contributions to various organizations that have endorsed me over the years, as do all candidates. Those contributions have gone to organizations as diverse as the Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club, the Noe Valley Democratic Club, the Raoul Wallenberg Jewish Democratic Club, the Affordable Housing Alliance, and the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club, just to name a few. To suggest that a single contribution to an organization defines someone is simplistic and unfair. It would be equally unfair, for example, to criticize Aaron Peskin or Chris Daly for their connections to Clear Channel. One relationship does not define a person. My style of politics has always been inclusive and broad-based. My ability to work across the political spectrum -- from the Milk Club to Plan C and everyone in between -- has served me well as Chair of the Democratic County Central Committee. The DCCC Chair must be able to reach out to and work well with everyone to build the party, to register voters, and to turn people out to vote. A Chair who is only willing to work with one segment of the political spectrum, and who looks down on people who disagree with him or her on issues, will not build a broad and inclusive party -- a coalition to elect Democrats at all levels. I have a proven track record of building coalitions. Beyond Chron touted the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club as an example of organizations that "take a more collaborative approach with progressives." What Beyond Chron then neglected to mention is that I co-chaired Alice B. Toklas for two years, have served on its board for almost six years, and have played a key role in building coalitions between Alice and other organizations. There is a reason why I had almost unanimous progressive support when I was elected DCCC Chair two years ago. And, there is a reason why I continue to have progressive support for my reelection. That kind of support doesn't just happen. I've earned that support over the years by working collaboratively with everyone whether or not we agree on particular issues, by treating people with respect, and by being an efficient, transparent, and fair Chair -- someone who doesn't play games or pull shenanigans to achieve my own desired results. I intend to bring that same open and collaborative leadership style to the DCCC as Chair over the next two years. Scott Wiener Chair, San Francisco Democratic Party To the Editor: We all have read about the California Supreme Court's decision finding the ban on same-sex couple's right to marry unconstitutional. We have also read that the "Limitation on Marriage-Constitutional Amendment" banning same-sex marriage has qualified for the November ballot. Recently, I have read and heard much misinformation, disinformation, and unreasoned invective about this issue. I strongly recommend that opponents of same-sex couple marriage read the well-reasoned court decision, In Re Marriages before commenting further. The California Supreme Court ruled that the equal protection clause of the "California Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the same substantive rights as opposite-sex couples to choose one's life partner, and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all the constitutionally based incidents of marriage." The Court further ruled that treating same-sex couples differently than opposite-sex couples has no rational basis in the law. Oftentimes the courts are the last resort to right a wrong. Society's mores change. Remember, slavery and segregation were once legal. At one time, women could not vote and blacks and whites were not allowed to marry. And during World War II, many Japanese were sent to concentration camps. The list of wrongs corrected goes on and on. These wrongs were finally acknowledged and changed by the courts or the legislature. The California Supreme Court has merely righted a wrong here by overturning the ban on same-sex couple marriage. Will the institution of marriage be threatened? Given the high divorce rate in California, it would appear that the institution of marriage is already threatened. Isn't it ludicrous to allow convicted murderers, child molesters, known pedophiles, drug pushers, pimps, black market arms dealers, etc., the freedom to marry and procreate, and are doing so, and deny committed consenting, same-sex adults this right? Does same-sex marriage apply to two sisters or two brothers? Of course not. To allow any non-related, adult and consenting couple to marry does not violate equal protection just as it does not violate equal protection to disallow all incest (and bestiality and polygamy). Same-sex marriage is immoral because the Bible says so. Actually, the First Amendment's freedom of religion gives us the right to freedom from religion. The Bible has no standing in United States law. Public debate on a controversial issue is healthy, but let's make it a reasoned debate. Ralph E. Stone San Francisco, CA You can submit letters to the editor by clicking on this link: feedback@beyondchron.org or by writing to: Beyond Chron 126 Hyde Street San Francisco, CA 94102 415-771-9850 (phone) |