Summary: Embattled Cathedral City Mayor Kathleen DeRosa put in one of the poorest performances of her career last night with her cynical and craven effort to sidestep her responsibilities as an elected official and cast an up or down vote on Cathedral City’s historic marriage equality resolution. Though she claims to be a leader, DeRosa has managed to violate just about every canon of good leadership, displaying the kind of cynicism and cravenness we have come to expect from her during the nine bitter winters of her reign. She has run out of steam, she has nothing new to offer, and it really is time for her to emulate the example of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. She should not let the door hit her posterior on the way out.
By: Paul S. Marchand
Embattled Cathedral City Mayor Kathleen Joan DeRosa put in one of the poorest, worst and most cravenly cynical performances of her entire time in public office last night when she abstained from voting on the Council’s historic resolution in support of full marriage equality, a resolution that passed with the "aye" votes of every other member of the council present. The word “weasel” comes powerfully to mind.
Judging from the well-nigh uniformly unfavorable comments accompanying the Desert Sun’s story this morning about DeRosa’s action --- or failure of action, she has certainly managed to put her foot in it.
Council member Stan Henry, formerly police chief in Cathedral City, also managed to put his foot in it last night. Apparently, Henry thought it more important to attend a police chiefs banquet in Palm Springs rather than fulfill the duty his constituents elected him to fulfill. In the words of Ricky Ricardo, “Stan, you got some ‘splainin’ to do.” He needs to say his peccavi to the residents of this city with respect to his volitional Sede Vacante last night, and to do penance therefor.
Yet, if Stanley Henry insulted his constituents by absenting himself from his duty to attend a gathering he plainly thought was more important than doing his job, the embattled Kathleen Joan DeRosa insulted her constituents with an epic, coruscant display of calculated political cowardice and cravenness. To describe her performance as an “epic fail” is almost to understate the case.
During the Council vote on the marriage equality resolution, DeRosa read into the record an obviously preprepared statement by which she attempted to justify her abstention, claiming essentially that she had no right to vote and that Cathedral City should not be taking on this issue.
Yet, there remains a significant question as to the lawfulness of her decision to abstain. When I was a freshman member of the Council, we were told in no uncertain terms at ethics orientations and in other contexts, that --- unlike members of the California Legislature, which has carefully, nay, hypocritically, exempted itself from much of its own ethics legislation --- we have a duty to vote unless there exists an actual conflict of interest which would make our voting unlawful. As a general rule, a conflict of interest arises as and to the extent that a Council member might have some kind of pecuniary interest in the matter up for a vote.
DeRosa articulated absolutely no legally cognizable basis for one of the most weaselly performances by which a politician has ever disgraced Cathedral City’s council chambers. By trying to sidestep the issue, and by making obviously mendacious protestations of her support for some sort of ego-defined “equality,” DeRosa has managed to send a message to Cathedral City’s queerfolk that our rights should, by divine ordinance, be lesser things than the rights of our straight neighbors. She also sent a message to every queer boy and girl in Cathedral City struggling to come to terms with his or her sexuality that they have no friend in Kathleen Joan Leone DeRosa.
Of course, DeRosa tried to take the coward’s way out, trying to link herself to President Obama’s “evolution” on the issue of gay marriage. Her claim that she is “evolving” is unbelievably craven. Last night was the time for her to have completed her so-called evolution, and to have demonstrated that she is in fact the leader she has so often claimed to be. Real leaders take stands.
But we should know that despite her claims of leadership, Kathleen Joan DeRosa is no leader. Had she been a true leader, she would not have tried to weasel out of taking responsibility for having told Cathedral City restauranteur Mark Carnevale to “go fuck [him]self,” at an October, 2012, candidate forum at DiGS Bar here in Cathedral City. DeRosa first tried to deny the occurrence, then, when flat denials proved unavailing, she acknowledged the incident, but claimed she had been “set up.” Real leaders don’t point fingers; they take responsibility.
We haven’t seen DeRosa take a lot of responsibility. Her mayoral style has been to fix the blame, not fix the problem. To the extent that she can throw city staff under the bus, she will do so. Her reputation for vindictiveness is unbecoming a so-called leader, but it precedes her throughout the entire Coachella Valley.
She also has a reputation for blaming her poor leadership and bad manners on being from New York. I call bullshit. First, most of my own extended family are New Yorkers; my late father was born and raised in New York City, and in the nearly half a century we had together as a family, I never saw him display the kind of sheer nastiness that I have seen too often from the reigning Mayor of Cathedral City. Second, we are no longer in New York. We are in California, with a different culture and a different mode of interpersonal interaction; those who come here need to adapt themselves to our autochthonous ethics and values, and to leave their condescending colonialism behind. DeRosa has been unwilling or unable to do so.
My own critique of DeRosa’s poor, ego-driven performance as mayor is no secret. I opposed her for the mayoralty in 2008 because I felt she brought nothing of value to the table. Since then, many of my fellow residents of Cathedral City have adopted in varying measures a similar critique. Plainly, DeRosa is running out of steam. After nine long winters, perhaps it is time for DeRosa, like Henry, to give prayerful consideration to the example of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, whose pontificate formally ended earlier today. Given DeRosa’s frequent invocation of her Roman Catholic belief structure as an excuse to oppose equal rights for her queer constituents, she may profit from the example Josef Ratzinger set for his followers.
Kathy, when the time comes for you to leave, don’t let the door hit your posterior on the way out.
-xxx-
Paul S. Marchand is an attorney who lives in practices in Cathedral City, where he served eight years as a member of the city Council. The views contained herein are his own, and do not constitute legal advice. They are certainly uncongenial to the reigning Mayor of Cathedral City. Mr. Marchand is aware that his blog posts critical of the mayor are being monitored by the Cathedral City Police Department, which is self-evidently keeping watch on Cathedral City’s political dissidents.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
INSERT FOOT IN MOUTH, MASTICATE VIGOROUSLY, SHOOT SELF IN SAME FOOT
Summary: Councilman Stan Henry has managed to put his foot in his mouth, chew it down to the bone, and then shoot himself in that very same foot. Fearing a political “drill” in which any vote he takes on tonight’s marriage equality resolution of the city Council will antagonize some constituency he should be afraid of pissing off, the quondam police chief has taken a powder, announcing that he has “another engagement” this evening which will prevent him from fulfilling what ought to be his highest-priority responsibility. Worse, Henry has essentially gone on the record as opposing the resolution. Not only does he make no friends among the religious right to whom he and reigning mayor Kathleen Joan DeRosa so assiduously pandered, but he’s also managed to piss off Cathedral city’s substantial queer nation. I had not thought it possible that even a freshman councilman could be so politically maladroit.
By: Paul S. Marchand
Cathedral City councilman Stan Henry managed to put his foot in his mouth, chew it down to the bone, and then shoot himself in that very same foot today with his divisive and ill-considered remarks on tonight’s proposed marriage equality resolution of the Cathedral City city Council.
Speaking to the Desert Sun’s Tamara Sone, Henry remarked that:
“As a police officer and then chief of police, I spent most of my adult life making sure everyone had equal rights. Why we are injecting ourselves into something we have no authority over, I don’t know,” he said. “There is already a law for civil agreements. We should be focusing on bringing businesses and jobs into the city.”
To make matters worse, the quondam police chief, a self-identified social conservative, plans to absent himself from tonight’s council meeting, citing “another engagement” and offering a claim --- incredible on its face --- that he’s not skipping out on the council meeting simply to avoid having to cast a vote that will get him in trouble with at least one major constituency.
Plainly, the quondam police chief has a lot to learn about the responsibilities he owes to the voters who elected him.
Yesterday, I observed in this blog that both Cathedral City mayor Kathleen Joan DeRosa and Mr. Henry were facing a political dilemma known in California as a “drill.” Until is a situation in which any both a politician casts is guaranteed to piss off a particular constituency. In this case, voting in favor of marriage equality would clearly annoy the religious right voters to whom both DeRosa and Henry pandered so blatantly during the 2012 election cycle. On the other hand, voting against marriage equality would antagonize Cathedral City’s vocal, and increasingly political, queerfolk.
Obviously, something has shifted in the political calculus of Cathedral City. To the extent that DeRosa and Henry, along with defeated former councilman Bud England thought that they could get elected, and hold on permanently, to office by courting low information socially conservative voters, national events have disabused them of so foolish a notion. The Desert Sun was right to note that tonight’s vote will force DeRosa to take a definitive stand on an issue which he has tried very hard to triangulate and to tergiversate to avoid having to make any kind of actual commitment one way or another.
Henry’s problem is more simple, yet less deserving of any sympathy. Henry brings with him the baggage of three decades in the police department (and the extent to which Cathedral City has become a Police Department with a municipal corporation attached is an issue for further posts in this blog). Any gay man can tell you from experience that law enforcement has historically tended to regard itself as the guardian, custodian, and conservator of what it believes ought to be “correct” social values, and to police those values accordingly.
Over many years, there has been little love lost between law enforcement and the queer nation. For example, any historian of the City of West Hollywood can attest that West Hollywood became something of a “sanctuary” for queerfolk because of the unremitting hostility of the LAPD toward LGBT people in the City of Los Angeles during the chiefships of such top cops as William Parker and Ed Davis.
To the extent that queerfolk are, by our nature, cultural dissidents whose critique of the larger society around us often stings, we have been natural targets for the disapproval of much of the law enforcement community. Sadly, Mr. Henry seems to forget that he was not elected to represent Cathedral City’s top-heavy Police Department, but rather to represent Cathedral City’s residents, irrespective of our sexuality or religious beliefs. Moreover, Henry’s flip remark that “[t]here is already a law for civil agreements” merely displays astonishing and dangerous ignorance of history. If Stanley Henry had bothered to familiarize himself with Brown v. Board of Education,(1954) 347 U.S. 483, he would have learned that “separate but equal” is an unsustainable and unconstitutional formulation. Sadly, ignorance and arrogance seem to have met in this councilman.
Writing before the election, I warned that DeRosa would probably attempt, were Mr. Henry to be elected to the council, to “colonize” the Police Department, turning it into her own political enforcement entity. I asked whether it was a good idea for the PD to act as the mayor’s “muscle.”
Henry took exception to my remark, and very publicly impugned my integrity.
Now it is my turn to impugn his, and with a hell of a lot more justification.
To the extent that Mr. Henry has ever voted on any similar resolution in the past, he cannot now be heard to complain, and his doing so raises severe questions about his integrity and fitness for office.
If Mr. Henry cannot provide satisfactory information as to his whereabouts tonight, his absence from the council should be counted as unexcused, and he should be called upon to explain his deliberate, tactical, and inexcusable absence from a vote with respect to which his constituents have a right to know where he stands. Certainly, Henry has made himself no friends among the religious rightists he so assiduously pandered to during the campaign, and he’s also managed to antagonize the queer nation.
Because right now, all we know is that Stan Henry has taken a powder: when the going gets tough, the tough get going. Perhaps, if the thought of pissing off a constituency he’s afraid to antagonize gives him too much agita, he should follow the example of the departing Roman Pontiff, lay down his office, and allow another ---made of sterner, more forthright stuff --- to assume the responsibility of representing the residents of this community.
And perhaps he should go; I had not thought possible that even a freshman councilman could be so politically maladroit.
-XXX-
Paul S. Marchand is an attorney who lives and practices in Cathedral city, California. The views set forth herein are his own, and are not to be taken as legal advice. To anyone foolish enough to attempt to retaliate against him on the basis of this blog post, he has only four words: federal civil rights litigation.
By: Paul S. Marchand
Cathedral City councilman Stan Henry managed to put his foot in his mouth, chew it down to the bone, and then shoot himself in that very same foot today with his divisive and ill-considered remarks on tonight’s proposed marriage equality resolution of the Cathedral City city Council.
Speaking to the Desert Sun’s Tamara Sone, Henry remarked that:
“As a police officer and then chief of police, I spent most of my adult life making sure everyone had equal rights. Why we are injecting ourselves into something we have no authority over, I don’t know,” he said. “There is already a law for civil agreements. We should be focusing on bringing businesses and jobs into the city.”
To make matters worse, the quondam police chief, a self-identified social conservative, plans to absent himself from tonight’s council meeting, citing “another engagement” and offering a claim --- incredible on its face --- that he’s not skipping out on the council meeting simply to avoid having to cast a vote that will get him in trouble with at least one major constituency.
Plainly, the quondam police chief has a lot to learn about the responsibilities he owes to the voters who elected him.
Yesterday, I observed in this blog that both Cathedral City mayor Kathleen Joan DeRosa and Mr. Henry were facing a political dilemma known in California as a “drill.” Until is a situation in which any both a politician casts is guaranteed to piss off a particular constituency. In this case, voting in favor of marriage equality would clearly annoy the religious right voters to whom both DeRosa and Henry pandered so blatantly during the 2012 election cycle. On the other hand, voting against marriage equality would antagonize Cathedral City’s vocal, and increasingly political, queerfolk.
Obviously, something has shifted in the political calculus of Cathedral City. To the extent that DeRosa and Henry, along with defeated former councilman Bud England thought that they could get elected, and hold on permanently, to office by courting low information socially conservative voters, national events have disabused them of so foolish a notion. The Desert Sun was right to note that tonight’s vote will force DeRosa to take a definitive stand on an issue which he has tried very hard to triangulate and to tergiversate to avoid having to make any kind of actual commitment one way or another.
Henry’s problem is more simple, yet less deserving of any sympathy. Henry brings with him the baggage of three decades in the police department (and the extent to which Cathedral City has become a Police Department with a municipal corporation attached is an issue for further posts in this blog). Any gay man can tell you from experience that law enforcement has historically tended to regard itself as the guardian, custodian, and conservator of what it believes ought to be “correct” social values, and to police those values accordingly.
Over many years, there has been little love lost between law enforcement and the queer nation. For example, any historian of the City of West Hollywood can attest that West Hollywood became something of a “sanctuary” for queerfolk because of the unremitting hostility of the LAPD toward LGBT people in the City of Los Angeles during the chiefships of such top cops as William Parker and Ed Davis.
To the extent that queerfolk are, by our nature, cultural dissidents whose critique of the larger society around us often stings, we have been natural targets for the disapproval of much of the law enforcement community. Sadly, Mr. Henry seems to forget that he was not elected to represent Cathedral City’s top-heavy Police Department, but rather to represent Cathedral City’s residents, irrespective of our sexuality or religious beliefs. Moreover, Henry’s flip remark that “[t]here is already a law for civil agreements” merely displays astonishing and dangerous ignorance of history. If Stanley Henry had bothered to familiarize himself with Brown v. Board of Education,(1954) 347 U.S. 483, he would have learned that “separate but equal” is an unsustainable and unconstitutional formulation. Sadly, ignorance and arrogance seem to have met in this councilman.
Writing before the election, I warned that DeRosa would probably attempt, were Mr. Henry to be elected to the council, to “colonize” the Police Department, turning it into her own political enforcement entity. I asked whether it was a good idea for the PD to act as the mayor’s “muscle.”
Henry took exception to my remark, and very publicly impugned my integrity.
Now it is my turn to impugn his, and with a hell of a lot more justification.
To the extent that Mr. Henry has ever voted on any similar resolution in the past, he cannot now be heard to complain, and his doing so raises severe questions about his integrity and fitness for office.
If Mr. Henry cannot provide satisfactory information as to his whereabouts tonight, his absence from the council should be counted as unexcused, and he should be called upon to explain his deliberate, tactical, and inexcusable absence from a vote with respect to which his constituents have a right to know where he stands. Certainly, Henry has made himself no friends among the religious rightists he so assiduously pandered to during the campaign, and he’s also managed to antagonize the queer nation.
Because right now, all we know is that Stan Henry has taken a powder: when the going gets tough, the tough get going. Perhaps, if the thought of pissing off a constituency he’s afraid to antagonize gives him too much agita, he should follow the example of the departing Roman Pontiff, lay down his office, and allow another ---made of sterner, more forthright stuff --- to assume the responsibility of representing the residents of this community.
And perhaps he should go; I had not thought possible that even a freshman councilman could be so politically maladroit.
-XXX-
Paul S. Marchand is an attorney who lives and practices in Cathedral city, California. The views set forth herein are his own, and are not to be taken as legal advice. To anyone foolish enough to attempt to retaliate against him on the basis of this blog post, he has only four words: federal civil rights litigation.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
A PERFECT DRILL
Summary: The Cathedral City city council will be voting tomorrow on a resolution supporting marriage equality. Though the item is on consent, it puts Cathedral City Mayor Kathleen Joan DeRosa and freshman Council member Stan Henry in a potentially difficult spot: which constituency do they want to piss off? Do they want to precipitate an explosion from the religious right? Would they prefer instead to send a message to Cathedral city’s queerfolk that we should get our butts to the back of the municipal bus? With increasing numbers of Republicans now coming out in support of marriage equality, DeRosa in particular is in a tough spot. If she cites her Roman Catholic religion as grounds for opposition, she will put herself in a place where she can be criticized not only on sectarian grounds but also on constitutional ones as well. For Kathleen Joan DeRosa, this resolution represents a “drill,” a political dilemma in which any vote she casts will anger at least one significant constituency she needs to hold on to if she is to remain a viable politician.
By: Paul S. Marchand
Tomorrow evening, the Cathedral City city council will have before it a proposed resolution supporting full civil marriage equality for all persons, including LGBT couples. The presence of the resolution on tomorrow evening’s agenda has already begun to stir some controversy.
The item appears as item number 5 on the so-called consent agenda. Items on consent are usually voted on in a single omnibus motion, without being discussed individually.
Placing an item on consent often functions as a way of providing political cover for an office holder who may be less than enthusiastic about the item in question, but who does not want to spend a lot of time putting his or her objections on the record.
Current political scuttlebutt in Cathedral City is that there are probably three votes to adopt the resolution: Councilmembers Greg Pettis, Chuck Vasquez, and Sam Toles. Incumbent Cathedral City Mayor Kathleen Joan DeRosa and freshman councilmember Stan Henry are believed to represent the potential “no” votes.
In a sense, both DeRosa and Henry find themselves in a politically perilous position. In just the last few days, there has been a distinct swing in Republican opinion in favor of marriage equality. Even former Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman has joined sometime GOP presidential hopeful Jon Huntsman and a variety of other prominent Republicans in coming out, so to speak, for the freedom to marry. DeRosa and Henry now find themselves caught in what California political parlance calls a “drill,” in which any vote they take will significantly piss off an important constituency. To remain a viable politician, DeRosa must be able to hold both the religious right and that portion of Cathedral city’s queer community which she has thus far successfully bamboozled into supporting her.
Neither DeRosa nor Henry have the luxury of abstaining or voting “present.” California law withholds from local elected officials the luxury of being able to weasel out of a controversial vote that members of the Legislature enjoy. (The hypocrisy of the Legislature on this, and many other matters, will be the subject of a future post.) DeRosa and Henry have no choice, they must take a position on marriage equality. The best they can hope for is to be able to hide their vote inside the omnibus decision on the consent agenda.
Nonetheless, for Stan Henry, we need entertain no great expectations. He has defined himself as a social conservative, and given his law enforcement background, we may expect him to bring with him to the discussion the traditional law enforcement view of itself as the curators, custodians, and guardians of what “ought” to be “correct” social and cultural values. In short, Henry may be facing a lesser degree of political peril than his political mentor.
DeRosa, on the other hand, probably does not have the wiggle room Stan Henry does. DeRosa is well known for trying to triangulate on potentially problematic political issues; her history of tergiversation is also well known to anyone who has spent more than a few fugitive seconds familiarizing him- or herself with Cathedral City politics. It is reasonably foreseeable, therefore, that DeRosa will place on the record a “no” vote with such weaselly language as “I vote no on item number five.”
Of course, while a “no” vote on the marriage equality resolution may sit well with the religious right constituency to which DeRosa has so shamelessly pandered in recent years, it would also send a very clear message to Cathedral City’s substantial queer population that DeRosa regards us as less than full, authentic citizens of this community, and that she regards our civil rights as lesser things than those of our straight neighbors, and that we should get our butts to the back of the municipal bus.
Already, DeRosa has made her opposition to marriage equality a matter of record, as when she declared that “as a Catholic” she could not support marriage equality, but that she might, just might, be able to support some kind of civil union. As I noted in my blog, “Cathedral City Observed,” at the time, such a position is unsustainable any longer as a matter of practical politics:
“Unfortunately for DeRosa, her effort to triangulate has been overtaken by events. 'Civil Unions' is no longer an acceptable Plan B fallback position. Politicians must now take unambiguous, non-triangulating, positions on whether Ruth and Naomi or Jonathan and David should be able to get civilly hitched and call themselves married. Marrriage, by that name, not some other, such as “Civil Unions”, is now the default position.”
(For the full post, please use this link: http://cathedralcityobserved.blogspot.com/2012/11/a-failed-effort-at-triangulation.html)
Nonetheless, like the Bourbons of France’s ancien régime, DeRosa has learned nothing and she has forgotten nothing. If she is foolish enough to oppose marriage equality on the grounds of her sectarian adherence, she will be opening herself up to a severe critique on the basis of her unwillingness to abide by the oath of office she took as mayor, which requires the oath-taker to bear “true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California.” Neither the federal nor the state constitution allows for an establishment of religion. To base a policy decision upon sectarian considerations constitutes a de facto effort to “establish” a religion, and is thus impermissible.
Damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t. If DeRosa supports the marriage equality resolution, her religious right constituents will have a fit. Moreover, her increasingly skeptical constituents within the GLBT community may well question her motives and conclude that her support for the resolution was just more pandering of the type, kind, and character we have come to expect from her during the nine long winters of her regime. If she opposes the resolution, she will make an enemy of a great many, possibly a majority, of Cathedral City’s queerfolk and allies. Either way, she loses. Right about now it must suck to be her.
Bring on the drill.
-xxx-
Paul S. Marchand is an attorney who lives and works in Cathedral City, where he served eight years as a member of the city Council. He was one of the first attorneys in California to litigate a marriage equality case, and he believes, like his patron saint, Paul the Apostle that “it is better to marry than to burn.” (1 Cor. 7:9) The views set forth herein are not intended as legal a device, and should not be taken or construed as such.
By: Paul S. Marchand
Tomorrow evening, the Cathedral City city council will have before it a proposed resolution supporting full civil marriage equality for all persons, including LGBT couples. The presence of the resolution on tomorrow evening’s agenda has already begun to stir some controversy.
The item appears as item number 5 on the so-called consent agenda. Items on consent are usually voted on in a single omnibus motion, without being discussed individually.
Placing an item on consent often functions as a way of providing political cover for an office holder who may be less than enthusiastic about the item in question, but who does not want to spend a lot of time putting his or her objections on the record.
Current political scuttlebutt in Cathedral City is that there are probably three votes to adopt the resolution: Councilmembers Greg Pettis, Chuck Vasquez, and Sam Toles. Incumbent Cathedral City Mayor Kathleen Joan DeRosa and freshman councilmember Stan Henry are believed to represent the potential “no” votes.
In a sense, both DeRosa and Henry find themselves in a politically perilous position. In just the last few days, there has been a distinct swing in Republican opinion in favor of marriage equality. Even former Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman has joined sometime GOP presidential hopeful Jon Huntsman and a variety of other prominent Republicans in coming out, so to speak, for the freedom to marry. DeRosa and Henry now find themselves caught in what California political parlance calls a “drill,” in which any vote they take will significantly piss off an important constituency. To remain a viable politician, DeRosa must be able to hold both the religious right and that portion of Cathedral city’s queer community which she has thus far successfully bamboozled into supporting her.
Neither DeRosa nor Henry have the luxury of abstaining or voting “present.” California law withholds from local elected officials the luxury of being able to weasel out of a controversial vote that members of the Legislature enjoy. (The hypocrisy of the Legislature on this, and many other matters, will be the subject of a future post.) DeRosa and Henry have no choice, they must take a position on marriage equality. The best they can hope for is to be able to hide their vote inside the omnibus decision on the consent agenda.
Nonetheless, for Stan Henry, we need entertain no great expectations. He has defined himself as a social conservative, and given his law enforcement background, we may expect him to bring with him to the discussion the traditional law enforcement view of itself as the curators, custodians, and guardians of what “ought” to be “correct” social and cultural values. In short, Henry may be facing a lesser degree of political peril than his political mentor.
DeRosa, on the other hand, probably does not have the wiggle room Stan Henry does. DeRosa is well known for trying to triangulate on potentially problematic political issues; her history of tergiversation is also well known to anyone who has spent more than a few fugitive seconds familiarizing him- or herself with Cathedral City politics. It is reasonably foreseeable, therefore, that DeRosa will place on the record a “no” vote with such weaselly language as “I vote no on item number five.”
Of course, while a “no” vote on the marriage equality resolution may sit well with the religious right constituency to which DeRosa has so shamelessly pandered in recent years, it would also send a very clear message to Cathedral City’s substantial queer population that DeRosa regards us as less than full, authentic citizens of this community, and that she regards our civil rights as lesser things than those of our straight neighbors, and that we should get our butts to the back of the municipal bus.
Already, DeRosa has made her opposition to marriage equality a matter of record, as when she declared that “as a Catholic” she could not support marriage equality, but that she might, just might, be able to support some kind of civil union. As I noted in my blog, “Cathedral City Observed,” at the time, such a position is unsustainable any longer as a matter of practical politics:
“Unfortunately for DeRosa, her effort to triangulate has been overtaken by events. 'Civil Unions' is no longer an acceptable Plan B fallback position. Politicians must now take unambiguous, non-triangulating, positions on whether Ruth and Naomi or Jonathan and David should be able to get civilly hitched and call themselves married. Marrriage, by that name, not some other, such as “Civil Unions”, is now the default position.”
(For the full post, please use this link: http://cathedralcityobserved.blogspot.com/2012/11/a-failed-effort-at-triangulation.html)
Nonetheless, like the Bourbons of France’s ancien régime, DeRosa has learned nothing and she has forgotten nothing. If she is foolish enough to oppose marriage equality on the grounds of her sectarian adherence, she will be opening herself up to a severe critique on the basis of her unwillingness to abide by the oath of office she took as mayor, which requires the oath-taker to bear “true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California.” Neither the federal nor the state constitution allows for an establishment of religion. To base a policy decision upon sectarian considerations constitutes a de facto effort to “establish” a religion, and is thus impermissible.
Damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t. If DeRosa supports the marriage equality resolution, her religious right constituents will have a fit. Moreover, her increasingly skeptical constituents within the GLBT community may well question her motives and conclude that her support for the resolution was just more pandering of the type, kind, and character we have come to expect from her during the nine long winters of her regime. If she opposes the resolution, she will make an enemy of a great many, possibly a majority, of Cathedral City’s queerfolk and allies. Either way, she loses. Right about now it must suck to be her.
Bring on the drill.
-xxx-
Paul S. Marchand is an attorney who lives and works in Cathedral City, where he served eight years as a member of the city Council. He was one of the first attorneys in California to litigate a marriage equality case, and he believes, like his patron saint, Paul the Apostle that “it is better to marry than to burn.” (1 Cor. 7:9) The views set forth herein are not intended as legal a device, and should not be taken or construed as such.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)