Until the initial vote several days ago, it was relatively unknown that the San Diego City Council would even be discussing the filing of an amicus brief in support of same-sex marriage.  Perhaps that was because Councilmember Toni Atkins brought the issue to the council with little lead time, as some have claimed. Perhaps, as well, the matter was quiet because to the media it was just another pending side decision in an ongoing sea of fiscal and pension woes.

The side issue has officially transitioned from side show to center ring.

The 4-4 council vote on September 4 changed things, not solely because it put the matter in the limelight, but also because of the makeup of the two sides.  Donna Frye joined the opposition, while Republican Jim Madaffer voted with three Democrats in supporting homosexual marriage.

After first blush, the Frye vote made perfect sense, because it’s classic Donna.  As much a populist as she is a liberal, Frye wasn’t saying she was opposed to gay marriage as much as she didn’t believe the citizens had been provided enough time to weigh in on the issue.  While some other councilmembers have a penchant for wanting to vote on the controversial under the cover of silence or closed session, Frye is not afraid to let it get stirred up for a couple more weeks (see Wal-Mart/Big Box vote) – even if that ultimately means she ends up voting against the folks that get riled up the most and show up in droves.

So, everyone understood this to mean – regardless of her initial “nay” vote – that she would reverse herself in two weeks, becoming the tie-breaker and darling in an inevitable 5-3 victory for same-sex marriage advocates.  The only hope for conservatives to muster another tie was to get one of the four initial “aye” votes to change their minds.

Atkins and Scott Peters were out of the question, leaving Ben Hueso and Madaffer.  Some hoped that Hueso might somehow be influenced by a guilt trip from his priest.  However, if he were concerned about a Catholic reaction, he would have been so prior to the first vote.

The real surprise was Madaffer, a Republican who –although known as a moderate – had supported Prop. 22 and long advocated for the Boy Scouts in the fight to oust them from Balboa Park.  Citing his change of heart as due to now viewing “marriage equality” as a “civil rights” issue, it was apparent that whatever drove Jim down this road would not be driving him back.

Republicans Kevin Faulconer and Brian Maienschein and Democrat Tony Young should be commended here for their principled stand on a tough issue.

In the meantime, Mayor Jerry Sanders – anticipating that the council’s deadlock would be short lived – attempted to diffuse the issue by indicating he would veto a future council decision to file a legal brief.  His reasoning – at least as I thought I understood it – seemed to be that the will of the people had already been expressed overwhelmingly by Prop. 22 (a position he took when he first ran for mayor), and that the City of San Diego has bigger fish to fry…especially when it comes to a paper position on an issue to be decided by the courts, not the city council.  If I had been penning reasons for a veto before he said it, I likely would have written nearly the same thing.

Fast forward just over two weeks and we have the expected 5-3 council vote, followed by as close to the absolute definition of flip-flop as one will ever find with Sanders’ surprise Wednesday announcement that he will sign the order.

The reaction has been swift and expected.  FlashReport Publisher Jon Fleischman wrote the next day in Red County/San Diego that Sanders’ cited “evolution” of his position on the issue “strains credibility.” 

“It is actually much more believable,” Fleischman conjectured, “that he adopted a position to appeal to base values-voters and Republicans in his first election, and now that he is running as an incumbent (and has already been endorsed for re-election by the GOP), he feels that he can just change his positions on key issues … perhaps we now should look to the San Diego County GOP, and what they may do in light of Sanders’ ‘evolution’ on such a key issue of our day.  Maybe it’s time for the GOP to ‘evolve’ their position on the Mayoral race…” 

Lest we forget, when Sanders ran for mayor in 2005, he barely made an attempt to gain the GOP endorsement, his Republican credentials and commitment questioned by the Party.  The vying forces were between those of Steve Francis and “ New York ” Myke Shelby.  Francis eventually squeaked out the necessary 2/3 endorsement vote, in a war of one-night parliamentary attrition in which the Shelby supporters weren’t disciplined enough to stay in the room to keep it from happening.

However, when Francis lost in the primary, the Party quickly closed ranks behind the previously “unacceptable” Sanders, essentially saying that any Republican is better than the alternative.  (Even still, I typically find it difficult to argue with such a sentiment.)  Similarly, this year the local GOP endorsed Sanders early, hoping to stave off a possible fight between Republicans.

Now this.  One can’t help but wonder if potential mayoral candidate Steve Francis hasn’t been handed what might have otherwise been a non-issue on a silver platter.  Platter or bullet, the one thing remaining is whether the County Party members will do what past protocol has most often prescribed, by reconsidering and then taking up an endorsement after all potential candidates have actually qualified for the ballot.

Care to comment on this column?  You can do so on it’s "mirror entry" on the FR blog, by clicking here…

This entry was posted on Sunday, September 23rd, 2007 at 12:00 am and is filed under Blog Posts.