Tag Cloud
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Mayor Kevin Johnson Signs onto Freedom to Marry Statement
by Ken Pierce, published on March 3, 2012 at 6:41 PM
Storyline: Equality Action Now
Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson
(Image by: City of Sacramento)
On Friday morning, March 2, 2012, after a meeting with leadership of the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) community concerning gay rights issues, Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson joined a growing list of over 175 other mayors and municipal leaders, including West Sacramento Mayor Christopher Cabaldon who signed early in the campaign, representing 32 states across the country, standing up publicly for marriage equality.
“Mayors for the Freedom to Marry” are a broad-based and nonpartisan group of mayors who believe “all people should be able to share in the love and commitment of marriage”. Though it took a while for Mayor Johnson to agree to sign the statement, in the end the mayor decided it is the right thing to do for LGBT citizens of Sacramento.
Leading a petition drive for Mayor Johnson’s participation was the Sacramento Stonewall Democrats. Over 350 people signed the petition which was personally presented to Mayor Johnson by Stonewall Democrat’s Board President, Sam Catalano and communications director, Neil Pople.
On behalf of the Board of Directors of Equality Action NOW, a grassroots civil rights organization based in Sacramento, several letters were sent back and forth between the mayor’s office explaining that marriage equality “is not a religious issue, but a civil issue that affects many Sacramento citizens as well as their families and allies”. Marriage Equality USA, a statewide group based in San Francisco also used their influence to help encourage Mayor Johnson to stand on the right side of civil rights and equality.
In part, the statement reads, “As mayors of great American cities, we proudly stand together in support of the freedom of same-sex couples to marry. We personally know many gay and lesbian people living in our cities who are committed, loving relationships, who are active participants in the civic life of our communities, and who deserve to be able to marry the person with whom they share their life.”
“Our cities derive great strength from their diversity, and gay and lesbian families are a crucial part.”
“We stand for the freedom to marry because it enhances the economic competitiveness of our communities, improves the lives of families that call our cities home, and is simply the right thing to do. We look forward to working to build an America where all people can share in the love and commitment of marriage with the person with whom they share their life.” -
Image by: Uptown Studios
“It is a great day when we can work through our differences and personal beliefs to come to an agreement that marriage equality is a civil rights issue that harms no one, and actually enriches all citizens.” – Ken Pierce, President of the Board of Directors, Equality Action NOW.
To view the entire “Mayors for the Freedom to Marry” statement, click HERE.
Disclosure:
Ken Pierce is President of the Board of Directors and Communications Director for Equality Action NOW, a local Sacramento grassroots civil rights organization. You can reach Mr. Pierce by email at: ken@equalityactionnow.org
Flag Article As:
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
It's unfortunate your visceral hate of the Mayor -- which really is akin to Rush Limbaugh's -- prevents you from acknowledging ANY positive actions by the Mayor.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Unless you think gay people don't come under the heading of "person" then I think it is YOU who misinterprets the 14th Amendment and not the "liberal establishment." I also find it amusing that a woman would find fault with applying the 14th Amendment broadly to disadvantaged groups considering it has been used several times by the Court to expand and ensure the rights of women. I also don't see the word "woman" appear in the 14th Amendment.
Very good retort. But...
Thank you for your feedback. The 14th amendment was born out of the 1857 Dred Scott decision that summarily stated that black men could NOT be citizens. The very essence of the 14th amendment is about citizenship, not perceptions of marriage equality. The SCOTUS will be ruling on this matter w/ in the year. We'll see.
Mr. Middleton:
Thank you for your feedback as well. This exercise isn't so much about a lesson in civics as much as it is about interpreting the constitution. We all interpret things differently. Some of us have a "strict constructionist" view and "living document" view. We are obviously polar opposites in this argument. As I said in my aforementioned words, we'll see.
United States v. Virginia
Reed v. Reed
Roe v. Wade
I don't know what you mean by "perceptions of marriage equality" but the fact is, marriage is a matter of law, recognized at all levels of government. Marriage provides legal benefits as well as legal obligations. The 14th amendment requires equal protection under the law for all citizens. If the authors did not mean for it to apply to all citizens, they should have said so - even a "strict constructionist" could see that. Furthermore, if you think "person" only means "black man" then you are reading from a rather unique dictionary.
Let me state for the record that I'm glad that the Court has interpreted women to be "persons." It's unfortunate that you apparently do not consider gays and lesbians to be persons, but maybe someday you will.
One other thing - I highly doubt the Court will rule within a year given that they've already announced their docket for this year. So, they may rule within two years perhaps, assuming that they choose to hear a marriage case (there may be at least two) at all.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
This created an obvious barrier to grounding women's voting rights in the 14th Amendment, though attempts were certainly made to use the amendment for this purpose. Because these attempts were unsuccessful, the 19th Amendment was born.