Patrick Leahy

Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed an immigration reform bill that did not include language from the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), which would have allowed same-sex couples equal access to spousal/partner immigration privileges. So much for the sinister Democratic plot to use equality to kill immigration reform for their union friends.

The plot was apparently as ineffective as it was absurd. Ruben Navarrette claimed that “Democrats thought of everything, even having the task of amending the bill fall to a senator from Vermont, a state where … Latinos account for just 1.6 percent of the population?”

The aforementioned Vermont senator is Patrick Leahy, whose 39 years in the Senate gain him the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee, making amendments his prerogative. So as President Reagan signed his Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986, Democrats knew we’d need another in 27 years, and were maneuvering Leahy into just the right spot for 2013? That’s right up there with Barack Obama’s parents faking a Hawaiian birth certificate on the off-chance he might need proof of citizenship for a presidential run.

Still, if Leahy hadn’t been there, who could possibly have proposed including the immigration bill-killing LGBT protections and survived the forecast Latino backlash? It would have to be someone from a marriage equality state, with a less than 5 percent Latino population who won with nearly 65 percent of the vote and isn’t up for re-election until 2018. I give you Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a member of the Judiciary Committee.

So what does it mean that Leahy and Klobuchar didn’t propose the UAFA language? Is there a right-wing conspiracy to break up President Obama’s progressive coalition by driving a wedge between the Latino, immigrant and LGBT communities?

My guess is that we’ll hear a lot about that sinister plot in the next few days, and it doesn’t make any more sense than the first one. There are no doubt some conservatives looking forward to the infighting, but I doubt they were able to enlist Leahy and Klobuchar. If reports that the White House pressured Leahy not to propose the UAFA amendment are true, President Obama would have to be an even less likely co-conspirator.

So here’s a crazy thought – maybe it’s not a plot. What if Leahy, who has a string of 100 percent scores from the Human Rights Campaign and whose state has marriage equality, was planning to add the UAFA language because he thought it was the right thing to do? What if he decided not to because he feared it would kill the immigration reform bill?

My undocumented LGBT friends deal with the same agonizing choice in a deeply personal way. They are torn as individuals and divided as a group. Some would wait longer for a path to citizenship that didn’t relegate their sexual orientation to second class status.

Others would prefer to have protection against deportation now, and try to add the LGBT protections later. None are involved in a plot, except perhaps to avoid judgment and retribution in favor of working together.

That’s a conspiracy we would all be wise to join for the long legislative road ahead.

Bob Filner

I have three words for Republicans regarding the 2012 mayoral election, “Sorry ‘bout it.”

For those not in the know, “Sorry ‘bout it” is the latest gay way of expressing faux sympathy. With the right intonation, it makes it clear that you’re not remotely sorry, they probably brought it on themselves, and you’re having at least a bit of Schadenfreude. It perfectly sums up my feelings toward those who want to mount a recall of Mayor Bob Filner, for a number of reasons.

You picked the wrong candidate – sorry ‘bout it. District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis had executive experience and the support of Mayor Sanders. Assemblymember Nathan Fletcher had enthusiasm and a compelling personal story. Both could have appealed to moderates in the general election. Instead, you needlessly endorsed the furthest right candidate in the primary, sending moderates to the Filner camp or their couches, and eventually sending Fletcher to the Democratic Party. Sorry ‘bout that, too.

You don’t get to choose your electorate – Sorry ‘bout it. Councilmember Carl DeMaio was probably the right candidate for 2010. Unfortunately for you, San Diego picks its mayor in presidential election years, which likely did help Filner. But fair’s fair. There are seats held by Republicans at least in part because they come up in off year elections when progressive turn out falls off (County Supervisorial District 4 comes to mind).

Still, there are things you can do at the local level to combat the national trends, and on those measures you got outhustled. Whatever the Comprehensive Pension Reform initiative did to buff your voter lists was dwarfed by what progressive groups were able to do with the groundwork laid by Jess Durfee and the Democratic Party, as evidenced by across the board victories including Supervisor Dave Roberts and Congressman Scott Peters.

You’ve got no cause for a recall – sorry ‘bout it. Recalls were meant for people who committed a crime, or at least pulled a major bait and switch on the electorate, like the one Gov. Scott Walker pulled on the people of Wisconsin. Despite his sudden embrace of a far right agenda that he rarely discussed as a candidate, the recall effort against Walker failed. Polling suggested that moderates, and even some liberals, disliked his actions but did not feel they warranted a recall.

Yes, Gov. Gray Davis was successfully recalled, but more for positioning himself so firmly in the political center that both sides abandoned him. Four years removed, I don’t even hear many conservatives longing for the halcyon days of the gubernator.

In contrast to Walker and Davis, Filner is rewarding his voters by working to implement the agenda he campaigned on in the no-holds-barred style that has defined his political career.

The optics haven’t been pretty, particularly with a divided City Council, but Filner’s actions are more about integrity that iniquity. Barring a serious scandal, a recall attempt will be seen for exactly what it is: a sour-grapes endeavor to rectify bad decisions in 2012 by shopping for a more sympathetic electorate. Even if they somehow win, Republicans will look out of touch and desperate. Should they lose, they’ll look foolish, too. If they give it a try, I won’t even feign sympathy. I have three better words: “Make my day.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee begins consideration of the Gang of 8’s Immigration Reform Bill today. C-SPAN’s coverage should be must-see-TV for an audience of one: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Among the potentially contentious issues facing the committee is the inclusion of the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA). Under current law, special immigration provisions available to the spouses of U.S. citizens are not available to LGBT Americans. Originally drafted to get around the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), UAFA would give equal immigration access to LGBT couples in state-recognized relationships, be they marriages, civil unions or domestic partnerships.

The need to even discuss UAFA should make one thing clear to Kennedy as he considers his decision on DOMA and Proposition 8: moving slowly on marriage equality is more a step toward chaos than justice.

Until same-sex marriage is a reality nationwide, changes in the tax code, military benefits and more than 1,000 other federal rules we learned about in the DOMA debate could all require a UAFA-esque patch to deal with same-sex relationships. Every time that patch could be used to hold a bill hostage, despite Chief Justice Roberts’ rosy assessment of the political power of the LGBT community. Every time the patch fails, the status of same-sex couples and straight couples becomes more separated and less equal.

Striking down DOMA will help LGBT couples in states that have marriage equality, but without a broader ruling against same-sex marriage bans, it will also add to the confusion. As part of the DOMA decision, or shortly thereafter, the courts will be forced to decide whether same-sex spouses are eligible for federal benefits based on where they live or where they were married.

Under DOMA, same-sex couples married in Massachusetts file joint state tax returns and individual federal returns. If DOMA is repealed and they move to Kansas, they could well be filing joint federal returns and individual state returns. Presuming, of course, that Kansas allows the federal recognition of same-sex marriages. Gov. Brownback recently signed a law aiming to exclude guns made and owned in Kansas from federal laws. A similar law blocking the recognition of same-sex relationships wouldn’t be out of character, and could make a temporary mess of things even if it is eventually overturned.

Divorce and estate law can be even more fun. Picture it … Maryland … 2013 … a male federal worker marries another man, and then crosses the Potomac to Virginia, where his same-sex marriage isn’t recognized. There, he marries a woman. They move to California, where he dies. Which marriage is recognized by California? Who gets his federal benefits? What if DOMA was struck down right before he dies?

During the oral arguments on Proposition 8, Kennedy expressed concern about moving too quickly. Instead, he should watch the UAFA proceedings and think about the current patch-don’t-work of conflicting state and federal laws.

Then, perhaps he’ll more clearly hear the voices of 40,000 children in California telling him to fix it all by ensuring that their parents, and all Americans, have the right to marry the person they love, and have it recognized by their state and their country.

Mike Wallace

One of the downsides of writing weekly is that you miss some good media cycles. By the time my column comes out, most of the news and analysis is done. Other than adding my kudos to the courage of Jason Collins, all there is really room for is a good old fashioned rant. Miami Dolphin’s wide-receiver Mike Wallace teed one up for me.

For those who missed The Onion’s marvelous spoof (http://www.theonion.com/articles/dolphins-wr-mike-wallace-comes-out-as-stupid-assho,32252/), Wallace responded to Jason Collins’ courageous self-outing by Tweeting, “All these beautiful women in the world and guys wanna mess with other guys …” His “apology” was, “I’m not bashing anybody don’t have anything against anyone I just don’t understand it.”

I can accept that. These are hard questions. What I don’t understand is why people think half-baked Tweets are the answer to a lack of insight?

When I don’t understand something, I usually gather more information. I didn’t understand evolutionary biology. So I took a class. “Why would a man be attracted to another man?” is an interesting question. So is “Why would a man be attracted to a woman?” The answer to both may actually be “It’s what nature intended.” If evolution turned primordial soup into human beings, it’s not a bad guess that it left homosexuals around for a reason. One theory is that homosexual relationships are critical to propagating the species when straight men don’t stick around to raise the kids. Not that that ever happens. Certainly not in pro sports.

When research doesn’t work, I suggest trying the activity. I didn’t understand why anyone would hit a little white ball with a piece of metal, chase it down, and hit it again. So I played some golf. It’s still not my thing, but I understand it much better. If the Wallace’s of the world could just be a little more specific, perhaps we could select the appropriate educational activity. What, exactly, about guys messin’ with other guys don’t you understand?

If it’s the mechanics, I suggest putting up a Grindr profile. “Loud cocky receiver, athletic build, under contract,” should generate a number of gentlemen who would show you how it works, particularly if combined with the right pictures. Forgive them if they seem to think you have a certain position in a certain kind of movie.

If it’s the attraction that’s a mystery, go to a gay bar or gala event with an open mind. Look around the room. Unless you’re the rare 10 on the Kinsey scale, you will likely find your eyes lingering on someone. This time, you won’t be able to rapidly look away and prophylactically tell your wing man that you were only admiring his date (unless you also like his friend, which won’t get you out of it). So you’ll have to go talk to him. Maybe you’ll feel a spark. Maybe not. Better yet, do it at a straight bar, where you have no idea how he’ll respond. Welcome to a crush on the guy at work.

If you still don’t understand homosexuality, I can at least respect your effort. And maybe, just maybe, you’ll at least accept us. Frankly, I don’t understand the reflex to respond to a courageous act with Tweets that are, to be generous, misguided. I do accept it, and I support your freedom to be who you are. You can do the same for Jason Collins and whoever has the courage to be #firstgayNFLer.

Marco Rubio

In promoting the “Gang of 8” immigration bill, Sen. Marco Rubio emphasized one point: “This is not amnesty.” Whether you use Rubio’s definition – “the forgiveness of something,” or Merriam-Webster’s – “the act of an authority by which pardon is granted,” I agree. This is not amnesty.

Forgiveness and pardon suggest that any debt is paid, as time served or a magnanimous act. This legislation provides undocumented immigrants no such state of grace. “Registered provisional” status requires a background check, a job, and a fine. Citizenship comes 13 years and hundreds of dollars later, after additional hoops, some beyond the individual’s control. Even this defunct Catholic remembers that if you are still working off the infraction with acts of contrition, you don’t have forgiveness. You are doing penance, and in this case a stiff one.

“10 year sentence” calls to mind some pretty heinous crimes: rape, kidnapping, drug trafficking. How is being an undocumented immigrant on a par with these offenses? If it is considered some sort of continuing criminal trespass, it doesn’t justify 13 years. If it is a civil violation, why a sentence at all, and who deserves monetary “damages”?

Even the DREAMers, who are innocent beyond the debatable sins of their parents, receive no amnesty. Their penance is shorter, if undeserved.

This brings us to the other group that receives no amnesty from this legislation: the rest of us. Not just loose cannons spouting slurs and lies, but all of us. We’ve all enjoyed the cheaper groceries, restaurant dinners and other services often provided by undocumented immigrants in a kind of national indentured servitude. Too harsh? How would you define a population paid low wages, with a ceiling on advancement and kept quiet by a fear of deportation?

Those who haven’t voted for anti-immigration candidates can currently consider themselves unwilling, or unwitting, conspirators. That ends with this legislation, which ensconces multi-tiered citizenship. “Registered provisional” Americans can live and work here, but have no access to ObamaCare or other governmental support; however, they are on a pathway to citizenship, something not offered to “W-visa” guest workers. Their renewable 3-year stays can’t even be converted to permanent status. For other visas, potential Americans will be judged by the applicability of their education, not the content of their character. I thought Dr. King taught us better.

Particularly given the current Congress, this legislation, like democracy, is the worst option except for all the others. It brings 11 million people out of the shadows, and gives many a path to citizenship. That’s not a bad thing, but it should be seen as a first step to absolution. There is no amnesty here for anyone.

If this legislation defines the penance, however unwarranted, of undocumented immigrants, ours is to follow it with further movements toward a more perfect union that rejects second class citizenship. When we get there, perhaps we can absolve each other.

April 15 marked the 66th anniversary of Jackie Robinson becoming the first African American to play Major League Baseball. Most years, this wouldn’t cause a ripple in an LGBT community focused on the bizarre hurdles they face in tax law. This year, however, the anniversary came with 42, a new biopic of Robinson’s journey; and in the wake of the Supreme Court gay marriage cases and the reported plans of up to four gay NFL players to come out, that nexus prompted many to ask, “Who will be the gay Jackie Robinson?”

It’s an important question, as Robinson was a singular man who handled a nearly impossible situation with dignity and poise. The better first question, however, may be “Who will be the gay Branch Rickey?” Rickey, played in 42 by Harrison Ford, was the white Brooklyn Dodgers executive who committed to finding the right player to break the color barrier. In most versions of the tale, Rickey wanted to integrate baseball because it was the right thing to do, the right time to do it, and it was good business. All are currently true about eliminating baseball’s taboo on openly gay players, but no one seems to be jumping on the opportunity.

Those who don’t believe that having an openly gay major leaguer is the right thing to do, like those who opposed Rickey and Robinson, will likely accept no teacher but history. So there’s little use arguing the point.

Is it the right time? Consider America in 1947. The military was still segregated. California was still a year away from overturning its ban on interracial marriage. Brown v. Board of Education, the decision integrating schools, was still 7 years away. The Civil Rights Act was 17 years away. In many ways, LGBT equality is ahead of where racial equality stood in 1947, suggesting that American baseball fans will have less problem with a gay player in 2013 than they did with Robinson 66 years ago.

The business case is different, but in the end remains compelling for equality. Rickey’s reasoning included a desire to have first dibs on stars from the Negro Leagues where Robinson and others played. There is no analogous talent pool from an “LGBT League” to flow to the team that breaks the dam. However, there are no doubt LGBT players who might factor a supportive team into free agency negotiations, and those who might play better if their focus weren’t split on hiding who they are.

Rickey’s analysis also involved tapping into the African American fan base, and here the case is strikingly similar. LGBT Americans have nearly a trillion dollars in buying power, often with more discretionary income than straight counterparts. Those extra dollars are available for entertainment, such as travel, movies and sporting events. Corporate sponsors, who might have been a barrier in years past, now flock to equality causes.

In fact, the first team to aggressively tout tolerance could likely access many of the financial benefits without an out player. Imagine a Branch Rickey from the Padres, perhaps during Out at the Park, issuing the following statement: “The San Diego Padres appreciate the support of our LGBT fans, and want them to know that the Padres organization does not tolerate discrimination at any level. As part of our commitment to employment non-discrimination, we have instructed Padres executives, managers, coaches and scouts to make it clear that openly LGBT baseball players are welcomed in our organization.”

The team would be the lead story on ESPN and own the mainstream media cycle that day. Whatever becomes the LGBT-Padres logo would light up Facebook like a red equals sign, and the associated jersey would sell out. Viewership might spike enough to make Time Warner Cable carry the games.

As with DADT repeal, concerns about a backlash would prove to be overrated. Rumors of a mass player exodus won’t materialize, for professional and financial reasons. Statements of condemnation from Focus on the Family and the National Organization for Marriage would be quickly countered by politicians and LGBT groups. Shockingly, the games look the same except for signs with different views on the issues. A few season ticket holders demand their money back and would be replaced by more LGBT fans.

All of that before the first the player comes out of the closet. Like Robinson, that player will need infinite patience with the jeers of fans and teammates, a spine of steel for threats against him and his family.

Like Robinson, he, not an executive, will be the true hero of the story. But not the whole story.

There is a place in history for an LGBT Rickey, someone who steps up to the plate to create a better chance for that player, while seizing a golden opportunity for their team, and baseball.

He or she won’t ever have every MLB player wearing their number, but they’ll be remembered, like Rickey, for proving that “… prejudice has no place in sports, and baseball must recognize that truth if it is to maintain stature as a national game.”

Antonin Scalia

When Rick Santorum ran for president, people asked if I was offended as a gay man. My reply, “No, I’m offended as a Pennsylvania native.” Similarly, the Supreme Court arguments on marriage equality didn’t upset me as a gay man, but the suspicious use of data offended me as a scientist.

Let’s start with Justice Scalia, who suggested “there’s considerable disagreement among sociologists” about the effects of same-sex parenting. He makes it sound like American sociologists are duking this out in the literature. They aren’t. The American Sociological Association (ASA), who would seem to be something of an authority on the matter, report that the “clear and consistent consensus in the social science profession is that … children fare just as well when they are raised by same-sex parents.”

If Scalia knows two sociologists who argue vehemently about the matter, I suppose we could consider his comment only misleading. Otherwise, it’s either negligent or a fabrication. He can’t plead ignorance, as the ASA put that statement in their amicus brief on the case.

Justice Alito, on the other hand, warps data by changing the premise. “But you want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution which is newer than cell phones or the Internet?” he decried in arguments.

Where to begin? First, it’s a little cyclical to say we can’t do something that’s banned because there is no data about what would happen if we do it, which we can’t, because it’s banned.

Further, same-sex marriages may be newer than cell phones and the Internet, but otherwise designated same-sex relationships have been not destroying society for quite a while. We allowed cell phones in part because of our positive experience with their precursors, the cordless and rotary phones. A similar optimistic deference seems fair for same-sex marriage. If Mississippi can survive soccer moms texting behind the wheel (which is as bad as drinking alcohol, BTW) it will surely survive the same-sex marriage. As for the Internet, anyone who thinks it represents a safe and well-thought out plan for spreading information without risk hasn’t been hacked and hasn’t been paying attention.

Indeed, one of the ironies is that the same justices would never require unproven medications or technologies to meet the standards they are setting for marriage equality. Those ventures are either assumed to be innocent, or are presented with safety criteria they must meet.

It’s telling that none of the justices bemoaning the novelty of same-sex marriage laid out a point at which they would be swayed by the data. Fifteen states? One million couples? Not marking the end zone is an invitation to move the goal posts.

Other justices wondered, either honestly or sarcastically, why we shouldn’t wait for more data from states acting as laboratories of democracy. That may seem tempting, but it’s a terrible idea because of something called reporting bias.

Put simply, you get the story the lab wants to tell, not the data you want to hear. Pharmaceutical companies rarely publish papers saying their drugs don’t work. States that don’t want marriage equality admitting the successes of same-sex couples is about as likely as a pharmaceutical company is to publish that their drug doesn’t work.

When there are so many barriers to good data, history can be instructive. When people discuss interracial marriage and Loving v. Virginia, no one says “Thank God we worked that out in the states!” Instead, we wonder why it took so long to treat people fairly.

So will it be with same-sex marriage. It doesn’t require more studies or state by state experimentation. It just requires at least five justices doing what they, and the voices of 40,000 California children, know is right.

The Supreme Court

The oral arguments on Proposition 8 (Hollingsworth v. Perry) and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA, United States v. Windsor) are over, and the pundits have had a week to sift through the transcripts ad nauseum. I think it’s only fair to take a look at what Politically Aware got right and wrong. http://lgbtweekly.com/?p=35247

First, I added some lawyers and skipped others. In Hollingsworth, there weren’t any San Francisco lawyers. In Windsor, Vicki C. Jackson was asked by the Court to argue against the standing of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG). Sri Srinivasan argued those points for the DOJ, and Roberta Kaplan represented Edie Windsor. On to the issues.

For Hollingsworth v. Perry, some of you probably thought five possible outcomes were too many. Turns out they are now at 3 more, though the end result for California is often the same.

Neophyte analysts like myself added a new phrase to our lexicons: “Dismissed as improvidently granted,” or “DIG”. This means the Court decides it shouldn’t have taken the case in the first place.

It can happen, because it only requires four justices to accept a case, but five to make a decision. In light of Justice Kennedy’s comment that “I just wonder if – if the case was properly granted,” DIG seems a real possibility. Justice Scalia’s assertion on dismissal, that “It’s too late for that,” suggests that it was the conservatives, or at least he, who wanted the case. If Kennedy can convince others to “DIG” it, the Ninth Circuit decision invalidating Proposition 8 stands and it’s back to the altar for same-sex couples in California.

If Kennedy wants to DIG, but can’t get four others to shovel, we could go to option 7: No decision. If three justices want to uphold Proposition 8, three want to strike it down, and three want to DIG it, there is no decision and again, the Ninth Circuit decision overturning Prop. 8 becomes binding.

Option 8 is a little trickier. Though Windsor was argued second, it could be decided first. To buy a couple more years, the Supremes could decide the DOMA case, and send Perry back to the Ninth Circuit, to be reconsidered in light of the DOMA decision.

The Justices largely behaved as expected on Prop. 8, at least with regard to California. Thomas said nothing. Scalia, Roberts and Alito seemed willing to uphold it. Kennedy seemed tortured, questioning the strength of the data concerning the efficacy of same-sex parenting while worrying about the voices of the children of same-sex parents. Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer seemed ready to strike it down. If there was a disappointment from the liberal side, it was that they seemed unready to endorse a nationwide fundamental right to same-sex marriage.

Compared to before the arguments, a sweeping decision overturning all bans seems less likely and upholding Prop. 8 seems slightly less unlikely. Sadly, the smart money is probably on a DIG or a dodge, perhaps based on standing, the issue on which Chief Justice Roberts forced all lawyers to start.

The Justices also held true to form in Windsor, suggesting there are five votes to strike down DOMA, but perhaps not the way Solicitor General Verrilli would have liked. Verrilli singularly pushed the idea that DOMA was unconstitutional on equal protection grounds, despite entreaties from Kennedy to discuss states’ rights. In retrospect it shouldn’t be a surprise, since the DOJ will rarely be on the side of limiting federal powers and an equal protection decision would buttress arguments for overturning all the same-sex marriage bans.

Justice Kagan had the moment of the week responding to Paul Clement’s argument that DOMA was passed to ensure uniformity in federal marriage recognition. “I’m going to quote from the House Report here,” said Kagan, “… Congress decided to reflect an honor of collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality.” That may not sound dangerous, but it was a shot aimed right at Justice Kennedy, who’s Lawrence v. Texas decision said moral disapproval didn’t justify laws against sodomy.

Still, it’s not clear that DOMA will be decided on equal protection. The legal odds-makers still think it’s going down, but more likely with four equal protection votes and Justice Kennedy agreeing on federalism, preventing a precedent that laws discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation require higher scrutiny.

That’s how the tea leaves are falling now. Can the senators coming out for same-sex marriage or rapidly swinging public opinion change their minds? We’ll likely know the decision by June, but we may not know all the reasons until the current Justices release their papers after their retirement.

Dwayne Crenshaw

The Voice and Viewpoint piece attacking District 4 City Council candidate Dwayne Crenshaw was homophobic. It was vitriolic. It was contemptible. Journalistically, however, it wasn’t the most sinister thing published about Crenshaw last week. That award goes to Voice of San Diego, for “The Candidate and the Troubled Non-Profit.”

Say what you want about the Voice and Viewpoint piece (I’m using four letter words), it was an endorsement of another candidate, and labeled as such. Voice of San Diego (VOSD) has “The Candidate …” piece listed under the “Community” tab. Beyond that, it’s hard to figure out what it is meant to be, except a conveniently timed hit piece on Crenshaw.

It certainly wasn’t news. Nothing in the piece happened after 2009, with the possible exception of when VOSD obtained quotes from Crenshaw. (Turning a settlement into “Very sweet lemonade” was probably off message whenever it was said.)

Myrtle Cole

Could it have been investigative reporting, or a feature? The timing and content suggest otherwise. VOSD had already done a profile of each of the major candidates, and it included a discussion of the same issues, sub-headed “Crenshaw’s Achilles’ Heel.” Why rehash it five days before the election? If prior difficulty with a community non-profit deserved more in depth coverage, how was Crenshaw’s time with San Diego LGBT Pride not relevant?

To be fair, VOSD did run additional pieces on other candidates. Myrtle Cole got a fact check that even-handedly knocked down a negative claim, but questioned a positive one. Comparing the pictures used, however, says more than 1,000 words about how VOSD wanted the candidates to look. VOSD is entitled to its opinion, but it should write an endorsement and label it as such, not use suspiciously timed “news” to sway voters.

I’ve made no secret of my support for Crenshaw. I’m also biased toward VOSD because of exceptional journalism they have done in the past, so I hope I’m wrong about their motives. They are well worth a second look, but the allegations against Crenshaw were not. Anyone willing to place themselves under the microscope that is candidacy deserves better, as does San Diego.

U.S. Supreme Court building

Next week, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and Proposition 8. Only two things are certain. No decisions will be made, and activists and reporters will parse every word uttered to project how the Court will vote. To help you keep up with the rampant, pointless speculation, here is a primer on the cases, options and players.

Tuesday, 10 a.m. EDT. Hollingsworth v. Perry, “The Prop. 8 Case.”

There appear to be five possible resolutions to this case:

Proposition 8 is upheld, meaning bans on same-sex marriage, including California’s, are legal under the federal Constitution.

Proposition 8 is struck down on narrow grounds that apply only to California, leaving all other same-sex marriage bans in place.

Proposition 8 is struck down on grounds that would eventually end bans in all states (e.g., New Jersey, Colorado, California and more) that recognize same-sex relationships with almost everything but the word “marriage.”

All same-sex marriage bans are struck down as incompatible with the U.S. Constitution.

The justices decide that no one had the right to appeal in the first place, known as standing. Most likely, this eventually brings same-sex marriage back to California based on Judge Walker’s District Court decision, but the details are far from clear.

Wednesday, 10 a.m. EDT. United States v. Windsor, “The DOMA Case.”

Or more specifically, “The DOMA Section 3 Case.” (Section 2, which relates to states recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states, isn’t on the table. Unless the Supreme Court decides it is.) LGBT advocates are more optimistic on this case, and there seem to be fewer options.

DOMA is struck down, meaning the federal government has to give equal benefits to same-sex spouses in states with marriage equality.

DOMA is upheld, forcing the government to continue denying marriage benefits to same-sex couples

The DOMA case could also be decided on standing, but is more complex, because neither the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group nor the Department of Justice may have a right to be there. It is not clear that Congress as a whole, much less one party in the House, can defend a law if the Department of Justice (DOJ) doesn’t want to, and it’s not clear the DOJ can appeal a law to get a broader ruling when they agree with the Circuit Court, as Obama does. It’s not impossible that Edie Windsor gets her check while an avalanche of couples file similar lawsuits.

The lawyers

Most of the lawyers are unlikely to make news, as they have been arguing or filing briefs on these cases literally for years. “Yes on 8” forces (Hollingsworth) will be represented by Charles J. Cooper, while the DOMA will be represented by Paul Clement. The equality dream team of David Boies and Ted Olsen will argue against Prop. 8, along with representatives from the City and County (it’s the same thing) of San Franscisco.

The exception is Donald Verrilli, the solicitor general, who will represent the U.S. Department of Justice. While his arguments to DOMA will likely adhere to briefs, his eleventh hour inclusion in the Prop. 8 case is more interesting. The DOJ’s brief was clearly against Prop. 8, but didn’t expressly advocate overturning all state bans on same-sex marriage.

In a recent ABC interview, however, President Obama indicated he did not see how such a ban could be constitutional. If Verrilli makes that the official position of the U.S. government, expect court artists to draw shock and elation.

The justices

Four new justices have been appointed since Romer and Lawrence, making their views a little harder to gauge. Which doesn’t mean we can’t try.

Former Obama solicitor general and now Justice Elena Kagan is presumed to be against DOMA and Prop. 8, but as the most recent appointment and in her first role as a judge, she is in many ways the blankest slate.

In her appointment process, there was some concern that Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s Catholicism would be a barrier to supporting LGBT rights. Her support of college anti-discrimination laws in Hastings Christian Fellowship v. Martinez, and her response to a 6th grader plea for her same-sex parents seem to put her more firmly in the No on 8 column.

Chief Justice John Roberts is a conservative, but shocked many with his vote to uphold Obamacare. Given his relative youth and the rapidly increasing acceptance of same-sex marriage, some think he will look for a way to advance marriage equality if for no other reason than to avoid presiding over the Plessy v. Ferguson of LGBT issues, only to suffer the indignity of reversing himself. Using “standing” as an escape pod might be his preference, but if equality already has five votes, he might be No. 6.

Justice Samuel Alito is about as conservative as they come and is considered one of the most secure votes in favor of Prop. 8 and DOMA, despite lacking a track record on LGBT issues. If he has anything nice to say to Boies, Olsen and Verrilli, it would be a shock.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented in Romer and Lawrence and is probably the only “Yes on 8” voter safer than Alito. He typically adheres to the idea that “if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all,” so if Thomas speaks in oral arguments for just the second time in seven years, whatever he says will make headlines.

Justice Stephen Breyer, who concurred in Romer and Lawrence, generally votes with the “liberal” bloc, and is counted by handicappers as a vote for marriage equality.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is where things get more interesting. Like Breyer, she concurred in Romer and Lawrence and is counted as a vote against DOMA and Prop. 8, but there are some wrinkles. In her majority opinion on Hastings, she managed to note that with regard to sexual orientation “the court has declined to distinguish between status and conduct.” If she can force the idea that there is precedent for the court believing sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic, the bar for DOMA and Prop. 8 may go beyond “rational basis”, and be very tough for the laws to clear.

Ginsburg has also noted, however, that Roe v. Wade may have prolonged and poisoned the debate over a woman’s right to choose by preventing it from being worked out in the states. She is also on record in Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona as being suspicious of the standing of ballot initiative supporters to appeal a decision their state will not. If she thinks it is premature for the Court to settle these issues, particularly Prop. 8, she may use standing to jump into the escape pod with Roberts.

It seems unlikely Justice Antonin Scalia personally supports same-sex marriage, but his record suggests his vote may be more in play that Alito and Thomas. When he isn’t stripping Florida of its right to determine its own members of the Electoral College (Bush v. Gore), Scalia is a firm proponent of states’ rights. Grilling Clement on federalism could suggest he is ready to overturn DOMA on those grounds.

Oddly, the most recent precedent for a constitutional right to same-sex marriage comes in Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence, which he says “… dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned.” If Scalia is asking lawyers whether and how Lawrence is binding, he may be offering stare decisis (adhering to precedent) as a way to get on the right side of history without getting on the wrong side of conservatives. Unlikely, but a pleasant thought.

As the presumed swing vote and the author of Lawrence and Romer, all ears will be on Justice Anthony Kennedy. Look for the following phrases to tip his hand:

“Take away rights” – If the underpinning of the decision is that states can’t take back the right to marry once it’s given, we are likely looking a California specific decision to overturn Prop. 8. We may never know why, though, as it would require little more than saying “We affirm the Ninth Circuit decision.”

“Animus” – Focus here might suggest option 3, where states with civil unions and domestic partnerships get marriage equality. Based on Romer, it would allow a decision that being mean (animus) is the sole and unacceptable reason states would withhold the word marriage if they otherwise fully recognize same-sex relationships.

“Freedom” – If there is a common thread in Kennedy’s jurisprudence, it is expanding freedom. The more he focuses on freedom, the more likely he is to strike down all the marriage bans … if there are four other votes.

Rand Paul

In 2010, political prognosticator Charlie Cook felt that Republicans might win back the Senate, unless they nominated far right candidates who would lose to moderate Democrats.

As his prime example, Cook used Kentucky, where ophthalmologist Rand Paul was the Tea Party choice against the establishment favorite, Secretary of State Trey Grayson. (In Cook’s defense, this was before Christine O’Donnell was forever connected to the phrase “I am not a witch.”)

Nationwide, Cook was right. Candidates like O’Donnell (DE), Ken Buck (CO), and Sharron Angle (NV) cost the Republicans the Senate in 2010. Cook was wrong about Paul. After besting Grayson in the primary, Paul handily won the general election against Democratic dream candidate Jack Conway, a moderate attorney general with movie star looks.

Still, he was oft dismissed as a product of nepotism, a possibly unworthy heir to the libertarian energy nurtured by his father, Texas representative and frequent presidential candidate Ron Paul. After just three years in the Senate, many of the naysayers are touting him as a 2016 Republican presidential candidate. How has Rand expanded the Paul brand? In large part by highlighting issues where he can be perceived as a moderate, albeit in a non-traditional way.

The current paradigm of political polarization is largely based on Ronald Reagan’s tripod of religious, fiscal and military conservatism. It would have you believe that political affiliations are linear, with Bible-thumping tax-cutting national security hawk Republicans on one side and secular tax-and-spend dove Democrats on the other.

That paradigm is breaking down, revealing that social, fiscal and national security issues are like arcs that spin on the size and scope of government, and overlap uniquely on each topic. Few issues demonstrate this like marriage equality, which is Armageddon to some conservatives, but to others, is the welcome end to an unnecessary government intervention.

Rand Paul is planting his flag firmly in similar spots, particularly where President Obama hasn’t lived up to billing. Like most Tea Party candidates, he was against the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), and could be Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s best hope for an unlikely bedfellow in punishing the risky financiers who have largely received a pass from President Obama. While Sen. Ron Wyden was the sole Democrat to join Paul’s drone filibuster, many went on record with similar concerns against President Bush’s secret exercises of power.

Paul’s use and timing of the filibuster also reflects a savvy for theatrics that his father lacked. A filibuster of Chuck Hagel might have garnered more support, but it wouldn’t have put him front and center. A silent hold would have made him look like a process abuser. The surprise talking filibuster of John Brennan’s nomination as CIA director was pitch perfect, allowing Paul to leapfrog the NRA as the protector of Americans from their government, claim the All-American crusader mantle from Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, etch the imagery of a hell fire missile hitting Jane Fonda in a cafe into the mind of liberals and relegate potential 2016 primary opponent Sen. Marco Rubio to wagon jumper status. Not bad for 13 hours of work.

None of this is likely to vault Paul to the top of the 2016 polls in a durable way, but it leaves him well positioned should the political winds shift. Polls suggest President Obama’s biggest electoral advantage was that voters perceived him as “caring about people like me.” In 2012, that meant economic policies that support the middle class and LGBT, immigrant and reproductive rights. Paul is no Obama on those issues, but his libertarian leanings offer him a “Sister Souljah” moment that might be more credible than Sen. Rubio or Gov. Christie.

If a 2015 drone accident or domestic security debacle pushes the economy to the background, Paul’s voice could appear prophetic.

Whether that scenario thrills you or scares you, it’s reason enough to pay attention to Rand Paul.

Scott Peters

I spent last weekend in Washington, D.C. lobbying and learning with the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), America’s largest LGBT civil rights organization. I returned with a few stories to share.

The last time I visited room 2410 in the Rayburn House office building with an HRC folder I got a forced smile from a staffer and a polite but quick dismissal from the office. This year, I was given a warm smile from a staffer that turned quizzical when a friend ran out of a back room to greet me. That’s just a small taste of the huge upgrade LGBT San Diegans got by electing Rep. Scott Peters to replace Brian Bilbray.

That friend was Kate Lyon, a straight ally who probably doesn’t get enough thanks. When she wasn’t specifically helping with LGBT issues, she was working for fair-minded candidates and progressive groups like Planned Parenthood. She regrettably told us the Congressman wasn’t in, but we later ran into Peters in the hallway, where he was thanking us. No, Congressman Peters, thank you, for co-sponsoring an LGBT inclusive renewal of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).

VAWA passed the day we were on the Hill, which was very exciting. I hope Speaker Boehner will continue to allow important legislation to the floor even if a majority of his members don’t support it. It’s the right thing to do. It’s also the smart thing to do.

Alan Lowenthal

Our San Diego contingent teamed up with a friend from Long Beach to lobby Rep. Alan Lowenthal, a Democratic freshman. He spoke eloquently on LGBT and civil rights issues, and took a photo with us. The conversation and photo very much reminded me of meetings with Mayor Bob Filner, who nearly always sat down and then took a picture with us when he was a Congressman. I missed him in D.C. this year, but it’s good to know our community has such a friend in Long Beach.

It would be wrong to mention new Representatives and overlook long-time LGBT ally and advocate Susan Davis, who meets with us almost every year, and whose office is a little piece of Hillcrest in Washington. Lobbying is mostly a slog of begging legislators and their staff to get behind your bills. Since Congresswomen Davis is nearly always among the first people to cosponsor equality legislation, we typically get to plop down and say “Thank You”, and relax. The only hard part is when her staff challenges us to help with things Davis is working on to push the envelope of equality, like the “Juror Non-Discrimination Act/Jury Access Act” that she introduced in January to keep attorneys from dismissing jurors based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Susan Davis

The other amazing event last weekend was the filing of President Obama’s brief against Proposition 8. It didn’t specifically call for a constitutional right to marriage equality for all, but it is still impressive that the official position of the United States government is that “Prejudice may not, however, be the basis for differential treatment under the law.” While that case moves on, I learned that marriage equality is moving forward, with HRC’s field team looking to Illinois, Delaware, Rhode Island, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon and Hawaii for action on same-sex marriage in the next two years.

After the presentation on marriage, there was a panel discussion with openly gay Congressmen Mark Pocan (WI-2) and Mark Takano (CA-41). While they were great, it was the sharp, funny, personable and openly bisexual Congresswomen Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-9) who stole the stage. She’s just the kind of person you think should be in Congress, but would never get there. Fortunately, she did.

Kyrsten Sinema

Now the trick is to keep her, and Scott Peters, and the others in Congress through the potentially tight 2014 mid-term elections. What’s at stake is the difference between avid support for marriage equality and DOMA repeal, and being told that if you’re gay and you want to get married, you should just move to Massachusetts. That’s what my friends from HRC Atlanta heard from the lips of a Georgia Congressman. He likened it to his own choice to live in Virginia instead of D.C. so that he could keep his guns.

If you think San Diegans could never elect someone like that, remember that the last resident of 2410 Rayburn could allegedly spot undocumented immigrants by their shoes. If you want to keep equality on the move, get ready to walk and donate, because the 2014 elections are already starting.

Tribute Garden, San Diego Hospice

One of my good friends is a palliative care specialist, the kind of physician who might work at San Diego Hospice. When he rushes off the phone, I typically say, “What’s the hurry? Afraid someone will live?” I thought I was joking. If their investigation into San Diego Hospice is any indication, the federal government doesn’t.

If you haven’t encountered hospice care, you’re either very lucky or very unlucky. Lucky that none of your loved ones face the difficult choice between pursuing heroic and sometimes toxic life-prolonging measures and allowing death to come more naturally. Unlucky if someone, wanting the latter, didn’t have anyone to ensure their remaining days were comfortable and dignified. Hospices, like the nationally respected San Diego Hospice, provide that tender care.

In recent months, San Diego Hospice has sought bankruptcy and it appears to be closing because of an audit by Medicare, who funds much of their work. The crux of the complaints against San Diego Hospice is that patients lived too long. If that sounds absurd en face, it only gets worse when you begin to understand the facts.

In their own pamphlet on Medicare Hospice Services, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) note that you are eligible for Hospice if, “Your doctor and the hospice medical director certify that you’re terminally ill and have six months or less to live if your illness runs its normal course.” It goes on to note that in hospice, “The focus is on comfort, not on curing an illness.”

Now consider the cirrhotic patients I frequently refer to hospice. They don’t die because their liver suddenly explodes. The “normal course” is for cirrhotic patients to become susceptible to infections, fluid retention and stomach erosion (leading to bleeding). Each of these sequelae are uncomfortable, so treatment with antibiotics, diuretics and acid suppressors is consistent with the focus of hospice care. Any extension of life could be considered a side effect, one that the comfortable and typically very satisfied hospice patient doesn’t mind at all.

Since none of the therapies fix the cirrhosis, however, the patient will continue to meet the hospice criteria. If that weren’t enough to confuse the 6 month timeline, consider the increasing body of evidence that good palliative care can prolong life. Add the fact that the medical degree doesn’t come with Batphone-like access to God’s plan, and you begin to see how the length of a hospice stay can vary.

CMS apparently understands this. Otherwise, why allow hospice care to be certified for “two 90-day periods followed by an unlimited number of 60-day periods?” It can’t be the money, because when hospice happens to prolong life, it does so on the cheap. According to Voice of San Diego, a day of hospice costs between $153 and $896. Compared to chemotherapy, intensive care unit days and nursing home stays, hospice is a bargain. Also, as death is still as certain as taxes, even when the curative approach works, the costs are in addition to, not in place of, eventual end of life care.

So what we appear to have is San Diego Hospice, an organization devoted to providing a comfortable and dignified death, suffering its own painful demise because their patients didn’t die fast enough, with the accidental extra days costing the system much less than therapy actually designed to prolong life.

The irony itself is almost terminal. If CMS needs to punish San Diego Hospice for not filing all the necessary paperwork, get on with it. Then let them get back to work.

When death stops for me, I hope San Diego Hospice will be there to ensure it does so kindly, as it has for so many of my patients.

A few of them even lived longer than expected, and didn’t seem to mind at all.

By delaying their decision on allowing gay Scouts, the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) gave the anti-equality forces time to pull together their arguments for the May meeting. While I’m curious to hear what the downsides of inclusive Scouting are, I suggest they stay away from the bathroom argument, because they’re already losing it.

The bathroom argument was brought back to mainstream discourse by retired Army Gen. Jerry Boykin, who was speaking on Fox News Sunday against the plan to open military combat roles to women. “There’s no opportunity for people to have any privacy whatsoever … I certainly don’t want to be in that environment with a female because it’s degrading and humiliating enough to do your personal hygiene and other normal functions among your teammates,” said Gen. Boykin.

This is only the most recent, and perhaps pathetic, iteration of a line of alleged reasoning strewn through American history.

Whether openly lesbian, gay and bisexual servicemembers needed their own bathrooms, or even barracks, was one of the issues that delayed the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. It continues to be used against transgender Americans who want to serve.

The segregation of African Americans in the public sphere was perhaps the worst and most pervasive example of a similar argument, but it was also used against their integration in the military, and against the participation of women into the work place. Some leader of the American Revolution probably thought, “We’d love the help of the French, but where will this Lafayette relieve himself.”

One can certainly imagine the BSA coming up with a similar argument, perhaps something like: “On our longer outings, it’s scary enough for the Scouts to get used to relieving themselves outside without being concerned there are homosexuals afoot.”

Before the BSA goes there, I suggest they look at the response of retired Air Force Col. Martha McSally to Gen. Boykin, “Privacy is a red herring. You can figure out the privacy issues, as long as you have the most capable, qualified, force. That should be no reason for exclusionary policies.”

McSally also had the answer to those who think that integration leads to misconduct, “When you have an environment where women are treated as sort of second-class warriors … you create this subconscious feeling that … women are not quite equal … that adds to our problem of sexual harassment and sexual assault.” Not to mention that improved screening to weed out offenders is a better way to limit problems than unequal treatment of everyone.

Business increasingly sees the benefits of workforce diversity, and is worried more about letting people out of the oppressive closet and less about the water closet. Creating some gender neutral bathrooms is much cheaper that losing valued employees, or never meeting potential ones, because of discriminatory policies.

In that vein, my guess is that Gov. Rick Perry would have a better shot at luring San Diego companies to Texas with an Employment Non-Discrimination Act than the commercials currently airing locally.

On their Web site, the BSA says they will “prepare every eligible youth in America to become a responsible participating citizen and leader …”

Teaching them that discrimination is OK only limits where they can lead and participate. Worrying about privacy is indeed a red herring and is no reason not to put together the best team. The military and business are figuring that out, and so should the BSA.

Maybe they can start by offering merit badges for overcoming barriers to inclusion.

Myrtle Cole and Dwayne Crenshaw

Last February, I opined on the impact of the San Diego Democratic Club’s decision to become the San Diego Democrats for Equality, particularly as it related to endorsements. A year later, that impact may be manifesting itself in a different way.

In 2012, the question was whether the newly named Democrats for Equality should endorse one candidate over another with a comparable record on equality issues. I said “no.” I stand by that answer, but I’d be a fool to argue with the success of their decision in that election. In a race as close as Congressman Scott Peters’ (fingers tingling just typing that) defeat of former Congressman Brian Bilbray (fingers positively jumping off keys), it’s hard to argue early primary endorsements didn’t have an impact. Peters, in turn, highlighted his support for the LGBT community and women’s issues throughout his campaign.

The 2013 question, posed by last Thursday’s City Council District 4 candidates’ forum, was more about what equality means. The diversity of the candidates participating in the discussion was notable in itself: Dwayne Crenshaw, a gay male, Myrtle Cole, a straight female and Anthony Villafranca, a straight male, all from communities of color.

Crenshaw and his supporters effectively used the question and answer period to underscore his work in the LGBT community as one of its members. Looking past some testy exchanges and argumentative questions on both sides, it was clear that the other candidates couldn’t match Crenshaw’s contribution to specific LGBT issues.

What was also clear is that while Cole could not as easily list specific contributions to LGBT issues, she wasn’t exactly twiddling her thumbs – she just had different foci. One was getting LGBT officials elected, including then Councilmember and now Assembly Majority Leader Toni Atkins. Another was making life better for members of the labor community, including the United Domestic Workers, many of whom are women. (As a resident of District 3, I won’t even try to judge the rounds over who lived and/or worked where for how long.)

In the end, the Democrats for Equality decided it meant rating both Dwayne Crenshaw and Myrtle Cole as “acceptable,” a decision I found as heartening as it was disappointing.

Disappointing because I wanted Dwayne Crenshaw to be endorsed by the Democrats for Equality. I support him for his work at San Diego Pride, as one of the people involved in bringing a Pride Flag and Harvey Milk Street to San Diego and because I think he would make an excellent councilmember. I still do, though it was a pleasure to meet Myrtle Cole at the forum, and I was impressed with her answers and commitment.

Heartening because it shows we are all coming together on the capital “E”-quality. When President Obama said “through Seneca Falls and Selma and Stonewall,” he affirmed the place of the LGBT movement in the struggle for civil rights. That place comes with a charge to ensure we move forward together. While the LGBT community has made impressive gains, women’s reproductive rights have been under assault in many states. So have labor and immigrant communities, whom President Obama should have included in his litany. To continue the consonance, he might have included Shirtwaist, a New York garment factory where 146 largely immigrant workers died in a 1911 fire because managers locked the doors to prevent breaks. (Activism in the tragedies wake led to improved safety standards.) Does Cole’s focus on the future of Shirtwaist mean less for “E”-quality than Crenshaw’s work to maintain the momentum of Stonewall?

We should be careful about putting our thumbs too heavily on the scale when weighing commitment to the causes encapsulated in Selma, Seneca Falls, Stonewall and Shirtwaist. Particularly among candidates who scored the same 100 percent on questionnaires, and can evidence a commitment to equality as a whole. Historical significance can also be seen through a variety of rear view mirrors. As Atkins pointed out at the forum, electing a woman of color to City Council may mean as much to history and diversity as electing another LGBT person of color.

There is still something to be said for organizations that focus on electing LGBT candidates, like the LGBT Victory Fund, because a seat at the table is important. But I also know straight allies who were working for LGBT rights before I came out. Are they really any less a part of our community? What about the children of LGBT couples? What LGBT organization would seriously refuse to endorse Zach Wahls, the eloquent activist son of an Iowa lesbian couple? At some point, allies deserve the same inclusion in the LGBT community that we seek in the nation at large.

Like the Victory Fund, electing qualified LGBT candidates is part of the mission of the Democrats for Equality. By that metric, I’m hard pressed to argue much with those who feel the club should have endorsed Crenshaw. The metric of the future, however, will be ensuring that the long arc of history continues to bend toward justice for all. By that yardstick, the only error was rating Crenshaw and Cole as “acceptable”. Their records suggest they’re both far better than that. But forgive them … they may just be a little ahead of their time.

“Proposition 8 does not ‘dishonor’ gays and lesbians.” So says the brief filed with the Supreme Court by the advocates of Prop. 8, because same-sex couples are not “similarly situated” with opposite sex couples. Glad they cleared that up. And while I’m frankly feeling even more dishonored having read the brief (and the brief in the DOMA case), I’m also feeling for another group being given an almost equally short straw – any child not raised by their biological parents, who are apparently less deserving of a stable family.

You won’t find it stated so succinctly, but follow the “logic” of their arguments to uphold Prop. 8. “Intercourse between members of the opposite sex runs the risk of producing a child; children who aren’t cared for are a societal problem; marriage is society’s way of encouraging sexual partners to stay together and care for their children; since intercourse between same-sex couples can’t produce a child, we are not similarly situated; and “It is simply not stigmatizing for the law to treat different things differently.”

The “things” they want to treat differently, of course, are same-sex couples. But think about it in regard to children. From the discussion of the historic importance of marriage, it appears to be the only thing preventing a nation overrun with uncared for children in a Malthus meets Oliver Twist dystopia. Then, suddenly, you are asked to believe this critical institution only applies to biological children of opposite sex couples. Otherwise, the government can shrug, ostensibly with no consequences.

That might work in a primitive and somewhat draconian world where all offspring are the products of intercourse and their parents are forced to raise them. Indeed, that may be the world in which Prop. 8 enthusiasts desperately want to live. Current reality, however, produces other options, including in vitro fertilization, adoption and divorce. Why would society have no interest to ensure that children born into such situations not have access to the stability of marriage?

From their arguments, when a single mom weds, any benefit her son may have from her marriage is just a quirk of the system designed to help his pending natural half-siblings. It can’t be intended by government to help him, because if it were, it would suggest that society’s real interest is a loving, stable and supportive environment for children, not the DNA of their guardians.

Stipulating this would present a problem for traditional marriage enthusiasts, because it runs them head first into the fact that the children of lesbian parents do just as well, or better, than those raised by a biological mother and father.

Andrew Cohen of the The Atlantic calls the brief by the Prop. 8 supporters “their strongest case yet.”

As legal thrusts at Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas that may prove true. From a common sense perspective, however, it only highlights the long-term absurdity of their case.

Providing children with love and support is an important societal interest. If marriage is the best way to do that, it should be available to all children and families, even those formed in ways the framers didn’t foresee.

John Boehner

Members of the House of Representatives have offices in three buildings, each of which is named after a former speaker: Sam Rayburn, Nicholas Longworth and Joseph Gurney Cannon. When a fourth building is needed, I have little doubt it will be the “Nancy Pelosi House Office Building.” Not just because she was the first woman to be elected speaker, which was an historic achievement, but because Pelosi arguably accomplished more in her four year speakership than leaders who held the gavel much longer. If Speaker John Boehner wants to be remembered for more than obstructionism, he would be wise to look at how she did it.

Like Boehner, Pelosi started as a minority leader and had her caucus poised to take control in the mid-term election of an unpopular president. And, like Boehner, she spent her first two years as speaker with that opposing party president. That’s where the similarities end.

Pelosi came in with an agenda, and was never afraid to stand by it. When she couldn’t advance it through the Bush White House, she was a partner in government, allowing votes on funding the Iraq War and raising the debt ceiling. Those votes let members draw a contrast between Democrats and Republicans that was rewarded in 2008 with larger majorities and the White House.

When that opportunity came, she got things done. She did not get everything she wanted, but she always took half a loaf when she could. Obamacare wasn’t Pelosi’s ideal vision of health reform, but she knew insuring almost everyone was better than no one. She undoubtedly would have liked a stimulus with more infrastructure pending, but she guided the president’s package through the House. The same with Dodd-Frank financial reform. When Senate passage was unclear, Pelosi moved anyway. Climate change passed her House, as did the Dream Act and the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Those votes may well have cost her the majority, but she didn’t flinch – she was elected to get things done.

Nancy Pelosi

Contrast that to Speaker Boehner, whose leadership has suggested two goals: keep the majority for his party, and keep the gavel for himself. A real agenda? Not so much.

Sure, there were votes to repeal Obamacare and the Ryan budget, but they were largely symbolic nods to the Tea Party. There was never any chance those policies would pass the Senate, and there was no real effort to pass legislation that might. Boehner quickly preferred hostage negotiations to legislative ones, and put his caucus on the record for few things other than a willingness to have the federal government default on its debt.

Thus far, Boehner’s signature achievements are a few spending cuts, a pile of cans kicked to a rapidly approaching stretch of road, and a downgrade of the government’s bond rating. Hard to believe his party lost seats in 2012.

Were it not for gerrymandered districts, Boehner could easily have lost the House, as half a million more Americans voted for Democratic representatives than Republicans.

Boehner’s new willingness to suspend the debt ceiling for a few months suggests he may have learned something, but at present it is only a tactical shift. With President Obama ready to brand him as the barrier to poll tested initiatives like immigration and gun control, Boehner needs to develop an affirmative agenda he can push with Pelosi’s zeal. Even if it means negotiating. Even if it risks his majority. Gerrymandering may not save him again – some projections suggest that Democrats could retake the House if they won the popular vote by 8 percent. That’s the same amount they won by in 2006, which if Boehner isn’t careful, will be remembered as the beginning of Pelosi’s first tenure as speaker.

In a 2012 interview with CBS, President Obama said that the biggest mistake of his first term was that he didn’t translate his policies into a story that would give the American people a sense of unity and purpose. He was right. The tragedy at Sandy Hook has handed him the perfect narrative for his second term if he has the courage to use it: save the children.

The focus on the tragically murdered children at Sandy Hook has changed the gun control discussion in a way that other mass shootings did not. Instead of talking about the balance between the Second Amendment and gun control regulations, we are discussing how the right to bear arms compares to a child’s right to grow up. There is no simple answer, but at least we’re asking the right question.

Gun violence, however, only accounts for a small percentage of childhood deaths; other causes, like health care and accidents, are larger contributors to child mortality. By framing other issues around decreasing childhood mortality, the president’s agenda begins to form a cohesive tale.

For chapter 2, consider the implementation of Obamacare. Among the largest beneficiaries will be the millions of uninsured U.S. children, provided that states implement the expansion of Medicaid.

Rather than engaging in a constitutional argument about the scope of federal laws and states’ rights, why not simply say: “Gov. Christie, why would you risk the health and well-being of New Jersey’s children, even if you can?”

Chapter 3? Comprehensive immigration reform. Too much of the imagery on this issue involves chasing down people who jumped over a fence. Move the focus to the smallest biggest victims of our failed policies – the young children of immigrants.

Many of the children are U.S. citizens with an unassailable right to health care services that their parents are unable to access for them. Their well-being is also threatened by a detention system that rips apart families and leaves children without advocates.

Environmental regulation becomes chapter 4: decreasing childhood asthma rates. If the president hurries, he might still be able to make the prologue “How we built a child safety fence on the fiscal cliff.” Spoiler alert, it involves tax hikes on the wealthy.

Some will argue that children should not be politicized. It is a nice idea, like Santa Claus, except with less basis in reality.

Children have been part of political warfare for ages. My Catholic high school theology classroom had a poster with pictures of evacuated fetuses. In 2008, children were a focal point of the “Yes on Prop. 8” ads. So forgive me if I think that keeping children alive is a compelling reason to bring them to the front of the discussion.

President Obama was looking for a narrative. Tragedy has given him the chance to continue his presidency as a children’s story, one not for their enjoyment but for their safety. Unless he wants the biggest mistake of his first term to be the biggest mistake of his second term, he should start writing.

Politician of the Year: The first Democrat elected mayor in 20 years. The first Democrat elected to the County Board of Supervisors in almost as long. A challenger who knocks off an incumbent Congressman. In most years, any of the three could have walked away with this award.

2012 was not most years. It was a Democratic wave that has been building for some time. The victories by Bob Filner, Dave Roberts, Scott Peters and others were made possible in part by organized voter registration and turn out efforts aimed at turning San Diego blue. The person most responsible for that effort, and the Politician of the Year, is outgoing San Diego County Democratic Party Chairman Jess Durfee.

Best New Thing: Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. It’s not Comprehensive Immigration Reform and it leaves too many people behind, but President Obama’s policy is changing the lives of young immigrants in San Diego and across the country.

Best Issue Advocacy: Marriage Equality. In May, North Carolina passed a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, the 32nd consecutive loss at the ballot box for marriage equality. What a difference 7 months makes. Since then, President Obama has come out for marriage equality; it became part of the platform at the Democratic National Convention, and the Defense of Marriage Act and Prop. 8 are on the ropes at the Supreme Court. And there is the small matter of the four state sweeps in November. This may be one of the last years that marriage equality can win Best Issue Advocacy, because polls show that same-sex marriage is becoming a non-issue faster than anyone expected.

Worst Year: If you can find a bright spot for California Republicans in 2012, let me know. In one year, they lost control of the second largest city (San Diego), multiple seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and their ability to block tax hikes in Sacramento. Nowhere to go but up?

Comeback of the Year: While both Mayor Filner and Councilmember Lightner took second in their primaries, their November victories were more a reflection of electorate changes than actual “comebacks.” Instead, the Comeback of the Year Award goes to Congressman-elect Scott Peters. The last time Peters’ name was on a ballot, he failed to make the general election in the race for city attorney. Four years later, he’s headed to Washington, having defeated three-term incumbent Brian Bilbray.

Best Photo: I doubted anything could top the visual of servicemembers marching openly in the Pride parade. I was wrong. Watching them do so in uniform was even more powerful.

Best Speech: Bill Clinton at the Democratic Convention. If you don’t understand why he wins, ask him. He’s rather good at explaining things.

Best Ally: I’m a fan of good messaging and measured discourse, but every once in a while it’s fun to see an unfiltered rant. Especially when it involves the phrase “lustful cockmonster.” For his colorful help in the fight for marriage equality, the award goes to Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe.

When Washington politicians give something a catchy name, it usually means one of two things: they want to confuse you, or they want to distract you. The now ubiquitous “Fiscal Cliff” does some of both.

Cliffs are extant geographic features, left by God or erosion, beyond which is a fall to near certain death. Neither is true of our fiscal situation.

America was not cruising along happily until a precipice inexplicably appeared in the distance. President George W. Bush put a time limit on his tax cuts to get them passed. In 2010, President Obama and Congress extended them until the end of this year.

In August 2011, they agreed to push the debt ceiling off until early next year. That November, the supercommittee predictably failed to reach an agreement, setting the painful spending cuts known as the “Sequester” to start in 2013. In February, they set the payroll tax cuts to expire near the same time.

Paul Krugman’s “austerity bomb” is a better description than fiscal cliff, at least in the sense that the problems are manmade, and we know who set the fuse. Still, both evoke an all-encompassing tragedy that takes place in the blink of an eye. That’s not true either. Changes in tax withholdings can be delayed to give more time for negotiations. The sequester cuts can be spread over the year. Thus the “fiscal slope” description.

As badly as the fiscal cliff metaphor confuses the blame and timeline, its ability to distract from the real problem is even worse. If the bottom is likely to drop out of anything, it is faith in government’s ability to solve problems.

With Congressional approval ratings in the low 20s, America appears to have gone over the confidence cliff some time ago. Now we’re running on air, the economic embodiment of Wile E.Coyote. The real danger of the fiscal mess is that something will make the markets look down, at which point … splat.

Even if Congress and the president avoid the current economic challenges, the confidence splat will be in our future until government works again. Filibuster reform is a good place to start. Considering how close we got to a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage, filibusters probably shouldn’t go away entirely. But the current situation, where 41 senators representing 11 percent of Americans can thwart any legislation is untenable.

Often overlooked, but also in need of reform, is the “majority of the majority” policy in the House of Representatives. Until the late 1990s, bills sometimes passed through ideologic middle of the House, with moderates from both parties coming together in the cause of governing. Speaker Hastert then decided that he wouldn’t bring any legislation to the floor that didn’t have majority support from his own party, a policy largely continued by both Speakers Pelosi and Boehner.

Whatever the negotiations on the economic issues, the filibuster and the “majority of the majority” policies should be on the table. Neither is in the Constitution. In fact, fixing them doesn’t even require legislation.

The filibuster is a rule that can be changed by the Senate alone, and Speaker Boehner can simply choose to bring legislation to the House floor. He could start with a bill already passed in the Senate that would extend the Bush era tax rates to 98 percent of Americans. Not only would it be an olive branch to President Obama in fixing the fiscal whatever, but it would restore some faith in government and might just keep the markets floating until we can build some stabilizing consensus underneath.

While the 2012 election was surprisingly kind to Democrats, they still control only 53 seats with two independents who will caucus with them. That means that they will need five Republican votes to get things done, on a good day. Below are 10 Republican senators that might help break a filibuster, and the issues on which they might bend. Where Nancy Pelosi will find 18 votes to get something through the House is anybody’s guess.

Lisa Murkowski, Alaska. Murkowski lost the 2010 Republican primary to Joe Miller, but beat him as a write-in candidate in the general. As such, she doesn’t owe the establishment much and doesn’t have to run until 2016. She has shown some interest in sticking it to Minority Leader McConnell, voting for the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and DREAM Act. She could be an ally on immigration reform, and almost anything else if the deal is right – though she might require consideration for Alaskan oil companies.

Mark Kirk, Illinois. Like Murkowski, he is safe until 2016, when Illinois will still likely be a deeply blue state. Conservatives would be foolish to think that a conservative primary challenger could win in the general, but that may not stop them. Regardless, nothing could help Kirk’s re-election like favorable quotes and photos from President Obama, the last holder of his seat. That makes him a possible “Yea” vote on any issue.

John McCain, Arizona. Only the embittered post-presidential campaign McCain is a grumpy obstructionist. The pre-2008 Senator McCain was a daring voice for bipartisanship and immigration reform. If the maverick returns after a conversation with his socially moderate wife and daughter, McCain could be an important voice against DOMA and for immigration, campaign, and filibuster reform.

Saxby Chambliss, Georgia. Nothing says “I might vote to raise taxes” like telling Grover Norquist “I care more about this country than I do about a 20-year-old pledge.” Since he’s already invited a challenge from the right, his vote might also be available on immigration, given the rising Latino population in his home state.

Lindsey Graham, South Carolina. Talk about a frienemy! Graham has joined McCain in attacks against United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice while he opens talks with Democrats on immigration reform. The conservative Club for Growth has already named him a 2014 target, so on any given issue Graham might run to the right or give them the finger while helping the president.

Richard Burr, North Carolina. Burr was an entirely unexpected vote for the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Maybe he knows a gay servicemember. Maybe he saw the blue on his state’s horizon after 2008. Despite Mitt Romney’s 2012 victory there, North Carolina is moving toward Democrats, and Burr doesn’t run again until 2018. If he’s looking at re-election or higher office, a few moderate votes might be just the ticket.

Pat Toomey, Pennsylvania. The last Republican senator from Pennsylvania, Arlen Specter, was a Democrat first, became a moderate Republican, became a Democrat again, and lost the 2010 Democratic primary to the more liberal Joe Sestak. Toomey knows he is too conservative for Pennsylvania in 2016 without moderate cred. As the former president of the conservative Club for Growth, it’s hard to imagine a threat from his right, which gives him room to compromise. Toomey was already willing to put revenue increases on the table in the failed Super Committee. Bending a social issue or two might just be making him electable in a reliably blue state.

Tom Coburn, Texas. Coburn is notorious as the senator “No” who rejects almost any increase in government, but he has a pragmatic streak, as evidenced by his recent analysis of military spending showing that cuts in military expenditures into schools, stores and research might mitigate the effects of the sequester. Coburn is a threat to vote for any blatantly sensible plan, but it won’t be easy.

Susan Collins, Maine. Having led DADT repeal and voted for TARP, the 2009 stimulus, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, Collins has made it clear that her vote is almost always in play. That leaves her open to a primary, but only if conservatives want to lose the seat. Like her colleague Olympia Snowe, Collins is as likely to retire as to fight a Tea Party challenger, meaning her vote will remain in play, though she is a tough negotiator who will demand concessions.

Marco Rubio, Florida. Like Toomey, Rubio has almost unassailable Tea Party credentials, so he can move left without facing a primary. Unlike Toomey, Rubio appears to have imminent presidential ambitions. With an electorate begging for compromise, nothing will make him more attractive in 2016 than leadership on big compromises. Expect him to keep looking for middle ground on immigration, and find one or two other places to buck McConnell’s leadership.

Sherri Lightener

In the June primary, challenger Ray Ellis bested incumbent District 1 City Councilmember Sherri Lightner 45.6 percent to 41.5 percent. As the top two candidates, both made the recent general election, where Lightner not only added significantly to her total (54.9 percent), but drove down Ellis’ (45.1 percent). How did Lightner change the minds of Ellis voters?

She probably didn’t. Ellis actually received nearly 12,000 more votes than he did in the primary. That wasn’t enough to keep pace with Lightner, who added more than 17,000. The story was much the same across San Diego, with nearly twice as many voters participating in the general election, and Democrats getting the lion’s share of them.

Republican leaning primary electorates is a nationwide phenomenon, but has special implications in San Diego, because not every race gets to the general electorate. Candidates in city races who get more than 50 percent of the primary vote are elected without a November run-off.

Insiders on both sides of these “non-partisan” races know that majority victories in primary elections are an important way Republicans have stayed in office as long as they have despite an increasingly Democratic electorate.

Nowhere was that more clear than in City Council District 7. Democrats and progressives gave themselves a good shot at this seat when the district lines were drawn to accommodate the 2010 census and the creation of District 9. Instead, conservative Scott Sherman was elected in June with 50.09 percent of the vote, avoiding a run-off by just 30 votes.

Could Mat Kotrinsky, who placed second with 40.08 percent, have won a November runoff? It’s certainly possible. Lightner added 13 points to her primary total, more than Kotrinsky would have needed. Council District 7 sits largely in the 52nd and 53rd U.S. Congressional Districts where Rep.-elect Scott Peters ran 4 points ahead of primary Democrats in total and Rep. Susan Davis bested her primary performance by the same margin.

Ray Ellis

Conservatives might argue that Councilmember-elect Sherman would have added primary voters who chose fellow conservative Rik Hauptfield and survived the electorate change. We’ll never know for sure, because tens of thousands of potential voters were never heard.

Some will argue that voters who skip primaries are choosing to give up their voice, and additional elections are expensive. Fair enough, but the goal of democracy should be to reach out to non-voters, not give them the raspberry – even if it costs a little more.

If the Mohammed’s aren’t coming to the mountain, there is nothing wrong with moving the mountain in Mohammed’s direction. California has already realized this, recently adding ballot initiatives to the November ballot to ensure decisions reflect the will of as many Californians as possible.

The City of San Diego should similarly increase the number of voters heard by moving initiatives to November and having run-offs for every contested race.

The new City Council and mayor could get the ball rolling by asking the state of California to put an amendment to the City charter on the ballot. The only question is when.

Off-year elections have notoriously low turnout, so 2013 might not be as good as 2014. It’s probably worth waiting one year to give more voters a voice every year.

Picture yourself in a room full of people you don’t know. It’s too awkward to stand there alone, so you survey the scene, looking for a group to join. The progression is always the same. Anyone I know? Nope. Anyone who’s like me? Nope. Anyone who looks like they might like people like me?

The “like me” can be almost anything, including sexual orientation, gender and ethnicity. The event might be a new employee orientation, the first day of school or the party you were dragged to by a friend who immediately ducked out to avoid a former paramour. If the superficial scan fails to identify your crew, look for the most diverse group, because they might accept your differentness, too. It’s why every new kid in a high school starts out with the “artsy” clique – call it the Cady Heron principle. Republicans would be wise to keep it in mind as they regroup from their 2012 losses.

Any thought that Mitt Romney would continue to speak for the party died with the release of his post mortem with donors, which laid the blame for his loss on President Obama’s “gifts” to voters. With no official leader, the hydra of conservative punditocracy offered as many ways to reanimate the party as it had talking heads. Endorse immigration reform. Convince working people we are on their side. Cut out the tongue of anyone who calls rape anything other than horrific.

All are steps in the right direction, but they miss the point. The problem isn’t simply demographics. It’s diversity, specifically a lack thereof, which is obvious from photos of the new delegations to the House of Representatives.

The Democratic caucus is a mosaic with a majority of women, people of color and members of the LGBT community (though that’s not obvious from the photo).

The Republican caucus actually has a higher percentage of white men than in 2010. Regardless of how big a tent they build, it is difficult for an increasing number of Americans to look at the Republican Party and say “I might fit in there,” much less “that’s where I belong.”

The optics may get better if you add GOP governors and senators, but the audio doesn’t. Marco Rubio and Nikki Haley can’t solve the diversity problem alone, and certainly not while spewing vitriol against same-sex marriage while remaining mum on attempts to disenfranchise voters in their state.

One of the messages of this election is that the Obama coalition increasingly sees issues such as voting, immigration and fair pay not as special interest gifts but as companion civil rights issues. Nowhere was that more clear than in the four state marriage equality sweeps, aided by increasing support from communities of color.

Nor will piecemeal policy outreach, the equivalent of sticking a “Welcome [insert group here]” sign on the Republican tent, be effective. America isn’t a black and white and brown country. Its Tiger Woods country, a land of “Cablinasians” (Tiger’s own moniker) and lesbian Latina immigrants who identify foremost as themselves and sometimes only for today.

Diversity and inclusion is about accepting people as they are and as they might be tomorrow, not a calculated initiative to access a percentage of their ancestry.

What Romney saw as Obama’s “gifts” weren’t cynical payoffs to constituencies. They were the natural policy results of a belief that diversity is desirable and brings opportunity. Traditionally conservative constituencies, like the military and the Fortune 500 already agree.

When GOP leaders accept that embracing diversity is the better answer to their “demographics” problem, many more Americans will feel at home in their tent.

After Americans re-elected President George W. Bush and gave Republicans majorities in both houses of Congress in 2004, Karl Rove spoke of a durable Republican majority. It endured until 2006. The election of President Obama, which was touted as the first triumph of the changing demographics that would keep Democrats in power. That lasted until the 2010 Tea Party revolution, which was spun right back around by last week’s re-election of President Obama.

So is 2012 the beginning of a Democratic dynasty? Maybe.

Economic cycles, powerful personalities, and the American desire for change make presidential dynasties difficult. Bush 41 couldn’t pull out of a recession fast enough to defeat then Gov. Bill Clinton, whose 2012 convention speech reminded us just how gifted he is. The surging economy President Clinton handed Vice President Al Gore wasn’t enough to win a third Democratic term, at least in the Electoral College. Sen. John McCain never had a chance with the economic tail spin he inherited.

The last time a party had more than three consecutive terms in the White House was 1932-1952, when Harry Truman won a fifth term after finishing FDR’s fourth. That dynasty combined FDR’s powerful persona with the end of The Great Depression and the conclusion of World War II.

Remove FDR, Depression and World War II from the last sentence. Insert Obama, recession, and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it becomes clear why there is a real chance that Democrats could dominate presidential elections.

If it were a sports season, 2012 may have been the trap game, where decreased enthusiasm and effort could have led to a loss. Having survived the close one, things get easier. President Obama and Democrats will likely get credit for the improving economy that experts predicted regardless of the 2012 victor.

Further, the depth of the financial crisis could delay the next cyclic recession, which some experts say would already have come were we not still digging out of the last one.

Demographics will help Democrats even more than the economy. The portion of the electorate made up of non-white voters has increased by 1-2 percentage points every four years and has trended heavily Democratic. Unless Republicans can attract these voters, presidential elections will be incrementally easier for Democrats.

Conservatives who think they can coopt the “change” mantra, as Romney tried at the end, or who think turning out the diverse electorate is Obama-dependent should look at the potential candidates. Secretary of State Clinton is so beloved and competent she could conceivable avoid a primary, something not even Bush 41 (vs. Dole and Robertson) or Gore (vs. Bradley) managed when running for their party’s third term.

As the first woman to lead a major party ticket, neither the change mantle nor turnout would likely be a problem. In 2020, Clinton could run for re-election with the advantages of incumbency and another demographic boost. Those same demographics could have future Texas Gov. Julian Castro ready to run in 2024, keeping the excitement alive.

Can Democrats really hold the White House for 32 years? Probably not. Clinton could decide not to run. Jeb Bush could help Latino outreach. Benghazi could become a legacy ruining scandal. But the economic and demographic fundamentals make it a reasonable conversation, and it becomes a little more likely with every fact denying conservative pundit who believes the problem was Moderate Mitt.

You own a widget factory, you’re hiring a new CEO, and you have two applicants. One has worked with widgets for decades, believes in them, and wants to make them better. The other doesn’t like widgets and wants to shrink the company to produce fewer of them. Who do you hire?

I’m taking the applicant who understands the widgets and believes in them. That’s why Politically Aware is endorsing Rep. Bob Filner for mayor. Filner better understands why we need government, and how to make it work better.

Lincoln said government was “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Filner has put people first in government. An administration led by Councilmember DeMaio, in contrast, would be of, by, and for the corporation. Nowhere is this clearer than in their approach to jobs.

Click the “Job Creation” tab on DeMaio’s Web site, and the first bold points are “Resist all fee and tax increases” and “Streamline city processes.” In the related paragraphs, business is mentioned four times before jobs are mentioned once. Nowhere does DeMaio address two of the most basic questions San Diego’s unemployed want answered: How many jobs and what do they pay? While Filner’s Web site is sparse, he started with those numbers in releasing his jobs plan: 50,000 jobs at $50,000/year.

DeMaio believes the money businesses make will create jobs. Maybe it can. It can also lead to Gov. Mitt Romney’s inexplicably large IRA, which isn’t driving consumer spending or job creation. Filner’s focus on people is more likely to be effective.

To paraphrase a Sorkinism, government is a place to come together to do things that we can’t do alone. Despite argument over what those things are, most put public safety at the top, where it is on Filner’s Web site, and not last, where DeMaio’s issues page has “Clean and Safe Neighborhoods.”

Promoting arts and culture is No. 2 on Filner’s list and absent on DeMaio’s.

Government can also strive to level the playing field to provide everyone a fair shot. Filner was fighting for racial equality before I was born, continues to support the labor community and communities of color, and has been a reliable advocate for LGBT rights. While I laud DeMaio for his work to combat homelessness, he has villainized organized labor in his budget reform process, and expressed opposition to the Dream Act. While supportive of some LGBT issues on the City Council, DeMaio’s opposition to needle exchange programs is bad policy, bad medicine and bad business.

Michelle Obama said that when you’ve “walked through that doorway of opportunity … you reach back, and you give other folks the same chances that helped you succeed.” I hope a Mayor DeMaio would prove me wrong, but his plan seems to reach back for businesses, merely hoping workers trickle through in their wake. Filner has spent decades reaching back for working people, LGBT people and people of color. Because he is more likely to make government a place for San Diegans to come together to keep the door of opportunity open until we’re all through, Filner is the best choice for mayor of San Diego.

Sherri Lightner

When last week’s Return on Investment Analysis put Scott Peters at No. 1, there was a close second: Councilwoman Sherri Lightner.

Lightner, the Democratic incumbent councilmember from District 1, has been a solid advocate of LGBT issues on the City Council, and has the endorsements of elected LGBT officials including Councilman Todd Gloria and Assemblywoman Toni Atkins. Lightner now has Politically Aware’s endorsement in her attempt to fend off a challenge from Republican Ray Ellis, who bested her by four points in the June primary. Helping Lightner narrow that gap will be the more Democratic electorate, typically found in the November of a presidential year, and endorsements from primary candidates Bryan Pease and Dennis Ridz, who took nearly 13 percent of the vote in June. The state of the race is less clear than Peters’ due to limited polling, but it could be nearly as close.

For San Diegans, the stakes of the race are perhaps even higher. A Lightner win keeps the City Council under Democratic control; a loss hands the reigns to Republicans. With a competitive mayoral race, control of the Council is more important than ever. Should Councilman Carl DeMaio prevail in the mayoral race, Lightner could be all that stands between San Diego and radically conservative policies, particularly on labor issues, that would make it the “Wisconsin of the West.”

Dave Roberts

Lightner also scores high on the equality return on investment index because city law limits contributions to $500, meaning smaller donations have a larger impact in the race.

Also getting a Politically Aware endorsement is Solana Beach Deputy Mayor Dave Roberts, who is running for the San Diego County Board of Supervisors in District 3. As with Lightner’s race, polling is sparse, but the two point spread between Roberts and his opponent, Steve Danon, in the primary suggest this one could be close. Adding to the intrigue is Roberts’ cross party endorsement from the retiring Republican incumbent, Pam Slater-Price.

A Dave Roberts victory would shatter a number of glass ceilings. Though he would be the second supervisor, Roberts would be the first new face on the board since 1995, the first Democrat in 17 years and the first openly gay supervisor in County history.

Unfortunately, each of those firsts comes with “and only” so Roberts would have his work cut out for him on progressive issues.

Scott Peters

One of the newer data points available to punditocracy is New York Times columnist Nate Silver’s Return on Investment Index. By looking at polls, population and electoral votes (among other things), Silver determines the likelihood that one voter in a given state would decide a razor-thin election, and thus where campaigns might wisely spend their last dollar, or run their last ad, to sway a voter.

Right now, that voter is somewhere in Nevada. Despite being an important swing state, Florida’s size dilutes the power of each voter. Alaska and Hawaii, while smaller, each have such an ideological slant that changing one voter’s mind is unlikely to make a difference. If either were to be close, it would merely be evidence that one candidate is winning in a landslide.

For the first Politically Aware endorsement of 2012, I applied a similar, if less data driven, analysis to local elections. If I could give a candidate my last $20, or time for one shift, where would it have the most positive potential impact on equality? Taking into account current polling, the potential reach of the office and the disparity in LGBT support, the answer is Scott Peters.

California’s redrawn 52nd District, where polls show Peters running neck and neck with current Rep. Brian Bilbray, is the only hotly contested U.S. congressional race in San Diego County. While few candidates have earned LGBT support as much as the gayborhood’s representatives, Congresswomen Susan Davis and Assemblymember Toni Atkins are considered safe, and Councilmember Todd Gloria has already won re-election. While they will put your donation to good use, it’s unlikely to decide the race. The mayoral race has important LGBT implications, but the latest poll showed a 12 point gap.

Adding to the impact of Peters’ race is the fact that the U.S. House will be critical to LGBT legislation in the coming years. Passing pro-equalty bills, like the Employment Non-Discrmination Act (ENDA), will require putting the speaker’s gavel back in the hand of ally Rep. Nancy Pelosi. While that appears unlikely at this point, it is impossible without a Peters victory in the 52nd. Even if the leadership doesn’t change hands, wins in Peters’ and other competitive races might be enough to build a fair-minded majority with the handful of potentially LGBT-supportive Republicans.

To be clear, Bilbray is not a part of that handful, which is perhaps the biggest reason a Peters victory would be high impact for the LGBT community. Bilbray has earned a zero rating from the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) since returning to Congress in 2006, voting against the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, against the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and for a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. He’s not much better to progressive coalition partners, having earned a 10 percent rating from NARAL (formerly known as the National Abortion Rights Action League) in 2011 and claiming to be able to identify undocumented immigrants by their shoes.

Peters endorsed marriage equality while on the San Diego City Council, has the endorsement of the HRC and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund and backs the Dream Act. For his support of the LGBT community and its allies, Scott Peters earns Politically Aware’s endorsement in the 52nd District. In a year of important elections, the stakes and polling in his race also make Peters’ campaign the most strategic place to invest the time, talent and treasure you can give to the cause of equality this election cycle.

politically aware

BY JOEL TRAMBLEY

When I moved from Atlanta to San Francisco, I missed my first chance to vote. I was able to register when I got my California driver’s license, but when election day came around, I didn’t know where my precinct was and I was a medical intern, working from 6:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. Back then, I considered abdicating my civic duty to be regrettable, but forgivable.

If that were ever really true in the Golden State, it isn’t anymore. Recent election law changes, capped by on-line voter registration last month, mean that you don’t need a polling place or free time on Election Day to vote. In fact, you never have to leave your house. Seriously.

For potential voters with a driver’s license, the entire registration process can be done on-line; those without a signature on file may have to print and mail in a form. Anyone can choose to be a permanent absentee voter and get a ballot in the mail. Fill it out at your leisure, print some postage at stamps.com, and mail it in. Sooner is better, not only because your ballot must be received (not just post-marked) by Election Day, but having already voted will get you off various candidate and party call lists, making your evenings a bit quieter. If you procrastinate until you’re concerned the mail won’t be fast enough, you can drop it off at the Registrar of Voters when open or at any polling place on Election Day.

It’s a good thing that the hurdles to voting in California have dropped, because lives are literally at stake. While marriage equality is not on the ballot in California, a proposition to replace the death penalty with life in prison is, along with measures affecting education funding, human trafficking, and political donations. That is all in addition to the presidential, senatorial, congressional, county supervisorial, mayoral, and city council elections. Kind of makes it hard for anyone to claim the election won’t affect them, or the LGBT community.

Unfortunately, the impact of elections on our community is outpacing our impact on them. Our once lauded advantage in technology use has declined as other groups have come on-line with social media and voter ID applications. Despite increasing visibility as donors, our contributions to candidates and lobbying efforts are dwarfed by social conservatives.

Fortunately, the best way to increase our political power is now one of the easiest. Vote. And get others to vote. If the ease and the need aren’t persuasive, consider the duty and privilege.

Democracy only works with an engaged and voting electorate. We are still a nation at war, with servicemembers and diplomats risking their lives to support freedom at home and abroad. In some of the nascent democracies they helped to create and protect, voters not only have to leave their houses, but dodge thugs and militias to cast a ballot. What does it say if you won’t even log on?

Notwithstanding gaffes and tax releases, this time between the party conventions and the presidential debates provides a quiet moment to assess the current state of the November elections and make some predictions (anyone can wait until Nov. 5). Fortunately, the pollsters aren’t taking time off so I have plenty of data to help.

The presidency. Gov. Mitt Romney last led the Real Clear Politics polling average in October, 2011. President Obama then took over, and maintained a small but stable lead until the beginning of the Democratic Convention, when Romney pulled even for two days. Since his acceptance speech, or more importantly President Clinton’s nomination speech, Obama has opened up a 3 to 4 point lead that appears to have outlived the typically temporary post-convention bounce. State polls also show him ahead in almost all battle grounds, leaving Romney very few ways to come up with 270 electoral votes.

The only silver lining for Romney has been the Gallup poll, where he remains within two points despite their use of typically Democratic leaning registered voters. On the downside, Obama is even or slightly ahead in the Rasmussen poll, which has a Republican slant and is reporting likely voters.

The Senate. First, the no-brainer: Sen. Dianne Feinstein will win. Given that liberal hero Sen. Barbara Boxer won by almost 10 points during the 2010 Republican landslide, only two outlets have polled the race since May, and Feinstein hasn’t led by less than 16 points.

The battle for control of the Senate is a bit dicier. The 2010 wave left Republicans needing to gain three (if Romney wins) or four seats to take over in 2012, with only 10 seats to defend. Democrats are defending 23 seats, a number being in unfriendly territory due to gains in 2006 (e.g., Montana, Missouri) or retirements (e.g., North Dakota, Nebraska). Surprising events, including Sen. Olympia Snowe’s retirement, candidate Todd Akin’s inability to keep his mouth shut, and well-run campaigns by Heidi Heitkamp and Tammy Baldwin have helped the Democrats chances. With Obama’s coattails growing, the smart money is on the Democrats to keep control of the Senate, perhaps losing only one seat.

The House. Here, the national results are the easier call. Despite my crush on former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the 60 percent chance she gives the Democrats to retake control of the House is too optimistic. Democratic House candidates are definitely on the rise, but Republican controlled redistricting has made netting 25 seats too high a hurdle.

Locally, incumbent Reps. Susan Davis, Duncan Hunter Jr. and Darryl Issa are all locks for victory, as is state Sen. Juan Vargas who will replace incumbent Representative and future San Diego mayor, Bob Filner. The tougher call is the newly drawn CA-52, where “incumbent” Rep. Brian Bilbray faces a stiff challenge from former City Council President Scott Peters. This race will be a national bellwether for control of the House, and consistent with the above analysis, I expect Peters to win narrowly.

The mayor. Since the primary, the horse race numbers have been moving in Rep. Bob Filner’s direction. A September poll showed Filner with a 50 to 38 percent lead over Councilmember Carl DeMaio. As late voters prefer to back a winner, DeMaio should also be concerned that more than 70 percent of the Albondigas Political Society believe that Filner will win. If you didn’t catch the foreshadowing, Filner becomes San Diego’s first elected Democratic mayor in 20 years.

Brendon Ayanbadejo

Football news in the first week in September usually revolves around opening night, injury reports and final fantasy league preparations. This year, marriage equality received a surprising amount of attention in the sporting news. For readers who might not read the sports page, it’s worth a replay, because it shows some very positive yardage for LGBT rights.

Baltimore Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo kicked off the issue by appearing in a video for Marylanders for Marriage Equality to support a ballot initiative that would allow same-sex marriage in the state. On its own, Ayanbadejo’s statement wasn’t major news, as he has reportedly worked with Equality Maryland for some time.

What really moved the story forward was a letter sent to the Ravens owner Steve Biscotti by Maryland House of Delegates member Emmett Burns Jr., “requesting that you take the necessary action, as a National Football franchise owner, to inhibit such expressions from your employee.” Burns, a Democrat, added “I know of no other NFL player who has done what Mr. Ayanbadejo is doing,” apparently unaware that former Giant Michael Strahan cut a video in the battle for marriage equality in New York, and former Charger (and current Jet) Antonio Cromartie was photographed for the NOH8 campaign.

A letter from an elected official suggesting that an employer restrict free speech was bound to draw a response, and did it ever. While the Ravens brass appears to have remained silent on the issues, Ayanbadejo’s friend and fellow UCLA Bruin, Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe, replied in an open letter to Burns that has LGBT sports fans cheering, and likely has his press agent shaking his head and Burns, a pastor, looking up the phrases “narcissistic fromunda stain,” “hot dong action,” and “colossal foot-in-mouth clusterfuck.” In between the colorful metaphors, Kluwe makes some amazing points, including that the NFL and Major League Baseball might still be segregated if not for courageous owners and players speaking out against injustice.

Having NFL players talk about equality also begins to break down the walls that keep pro sports the last refuge for those who think gay men aren’t “real men.” With the exception of pro sports, all of the masculine occupational myths have been shattered, with gay cowboys, servicemembers and policemen already in the cultural collective conscience. Ayanbadejo’s comments helps create the atmosphere needed for the first out gay NFLer.

Perhaps most important is the question Kluwe poses to Burns: “Why do you hate freedom?” He calls it a “personal quibble,” but it’s much more important. For years, opponents of marriage equality have convinced voters that their right to live and raise children in a world without same-sex marriage was more important than the freedom of LGBT citizens to marry the person they love. In a way that may best come from an ally; Kluwe appropriately asks what impact gay marriage would have on Burns. Then, perhaps less appropriately, he assures Burns that gay people won’t turn him into a “lustful cockmonster.”

Kluwe’s response suggests that more people see marriage equality appropriately as a question of freedom vs. fear, instead of freedom vs. freedom. If that spreads, we’ll have marriage in a walk, much to the chagrin of Chargers quarterback Philip Rivers, who must be feeling ever more isolated in his opposition.

As election season heats up, two questions seem to be getting an increasing amount of attention in the San Diego LGBT community: “Could the Victory Fund endorse Councilman Carl DeMaio for mayor?” and “Should they?”

The first question is not as absurd as one might think. In the crowded world of interest groups, The Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund has a special niche. While their goal to “achieve equality for LGBT Americans …” is mirrored by many progressive and LGBT groups, their method of “increasing the number of openly LGBT officials at all levels of government” sets them apart. Straight allies like Rep. Bob Filner and Scott Peters, no matter how stellar their record on LGBT issues, can’t be endorsed by the Victory Fund.

So what about DeMaio? Beyond the requirement that the candidate be openly LGBT, the Victory Fund’s Web site says candidates must support efforts to advance LGBT rights and support privacy and reproductive freedom. Notably missing are prerequisites to support environmental causes and labor. Those two omissions amount to a welcome sign to Republicans with a libertarian streak, as some have described DeMaio, who support less government in both the bedroom and the boardroom.

The Victory Fund’s final requirement is that candidates “demonstrate community support and a realistic plan.” As a viability test, DeMaio should do fine on this one. Though a recent poll showed Filner with an 8 point lead, he is still only at 40 percent, with more than enough undecided for DeMaio to make up the gap. That compares favorably to Victory Fund endorsee Rep. Tammy Baldwin, who is down by 7.8 points, according to RealClearPolitics.com’s poll-of-polls average, in her race for the U.S. Senate in Wisconsin.

“Community support” could also be interpreted as the backing of San Diego’s LGBT community. Even then, DeMaio could make the grade. Despite high profile protests at Pride and The LGBT Center Forum, DeMaio counts a number of LGBT community members among his supporters.

So, yes, if his answers on a privacy and reproductive freedom are satisfactory, the Victory Fund could endorse Carl DeMaio. Should they?

Despite a particularly visible presence in San Diego, the Victory Fund is a national organization with long term goals. Endorsing DeMaio could cause at least short-term problems with local progressives and in San Diego’s LGBT community. However, if he meets the same criteria applied to other candidates, not endorsing him could cause longer, and further-reaching, problems.

The Victory Fund believes that “LGBT office holders are our clearest and most convincing champions for true equality.” That makes it hard to explain to a nationwide donor base why they would skip the chance to seat a gay man at the head of the table in America’s Finest (and eighth largest) City – particularly when he voted for a 65-foot Pride flag.

But, for Victory Fund, these questions are not just about maintaining credibility. Open LGBT elected officials really do change the dynamic. It’s one thing to spew hate from a podium. It’s harder (though not impossible) to tell a colleague sitting across the table that she and her wife aren’t in a real marriage. We’ve long known that people with “close friends” who are LGBT are more supportive of our causes, and the same is true for politicians.

If he requests their endorsement and meets their criteria, the Victory Fund could – probably should – endorse DeMaio. That doesn’t mean you have to like it. And it doesn’t mean you have to vote for him. But don’t be too hard on the Victory Fund. They have a good plan. As a wise man said recently when speaking of another issue: “If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.” That man was, Rep. Bob Filner, DeMaio’s opponent.

In competitive debate, the second team gets extra time to lay out their case and respond to points made by the opening team. Such is President Obama’s task as he accepts the Democratic nomination for a second term tonight. He won’t actually get more network coverage than the Republicans, but he can choose not to waste primetime on an old man yelling at an empty chair. Instead, he must answer the best lines of the Republican convention while tearing up their case to voters and laying out his own.

My advice to the president, were I his debate partner:

“You built that.”

The attacks on “you didn’t build that” were contextually unfair, misleading and incredibly effective. Fix it by thanking entrepreneurs for creating the private sector jobs that have helped to end the recession.

“We …”

Most of the primetime Republican speakers laid off the direct attacks. Instead, they used the flattering gibes; political equivalents of “you’re pretty!” In so doing, they gave voters permission to like you, but see you as unable to complete the job. Revoke that permission by reminding voters that they have been in this mess since early 2008.

If you didn’t have a record, that would be a problem. But fortunately, “We …” accomplished turning the Titanic around. If former President Clinton has done his job at the convention, voters will realize how fast we were cruising in 2000, and how President Bush and tax cuts for the rich heaved our ship of state into the iceberg. Remind them that we have righted the ship; and are steady at the helm keeping it on a sure course back to prosperity.

“Killed Osama bin Laden.”

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gave a speech covering foreign policy, but sadly she isn’t on the ticket. Clint Eastwood attacked the empty chair for thinking the war in Afghanistan was OK, apparently forgetting that you didn’t start it and are ending it. Gov. Romney, in his interview for the position of commander-in-chief, didn’t even bother to address the fact that the nation remains at war – that 90,000 American servicemen and servicewomen are currently risking their lives in Afghanistan. Don’t spike the football; but remind voters that Afghanistan is winding down; Iraq is all but over; and Osama bin Laden is gone.

“… saved lives.”

Time to own Obamacare. Recap the personal stories: cancer survivors who got treatment despite preexisting conditions; students who thank their Obama posters that they are still on their parents’ insurance; and seniors who have medications instead of donut holes. And we can save more lives and more.

“… have our hands out.”

Voters elected you to work across the aisle and are understandably frustrated with your lack of success. Convince them that you tried, and smack down some of Paul Ryan’s erroneous knocks along the way. Medicare cuts? Republicans asked for them and then still wouldn’t vote for Obamacare. Simpson-Bowles? It didn’t go to Congress because Paul Ryan didn’t support it.

“… believe in freedom.”

One of Ryan’s best lines was “a government-planned life, a country where everything is free but us.” It’s bogus, but it can’t be left unanswered. Look straight, I mean directly, at the independents and talk about a smaller government, one that won’t get between Americans and the people they love, women and their doctors, and immigrant children and the only country they know and love.

That should pretty much do it. You might close by reminding voters that we disclosed our tax returns; and Mitt Romney is free to do the same. v

Mitt Romney

The Republican National Convention concludes tonight with former Gov. Mitt Romney’s speech officially accepting the Republican nomination for president of the United States. As the convention approached, most pundits agreed he and his surrogates had two missions: reintroduce Romney and get back to the “real issues.”

Reintroducing Romney was never going to be a problem – it’s been going on for 20 years. Lest we forget, Romney the Bain capitalist begat Romney the socially moderate senate candidate; begat Romney the Olympic savior; begat Romney the pro-health care mandate governor; begat Romney the pro-life crusader; begat our current candidate, Mitt-ster Fix-it Romney, future repealer of Obamacare. None of the incarnations are particularly authentic, so frankly I’ll believe what he says tonight no more or less than what he said last week.

Getting back to the “real issues” will, and should, be a tougher sell. The real issues, by the way, are jobs and the economy, incidentally the topics on which Romney polls the best compared to President Obama. The other things in the news, like “forcible rape”, immigration, and same-sex marriage? According to team Romney, those are just “distractions.”

While it may be an upgrade from “wedge issue”, I’ll thank whatever incarnation or Romney is introduced tonight not to consider my freedom to marry a distraction. I think it’s worth some serious focus. Ditto for a woman’s right to control her own reproductive health and the opportunity for DREAMers to continue to contribute to America. The Republican Party seems to agree with me, having deemed these issues important enough to have included planks in their draft platform against same-sex marriage, banning abortion without exceptions for rape and incest and opposing any form of amnesty in favor of self-deportation.

To provide some distance from these less popular stances, Republicans have pointed out that President Obama hasn’t achieved everything in the 2008 Democratic platform, notably the closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and comprehensive immigration reform. That’s true, but there’s a big difference between not being able to achieve your platform goals and pretending you won’t try. President Obama wanted to fulfill those goals, but he was stopped by Democratic infighting and Republican obstruction. Had Congress passed bills on immigration reform, President Obama would have signed them.

Just like a President Romney would sign bills discriminating against the LGBT community or prohibiting abortion and Republicans in Congress will pass them given a chance. In some cases, House Republicans have already passed such resolutions, only to be blocked by the Senate and President Obama.

If Romney really wants an election about the economy, he could achieve it tonight by saying: “To ensure I have a mandate for my fiscal policies, I will continue all of President Obama’s policies on the rights of women, immigrants, and members of the LGBT community.” Unfortunately, that probably wouldn’t convince middle class social conservatives to dump an incumbent president who has presided over 12 straight quarters of GDP growth and 29 months of private sector job growth.

Instead, you’ll probably hear a series of economic statistics, followed by Romney reintroducing himself as Reagan 2012, asking, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” Since 2009, members of the LGBT community have better protection from hate crimes, the freedom to serve in the military and a rapidly fading Defense of Marriage Act. Those aren’t distractions. They’re tangible results. And they’re an awful lot more than the vague economic plan of a candidate whose party would take it all back. v

Todd Akin

From the Republican outcry against U.S. Congressman and Missouri Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin’s use of the phrase “legitimate rape,” you might think he’s said something outside the conservative mainstream. You’d be wrong.

Akin has plenty of company, with the proof available in the Library of Congress. Just 15 days after being sworn into the 112th Congress, the “jobs focused” Republican-led house began to circulate House Resolution 3 (HR3), the “No Tax Payer Funding for Abortion Act” through various committees. Included was an exception “if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape …” Among the bills’ 150 plus cosponsors were Mr. Akin, vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan and San Diego’s own Rep. Duncan D. Hunter.

Akin’s problem is that he put a spotlight on the intransigent abortion views of the current Republican House and gave insight into the extreme right’s next step.

Truly zero-tolerance anti-abortion crusaders face an inconvenient truth. In both public polling and Supreme Court precedent, support for abortion restrictions drops noticeably when exceptions for rape and incest aren’t included. Rep. Akin’s statement wasn’t a momentary lapse, but rather the blueprint for redefining rape to minimize, or eliminate any actual exceptions.

Defining rape as forcible or legitimate is an attempt to revive the canard that there are different levels of rape, separating the “real” victims who deserve our sympathy from those who don’t. Given the absurdity of this distinction, it’s understandably hard to pin elected officials down on specific forms of “non-forcible” rape, so let’s go back to the original HR3. The previously quoted section continues “… or, if a minor, an act of incest.” Got that? Apparently at least 150 members of the U.S. House of Representatives believe: (1) that some forms of statutory rape are not “forcible,” and (2) that minor victims of these “non-forcible” rapes should be forced to maintain their pregnancy unless incest is involved.

Clearly, delineating which rapes are “non-forcible” ahead of time isn’t going to make for great talking points, except for an address to the Family Research Council. Better to have an outcome measure that determines whether a rape was forcible.

Which brings us to the rest of Akin’s statement: “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down.” Combined with the “forcible rape” language, it brings the number of legal abortions by rape victims to zero, by making a tautology of pregnant victims of non-forcible rape. Disregarding the sheer scientific idiocy of Akin’s statement, it’s rather slick. It’s also horribly wrong.

The “forcible rape” language was eventually removed from HR3, and Akin has tried to walk back his comments amid calls for his head from Republican leaders and senators. Akin may be going overboard for putting a spotlight on the real Republican plan; but don’t think for a moment that his vision for abortion laws is going with him. One day after Republican National Committee chairman, Reince Priebus called on Akin to withdraw, the Republican platform committee failed to include exemptions for rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother in their abortion plank. Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor were notably absent from the mob calling for Akins head, and it took until late Tuesday for vice presidential candidate Ryan, who has worked with Akin on “personhood” legislation, to call for him to drop out.

Romney and Ryan claim that this election is about jobs and the economy, but they continue to make it clear that personal freedoms are the real stakes. If Republicans can take control of the Senate and White House in November, HR3 will be back, complete with “forcible rape” language or a spin-friendly synonym. That should legitimately scare anyone who supports reproductive rights, and force a vote for President Obama.

Paul Ryan

I’m not sure which word best describes the choice of Rep. Paul Ryan as the Republican vice presidential nominee; obvious, daring and destructive all come to mind and have been used by various media outlets. Most reporting focused on his budget and its impact on independent voters. Less has been said about what the Ryan choice means to our community and our allies. On our issues, the best word may be dangerous.

Ryan is a nail in the coffin of the 1994 Mitt Romney, who claimed to be more progressive on LGBT-rights than “Saint” Sen. Ted Kennedy. Twice he voted for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. His only pro-LGBT stance in recent memory was in 2007, when he voted for an Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) that didn’t protect transgender workers. Shortly before voting for the ENDA, though, he voted to “recommit” the resolution, typically a tactic used to stall a bill to legislative death.

That vote got him a 10 percent on the Human Rights Campaign scorecard. Since then, he’s a perfect 0 percent. In 2009, Ryan voted against the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. To do so, he had to vote against the annual defense authorization bill, suggesting he’d rather not fund our troops than add sexual orientation and gender identity to hate crimes laws. He also voted “No” on the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and against gay adoption.

How will the Ryan choice affect women’s reproductive rights? On this topic, “Ryan” and “choice” don’t belong in the same sentence. Ryan won his first race in 1998 by running to the right of a more moderate Republican, so it’s no surprise that Ryan would have a 100 percent rating from the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC). (And a corresponding 0 percent from NARAL, The National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws.)

What’s shocking is how much further Ryan would go. This Congress, he has cosponsored a “personhood” amendment in the U.S. House, stating “the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent.” A similar measure was rejected by the voters of Mississippi, not known for their wide-eyed liberalism.

Ryan did a little better with the labor community, scoring 2 out of 12 on an AFL-CIO score card this year, and a whopping 28 percent last year. Back in 2010, when Ryan achieved a perfect 0, he also voted against the DREAM Act.

The DREAM Act vote was also scored by the ACLU in 2010, when Ryan scored a 14 percent for voting against the DISCLOSE Act, which would have forced some advocacy groups to make their donors public. The concurrence on DISCLOSE, however, appears to have been more of a “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” phenomenon, with the ACLU seeking clearer language that applied to everyone, while Ryan wanted to protect secret conservative benefactors. In this year’s 112th Congress, Ryan has kept his ACLU score perfect at zero, voting to defund Planned Parenthood and for a resolution to ensure that no defense appropriations could be spent in a manner inconsistent with the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

According to R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, “Congressman Ryan’s 2007 vote in favor of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act and his consistent willingness to engage with Log Cabin on a range of issues speaks to his record as a fair-minded policymaker.” I’m glad Ryan at least engages with Log Cabin, but anything the ENDA vote says about his fair-mindedness is drowned out by the chorus of evidence to the contrary. Ryan doesn’t support the LGBT community, he doesn’t support our allies and he will draw Mitt “Etch-A-Sketch” Romney to the right. You have the freedom to vote for him if you like, but you’d better really enjoy it. In a Romney-Ryan administration, that pleasure may have to compensate for losing your freedoms to marry, serve and choose.

When “Papa Doug” Manchester bought the San Diego Union Tribune, there was a concern that the news might be tainted by right-wing opinion. Few predicted that right-wing opinion would be tainted with sheer fantasy. Yet, that is the only explanation for what happened Saturday, when the U-T San Diego editorial board jumped the political shark with an editorial proclaiming “Romney in a landslide.”

Their hope for a Romney rout is no secret and no surprise. Had they left it an aspirational piece, it would have been fine. Instead, they crossed the line into prediction, ending with “We see, ‘Romney in a landslide!’”

An opinion piece with a viewpoint is nothing new, nor is making predictions in line with that view. To retain credibility, however, those predictions should have something backing them up. The U-T editorial cites numerous examples of Americans “taking their country back:” Scott Walker surviving his recall, the passage of Prop. B and the success of the Chick-fil-A eat-in for traditional values.

That’s already more examples than data, of which they cite two points: that 75 percent of undecided’s break against the incumbent, and that in 1980, Americans rose up against Jimmy Carter in the last 60 days. Not much to go on, particularly in light of the data against their conclusion.

Let’s start by defining a landslide, which the U-T didn’t bother to do. Most of us who were alive at the time attach “landslide” to President Reagan’s re-election in 1984, when he took 525 electoral votes (EVs) and 49 states to former Vice President Walter Mondale’s 13 EVs from Minnesota and D.C. As the U-T invokes 1980, perhaps they consider Reagan’s 489 EVs a landslide against Carter’s 49 EVs.

By either of those bars, Obama’s near guaranteed victory in California would prevent a Romney landslide. So, I guess we should lower the bar. As it takes 270 votes to win the presidency, President George W. Bush’s Supreme Court aided 271 EV victory in 2000 hardly qualifies as a landslide. Nor would Bush’s 286 EV performance (2004) or President Carter’s 297 EVs (1976). In fact, the lowest EV total recently called “landslide” was President Obama’s 365 EVs in 2008. (Clinton scored 379 EVs in 1996, and 370 in 1992.)

To deem it “unlikely” that Romney can reach 365 EVs is perhaps too generous. In New York Times political number cruncher Nate Silver’s prediction models, every scenario in which President Obama gets 173 votes or less occurs well less than 0.5 percent of the time. (The most likely scenario, with nearly a 15 percent chance, has Obama in the 330s.

Why can’t Romney get there? Realclearpolitics.com, which averages a number of national and state polls, already has 247 EVs leaning toward Obama, with 191 for Romney and 100 “toss-up.” Give Romney all the toss-ups, and he wins with 291. Hardly a landslide.

The U-T says that the last 90 days will change things, so let’s respect that for a moment. Even if Romney gets all of the states “leaning” toward Obama (some of which Obama leads by more than 10 points), he only gets to 359, still short of Obama’s 2008 landslide. To get those last 6 votes, he would have to flip a state where Silver gives Obama at least a 95 percent chance of winning.

Mitt Romney could very well win this election, but barring an October surprise it won’t be in a landslide. If the U-T has a scoop on that surprise, they should report it. If not, they should at least stop confusing their Christmas list with the editorial page, or they’ll soon have the same lack of credibility of the other high profile person to “predict” a Romney landslide: Rush Limbaugh.

For the past 10 days, friends from outside San Diego have inundated my inbox with two questions: “Did people really boo a gay mayoral candidate at Pride?” And, “Why?”

Answering the first question is simple. Yes, they did. The second question is harder to answer, despite reading the knotted mass of Facebook and commentary threads on the subject.

Most non-San Diegans assume that Councilman Carl DeMaio’s voting record on LGBT issues must be the problem; but it’s not. While representing one of San Diego’s most conservative districts, DeMaio voted for a resolution to support the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, an equal benefits ordinance and a 65 feet Pride flag, among other things.

The conflation of DeMaio’s support of Proposition B, combined with union opposition, and the traditional ties between the LGBT and labor movement is also a tempting, but unconvincing answer as to what exactly prompted LGBT Pride parade attendees to boo the gay councilman. Mayor Sanders supported Proposition B (pension reform despised by the labor movement), yet the LGBT community would be more likely to give him a mass hug than a back-turning.

I think the true answer lies in two words: “we” and “us.” Often forgotten at election time, the ability to speak for “us” is actually one of the most powerful tools of elected officials, able to rally or calm the masses. Simply by saying “the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon,” President Bush rallied nearly 90 percent support for attacks on Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. When that effort achieved the death of Osama bin Laden, President Obama largely pre-empted any celebrations by reminding us that “we don’t need to spike the football.”

I was reminded of this by the letter Boston Mayor Thomas Menino sent to Dan Cathy, the president of Chick-fil-A. Cathy brought his corporation into the equality debate on the side of “traditional” marriage, praying for “God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.”

Menino responded “Here in Boston … we are ‘guilty as charged.’ We are indeed full of pride for our support of same sex marriage and … are proud that our state and our city have led the way for the country on equal marriage rights.”

As a gay man, that’s what I want my next mayor to say when confronted with intolerance. Not a nuanced (if accurate) discussion of Mr. Cathy’s right to free speech. Not a hedge about the jobs we would lose if a restaurant chain was made uncomfortable. Even if it has no enforceability, I want a firm edict that says “We are San Diegans and we don’t stand for discrimination.”

More than union issues, the response to DeMaio at Pride was driven by the fear that he won’t make such statements. Despite his legislative record, it’s a legitimate concern given DeMaio’s campaign donor list and associations. A promise to continue Mayor Sanders’ vocal advocacy for marriage equality or a quick note of displeasure to Mr. Cathy might well put those issues in the past for LGBT voters, but DeMaio has thus far declined to allay their concerns.

I hope he soon will. Knowing that San Diego has two candidates who will speak of equality and diversity when they speak of “us” would put many of us at ease. Watching the dropping jaws of some DeMaio donors would be fun, too.

While legal scholars continue to argue about whether the Supreme Court decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act (ACA) simultaneously gutted the Commerce Clause, we can turn what’s left of our tolerance for mind-numbing legal analysis back to Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the federal court challenge to Proposition 8.

To recap, Proposition 8 is the 2008 referendum that defined marriage as between one man and one woman in the California Constitution. It is currently unconstitutional based on the decision of a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upholding District Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision invalidating it. The proponents of Prop. 8 requested an “en banc” hearing by a larger panel of justices, which the Ninth Circuit declined, but stayed their decision 90 days for possible appeal to the Supreme Court.

More than 50 days have passed with no overt action. They may just be drafting and editing briefs. They may also be arguing whether to risk appeal at all, given the inherent risks and limited upsides.

The proponents dream scenario is that the Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8 in a way that tells the entire country that marriage is only between a man and a woman. This seems like a stretch, particularly in light of Justice John Robert’s ACA opinion that took clear shots at what the federal government can force states to do. Justice Anthony Kennedy went even further, refusing to find any way to validate Obamacare. Given the centuries of precedent for letting states decide who they will marry, Kennedy and Roberts seem more likely to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act than to expand Proposition 8.

The next best thing for the “traditional marriage” crowd would be a finding that the constitutional promises of equal protection and due process don’t demand marriage equality. Same-sex marriage becomes illegal in California for the time it takes to overturn it at the ballot box, and other states keep the status quo of working through their constitutions and legislatures. Though it’s certainly a sad day for LGBT Americans, a brief return to the status quo isn’t much of a victory given the risks.

Those risks include a limited or sweeping victory for marriage equality. The limited victory is probably the most likely outcome: Kennedy joins the liberal block in upholding the Ninth Circuit’s narrow opinion, restarting same-sex marriages in California, and possibly in a few other states where marriage laws were passed and overturned, or where “everything but marriage” civil union laws exist. The newly legacy-minded chief justice might even join the opinion to put his court tepidly on the right side of history.

The limited decision seems most likely because Judge Stephen Reinhardt basically gift wrapped his Ninth Circuit opinion in Kennedy’s Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas decisions, sticking on it a little note that said “I just did what you told us.” But the door is also open for the court to strike down all same-sex marriage bans. If Romer and Lawrence represent a compromised form of Kennedy’s support of freedom, not it’s limit, he might lead the court right through that door. Even Justice Antonin Scalia, in dissent, admits that marriage equality is a natural consequence of Lawrence.

If the proponents do choose to appeal, the justices will do a similar risk analysis. Four judges have to vote to hear a case. If Kennedy doesn’t tip his hand, why would the four conservatives risk invalidating same-sex marriage bans? Why would four liberals risk re-instating Prop. 8? For a body that prefers narrow, incremental decisions, letting the Ninth Circuit legalize same-sex marriage in California seems fairly risk-free. Lest we forget, the universe did survive 5 months of California marriage equality.

For the Prop. 8 proponents and his colleagues on the court, it all seems to come down to “What would Kennedy do?” And it well might. Or not. As the ACA case showed, predicting what Kennedy will do is a dangerous game.

–

July 31, update: The anti-marriage proponents of Prop. 8 just filed their petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear our case. Both the Federal District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said, unequivocally, that Prop. 8 serves no purpose other than to single out gay and lesbian Californians for discriminatory treatment. Prop. 8, and laws like it, cannot stand. Help AFER defend the two decisions that ruled Prop. 8 unconstitutional. Make a donation today.

Somewhat surprisingly, this summer’s top cinematic draw for gay men is a political commentary on the plight of the working class.

This film tells the story of a young man who has a dream, but also a credit problem. He’s good with his hands, but the only construction job he can get is non-union, and he has to haggle the foreman up to $20 an hour. To make better money, he takes up with a sleazy entertainer who dangles just enough promises to get him to do all the work. Even when he’s built up a nest egg, he can’t buy himself into enough credit to pursue his dream, so he falls into a dangerous lifestyle of living for the moment. If that doesn’t sound familiar, it’s probably because you were distracted by Channing Tatum taking his clothes off.

Director Steven Soderbergh no doubt knew that Tatum’s butt would get others into movie theater seats, but Magic Mike clearly had a deeper message about a working class life where the future is too bleak to bother planning for. Unfortunately, he made the glitz and glamour so bright that one could hardly make out the critique underneath.

My point is not that you should buy another ticket to Magic Mike so you can drink in the angst. Rather, it is that we should avoid making the same mistake with Pride.

Like Magic Mike, Pride has plenty of shiny things to keep us occupied or distracted. Inevitably, our eyes jump from bar float to bar float, evaluating the next configuration of scantily clad people, throbbing bass, and sparkly giveaways. But in doing so, we sometimes miss the public figures and community activists who pass by with barely a notice, carrying the original message of Pride. Lost in the glitter is the fact that Pride is a commemoration of the events at the Stonewall Inn in late June of 1969. While cities like San Diego have moved the dates of their festivals to create a summer-long chain of Prides across America, some, like New York and San Francisco, hang on to that historic June weekend.

The original Pride events were clearly political. People came out of the closet to say “We’re here!” Given the significant risk of showing up, every early attendee was an activist. Those risks paid off with the election of leaders such as Supervisor Harvey Milk, and later our own councilwoman-assemblywoman-senator, Christine Kehoe. Early Pride participation also paved the way for a festival and parade where we can celebrate, safely, with straight people joining our expression of diversity instead of attacking it. That safety is a blessing, but it has the unfortunate consequence of allowing us to separate the party from the activism.

Not that there is anything wrong with the party. We are at a historic place in the fight for LGBT rights at this very moment. It’s a place to celebrate, but not a place to stop. There’s too much to do. Nationally, we have the chance to win marriage equality at the ballot box in three states (Maine, Washington, and Maryland) and to elect the first openly lesbian senator (Wisconsin Rep. Tammy Baldwin). Locally, we can make Dave Roberts the first openly gay man on the County Board of Supervisors, and replace an unsupportive Rep. Brian Bilbray with straight ally Scott Peters.

Saturday, look for the political contingents among the pomp. Pick one you like, and soon after Pride is over, walk a precinct or staff a phone bank. If everyone at the parade does the same, we can lock up these races and have even more to celebrate next year. Don’t consider it volunteering – consider activism the price of admission to the Pride parade. It’s a better show, and still cheaper than another pair of Magic Mike tickets.

I try to keep my day job out of my column, but sometimes the political scene requires I bring the MD and PhD to bear. With the House effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act making headlines this week, it seemed a good time to talk about a few of the system’s dirty little secrets, on the off-chance that the Republican leadership remembers that they once promised to repeal and replace.

Let’s start with a biggie. Medicare prevents preventative health care. No one planned it that way, but it’s often true.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the leading cause of death in 2010 was heart disease (some argue cancer has caught up). For men, the first heart attack occurs at age 66. Medicare, an important and efficient system, starts picking up most of the tab at age 65. If you’re an insurance company, you have every incentive to enroll people, skimp on their preventative care, and let Medicare pick up the tab when bad things happen. For women, who have their first heart attack at age 70, it’s a no-brainer. This may not be as important as you thought because preventative health care may not save money.

Yes, good diabetes control could save us some hospital admissions for ketoacidosis, and yes, treating heart disease can help people live longer healthier lives. Both are important benefits of preventative health care, but let’s not kid ourselves about the money. Even patients well served by preventative medicine will consume health care dollars during those “extra” years, only to eventually pass of the same expensive heart attack. Or perhaps a cancer, after expensive chemotherapy, which demonstrates that health care is affordable. Immortality isn’t.

In 1996, more than $37,000 was spent in the last year of life for people 65 and older, versus $7,000 in other years. More recent studies show that we are spending nearly 1/3 of our health care resources in the last year of life; in no small part because nearly two-thirds of Americans die in a hospital or nursing facility. “But they want to keep fighting,” you say. Perhaps not. A Time/CNN poll in 2000 found that 70 percent of Americans would rather die at home. In fact, what we should really look for are interventions that save money and make patients happy, like death panels that save lives.

Gov. Sarah Palin coined the phrase “death panel” to caricature the idea that health care reform might include footing the bill for patient-initiated end-of-life care discussions. In Palin’s universe of misleading hyperbole, this somehow led to mandatory consults and eventually government bureaucrats sneaking into the ICU to pull the plug on gramma. Not so much. Even then, data showed that having conversations about end-of-life care as part of a daily ICU protocol increased patient and family satisfaction and decreased costs. Later studies have shown that patients with terminal lung cancer actually live longer if seen by a palliative care specialist. Which is why tort reform is important.

I’ve seen studies concluding that defensive medicine in the face of litigation doesn’t add that much to the national health care tab. I don’t buy it. Not as a practitioner, and certainly not as a watcher of late-night commercials asking, “Did you have [horrible outcome] after your doctor prescribed [some medication]? Call the law firm of [I’ll sue them].” I don’t want a system where bad doctors can’t be held to account; but I think we can agree on some simple things. For instance, shouldn’t doctors prescribing an FDA-approved drug for an FDA-approved indication be insulated from litigation? (We’re not.)

My lawyer friends tell me that such insulation for doctors could cause a chain of evidence/liability problems in suing drug companies. I say that’s just the kind of thing that Conservative congressmembers are well-suited to fix legislatively. They might find a few unexpected allies if they stop taking show votes against President Obama’s best honest effort and actually try to assist in making health care more humane and affordable.

“I’ll take it.” That was the response of an undocumented friend to Sen. Marco Rubio’s version of the DREAM (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) Act. Rubio’s legislation was not fully formed, but appeared to include protection against deportation for children brought to America by their parents, but without a path to citizenship.

Rubio’s plan was pre-empted earlier this month by President Obama’s decision to offer work permits to 16-30 year-old undocumented immigrants who arrived in America through no fault of their own and met certain criteria, including a high school degree and a clean record. Given congressional inaction on the DREAM Act, the president and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano enacted this policy through “prosecutorial discretion”, declining to charge and deport “Dreamers.” Like Rubio’s plan, Obama’s directive can’t offer a path to citizenship, but does provide an official work permit.

Why would my friend agree to such a plan; in effect, signing up to be a second-class citizen? Mostly, it’s about neck pain; the kind that comes from having to watch your back every minute of every day. As much as he’d rather make official what he already believes, that he is an American, he’s sick of craning his neck to see who might bring up his status.

It’s not an illegal act he’s most worried about. He’s too careful. The larger danger is that his successful and hard work would be rewarded with a promotion that would require international meetings that would require a U.S. passport; at least for the return trip. Or perhaps, a competitor for that promotion would discover his status and choose to bring it up. Under current law, he could be deported in either circumstance for simply succeeding in the American dream.

So he’ll take the Obama administration’s new plan as surely as he would have taken Sen. Rubio’s. But he, like most, is waiting for the details, because there is plenty of danger in the president’s plan.

The “work permits” will almost certainly come at the price of identifying him to the Department of Homeland Security. Add to that, letting his bosses know that he lied about his status to get a job in the first place. For some, that may be a de facto admission to using a fraudulent ID. Those are risky confessions just to get a two-year work permit that will probably be held up by a lawsuit against the policy.

If he gets the permit and keeps his job, what happens next year if the president loses? Is the permit good for two years, or can a President Romney invalidate it and have Sheriff Arpaio knock on his door? Even if they have to wait the full two years, no doubt the tough-on-immigration crowd will thank President Obama for making their deportation list.

And if President Obama is re-elected, what happens in 2014? Can he reapply? When he turns 30, does he get to finish off that 2-year permit, or does he open his birthday presents in an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center?

I can’t blame my friend or any other undocumented person for jumping at the opportunity to stop looking over his or her shoulder, but people who have had a taste of second-class citizenship, like the LGBT community, should help them demand more. The Dreamers have committed no crime, worked hard, paid taxes and contributed to society. They shouldn’t have to check-in every so often like citizenship parolees. While the president’s policy takes some pressure off them, we need to keep the pressure on Congress to recognize them, permanently, as the Americans they already are.

Watching the primary coverage, you might think money was the most nefarious thing in politics this year. Former Council President Scott Peters allegedly “bought” his place in the November election with a $1.25 million loan to his congressional campaign. The Citizens United decision will allow supporters of Rep. Brian Bilbray to use PAC money to negate Peters’ wallet. Each presidential candidate will likely have nearly $1 billion spent by his campaign or on his behalf.

Too much? Perhaps not. Given the multi-trillion federal budget hanging in the balance, spending only $2 billion on a presidential election seems almost like a show of pathetic disinterest. No amount of spending by, or on behalf of, a candidate takes away anyone’s right to vote.

The bigger danger to democracy in this election cycle is the coordinated campaign to do just that. Since the Republican wave of 2010, six states have passed laws requiring voters to show a photo ID before they can cast their ballots. To those of us who show ID all the time to buy alcohol or use a credit card or check, this may not seem a big deal, but a study for New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice found that up to 11 percent of voting age Americans lack a government issued photo ID.

Why not? People who have moved sometimes lack easy access to the birth certificates or other documentation needed to obtain a photo ID. Families struggling to put food on the table may not be able to afford the otherwise unnecessary expense. Older voters, who have often given up driving, don’t continue to renew their licenses.

Indeed, data suggest that seniors and the poor are among the Americans most likely to be disenfranchised by voter ID laws. Communities of color are also hard hit, with nearly 50 percent of voting age African Americans and Latinos in Wisconsin lacking a driver’s license. Overall, up to 20 percent of Wisconsin’s voters could be negatively impacted by the new photo ID law.

Supporters of the ID laws say they are trying to stop voter fraud. A noble goal, to be sure, but given the few reports of fraud, almost none of which would have been prevented by a photo ID law, it is largely a solution in search of a problem. Even if voter fraud and election theft were rampant, it would be hard to justify disenfranchising 1 percent of voters, much less 20 percent. America is built on the presumption of innocence, and Benjamin Franklin’s assertion “That it is better that 100 guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer.” By that math, Florida’s Dade County alone would have to show 30,000 fraudulent voters to make up for the 300 eligible voters the state attempted to purge from the voter rolls, including a 91-year-old World War II veteran.

Frankly, voter participation itself is a far bigger problem than fraud. In California, 2012 could go down as one of the lowest turn-out presidential primaries in history. The last thing we need are impediments to voting, especially when the restrictions are thinly veiled attempts to combat the growing diversity of the electorate. Instead, we should be trying to reach out to more voters and engage them in the process. If that requires more money in politics, it’s fine with me.

Most of Tuesday’s primary election results are in the books, paving the way for our first way-too-early look at the general election in November.

Obama vs. Romney. If California is in play in the presidential election, you can practice saying President Romney. Still, the amount of money and effort the candidates put into the state could have important effects on down ballot elections. An active Obama machine could turn out much needed votes for Filner and Peters. An organized effort by the Romney campaign and Mormon Church could put DeMaio over the top.

DeMaio vs. Filner. Look up polarized electorate in the dictionary and there is probably already a picture of these two. Decline-to-state voters (and some who are party affiliated) look at this election like a starving vegan looks at a choice between beef and dairy. Take a deep breath, pick one, and know there will be a bad taste in your mouth.

DeMaio will spend millions to win. Unions will try to match him in support of Filner. DeMaio will tell voters that they need him to enact Prop. B, but in a strange ricochet, Prop. B’s passage could help Filner argue he is now a needed check on a conservative pension reform plan.

In reality, this may be the odd election that comes down to endorsements, and there are three that matter. In order of increasing importance:

District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis. No friend of DeMaio early on, Dumanis became the Republican hatchet woman at the end of the primary. She seems interested in staying in the GOP’s good graces, perhaps to prevent a primary in her re-election. A Dumanis endorsement of DeMaio could bring him some moderate voters. Her silence would say almost as much in Filner’s favor.

Mayor Jerry Sanders. I think it’s a safe bet that the mayor’s video take down of DeMaio’s “Bull—it” ended the councilman’s hope of an endorsement. A Filner endorsement seems unlikely, but would be a huge coup. At this point, DeMaio is praying for the mayor’s silence, but as a fellow Republican, that again speaks volumes.

Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher. If Fletcher wants a future in electoral politics, he needs to keep his name in the headlines and endorsements are one good way. As with the mayor, DeMaio appears to be praying for silence for two reasons. First, it’s unlikely that Fletcher would endorse the guy who got the endorsement from the party he bolted. Second, he and Filner have been a father/son Vaudeville act at some of the debates, offering each other jobs in their potential administrations. If Fletcher endorses Filner, and brings along his supporters, it’s game, set and match Filner.

Side note: Fletcher’s endorsements will be a window into his future plans. To remain an independent, he needs to endorse a mix of Democrats and Republicans, and perhaps avoid Filner. Endorsing Filner with a predominantly Democratic slate means you may see a (D) next to his name in the not too distant future.

Stay tuned for coverage of the still too-close-to-call District 52 congressional race.

Nathan Fletcher

“Someone who can rule and should rule. Centuries come and go without a person like that coming into the world.” – Ser Jorah Mormont, Game of Thrones

When Nathan Fletcher left the Republican Party, I wondered (in this space) if he was trying to light a fire under his candidacy or start a centrist independent movement.

There is little doubt that Fletcher has sparked his mayoral candidacy. His defection garnered national attention, with mentions in a column by David Brooks and on MSNBC, the left’s favorite conservative writer and network. Mayoral election polls that previously had Fletcher in the low teens showed him neck and neck with Councilman Carl DeMaio in the high 20s. Whether Fletcher’s surge reflects a spike in name recognition or support is an interesting question, but not half as interesting as whether others could join his movement.

Last month, more than 30 business owners joined, by renouncing their party affiliation in solidarity with, if not outright support of, the Fletcher campaign. They could have written Fletcher checks without denying past affiliations, so it’s reasonable to assume they have a message beyond “Nathan for Mayor”. In the simplest terms, they appear to be saying “there is money for moderates in San Diego.” Which raises the question – which candidates could join the Fletcher Party?

The most obvious, should he choose to accept the Fletcher mantle, is former San Diego City Council President Scott Peters. In the race for California’s 52nd Congressional District, he is trying to find room between Rep. Brian Bilbray, the Republican incumbent, and former Assemblywoman Lori Saldaña, the progressive Democrat. Polls showing Saldaña leading him nearly 3:1 among Democrats, must make the Fletcher movement enticing.

Another potential Fletcher-ian is Andrew Poat. While District 3 Councilman Todd Gloria hasn’t yet cruised to his uncontested second term, there is no shortage of chatter about his successor. As a Republican turned Independent, Poat is a perfect fit for the Fletcher Party, though the demographics will provide a hard slog against a progressive like Stephen Whitburn. Robert Gleason, the gay man running the airport authority for a Republican mayor, might also have enough bipartisan appeal to chuck both parties and win a council race.

At the county level, Ron Roberts was a Fletcher moderate before there were Fletcher moderates. He courted the LGBT vote early in his career, and used the goodwill he engendered to ward off progressive challengers. As a Republican in technically non-partisan elections, Roberts has successfully used flyers that promote the inference that he is a Democratic choice while cleaning up on the Republicans side. Roberts could probably teach Fletcher a thing or two about the middle, and might actually give more than got if he joined up, particularly if he chooses not to run in 2014.

Party Fletcher could also recruit in heavily partisan districts, particularly where candidates have alienated part of their base. In the California 51st, no Republican is expected to survive the jungle primary, much less make the general, leaving state Sen. Juan Vargas and former Sen. Denise Moreno Ducheny to face off again in November.

Anyone looking to join team Fletcher faces a few questions. Will Fletcher accept them? An Independent run could easily be stymied by a negative Fletcher comment. Can they get party leaders to support, or not hinder, their general election bid? In November, it’s unlikely that the Republican Party will attack Fletcher when the alternative is Filner. Ditto for the Democrats if the other option is DeMaio. That may not be true of every race. Do they have a compelling personal narrative that fits Independence? Let’s face it – it is Fletcher’s story as a Marine and father who felt a duty to continued service and took a principled stance on equality that pulls it all together (along with great fundraising). He may be that leader who can and should rule. If he can make it through the primary.

President Barack Obama

At a recent leadership training session, I was told that part of the “Ying/Yang” philosophy is negative energies producing positive results. Never was that more clear than when President Obama declared his support for marriage equality in the wake of North Carolina enshrining discrimination in their constitution. But beyond the elation of the LGBT community, what was the effect of President Obama’s support on:

Marriage equality initiatives

Lest we forget, North Carolina was but the second of six states to vote on marriage equality this year. (New Hampshire went first, with their Republican legislature unable to rouse a bare majority to oppose same-sex marriage.) President Obama’s support would not have changed the result in North Carolina, but it might in Maryland.

In Maryland’s heavily Democratic legislature, the arms to twist were not Republicans (as in New York), but religious representatives largely from communities of color. The same will be true on the ballot initiative. No longer can African American leaders claim “they have the same view as President Obama” when they fail to support equality. That will help in Minnesota, Washington and Maine, but it could put marriage equality over the top in Maryland.

Voters of color

Watch Fox News or MSNBC for 10 minutes, and some pundit will discuss how Obama’s stance will cost him African American votes. Don’t be so sure. As we learned from Prop. 8, it is religiosity, not pigment, that predicts opposition to marriage equality. I find it hard to believe that religious African Americans who supported President Obama despite his pro-choice stance will stay home because he supports same-sex marriage. Particularly when the alternative is a Mormon. (Anti-Mormon sentiments among other faiths is regrettable, but factual.)

The same can be said for Latino and Asian Pacific Islander voters, except that both are even more likely to support marriage equality, regardless of religion.

The strong leader question

Ask the Bush family if Americans like their leaders to have a strong backbone. George W. Bush won a second term despite a Katrina fail because he “stuck to his guns” on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. George H.W. Bush didn’t, largely because he bailed on his “no new taxes” pledge.

In coming out for same-sex marriage, part of Obama’s math no doubt included his “strong leader” conundrum. Fearing to admit that he supported marriage equality when everyone believed he did was becoming its own albatross that wasn’t going away given four ballot initiatives in November. By admitting what we all know, Obama has taken a strong stance that Independents who disagree with him may still respect, and that Romney can’t really attack without explaining why he has regressed from being (supposedly) more supportive of LGBT rights than Ted Kennedy to being less supportive than Dick Cheney.

The 2012 election

Politicos will be frantically watching national polls for the next few weeks, trying to guess how Obama’s support of marriage equality will affect his re-election prospects. They are wasting their time.

Presidential elections aren’t national. They are a series of state elections. Imagine that President Obama’s position gains a million votes in California and loses 3 million in Texas. With respect to the popular vote, he’s down 2 million. In the Electoral College, nothing has changed, because he still wins California and still loses Texas.

What matters is how this affects the swing states that will decide the Electoral College. On election night, it was Obama’s victory in Ohio that seemed to make his victory certain, though in retrospect, statistician and blogger Nate Silver says it was Colorado that gave him electoral vote 271. Both of those states will be in play again in 2012, and his support for marriage equality may help him in both. Coloradans, like other Mountain West voters, have an independent/libertarian streak and think the government should stay out of marriage. The swing vote in Ohio and other Rust Belt states is often Catholics, many of whom support marriage equality despite the edicts of Pope Benedict.

In reality, the 2012 election remains more likely to be decided by the economy than social issues. But should the election come down to marriage equality, my money is on President Obama, a spectacular campaigner with a principled stance who has six months to sell it.

San Diego mayoral candidate Nathan Fletcher has often voiced his support of same-sex marriage. Visit LGBTweekly.com to read the Politically Aware analysis of how President Obama’s declaration of support for same-sex marriage might affect Fletcher’s electoral chances.

Dave Roberts

With a gay councilman a lesbian district attorney, a newly independent assemblyman who supports marriage equality and a straight U.S. congressman with a 100 percent score from the Human Rights Campaign, local LGBT political coverage has understandably focused on the race for San Diego mayor. While there is no doubt that electing an openly gay or lesbian mayor would be historic, it’s not clear what policy victory it would herald. Democrats have been sharing power on the City Council for some time, and since Mayor Sanders’ support of marriage equality, LGBT issues haven’t been exactly languishing in a drawer in City Hall.

San Diego County is a different story. No resolutions in support of DADT repeal or marriage equality – though there is a policy to support the repeal of birthright citizenship. No Human Relations Commission to bring such issues to the board. Oversight of the CalFresh program recognized nationally as a model of what NOT to do.

These are just a few of the reasons the LGBT and progressive communities need to pay attention to Dave Roberts’ bid to replace retiring District 3 supervisor, Pam Slater-Price. Roberts would be the first openly gay man elected to the board. He would be the first new face on the board in more than 16 years. Though the election is technically non-partisan, he would be the first Democrat in more than 20 years. Even District 4, which includes most of the City, continues to elect Republican Supervisor Ron Roberts despite a registration advantage for Democrats.

“County supervisor” may not sound as sexy as “mayor”, but it is actually a more powerful position by political metrics. Each county supervisor is one of only five people controlling the strings, rather than one of ten (nine councilmembers and the mayor). With 3,769,191 residents, the County population is nearly three times that of the City. The budget, $4.86 billion, dwarfs the City’s $2.71 billion.

That budget funds services crucial to the LGBT community. Federal and state healthcare dollars for the otherwise uninsured come in the form of County Medical Services (CMS). For LGBT youth disowned by their parents, and adults who can’t access insurance from their same-sex partner, these programs provide critical support. Or at least they could.

The offices of the district attorney and sheriff are also run by the County, which becomes important when determining whether violent acts against our community are prosecuted as hate crimes, and whether acts of civil disobedience are prosecuted at all. Counties also perform numerous administrative functions, including issuing marriage licenses.

Roberts has a number of things in his favor in what is sure to be a tight race. He has post-partisan appeal, with endorsements from leading LGBT and straight Democrats, independent icon Donna Frye, and retiring Supervisor Slater-Price, a Republican. His biography includes private sector and governmental experience relevant to many of the counties important functions.

If we’ve learned anything from electing LGBT officials, it’s that having a seat at the table changes more than one vote. It softens opposition by putting the face of a colleague on our issues. It serves as a focal point for coalition building, and can bring silent supporters out of the closet. It provides an access point for new ideas – in this case anything in the past 20 years. Putting Roberts on the board could do much more than make 5-0 votes 4-1. It could get the LGBT community off the menu and on the invite list in San Diego County government.

Most Americans think of April 15 as tax day. But for baseball fans, it’s Jackie Robinson Day, a celebration of the man who 65 years ago broke baseball’s color barrier. The players all wear number 42, and stadiums around the country have pre-game events.

The announcers appropriately recapped Robinson’s accomplishments. As an athlete, he was the first UCLA Bruin to letter in four sports, and a NCAA long jump champion. As a player, he remains one of the best second basemen in history, having won the Rookie of the Year Award (at 28), a Most Valuable Player Award, a batting title and the sabermetrics crowd. His “wins above replacement” (WAR) was best in the league twice, in the top 10 six times (according to ESPN). As a man, he underwent a court martial for not accepting segregation while in the military (he was later given an honorable discharge), and gracefully heard all manner of racial slurs for playing the game as well as any white man, and better than most.

Too often, baseball promotes the Jackie Robinson story as a victory of Major League Baseball achieving integration. Fortunately, Sunday night, one of announcers caught himself, suggesting “perhaps we shouldn’t be too proud of just treating people equally.” Perhaps you should not.

Jackie Robinson deserved the adulation he continues to receive, and probably more. But baseball? Not so much. Major League Baseball (MLB) is committed to profit, not equality, and it wanted the African American market. As a monopoly with an anti-trust exemption, there was no real risk that fans would leave in droves over the long term. The risk was to the players, like Jackie Robinson.

MLB’s notable lack of an openly gay player is an even better argument against a commitment to equality. Statistically, and simply realistically, there must be multiple gay baseball players. The roster of players on the DL (Down Low, not Disabled List) may not be known to Commissioner Bud Selig, but it’s hardly unknowable. In many ways, adding a gay player today would be easier than adding Robinson in 1947.

Robinson’s debut, of course, was not an accident. It was a well-orchestrated effort between MLB and the Dodgers, choosing Robinson for what he could do off the field more than on it. If Selig made it clear that it was time for an out baseball player, he wouldn’t even have the problem of choosing from outside the league – he would just have to support a courageous current player.

It’s so intuitive, in fact, that one wonders why it hasn’t happened. With half the country supporting marriage equality, the risk seems small, but MLB whiffs at even small chances to show tolerance. Pitcher Carl Pavano was recently the victim of alleged blackmail by a jilted lover from a gay relationship. In a world of It Gets Better videos, Pavano, or the Twins, or baseball could have signaled that there is nothing wrong with being gay. In a league that can make rules on facial hair and perform random urine tests, exerting that sort of message control would seem easy.

Unfortunately, MLB is still fighting for ratings based on an antiquated notion of machismo and how it sells. Despite the efforts of athlete activists like Hudson Taylor and John Amaechi, owners seem worried that the first sport to have a gay player will lose market share to the others. So perhaps it’s time for another approach. Imagine the difference if there were an LGBT owner, who could make it clear that his or her team wanted diversity.

Imagine the coverage if MLB tried to keep them out. The Padres are for sale. Now all we need is a billionaire. Paging Bruce Bastian.

Spoiler Alert: If you don’t want to know more about The Hunger Games, read no further. You should probably stay in your house and turn off your phone and computer, too.

The Hunger Games has a little something for everyone. The sci-fi crowd gets a post-apocalyptic planet with both high-tech hovercrafts and pre-industrial foraging. Romantics get a heroine deciding between two suitors, but who, unlike Bella Swan (Twilight), could also make it on her own. Action buffs get a battle royale that makes WrestleMania obsolete, pitting two children from each of 12 districts in a fight to the death.

The politically aware? We get the most. Even Suzanne Collins, the author, admits that The Hunger Games is an allegory of how oppressive regimes use entertainment to control the masses. The novel evokes the past, with the name of the country, Panem, coming from the Latin for the “bread and circuses” of ancient Rome. It is set in a future North America, after both an apocalypse and the “The Dark Days”, when the poorer Districts including the now defunct 13 tried to overthrow the oppressive Capitol.

Yet there are uncomfortable analogies to the present, particularly between the political and economic “haves” and “have nots.” Call them the 1 percent or the military industrial complex, the “haves” may occupy Wall Street skyscrapers and suburban mansions rather than a Capitol, (a few of the males were recently spotted at Augusta National) but they have tributes just the same. Usually, the entertainment is minority groups fighting with each other, but too often the tribute really is a child, sometimes in a hoodie in Florida.

Any artifice that in-fighting among minority groups isn’t arranged and dubiously nurtured was destroyed by the Human Rights Campaign’s release earlier this month of documents from the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). Their internal memos document a clear and specific strategy to drive a wedge between the LGBT community and the African American and Latino communities.

Ironically, NOM thinks they are part of the powerful upper class diffusing the power of the LGBT community and communities of color with further division. In many ways, however, religious interests are just another group of have-nots who are battling at the pleasure of the real economic power brokers. Like the denizens of District 2, they get a few extra scraps for helping with enforcement, but they’ll never get an invite to the party. As Thomas Frank noted in What’s the Matter with Kansas? there has been a concerted effort to convince social conservatives to subjugate their own economic interests to a war between “average Americans” and “liberal elites.”

Whether Trayvon Martins killing was racially motivated remains to be proven, but it would be far from the first time communities of color have been pitted against each other. Blaming Latinos for African American job losses was almost a parlor game for Southern conservatives, who gleefully watch their candidates survive in increasingly diverse communities. These same inter-minority battles are seen throughout the country, where potential allies argue just enough to let the current power brokers win elections.

When underserved and underrepresented communities fight, the only winners are those trying to hold on to power. As in the arena, the answer is coalition building – deciding to fight the system instead of each other. That requires setting aside some differences and looking for truths – like the fact that aversion to same-sex marriage isn’t racial, it’s religious. Outreach to faith communities will do far more for LGBT rights than bashing other communities who are fighting for their own freedoms. Similarly, the un- and under-employed must realize that wartime tax cuts for the wealthy and fast and loose financiers are more to blame for job losses than undocumented immigrants.

As she shepherds her District 12 charges to their annual slaughter in The Hunger Games, pink-haired Capitolite Effie Trinkett tells them “may the odds be ever in your favor.“ It’s not true for them, or us, at the moment. But if we continue to look for common ground, and refuse to be wedged apart, we might start taking a few hands from the house.

Last week started with a Monday mayoral forum at the Old Globe Theatre, where three Republican candidates cozied up to an audience of non-profit volunteers, while the lone Democratic candidate phoned in.

The most contentious moment was Assemblyman Fletcher’s closing argument, where his attacks on Councilman Carl DeMaio felt awkward in an otherwise positive event.

By the time of Wednesday’s forum at The LGBT Center, Fletcher had become an Independent; and contrast was now name of the mayoral game. While DeMaio and Fletcher attacked each other’s LGBT records, Filner played to the crowd’s sense of humor as well as its likely political leanings. Bonnie Dumanis held her ground.

For those who missed either or both of the debates – or left confused, here is a recap …

DeMaio vs. Fletcher

Fletcher threw down the gauntlet at the Monday debate during his closing statement, accusing DeMaio of altering his talking points to suit whatever audience he’s speaking to. DeMaio struck back Wednesday, glancing at Fletcher and suggesting that SOMEONE had put out a hit piece on DeMaio’s sexuality. Fletcher countered by citing DeMaio’s attack on him for supporting the FAIR Education Act, a point he hammered home all night, asking DeMaio whether he would have supported SB-48.

Councilmember Carl DeMaio

Even at The LGBT Center, DeMaio put fiscal reform over LGBT issues, saying the best thing he could do for San Diego’s LGBT community was to be the best mayor he could be.

Best Moment: DeMaio had never seemed more real than Monday, when he discussed how his own adolescence made homelessness a core issue to him. He also gets kudos for keeping it together Wednesday, where members of his own community heckled and booed him. Even those who question his vision would have a hard time indicting his toughness.

Worst Moment: Telling your staff, from the stage, to call your next event and explain your tardiness seems rude, not indulgent.

District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis

San Diego’s most popular politician always comes across as pleasant and competent. She’d be a runaway choice for city manager – unfortunately for Dumanis, we don’t have a city manager – but she doesn’t always show the strong leadership San Diegans seem to want in a mayor.

Best Moment: Her closing statements. When Dumanis tells you how long she’s worked for San Diego, and what it means to her, it’s hard not to see her hands as the safest place for America’s Finest City.

Worst Moment: At the Old Globe debate, the moderators asked for a four-word answer. DeMaio, Fletcher, and Filner all complied. Dumanis went for about 30 more. That made her answer seem less clear, not more.

Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher

Whether a Republican or an Independent, Fletcher enjoys the power to connect in a way that stirs the heart (and a dislike for DeMaio that raises eyebrows).

Best Moment: Fletcher talking about service. By discussing Iraq, his children, and his commitment to San Diego, Fletcher can bring a crowd to tears and to their feet like no other candidate in this, or perhaps any, race.

Worst Moment: Fletcher seemed to get the short end of every exchange of pleasantries with Rep. Filner. By the end of Wednesday’s forum, he seemed two feet shorter, and ready to take any of a variety of jobs that Filner might offer in his administration.

Rep. Bob Filner

Many wonder why Filner isn’t campaigning more. Turns out he has a job. His opponents should hope congressional votes keep him phoning it in, because Filner in person is a dangerous presence to his opponents.

Best Moment: With comments about his opponent’s party switch and numerous job offers, Filner seemed to make Fletcher shrink in front of our eyes Wednesday, doing it in a way DeMaio must envy.

Worst Moment: When you’re the oldest candidate in the race, getting confused about your own stance on issues doesn’t play well – nor does swearing. Grumpy Old Men is a funny movie, but a bad political statement.

The word automaton has been with us since the 17th century, but you rarely hear it save at a robotics exhibit. Until, that is, it glommed on to Mitt Romney in his failed 2008 presidential campaign and his current repeat performance. Yet as derogatory as “soulless automaton” sounds, it is far too nice a thing to say about the former governor.

For comparison, let’s look at America’s best known, if fictional, soulless automaton: Star Trek’s Lt. Cmdr. Data. There are surely superficial similarities. Neither can tell a joke nor relate to people. Both are tiresome in their own way, Data with his Pinocchio-like desire to be a “real boy” and Mitt with his inability to hide – I mean justify – I mean humanize – his wealth. They have similarly immobile hair.

Sadly, the similarities end at the surface. Data was driven only by underlying programming to protect human life and his oath to the Federation. Nuanced positions on the prime directive were difficult; flip-flops were unthinkable, except in the surprisingly frequent circumstance that his programming was malfunctioning. Through seven seasons and four movies, Data was comforting in his predictability, as an automaton should be.

Romney, on the other hand, seems to update his core programming more often that Windows. Romney 2002 said, “All citizens deserve equal rights regardless of their sexual preference.” Romney 2008 rejected same-sex marriage, a change maintained in the 2012 model. For the record, that does not make him a stronger advocate for LGBT rights than Sen. Ted Kennedy, as Romney 2002 once claimed. That Romney was also for an individual mandate in Massachusetts healthcare, which would be a model for the nation, until it was inconvenient in the Republican primary.

If Data said, “I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose, and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard,” you could pretty much take it to the bank. Or wherever you have a deposit box in a futuristic moneyless society. But Romney 2008 recanted that promise of Romney 2002, and the pro-life stance part of Romney 2012’s “severe conservatism.” Is he no longer devoted to his word? Dedicated? Both? What words would assure Americans that this was a core stance that wouldn’t change.

Actually, Mittens is more like Data’s evil twin brother, Lore, an android whose emotions chip made him more human. So human, in fact, that his ambition ran away with him, leading him to do anything to accumulate power, including harming those he loved. Romney 2012 will clearly say anything it takes to get the Republican nomination. What would he do to win the general? Selling us out to a Crystalline Entity seems a real possibility.

Mitt’s father, Gov. George Romney, rued saying that he had been “brainwashed” about the Vietnam War. For Mitt, admitting to brainwashing, or at least a reboot, might be the best way to explain the various Romney models. It would play better than his alleged stem cell conversion, and be more believable than some of his other historical fiction.

As a gay man, I’d feel a whole lot better if Mitt Romney were an automaton, so at least I’d know if I were a targeted constituency or targeted as a scapegoat. Naturally, I’d prefer one of the older versions, say Romney 1994 or 2002. If I can’t get that programming, perhaps he could be just a touch more like Data. When new situations forced him to disobey orders, Data usually tried to lock himself in the brig. I’d be happy if Mitt could just lock in one position. I’m just not sure how he’ll convince me when he does.