O’Connell Vote Called Pivotal for Bill Against Gay Marriages

The letters and phone calls keep coming. Angry ones. Friendly ones. Some filled with dispassionate reasoning, others raging with fire and brimstone.

As the state Senate nears a key decision on gay marriages, Sen. Jack O’Connell has been targeted as the pivotal vote on whether California will legally recognize same-gender marriages sanctioned by other states.

The Democratic senator, whose district includes large areas of western Ventura County, remains publicly undecided on the issue--a position that has put him in the cross hairs of an intense lobbying campaign.

Conservative Christian activists and taxpayer advocates have deluged his office with letters, petitions, phone calls. They even hired a pollster to tally the overwhelming opposition to gay marriages among voters in his district.

Given the views of his constituents, conservatives think O’Connell (Santa Barbara) can be swayed to support an Assembly-passed bill that would deny legal recognition to same-sex marriages performed in other states.

They say O’Connell, whose district also covers all of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties, holds the fifth vote they need to push the bill through the nine-member Senate Judiciary Committee.

“If Jack O’Connell votes for the bill, it will pass,” said Andy Pugno, an aide to the legislation’s author, Assemblyman Pete Knight (R-Palmdale). “We have plenty of votes on the Senate floor.”

Not to be outmatched, civil libertarians and gay activists have mounted their own furious letter-writing campaign to persuade O’Connell to denounce the bill as an attack on human dignity, fairness and equality.

“If they send 65 form letters, we send 55 heart-filled personal letters,” said Neil Demers-Grey, director of Unity Pride Coalition of Ventura County. “If he has read them, he knows what is the right thing to do. Gays and lesbians who want to enter into a relationship for the rest of their lives ought to be afforded the same rights as heterosexuals.”

*

As for O’Connell, he said the intensity of the heat is approaching what he felt during the Legislature’s ban of assault weapons. His vote in favor of the weapons ban spawned an unsuccessful recall campaign against him.

“This time it’s been a ton of correspondence and a ton of telephone calls from both sides,” O’Connell said. “I’ve met with an awful lot of people.”

So far, O’Connell has declined to divulge his views, saying he is trying to keep an open mind. He predicts he will not make a decision until the Judiciary Committee holds a public hearing on the bill.

“I treat this bill like all the others,” he said. “I want to do what is in the best interest of my district.”

The issue of same-sex marriages has resurfaced this year because a court case in Hawaii is expected soon to legalize such unions in that state.

Under the U.S. Constitution, California is supposed to recognize legal contracts, such as marriages, from other states. So conservative members of state legislatures across the country and members of Congress have responded with dozens of bills to allow states to deny such legal status.

Knight said he is pushing his bill because he is concerned about the costs of extending benefits to same-sex partners of state workers. Gay and lesbian couples who obtain marriage licenses from other states would be entitled to the same health, legal and financial benefits afforded heterosexual couples.

Moreover, the debate has taken on moralistic tones.

The bill, Knight said, “protects California from being forced to cross the line from a position of tolerance to one of government promotion of the homosexual lifestyle.”

Propelled by arguments about eroding the sanctity of marriage and demeaning family values, the bill zipped through the Republican-controlled Assembly in January.

These arguments have been embraced by conservatives in the Senate.

State Sen. Cathie Wright (R-Simi Valley) said that although she struggled with her decision because she has friends who are homosexuals, she believes marriage should not be legalized for same-sex couples.

*

In a form letter to constituents, she writes about America’s 50% divorce rate and how the breakup of American families, if continued unchecked, will lead to the breakup of American society.

“Therefore, I oppose any proposal that threatens the institution of marriage and the traditional family,” Wright wrote. “In my opinion, same sex marriages do just that, I will oppose any effort to legalize them.”

Ellen McCormick, legislative advocate for LIFE: California’s Lesbian, Gay and AIDS Lobby, said these arguments echo those promoting laws that banned interracial marriages. These laws existed in some states until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional in 1967.

“They have no legitimate argument to defend such blatant discrimination,” McCormick said. “So they go for the emotional, homophobic . . . God meant it this way. What will happen to the children? They associate gay marriage with the decline of Western civilization.”

Wright is one of three Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee who support Knight’s bill. Two of the six Democrats on the committee have announced their opposition.

Four Democratic senators have not taken public positions, and thus have received a blizzard of mail and a blitzkrieg of telephone calls jamming phone lines.

“It’s been very disruptive to the office,” said Kelly Jensen, chief of staff to Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles M. Calderon (D-Whittier). Calderon has not taken a public position on the bill because he wants to ensure that it receives a fair hearing.

Of the four uncommitted senators, O’Connell is now receiving the most attention. Lobbyists on both sides expect Sen. Hilda Solis (D-El Monte) to ultimately oppose the gay-marriage ban.

And given that Calderon and Sen. Nick Petris (D-Oakland) cannot run for reelection under voter-imposed term limits, conservatives have nudged O’Connell the hardest to break from Democratic ranks, reminding him that he represents a relatively conservative district.

*

The Capitol Resource Institute, a Sacramento-based conservative group focused on family issues, released poll results last week showing that O’Connell’s voting constituents, by a 2-1 margin, oppose giving legal recognition to homosexual marriages.

“If Jack O’Connell sees himself as a representative of the district, he should follow the will of his voters,” said Randy Thomasson, assistant director of the institute. Thomasson toured O’Connell’s district last week, making television and radio appearances to drive home the point.

“Once this bill passes committee, it will be downhill from there,” Thomasson said.

The gay and lesbian lobby fears that O’Connell could break from the traditional Democratic position on this politically explosive issue--as did President Clinton earlier this month when he said he would sign a similar bill in Congress, if it passes.

One memo circulated by a gay strategist analyzed O’Connell’s position this way: “His district is marginal and he fears losing it to the GOP dogs if he does not support this piece of poorly drafted, unconstitutional, discriminatory legislation.”

Meanwhile, Democrats are exploring a possible escape route for O’Connell and other uncommitted senators.

One possibility, they said, would be amending Knight’s bill with provisions to allow gay and lesbian couples to officially register their relationships with the state and share a few of the rights now enjoyed by married couples.

*

The Legislature in 1994 passed a measure along similar lines that would have set up a legal framework for domestic partners, required hospitals to grant partners visitation rights and changed state law relating to wills and conservatorships.

But Gov. Pete Wilson vetoed the bill.

Both the conservative Christian and the gay lobbyists vow to fight any amendments. Both sides want a direct showdown over the gay marriage issue.

If the bill comes up for a vote without amendments, it puts O’Connell in an extremely difficult position, said John Davies, a Santa Barbara political consultant and longtime O’Connell advisor.

“The question he’s got to be asking himself is how much damage would his vote cause,” Davies said. “If he votes for it, will the gays and lesbians use it as a litmus test forever? If he votes against it, will the conservatives forget about it in two years when he runs for reelection?”