Council Members Get Personal Over Same-Sex Marriage

The same-sex marriage debate rippled through Los Angeles City Hall on Wednesday, prompting an unusual outpouring of personal declarations from all corners of the council chamber.

At issue was a statewide initiative, slated for the March 2000 ballot, that would mandate California recognize only marriages between a man and a woman. The measure, sponsored by state Sen. William “Pete” Knight (R-Palmdale), mirrors an unsuccessful 1996 bill backed by Knight--and which the council opposed.

Councilman Mike Feuer, who introduced a resolution to oppose the current initiative, harked back to the decision he and his wife made to marry nearly 16 years ago.

“We could’ve just lived together,” he said. “But there was something qualitatively different about getting married.”

Jackie Goldberg, a lesbian councilwoman, recalled that during a recent hospitalization she had to sign legal papers giving her partner of 20 years the power of attorney.

“I feel married, but on every document I have to put ‘single,’ ” she said. “That is, frankly, a fiction. I am not an unmarried woman in any practical sense of the word.”

Councilman Rudy Svorinich, meanwhile, declared that “being a Catholic Christian is as much a part of Rudy Svorinich” as being a father or husband. While he alluded to “heart-wrenching” conversations with other council members, Svorinich said Feuer’s resolution was “in conflict with my religion.

“I’m not willing to give that up today,” he said.

In the end, the council approved Feuer’s resolution by a 9-2 vote, with Svorinich and Hal Bernson, who said merely that he didn’t think the city should be involved in the matter, voting no.

*

HIGH BAR: Are the requirements to run for Los Angeles City Council elitist, exclusionary and designed to protect incumbents?

That is the question being raised by some of the dozen potential City Council candidates disqualified from the ballot for failing to submit at least 500 signatures on nominating petitions, as required by the city election code.

By comparison, it takes only 40 signatures to qualify for the ballot when running for Congress or 20 signatures to make the ballot for county supervisor--both offices being positions that represent more people than do council members.

“I believe the requirement for City Council is too high,” said David Silva, a carpenter who failed to make the ballot for the 7th Council District, representing the northeast San Fernando Valley, because he collected only 350 signatures.

“It doesn’t give the smaller person who is just coming in to the political process a chance,” Silva said.

Schoolteacher Connie Acebo Rodriguez and student activist Alfredo Urrutia Jr. also failed to collect 500 signatures to make the ballot for the 7th District seat.

At one point 14 people expressed interest in that seat, but only five qualified, though two more still have a chance.

Among the qualifiers was Ollie McCaulley, who failed to collect enough signatures four years ago. Raul Godinez II, Alex Padilla, Barbara Perkins and Tony Lopez have also qualified, and signatures are still being counted for Corinne Sanchez and Dudley Chatman.

Political consultant Parke Skelton, who is working for Sanchez, said he believes the 500-signature requirement is aimed at protecting incumbents: “I think the intent is to raise the bar for challengers to make it hard to challenge incumbents.”

He said it is onerous to get 500 signatures of registered voters in a council district with low voter registration, especially considering the rule that a voter cannot sign more than one candidate’s petition.

Members of the elected Charter Reform Commission agreed that the bar was too high, and last year recommended that only 250 signatures be required for council offices.

“I think it’s too bad that people who are otherwise good people can’t qualify because of that requirement,” said elected commissioner Rob Glushon, an Encino attorney.

He said many candidates have to hire signature gatherers, which may give the advantage to those with financial backing from special interests.

“You ought to be able to go out yourself with a group of supporters and get signatures,” Glushon said.

However, as part of a compromise package with the City Council-appointed charter commission, the elected commission agreed to keep the signature requirement at 500 in the proposed new charter to be submitted to the City Council and then the voters.

Geoffrey Garfield, director of the elected panel, said some commissioners may still try to get a separate measure on the ballot to reduce the signature requirement.

A similar proposal to reduce the signature requirement was shot down by the City Council a few years ago, said City Clerk Mike Carey. “The council wanted to keep it at 500 under the theory that it shows you are a serious candidate,” Carey said.

Political consultant Rick Taylor, who is working for Padilla in the 7th District race, said 500 signatures should be required as a way of weeding out frivolous or marginal candidates.

“The other way,” Taylor said, “any jerk or idiot can run.”

*

McCLINTOCK REPORT: Conservative Assemblyman Tom McClintock (R-Northridge) is never without something provocative to say. And he’s never been afraid to share his views with everyone.

So perhaps it’s only natural that the maverick anti-tax crusader has gone “All McClintock, All the Time” with his own media venture of sorts.

For the past year and a half, McClintock, 42, has been publishing his own monthly newsletter to communicate his opinions to 4,000 of his supporters.

Dubbed “Notes on the State of California,” it is essentially a compilation of McClintock speeches and op-ed writings from the previous month--a way for McClintock to preach his version of the conservative gospel.

“It’s a vehicle to get those views out to a wider audience,” said McClintock, who wrote a conservative newspaper column for the now-defunct Thousand Oaks News Chronicle while he was attending UCLA. “I get a lot of good feedback every month.”

Leading this month’s edition is an article titled “A Tale of Two Parties.” In it, McClintock urges Republicans, still reeling from last November’s Democratic romp, to actually embrace divisiveness--in a Ronald Reagan kind of way, that is--and ignore calls to moderate their positions.

Another article is titled “Dead Center,” and ridicules Gov. Gray Davis and others for championing middle-of-the-road views that, in McClintock’s opinion, have been proven ineffective in solving California’s problems.

“Reagan often urged Republicans to ‘paint our positions in bold colors, and not pale pastels,’ ” McClintock wrote, recalling the Republican glory days. “There is an element in the Republican Party today that would have called--in fact, did call--this approach ‘divisive’ and ‘polarizing.’ Indeed, it was.”

McClintock isn’t focused on the past, however--he’s plowing forward with a campaign to win the state Senate seat representing the northwestern San Fernando Valley and parts of Santa Clarita, which will be vacated by Sen. Cathie Wright (R-Simi Valley) due to term limits. He’s already switched the publication of his newsletter to his McClintock for Senate Committee, and is hitting up its readers for cash, informing them that each month’s delivery of McClintockisms costs $800 to put out.

*

Times staff writers Patrick McGreevy and Miguel Bustillo contributed to this column.