Kevin And Don Respond To Being Self Loathing

Looking back at their journey from the Stonewall Democratic Club to Log Cabin Republicans, they claim it was one that was actually started by the democrats. After being told that marriage as not a priority on the agenda in 1995, they became disillusioned with the DEMS. For a decade they felt like they did not belong until they met the republicans of the Log Cabin Republican Club and discovered they too shared a dream of marriage equality. This blog is now a digital time capsule of their time as Republicans and moderated by a friend and supporter.

Friday, November 14, 2008

CIVIL RIGHTS The Law And Proposition 8

((l-r) Don Norte, Kevin Norte, July 7, 2008, Provincetown, MA.)
The law and Prop. 8
California's Supreme Court will have to untangle two important legal questions.
By Goodwin Liu
November 10, 2008

Is Proposition 8 the last word on same-sex marriage in California? A debate that started this year in the state Supreme Court met its latest verdict at the ballot box Tuesday. But in the coming months, the issue will be back in front of the court, which has to sort through two important legal questions.

Proposition 8 adds a provision to the California Constitution that says: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," effectively overruling the court's May 15 decision allowing same-sex couples to wed. After the initiative passed, its opponents filed a legal challenge, claiming Proposition 8 should be invalidated because it was not enacted under the proper procedures for changing the state Constitution.

They have a good argument, but one that faces difficult precedents.

Article 18 of the state Constitution provides that the document can be changed by amendment or by revision. An amendment may be enacted by initiative with a majority vote, whereas a revision must first be passed by two-thirds of the Legislature before being submitted to the voters. (California's Legislature has voted twice in recent years to legalize same-sex marriage, but the governor vetoed it.)

Does Proposition 8 qualify as a revision? Under the case law, it's a revision only if it "substantially alters the basic governmental framework set forth in our Constitution." Proposition 8 does exactly that, its opponents say, by eliminating a fundamental right for a specific group, and by limiting the judiciary's constitutional role in enforcing equal protection and privacy guarantees.

Historically, however, the court has taken a narrow view of what kind of measure "substantially alters the basic governmental framework." For example, neither Proposition 13, which capped property tax rates, nor Proposition 140, which imposed legislative term limits, were held to be a revision of the Constitution despite their far-reaching transformation of state government. Moreover, a 1972 initiative that reinstated the death penalty after the court had declared it cruel and unusual punishment was also deemed an amendment, not a revision, even though it directly limited the judiciary's power to declare fundamental rights.

Nevertheless, there are good reasons for the California Supreme Court to rethink its jurisprudence in this area. Even if Proposition 8 does not "substantially alter the basic governmental framework," there is no question that it targets a historically vulnerable group and eliminates a very important right. Changing the Constitution -- the state's paramount law -- in such a momentous way arguably calls for deliberative rather than direct democracy. Indeed, as early as the nation's founding, our constitutional tradition has favored representative democracy over simple majority rule when it comes to deciding minority rights.

The second question is whether Proposition 8 means the state must nullify the roughly 18,000 same-sex marriage licenses issued in recent months. Although the answer is not clear-cut, retroactivity is generally not favored in the law because people are entitled to conduct their lives in reliance on the law as it exists today, without having to anticipate how it might change in the future. Same-sex couples who got married may have decided to move in together, to buy property or even to adopt children in reliance on the personal commitment and societal legitimacy that accompany marriage.

Courts have been willing, in some instances, to apply a law retroactively if its retroactivity is clearly stated in the law itself or is clearly intended by the voters. But the text of Proposition 8 contains no clear statement to this effect. The official voter information guide contains a statement that Proposition 8 applies to marriages "regardless of when or where performed," but this language is buried in the fifth paragraph of the proponents' rebuttal to the opponents' argument. That's thin support for a finding of retroactivity.

Why does it matter whether gay couples remain married in a post-Proposition 8 world? One answer has to do with the dignity and stature that marriage confers. Even if marriage provides no greater rights than domestic partnership, a separate-but-equal regime unavoidably signals that same-sex relationships are of lesser worth.

Another answer has to do with the future of gay marriage writ large. Gay marriage is in the cross-hairs of a culture war, and culture wars, both sides know, are won through symbols, examples and personal experiences that shape one's worldview.

Each of the 18,000 same-sex couples and their families in California represents a potential catalyst for broader acceptance of gay marriage. The more familiar we become with gay spouses and their children -- as our friends, neighbors and co-workers -- the more gay marriage will become an unremarkable thread of our social fabric. Proposition 8 may then come to be viewed, in the long run, not as an enduring constitutional principle but as the will of a narrow and ultimately temporary majority.

Goodwin Liu is associate dean and professor of law at UC Berkeley.
Copyright © 2008, Los Angeles Times

Thursday, November 13, 2008
The law and Prop. 8: California's Supreme Court will have to untangle two important legal questions.
Posted by Michael Ginsborg

Premature Emancipation? A Pragmatist's View of the Gay Marriage Struggle

Premature Emancipation? A Pragmatist's View of the Gay Marriage Struggle

By Gary Cohan (Published Originally In The Huffington Post)
Posted: November 5, 2008 11:01 AM

Albert Einstein famously opined that the definition of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

After the crushing blow to the lives and psyches of gay people nationwide with the passage of discriminatory ballot initiatives in the Election 2008 referenda in California, Arizona and Florida banning gay marriages, I suggest that the gay community's political strategists post Professor Einstein's erudite piece of advice on their office walls. One needs to look no further than to the well-intentioned members of (my own) gay community's leadership for answers.

And, I'm sorry to say that my colleagues and I -- people of great strength, intellect and heartfelt determination -- who fought so hard and contributed so much to this effort may not be in the mood to tolerate constructive criticism. My apologies, but while we may not be happy with where the ultimate responsibility for this debacle rests, self-reflection and internal debate are always constructive.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I joyously married my same-sex partner of ten years in July 2008, drinking from the cup of the newfound liberty afforded by the California Supreme Court decision on May 15, 2008 which reversed the heinously misguided voter initiative of November 2000 that banned same sex marriages. I share some of the responsibility for this electoral misstep with my like-minded gay peers -- I wanted to get married, the California Supreme Court cleared a path, so why not take the step that brought us near-equality with our heterosexual counterparts?

Why, Tuesday night, did gay people on the correct side of the U.S. Constitution and American history, fail to persuade enough voters that our arguments were valid?

Three simple reasons -- we lost on Tuesday because we failed to heed the lessons of civil rights history, the examples set by our counterparts in other nations and the tactics of smart negotiation.

The gay civil rights movement forced "Red and Blue America" and their religious institutions -- most notably the Mormon Church, which funneled tens of millions of out-of-state dollars into the "Yes on Proposition 8" California ballot initiative -- to hold an electoral referendum on the meaning of marriage -- probably the most foolish thing a civil rights movement can do when the very word "marriage" already defines an unconstitutional mélange of Church and State.

Marriage in the United States is, first and foremost, a civil contract between two consenting adults which binds them together in a secular legal union that confers over 1000 special civil rights and privileges not currently afforded to committed gay couples. The most important are financial security (social security and pension survivorship benefits, tax benefits, etc.) and socially-recognized spousal status (e.g. the ability to make decisions for and visit one's ill spouse in the hospital, etc.). Remember, one has to obtain a "marriage license" from the State before one can legally marry in any religious or civil ceremony.

It is manifestly hypocritical that heterosexual couples with no intention of reproducing can marry in a civil ceremony and be granted all of these rights -- ostensibly designed to "protect children" in a family unit of shared responsibility and pooled financial resources -- while gay couples who have lived as a family for decades are granted none of these "protections."

All parties in the transaction are citizens of this great nation. Why then does the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution not afford the same opportunities to all Americans, gay or straight? The short answer is that it does and it will. The real question is when?

The "institution of marriage" remains erroneously conflated with all sorts of religious connotations which, in this theocratic-leaning society, have become a divisive front in the culture wars of this nation. The Karl Rove-trained wedge-issue strategists have embraced it in their "guns, gays and God" plans to divide and conquer the electorate. And it works.

Poorly informed voters, anti-gay zealots and your well-meaning next door neighbor are drawn to this "definition of marriage" as between one man and one woman because it is steeped in tradition, close to their hearts, what they are taught in Church on Sunday and how they live on the most personal level every day. To most people, it's just "common sense."

While I'm not typically one of those people who second-guess my own or other people's strategic decisions when things aren't going well, I have a duty to my community, my gay brethren (and "sistren"?), and myself to point to what I believe are our obvious missteps in the effort to advance our cause.

For the record, I contributed more of my own hard-earned dollars to this cause than I've ever contributed to an election issue in my lifetime and I even spoke out as an invited guest on conservative talk radio about the issue at hand -- civil rights -- actually convincing my right-wing hosts that our civil rights argument held water.

But after a wrenching Tuesday evening spent digesting the enormity of what just happened to us as gay Americans at the polls across the nation, I am temporarily suspending my usual policy of keeping my opinions about political strategy to myself.

To be perfectly blunt, we in the gay rights movement just shot ourselves in both feet with an overreaching and self-defeating "politically correct" agenda that put emotionally-charged terminology before the law -- a misstep that was attempted before, ill-conceived, avoidable and poorly timed.

We should have been smarter than those four California Supreme Court judges this time and taken into account the cultural and political ramifications of their judicial decision before we rushed to the altar. We could have learned from past failed strategic mistakes and decided whether or not to act on this ruling as a "license to marry" or merely as a stepping stone to achieving our full civil equality.

We unfortunately chose the easy and obvious path once again to embrace this decision as the equivalent of society's acceptance of gay "marriage" -- when in fact it was actually a narrow California Supreme Court legal victory -- and in the process we avoided the more difficult and longer-term strategic decisions that the arc of all successful civil rights struggles require. And for the record, I know and agree that the concept of "separate but equal" is not a viable long-term civil rights strategy.

Obtaining and enshrining our civil rights into law, however, are far more pressing issues for gay individuals. gay couples and gay familes than whatever we decide to eventually name it -- be it marriage or civil unions. In fact, in Great Britain, "civil partnerships" have been alive and well and an accepted part of their culture since December 2005 and afford their gay citizens the following rights:

*If one partner dies before the other, the survivor will be treated like married couples if there is no will *Survivors will inherit property the same as married couples *Social Security Rights *Pension Benefits *The ability to get parental responsibility for a partner's children *Recognition for immigration *Recognition under intestacy rules *Income related tax benefits *Responsibility for child support *Civil Partners may jointly apply to adopt children
Why are we gay Americans so myopic that we fail to look no further than our own domestic shores for inspiration?

Cooler and possibly more historically-seasoned voices must be heard at strategy sessions at the gay civil rights organizations that so many of us entrust with our earnest volunteerism and hard-earned money. We need to explore our disappointment with serious introspection, more judicious philanthropy, and a major reorganization of our civil rights strategy.

Why are we doing exactly what Einstein cautioned regarding "the definition of insanity" in our ongoing efforts to gain our civil rights? Repeating our past missteps will not bring us any closer to the goal. Something in our strategic thinking needs adjustment and I believe that the answer lies in two words: patience and pragmatism.

The ambitious, politically-seasoned and well-intentioned leaders at Human Rights Campaign and Equality California who we supported to spearhead this equality effort predictably acted on righteous indignation and strategic impulse -- mistakenly convincingly themselves that "this was our window of opportunity" -- and in the process they may have torpedoed 20 years of forward movement in a single election.

Let's be clear about what happened. Civil rights are an American tradition and most Americans support mutual fairness in principle. The concept of "marriage," however, is a term so suffused with religious and cultural overtones that it crosses the supposedly Constitutionally-drawn line in the sand between Church and State, between the parochial and the secular -- a boundary that we accuse evangelical Republicans of repeatedly violating in their efforts to inject their values into public policy.

Gay Americans rushed across that boundary without realizing just how much we were challenging deeply held traditional beliefs. And we got pushed back.

Civil rights are not won in the war zone of national elections or State referenda but, rather, in a series of small but important evolutionary steps.

Fresh off the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas Supreme Court victory that decriminalized our long-outlawed private behavior and the 2008 California Supreme Court ruling in which the Court -- in a narrow 4 to 3 decision -- rightly opined that sexual orientation, like race or gender, "does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights" we were drunk with our own successes. The highest court in the State overturned a voter ballot initiative that passed in 2000 banning same-sex marriages, so why not "go for the gold?"

Here's why. Gay community advocates forgot to reflect on what didn't work in past struggles, learn from these failures and chart a new strategic course. Cocky and restless from years of electoral ups and downs, we failed to take to temperature of the electorate once again. With dopamine awash in well-intentioned activist brains, our appointed spokespeople decided that we'd continue to advocate for the hot-button term "marriage" rather than "civil unions" before we paid proper heed to our own civil rights. We immediately demanded our piece of the "marriage" pie before our neighbors had a chance to digest their dinners. Not a shrewd move.

The rest of the country wasn't ready yet, and we knew it. Countless polls --including those in my own liberal bellwether state, California -- showed that most Americans favored gay civil rights - including civil unions -- but the honorific of "marriage" made them quiver.

Failing to heed these polls and the timetables of the civil rights history, our leaders skated over the fact that major advances took decades to materialize. African-Americans finally got the right to vote without restriction 100 years after being freed from slavery. It took 72 years, from the first Women's Suffrage Convention in 1848 to the 19th Amendment ratification in the Constitution in 1920, before women won the right to vote.

From the earliest days of 1950s secret gay Mattachine Society to our post-ACT-UP world of openly gay everything, we have followed a similar path to equal rights that other oppressed minorities have taken -- small steps, taken over many years, to incrementally acclimate our neighbors to peaceful coexistence with us. Until this election cycle.

Why did our fearless leaders goad us into thinking that we'd be better served by pursuing an aggressive strategy similar to previous failed ones? Because we were morally right? Being right doesn't mean you win. Because we were tired of waiting in line outside the members-only club of American minorities with full civil rights? Other minorities have struggled longer. Because we'd won a few basic skirmishes and now were ready to conquer America? Only in Spielberg movies.

We did it because we were pissed off and we got impatient. We did it because the tabloids shoved into our faces on a daily basis that vacuous celebrities like Britney Spears were bestowed with more rights in 48 hours of an impulse Las Vegas marriage than committed gay couples are granted in 30 years of committed cohabitation. We did it because we wanted it now, regardless of terminology or strategy.

We were angry. We were energized by Lawrence v. Texas and the Massachusetts Supreme Court and San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's civil disobedience. We even heard what was once unthinkable: right-wing politicians and radio pundits pondering marriage-like civil rights for us -- of course, without the word "marriage" attached.

My first thought was "grab it while they're offering." I felt we could establish a stronger beachhead from which to advance our cause when we had our civil rights firmly in hand. But we balked and claimed that anything less than "marriage" would be demeaning and socially irresponsible. "Separate but equal" never works, we rightly reasoned. But did anyone take a deep breath and really think this one through?

Marriage was supposed to be the next stop on our freedom march to full equality. Because of our brains, our organizational skills, our war chest of millions of dollars, and our petulance, we presumed we could skip the usual prerequisites of winning the "hearts and minds" of the American public. We were wrong.

So swept-up in the moment were we that we ignored an important fact: even decent-minded straight people were having difficulty grasping the concept of "gay marriage." In response to the barrage a vile and misleading TV ads sponsored by the Latter Day Saints and California Black Pastors, some straight folk were understandably confused and started asking legitimate questions:

• "Well, I'm all for fairness and civil rights, but what does 'marriage' mean if it's not between a man and a woman?"
• "If gay people can marry, does this redefine the nature of the commitment between my spouse and me?"
• "Doesn't changing the definition of marriage threaten me and my children in some way?"
• "Are they going to teach my five-year old about two-mommies and two-daddies in pre-school?"

Those are concerns that needed to be addressed before we embarked on a society-wide referendum. There was more social campaigning to be done. But we acted capriciously.

Indulge my medical background for a moment for a clinical analogy. Premature ejaculation is defined as a condition in which the male is overly sensitive, overstimulated, and comes to climax too soon, leaving his partner without a satisfactory experience. If this happens often enough, the person with this condition is often rejected in the relationship. A therapist might advise him to slow down and to expend more effort connecting emotionally with the partner. These efforts often lead to a more mutually acceptable relationship.

In Election 2008, we were feeling the legal "love," we got ourselves overheated and we reacted too early and with too little sensitivity for the feelings of others, and now nobody's satisfied.

We owe it to our community to spend our political capital wisely, to set a better example as responsible adults and to secure for our gay youth a brighter future. Campaigning for gay civil rights will be a marathon to the finish line, not a quick sprint.

We should work to secure our civil and legal rights well before we choose the ultimate battle of naming our unions "marriage." Unpopular to the reader as this all may sound, take a look at where we are now. With several states not only constitutionally banning same-sex unions but domestic-partnership benefits as well, we have taken a giant step backward for all of gay-kind.

Yet there is hope on the horizon. From the ashes of this defeat will emerge a wiser approach that will first get us what we need before we pick out the caterer for our (next) weddings.

Indulge me in one last random observation from channel-surfing Tuesday night in order to avoid the pain of post-election political analyses and finally settling on blankly staring at a nature program on the National Geographic Channel.

Ostriches are interesting creatures, best known for their curious habit of sticking their heads in the sand to avoid detection by predators, despite the fact that their heads are tiny and their bodies huge (200 to 300 pounds). Ostriches are powerful animals, they travel in flocks, they can run very fast, they love to bathe -- and they have been hunted nearly to extinction in the past century.

With the exception of their pretty feathers and the laying of large eggs, the gay community shares many of the same characteristics. We do, however, have bigger brains. I sincerely hope that after Election 2008 we pull our heads out of the sand so that our dreams don't meet the same fate.

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Happily Ever Married After Eight

We coincidentally bumped into Nancy Reagan at the Bel Air Hotel on the day we got married. I didn't want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about doing any séances about feeling the future of marriage or planning our wedding because on that day, we lived for the moment. I knew I'd be married. Don and I had to make sure by also getting married in P-Town because of what we were feeling.  In the end we couldn't stop Prop 8 from happening but we could make sure that we were legally married.  The legal uncertainties we have created by having a California Marriage License and a Massachusetts Marriage License (legally) now make us sure that we remain happily married ever after 8.

Monday, November 10, 2008

Governor Schwarzenegger Backs Gay Marriage

Governor backs gay marriage

Schwarzenegger voices hope that Proposition 8 will be overturned by courts as crowds continue to protest.

November 10, 2008|Michael Rothfeld and Tony Barboza | Rothfeld and Barboza are Times staff writers.
SACRAMENTO AND LAKE FOREST — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Sunday expressed hope that the California Supreme Court would overturn Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that outlawed same-sex marriage. He also predicted that the 18,000 gay and lesbian couples who have already wed would not see their marriages nullified by the initiative.
"It's unfortunate, obviously, but it's not the end," Schwarzenegger said in an interview Sunday on CNN. "I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area."
With his favorable comments toward gay marriage, the governor's thinking appears to have evolved on the issue.
In past statements, he has said he believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman and has rejected legislation authorizing same-sex marriage. Yet he has also said he would not care if same-sex marriage were legal, saying he believed that such an important societal issue should be determined by the voters or the courts.
Schwarzenegger publicly opposed Proposition 8, which amends the state Constitution to declare that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
On Sunday, he urged backers of gay marriage to follow the lesson he learned as a bodybuilder trying to lift weights that were too heavy for him at first. "I learned that you should never ever give up. . . . They should never give up. They should be on it and on it until they get it done."
The governor's position on the fate of the existing same-sex marriages aligns him with California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, who has said he believes that the state Supreme Court will uphold the existing marriages as valid.
The 14-word constitutional amendment does not state explicitly that it would nullify same-sex marriages performed before the Nov. 4 election, although proponents say it will. Legal experts differ on this point.
Schwarzenegger's comments came as protesters took to the streets for a fifth day in a row, sometimes marching to Catholic and Mormon churches that supported passage of the ballot measure.
Hundreds of Proposition 8 protesters in Orange County gathered down the hill from Saddleback Church in Lake Forest as several thousand congregants attended services inside the sprawling religious campus.
Martijn Hostetler, 30, of West Hollywood held a sign that read "Purpose Driven Hate," a dig at the church's celebrity Pastor Rick Warren, author of the bestseller "The Purpose-Driven Life," who backed the ballot measure. "I don't think Jesus would approve of a gay-marriage ban," he said. "I don't think God discriminates."
While demonstrators received supportive honks from motorists, many members of the mega-church said they had little sympathy for the protesters because the matter had already been settled by voters.

Saturday, November 01, 2008

Before You Vote on Prop 8, Remember What Would Ronald Reagan Do?

“Two ill-advised California trends”  – Ronald Reagan, November 1, 1978
Los Angeles Herald Examiner
If blue jeans and drive-in churches weren’t enough to convince you that California sets trends, Proposition 13 should have left no doubt.  Californians aren’t stopping with the tax revolt, however.  The Golden State’s November ballot contains two controversial measures which, pass or fail, have the potential for setting more national trends.
One, Proposition 5, would be the nation’s toughest anti-smoking law.  The other, Proposition 6, would provide for firing teachers who “advocate” homosexuality.
The measures are similar in that they would mean more government (in fact, the author of Prop. 6, State Sen. John Briggs, said in a recent interview “government is the whole ball game”).  The two measures also present enforcement problems–Prop. 5 because it would be difficult to enforce except at great cost and Prop. 6 because it could be over-enforced.
Proposition 5 sets out to protect non-smokers from the fumes of those hooked on the weed.  It would prohibit smoking in nearly all public places, but the hitch is that it defines private places of employment as “public.”  Shades of newspeak in Orwell’s “1984.”  Restaurants would be required to have smoking and non-smoking sections.  And, as with offices and factories, the owners would have to foot the cost for the “No Smoking” signs.  Ironically, the measure would permit smoking in public auditoriums when a rock concert, roller derby or professional boxing or wrestling match is the attraction, but not if the fare is an amateur event or a jazz concert.
Short of recruiting an army of smoking police, the measure seems unenforceable.  Smoking is already prohibited in many public buildings, but this measure goes well beyond, to restrict both personal liberties and private property rights.  That reasonable smokers and non-smokers can use a little common courtesy in working out their differences seems not to have occurred to the proponents of Prop. 5.  If it passes, it won’t be the first time a false assumption found its way into law and made government grow.
Proposition 6 rests on several assumptions.  The two most frequently mentioned are that teachers can influence the sexual orientation of children because they are “role models” and that homosexual teachers will molest their pupils. Briggs told an interviewer the other [day] that “Everybody knows that homosexuals are child molesters.  Not all of them, but most of them.  I mean, that’s why they are in the teaching profession.”
Although statistics are not kept nationally, informed observers usually put the percentage of child molesting cases by homosexuals at well under 10 percent.  The overwhelming majority of such cases are committed by heterosexual males against young females.
As to the “role model” argument, a woman writing to the editor a Southern California newspaper said it all:  ”If teachers had such power over children I would have been a nun years ago.”
Whatever else it is, homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles.  Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual’s sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child’s teachers do not really influence this.
Had Proposition 6 been confined to prohibiting the advocacy in the classroom of a homosexual lifestyle (and sex-before-marriage, “swinging.” and adultery, for that matter) it would no doubt enjoy much wider support than it does.  Instead, the measure calls for firing teachers who engage in homosexual activity (something already covered by California law) or homosexual “conduct,” which it defines as “advocating, soliciting, imposing, encouraging or promoting private or public homosexual activity . . . ”  It is that passage–and especially the word “advocacy” — that has generated heavy bipartisan opposition to the measure.
Since the measure does not restrict itself to the classroom, every aspect of a teacher’s personal life could presumably come under suspicion.  What constitutes “advocacy” of homosexuality?  Would public opposition to Prop. 6 by a teacher–should it pass–be considered advocacy?
The measure would require formal school board hearings if a teacher is accused.  Under the present law an informal investigation can be conducted to determine the merits of charges against a teacher.  Though the formal hearings under Prop. 6 would be private (unless the accused wanted them public), how do you keep such charges private in a small community?  And how do you prevent an overwrought child with bad grades from seeking revenge by accusing the teacher of a homosexual advance or “advocacy”?  Under Prop. 6, you don’t.
Will California rewrite that old line to read, “As California goes, so goes the nation”?  Here is one heterosexual non-smoker who, where Props. 5 and 6 are concerned, hopes the answer is “no.”

[NOTE-I only discovered this Editorial. I had previously had a LGBT archives research the issue and they were only able to find a news story from September 24, 1978 in which Reagan declared his opposition to Prop 6.  This editorial was published 30 years ago today and is attributed to him.]
[NOTE2 It is important for today's lgbt youth to respect and love themselves because internalized homophobia is a contributing factor to HIV infection and transmission in men who have sex with men.