3 governors, 3 approaches to same-sex marriage

This is how three governors handled the issue of the moment: same-sex marriage.

Social and cultural commentators predict that by 2016, same-sex marriage will lose its white-hot intensity.

By then most states are expected to declare same-sex marriage an uncontested civil right.

Getting to that point has not been without a savage political debate.

Two years ago, when GOP Gov. Linda Lingle took up the issue, it was whether to sign or veto a civil unions bill.

It wasn’t same-sex marriage, but it was close enough for Lingle to spend months debating the issue.

Lingle did a civics textbook job of working on the hot issue handed her by the 2010 Legislature’s closing moments.

"There has not been a bill I have contemplated more or an issue I have thought more deeply about during my eight years as governor," Lingle said before she announced she would veto it, calling it "essential same-gender marriage by another name."

Lingle then muddied the issue by saying it was an issue too big for either her or a handful of legislators to decide; the state should vote on it.

Voting on what is being argued as a civil right does not seem to be the proper course. The right of all Americans to attend school, vote and enjoy the same liberties as other Americans is not a question of majority rule.

What happens if the vote switches? One day everybody can go to the same park and the next time we vote, "You fellows over there, ‘Out of the pool!’"

Next up is Gov. Neil Abercrombie, who arrived at the mystifying decision to be both for and against same-sex marriage, as the state fights a federal lawsuit charging that the denial of marriage violates a same-sex couple’s civil rights.

Abercrombie has always seen same-sex marriage as a civil right and an issue he passionately supported.

His support, however, has always been the asterisk in the argument.

In 1998 he voted "Yes" to support a state constitutional amendment allowing the Legislature to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples. Abercrombie said he voted in favor because he considered it a legislative matter and not an issue for the courts to decide.

Today Abercrombie argues that marriage is a civil right, saying "My obligation as governor is to support equality under law. This is inequality, and I will not defend it."

How this works after Abercrombie himself voted to give the decision-making right to the Legislature, which wrote a law saying marriage was between a man and woman, is difficult to say. Difficult on one level because Abercrombie, unlike Lingle, has only issued a press release and not held a news conference to discuss it.

It is also perplexing because during the 2010 campaign, Abercrombie repeatedly said same-sex marriage was not an issue, because "The state Legislature has already defined marriage as between a man and a woman."

While Abercrombie is willing to lay down his defense, his director of health is told to defend the law in court, because it is state law and the Constitution says the administration must defend state laws.

For the model on how a governor handles the issue, see New York’s Andrew Cuomo, the brilliant first-term, progressive governor.

Cuomo campaigned on same-sex marriage, promised voters he would bring equality to all New Yorkers and after winning election, he started a constant campaign to make it happen.

Observers said it was an exquisite lesson in how a political leader works.

"It’s carrots and sticks. It’s music and champagne — and it’s strength," a Cuomo intimate says. "It’s an orchestra, it’s a symphony, it’s all of this combined. It’s political skills. It’s 500 phone calls to individual senators. It’s birthday calls, it’s anniversary calls, it’s going to their district, it’s all last year campaigning with them," New York magazine reported.

So there was one governor who would devolve civil rights into a show of hands; another governor passionately in favor of the issue but leading a state with a law against same-sex marriage; and finally a governor who defined the issue, promised action and delivered.

—————

Richard Borreca writes on politics on Sundays, Tuesdays and Fridays. Reach him at rborreca@staradvertiser.com.