San Diego mayor reverses position, supports gay marriage.
By on Sep 20th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
San Diego mayor reverses position, supports gay marriage.
After two weeks of deadlock, the City Council of San Diego yesterday voted 5-3 to pass a resolution supporting marriage equality for gays and lesbians. San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, a Republican, initially indicated that he would veto the measure, but in an emotional about face, Sanders announced today that he would “take a stand on behalf of equality and social justice” by supporting the measure. In his press conference announcing his decision, Sanders acknowledged publicly for the first time that his daughter, Lisa, is a lesbian.
(HT: Down With Tyranny!)
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Wow, that shows some courage. Can swiftboating be far behind? Maybe Cheney should take the first kick.
September 20th, 2007 at 5:22 pmIt appears that if not for his daughter Lisa, he would have vetoed the measure.
September 20th, 2007 at 5:25 pmThank you, Lisa.
whats new – repugs are either gay or have lesbian daughters. sheesh.
September 20th, 2007 at 5:26 pmgood on ya, mr. mayor…
September 20th, 2007 at 5:29 pmand thank you, daughter lisa…
…
It’s a whole ‘nother ballgame when it’s somebody you love who’s denied basic rights, isn’t it?
Tennessee was the 36th state to ratify the 19th amendment, giving American women the right to vote in 1920. Rumor has it that it was a close vote in the Tennessee legislature, and the state representative who put the “yea”s over the top was a guy who did it because he felt it unfair that his mother, a woman he obviously loved and respected, was denied the right to vote.
It’s a lot easier to do the right thing when you can see how the decision you make directly affects the people you know.
September 20th, 2007 at 5:36 pmJust goes to show, it’s easier to hate someone when you don’t have to look them in the eye.
September 20th, 2007 at 5:36 pmIt’d be even tougher if they had lesbian sons, imho?!
September 20th, 2007 at 5:41 pmRumor has it that it was a close vote in the Tennessee legislature, and the state representative who put the “yeaâ€s over the top was a guy who did it because he felt it unfair that his mother, a woman he obviously loved and respected, was denied the right to vote.
Comment by missmolly — September 20, 2007 @ 5:36 pm
I have to wonder about all the respresentatives who voted “Nea” on the Amendment, and where their mothers went wrong.
I wonder that about a lot of Members of Congress today, too. And the Executive Branch.
September 20th, 2007 at 5:43 pmJust waiting for Daryll’s sociopathic comments. God’s telling him what to post, what a laugh riot he is.
Buck Fush
September 20th, 2007 at 5:46 pmI have to wonder about all the respresentatives who voted “Nea†on the Amendment, and where their mothers went wrong.
I wonder that about a lot of Members of Congress today, too. And the Executive Branch.
Comment by toasterhead — September 20, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
Dear toasterhead –
Here’s a link you’ll enjoy. It’s a fascinating story, and one that will make everyone realize just how close the battle was. Today we can’t imagine adult American women being denied the right to vote, but in 1920 the very notion had a great deal of opposition.
I imagine there will also be a day in the future when we will have a hard time imagining that anybody would be against committed, monogamous couples being denied the right to marry simply because they were gay.
http://www.blueshoenashville.com/suffragehistory.html
September 20th, 2007 at 5:50 pmDear toasterhead –
Here’s a link you’ll enjoy. It’s a fascinating story, and one that will make everyone realize just how close the battle was.
Comment by missmolly — September 20, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
Three Cheers for Harry Burn and His Mother! :)
September 20th, 2007 at 5:55 pmI wonder if Daryll is buttering his soul or dousing it with gasoline at this.
September 20th, 2007 at 6:03 pmI have to wonder about all the respresentatives who voted “Nea†on the Amendment, and where their mothers went wrong. -Toasterhead
Well, by looking at the long list of conservative pedophiles who claim morality I think the mothers were far too repressive in their views of sex. Sex is bad, sex is evil, sex is satans work, you will go blind, kissing makes a girl pregnant, hairy palms etc etc etc. has just the opposite effect in later life. Sex should be discussed not locked away like a playboy in the old mans closet.
By Golly, sex feels good, why did my mother lie to me? But I must hide and repress my true feelings and act like I hate those whom are gay.
September 20th, 2007 at 6:14 pmSanders acknowledged publicly for the first time that his daughter, Lisa, is a lesbian.
The truth will set you free.
September 20th, 2007 at 6:16 pmmissmolly,
September 20th, 2007 at 6:16 pmVery interesting story. I would like to see comments made by those that opposed the women’s right to vote and see just how closely that language would be to that being used today for the rights for gays to marry. It always has the same theme with different class, group, sex, skin color thrown into the blanks.
Only because his daughter is a lesbian and wanting to get married.
September 20th, 2007 at 6:16 pmAnd if he had a pedophille son and legislation related to it would come for a vote….would he reverse his position? He shouldnt be using his daughter’s sexual orientation to decide on policy.
Can we talk about more serious stuff, like the war?
September 20th, 2007 at 7:04 pmHere we go again – trying to connect homosexuality with pedophilia.
Heterosexual, fundamentalist Christians who are politicians should not be using THEIR sexual orientation and their religious beliefs to set policy which denies homosexuals equal rights.
And, you know, some of the same people who conflate homosexuality and pedophilia also conflate 911 with Iraq. Serious stuff? Absolutely.
September 20th, 2007 at 7:18 pmAt least one of these repuliturds has realized that we are equal under the constitution. No one should be a lesser citizen because they are different that me. It is bigotry, plain and simple.
Buck Fush
September 20th, 2007 at 7:56 pmAint nobody equating homosexuality with pedophilia. All I was trying to point out is that it is wrong to base public policy because of one’s own son or daughter’s sexual orientation and/or religion.
September 20th, 2007 at 8:28 pmwell, you’re both dumb… and WRONG…
and pedophilia has NOTHING to do with
September 20th, 2007 at 10:34 pm“sexual orientation and/or religion”.
.
..jake, just like all those people molesting little girls and boys are heterosexual.
What’s your point?
What is wrong, is wrong…no group has a lock on illicit, immoral, unethical behavior.
When a white christian male goes out and diddles a sheep in his field does that automatically make every white christian male a sheep diddler?
And I use the word “diddler” because it’s totally hilarious.
I don’t think the mayor decided policy based solely on his daughter’s orientation.
I DO think that it made him second guess denying civil liberties to fellow Americans.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:56 am*BECAUSE he saw his daughter playing with dolls growing up, teach her to ride a bike, tie her shoes…so she’s HUMANIZED and not some closet dwelling lesbianic monster waiting to homosexualize innocent childrens. She’s a human being with a right to be with whom she wants, with none of my nose being inserted into her personal life. She deserves to be covered under law that legally joins her and binds under that law to the person she loves.
it’s only right, only fair, and only Just.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:58 am