skip to main content

Listen

Read

Watch

Schedules

Programs

Events

Give

Account

Donation Heart Ribbon

Roundtable: Same-Sex Marriage, Manchester’s Moves, Props A & B

Evening Edition

Above: Stampp Corbin, the publisher of LGBT Weekly, talks to KPBS about President Obama's decision to support same-sex marriage.

Aired 5/11/12 on KPBS Midday Edition.

Guests: Stampp Corbin, publisher, LGBT Weekly

Scott Lewis, CEO, Voiceofsandiego

David Rolland, Editor, San Diego CityBeat

Transcript

Marriage Equality - This week President Obama made the announcement many had been hoping for -- or dreading, his approval of marriage for same-sex couples. Several San Diego politicians were ahead of him on this issue, including Mayor Jerry Sanders and all four mayoral candidates.

The President told ABC News that he had come to the conclusion that civil unions were not enough, a point reached by mayor Sanders months ago. We look at what this means to the state and the nation, at the reaction of San Diego's LGBT community, and whether the issue will have any impact on local primary races.

Manchester's Moves - The same month the UT trumpeted its endorsement of Carl DeMaio for mayor with a wrap-around, front page announcement, its editor, Jeff Light, was taped telling Nathan Fletcher about the paper’s anybody-but-Filner-for-mayor attitude during an editorial board meeting.

In addition, the ownership announced both a major condo and office development on its Mission Valley property and the near-finalization of the purchase of the Orange County Register.

All these events follow Manchester’s announcement last year of a plan for the development of a huge downtown sports complex on the waterfront and his expression of interest in the purchase of the North County Times.

What does Papa Doug Manchester really want?

Evening Edition

Above: Scott Lewis, CEO of Voice of San Diego, talks to KPBS about Doug Manchester, the new owner of U-T San Diego.

Propositions A & B - Is There A Problem Here? - San Diego Prop A would essentially ban project labor agreements. (PLAs mandate budget, timeline and pay for city construction projects.) Proponents say it means fairness in hiring. Opponents say its sole purpose is to bust the unions, since the city doesn’t currently require PLAs.

San Diego Proposition B would switch most new hires (except police) from pensions to 401Ks. It also mandates a five-year salary freeze for city employees. Those in favor say Proposition B will save the city close to $1 billion over 30 years. Those opposed say the savings come from the pay freeze – which is illegal -- not pension reform, and besides the city already reformed pensions in 2008.

Comments

Avatar for user 'srmalloy'

srmalloy | May 11, 2012 at 1:02 p.m. ― 2 years, 5 months ago

It seems to me that the fundamental problem with gay marriage is that 'marriage' is used to refer to two different things -- a church-sanctified union between two people, and the civil recognition of a contract between two people to form a household. Civil governments have no authority to tell churches who they can/must perform marriage ceremonies for, and churches likewise have no standing to tell civil governments who can form households.

I wonder how much of the rhretoric and polarization would be alleviated if all our laws were edited to remove terms like 'marriage', 'husband', 'wife', etc., replacing them with neutral terms like 'domestic partnership', etc., so that governments recognized only civil unions, which would receive all the benefits and privileges now accorded to 'marriages', and left 'marriage' as a term defining an exclusively _religious_ union between two people as defined by the church performing the union. In the same way that almost anyone can be empowered to enact a civil union, priests would be able to, as they do now, register the civil union between a couple at the same time as they perform a marriage ceremony, and anyone currently 'married' under the law would be grandfathered as a civil union, as would anyone entering the country with a 'marriage' recognized in another country.

This would allow churches to define 'marriage' as broadly or narrowly as they chose, so that they could preserve "the sanctity of marriage" by defining a marriage as a union between a man and a woman, while raising the government out of the quagmire of trying to avoid the long-discredited "separate but equal" premise of having 'civil unions' for gays and 'marriage' for mixed-gender couples while not dictating how churches conduct their affairs.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Pat Finn'

Pat Finn, KPBS Staff | May 11, 2012 at 2:16 p.m. ― 2 years, 5 months ago

Srmalloy: So if a couple gets married in a church, the church can also register the marriage as a government-sanctioned civil union, but a civil union cannot be a marriage, because marriage is the sole province of churches?
What do you do about the historical and social weight of the word "marriage?" They invest that word with so much more value than "civil unions?"

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | May 11, 2012 at 5:59 p.m. ― 2 years, 5 months ago

*What does Papa Manchester really want?*

To be petty dictator of a city who controls all media, politics, and development within so he has a his own little kingdom to shove his ego around in so he doesn't get rich old guy boredom syndrome as he continues to morph into the creepy old man he is.

It's all about **power**.

When people like Willard and Papa Puke become wealthy enough to buy whatever and whomever they want, they have to have more. They need power because mansions and yachts don't cut it anymore.

So the people suffer as our city becomes a personal playground for a wealthy old creep used to getting everything he wants.

( | suggest removal )