By Donald H. Harrison
SAN DIEGO — For those of us who believe in civil processes for the resolution of disputes, I would say that there were three good stories on the front page of the Union-Tribune on Saturday morning, July 20. Good news, too, sometimes comes in threes.
The articles weren’t displayed in this order, but in terms of the numbers of people that they might ultimately affect, the most-important concerned the anticipated resumption of peace talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians; the second dealt with a county official’s desire to get clarification of the law in California on same-sex marriages, and the third dealt with the beginning of a sheriff’s investigation into Mayor Filner’s alleged acts of sexual harassment.
All three represent steps to resolve disputes through well-functioning government processes. No doubt all three will have their noisy detractors.
Let’s briefly consider them in order.
The Middle East has been in stalemate for the last three years, with many people believing that the end had come to the quest for a “two-state” solution” — that is two states living side by side in the area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. Israelis had said during this period that they would be willing to talk to the Palestinians without preconditions, whereas the Palestinians said there must be a freeze on settlement activity in areas which had been ruled either by Jordan or Egypt prior to the 1967 Six Day War. Meanwhile rockets have been launched against Israel from Gaza, drawing Israeli retaliation, and a huge diplomatic war has been carried out against Israel by the Palestinians in the West Bank area both in the United Nations and through the so-called BDS movement (boycott, divestment and sanctions.)
Now came U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry into what others believed was an insoluble morass, and he has persuaded the two sides to meet in Washington D.C., in what some are describing not as “talks” but as “talks about talks.” It seems like a positive step, but as commentators on both sides are warning, it is also fraught with dangers. If there is not genuine good will on each side, the talks will be unproductive, and they can lead to yet another outburst of violence for which the United States will be blamed.
*
Ernie Dronenberg holds several titles in the county government. He is the Recorder, whose office records the titles to property. He is the Assessor, whose office determines the value of property each year. And he is the County Clerk, whose office issues marriage licenses, as well as birth and death certificates.
In June, the U.S. Supreme Court had a chance to rule on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the initiative approved by California voters in 2008 that declared that only heterosexual couples could be legally married in the State. Before the case got to the U.S. Supreme Court, a district court judge in San Francisco had ruled that law unconstitutional. An appeal was brought by people favoring a ban on same-sex marriages.
However, the high court did not directly address the constitutional issue. It said the people who brought the appeal did not have proper legal standing, meaning that the matter at issue did not significantly affect their rights as citizens. So, that left open the question of what would happen if someone with standing were to bring the case.
According to news reports, Dronenberg has said his office will continue to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples unless the California Supreme Court acts positively on his request to require him to refrain from doing so, pending a final determination of the constitutionality of Proposition 8.
There was an immediate outcry from those who felt Dronenberg should have left well enough alone, rather than to again put same-sex couples into legal limbo. He was criticized for attempting to impose his religious beliefs upon the people of California.
I’ve known Dronenberg for a long time, because I had reported on him in his previous capacity as a member of the State Board of Equalization. Although he declined to comment to the Union-Tribune on his religious beliefs, I am aware that he is a devout Christian. The petition he filed was prepared with the help of Charles LiMandri, president of the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund which has been involved in other Christian-oriented legal cases such as the defense of the large cross atop Mount Soledad.
While I believe allowing same-sex couples to marry is the right thing to do, I do not fault Dronenberg nor LiMandri for utilizing legal channels to establish once and for all the exact status of the law. If their actions can bring clarity to the law, all sides — those who backed Proposition 8 and those who opposed it — can thank them.
We all need to be open to the idea that other people hold opinions diametrically opposed to our own, and yet are good people, trying to do the right thing. While the ranks of those opposing gay marriages may include some homophobic bigots, there are also within those ranks many well-meaning, religiously oriented people who have been brought up to believe that the paramount purpose of marriage is for the propagation of the species, or as the Bible puts it, to be “fruitful and multiply.” Putting aside this traditional belief is not easy for them, and I hope a final resolution of the law will help them adjust to new cultural norms.
Whether in legal forums, or in the columns of newspapers and other publications, it is important to hear the arguments and concerns of good people who may be on the other side of issues, especially those about which we feel strongly. That is why San Diego Jewish World has always been open to opposing viewpoints–from the right and the left — on a variety of issues, and will remain so.
*
The third story, which received the largest headline in the U-T, concerned the fact that law enforcement officials have decided among themselves on the appropriate way to handle complaints against Mayor Filner.
The allegations of sexual harassment made against the mayor couldn’t be investigated by the San Diego Police Department because, under the City Charter, the police chief works for the mayor. So, investigations will be handled by the Sheriff’s office, which is funded not by the City of San Diego, but by the separate and independent County of San Diego.
On the prosecutorial side, the City Attorney legally represents the elected officials of the City of San Diego, so clearly Jan Goldsmith — even if he and Mayor Filner weren’t feuding — couldn’t be the one to bring charges against him.
Normally, one would assume that the prosecutorial function would therefore be handled by the county government — but District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis was defeated by Bob Filner in the mayoral primary election and had remarked during the campaign about Filner’s alleged lack of respect for women. So she could be deemed as having a prejudiced conflict of interest. So, now should the sheriff recommend prosecution, the matter would go to the office of State Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris.
A channel has now been created for anyone who feels sexually harassed by the mayor to step forward. There is a hotline phone number for such people to telephone. It is (619) 481-0220.
I have been critical of the people who have been calling for the mayor’s immediate resignation despite the fact that not one piece of actual evidence has been presented. Now, we have what appears to be an impartial process, and we should all be relieved that the case will be handled in a fair and appropriate manner, with due concern for the rights of all the people involved.
*
Peace talks for the Middle East. The possibility of a less ambiguous court resolution of the same-sex marriage dispute. A fair and legal process for determining Mayor Filner’s guilt or innocence. All in all, a good day for our city, state and world.
*
Harrison is editor of San Diego Jewish World. He may be contacted at donald.harrison@sdjewishworld.com