July 8, 2004

Push to recall Mayor Gonzales loses steam
in light of his stance on Supreme Court ruling

By Shari Kaplan
Staff Writer

Almost four months have passed since a controversy stemming from the San Jose City Council’s March 9 decision to recognize same-sex marriages caused a group of local church pastors and supporters to take issue with San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales and the City Council and to consider a mayoral recall.

Time has not yet healed all the wounds opened during the flap. However, after a May 24 meeting between the religious leaders and Gonzales, in which the mayor revised his stance to be more in accord with California state law, both sides say lines of communication are open and that the mood is better than it was in the weeks following March 9.

That was when Gonzales and the City Council voted to recognize the validity of the same-sex marriages performed earlier this year in San Francisco. The City Council also approved offering healthcare benefits to city employees’ same-sex partners as well as to those partners’ children.

“We started off in a place of conflict, and while we haven’t resolved all the issues, we’ve arrived at a place of understanding. Both sides have worked hard,” Rebecca Dishotsky, Gonzales’ chief of staff, said in mid-June. “It [resolution] is good for the mayor, good for the pastors, but mostly good for the people of San Jose.”

As it stands now, the recall is unlikely to happen at all.

But to understand the end, one must understand the beginning. In response to the City Council’s March 9 nod to same-sex marriage, a group of pastors from several large Evangelical churches, including South San Jose’s Family Community Church (FCC) and South Valley Christian Church (SVCC), got together to explore the idea of recalling the mayor. Larry Pegram, a SVCC congregant and former San Jose City Council member joined them.

The group even hired political consultant Sal Rousso. He was to survey San Jose residents to see how residents felt about issues relating to same-sex marriage and mayoral leadership, as some of Gonzales’ political and financial decisions were also bones of contention, according to Pegram. Most recently, a poll conducted by opinion research firm Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates indicated some 61 percent of likely voters did not support a recall.

The pastors’ group initially met with Gonzales on April 2 to air their grievances. During the meeting, they asked that the City Council rescind its March 9 decision. They also let Gonzales know they felt San Jose was flouting Proposition 22 (also called the Knight Initiative), which California voters approved in 2000. The proposition amended state law to dictate that only marriage between a man and a woman is recognized and valid in this state.

“The City of San Jose would be derelict if it continued to posture itself with an illegal action,” FCC’s Senior Pastor Bill Buchholz told The Times in an April interview.

The mayor acknowledged the group’s concerns in April and promised to review their comments and the information they presented; he did not commit to anything at the time.

That has changed as of Gonzales’ May 24 meeting with some two dozen local pastors, including Buchholz and Revs. Dave Sawkins of SVCC, Galen Call of Los Gatos Christian Church, Dick Bernal of Jubilee Christian Center, Justin Dennison of South Hills Community Church and John Isaacs of South Bay Covenant Church.

At that meeting, Gonzales promised that the City Council would rescind its March 9 decision if the California Supreme Court rules against the San Francisco same-sex marriages. It is scheduled to rule, one way or another, by the end of August.

According to Dishotsky, the mayor has an official statement on the issue that led to such an imbroglio with the pastors and other conservatives: “We will respect the Supreme Court’s decision whenever it is made. If the Court does determine that such [same-sex] marriages are not valid, then I would recommend to the City Council that we fully comply with that decision and take whatever action would be necessary to do so.”

“It was a very positive discussion,” Dishotsky said of the May 24 meeting. “Dialogue is important in any situation, and especially in one involving controversy. We appreciate the willingness on the other side to continue the dialogue. We feel they felt encouraged by the clarification given by the mayor.”

Buchholz agrees. “I felt that Mayor Gonzales’ commitment to not partner with San Francisco in pursuing a U.S. Supreme Court challenge once the San Francisco marriages are struck down [by the California Supreme Court] was important,” he said.

Buchholz and at least one other member of the pastors’ group, Rev. Galen Call, publicly stated in the San Jose Mercury News that they no longer feel strongly about recalling the mayor—as long as he holds up his end of the bargain. For the record, however, Buchholz told The Times he does agree with some of the other criticisms of Gonzales brought out earlier by Pegram.

As recently as July 1, Pegram said that he does intend to continue recall efforts, despite the lack of voter support.

As for extending healthcare benefits to city employees’ domestic partners and those partners’ children, that will not change, Dishotsky said, adding that it doesn’t matter whether those partners are same-sex or not. “City Attorney Rick Doyle said we’re well within our rights, as an employer, to offer these benefits,” she said. “I can’t speak for him, but this is what he advised the Council.”

Doyle was not available by presstime to comment further.