Sen. Kuehl Backs Sen. Oropeza For Congress, Blasts Ass'ywoman Richardson On LGBT Equality Issues
(May 15, 2007, updated with reaction/comment) -- Charging that Assemblywoman/former LB Councilwoman Laura Richardson "has time and again taken a vocal stand against equality" on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues, State Senator Sheila Kuehl (D., WLA/Coastal) has strongly endorsed -- and urged financial support for -- State Senator Jenny Oropeza (D., southbay) in the race for the U.S. House seat held by the late Congresswoman Juanita Millender-McDonald (D., Carson-LB).
In an email titled "The Choice is Clear," Sen. Kuehl includes hyperlinks that invite the recipient to click and donate money via Kuehl's link on ActBlue.com, a web site that bills itself as an "online clearinghouse for Democratic action."
LBReport.com posts the text of Sen. Kuehl's email [internal hyperlinks removed] for reference purposes below. [Ed. note: We received the email from an address not connected with Sen. Kuehl's state office.]
[LBReport.com also sought and received comment from the Richardson campaign, which we post following the Kuehl email text and flier, below.]
From: Sheila Kuehl
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 10:06 AM
Subject: The Choice Is Clear
On June 26th there will be a Special Election in the 37th Congressional District to fill the seat of the late Congresswoman Juanita Millender-McDonald. I'm writing to you to tell you how proud I am to support State Senator Jenny Oropeza's candidacy for this seat.
The passing of Congresswoman Juanita Millender-McDonald leaves a void in the U.S. Congress, and in her district. Congresswoman Millender-McDonald's unyielding passion for social justice and her dedication to her family and constituents served as a model for us all.
With forty-four days left until the election, Senator Oropeza needs the resources to run a competitive race. And she needs your help.
Please Click here to contribute online today [hyperlink removed]
In stark contrast to one of her main democratic opponents, Senator Jenny Oropeza has long been a passionate advocate for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) equality. In the State Assembly, she co-authored 2004's Marriage Equality legislation. In the early 90's, as a Long Beach Unified School District Board Member, Jenny fought hard to implement Project 10, a program designed to provide critical educational support to LGBT youth. As a member of the Long Beach City Council, she fought to provide critical health benefits for domestic partners long before most elected officials had even thought to protect LGBT couples and families.
While Senator Oropeza has long been a friend to the LGBT community, one of her opponents in this race, Democrat Laura Richardson, has time and again taken a vocal stand against equality.
Please Click Here to contribute today to give Jenny the resources she needs to win, and carry on Congresswoman Millender-McDonald's fight for social justice. [hyperlink removed]
When Laura Richardson ran for the State Assembly, her campaign mailers were filled with homophobic HATE speech so shocking that many of her biggest supporters withdrew their endorsements of her candidacy.
As a member of the Long Beach City Council, Richardson actually voted to OPPOSE a June 2004 City resolution against George W. Bush's Federal Marriage Amendment, an ultra-conservative attempt to write anti-gay discrimination into the U.S. Constitution.
Jenny Oropeza took a stand for our community by fighting for marriage equality, while Laura Richardson stood with President Bush, against equal rights for LGBT Americans.
We need someone in Congress who will stand up for what's right. We need someone who will stand up for fairness and equality. We need someone who will stand up to President Bush on the issues we care about. Jenny Oropeza WILL, Laura Richardson WILL NOT.
The choice is clear.
Will you help us raise $50,000 by contributing today? You may contribute up to $2,300. But a contribution of $100, $250, $500 will make a huge difference in this race.
I hope we can count on you.
Senator Sheila J. Kuehl
The Richardson campaign mailer to which Sen. Kuehl's email refers occurred during the 1996 primary for LB's 54th district Assembly seat...in which Ms. Richardson vied with Gerrie Schipske [now LB's 5th district Councilmember] for the opportunity to face a Republican opponent in November. The Richardson mailer received considerable publicity...and prompted then City Attorney and prominent Dem James Hahn to withdraw his endorsement of Richardson.
To view a pdf archival copy of the flier, click here.
At the time, the Director of Public Policy for L.A.'s Gay & Lesbian Center issued a release urging "Richardson's other supporters, including teachers associations and Democratic clubs to withdraw their support. She has foolishly misjudged the intelligence of Long Beach residents, and this last-ditch effort will backfire."
On March 23, 1996, the Press-Telegram reported that Ms. Richardson said she firmly believed sexual preference had nothing to do with Ms. Schipske's ability to do the job...and framed the issue as a matter of how Ms. Schipske portrayed herself in her campaign. Ms. Richardson ultimately lost the 96 primary to Ms. Schipske (who narrowly lost to Republican Steve Kuykendall in November 96).
When LBReport.com contacted Oropeza campaign consultant Parke Skelton about the Kuehl email (first reported in a Sacramento-based Capitol Weekly), Mr. Skelton told us he didn't have the email. That response drew a chuckle from Richardson campaign consultant John Shallman...who said the 1996 mailer came up during Richardson's June 2006 Assembly primary campaign, raised by Dem opponent Warren Furutani...whose campaign was consulted by Parke Skelton who now consults the Oropeza campaign.
"Apart from the fact the events took place 11 years ago...and dealt with a matter for which she formally apologized at the time, Assemblywoman Richardson and Councilwoman Schipske have since buried the hatchet," Richardson consultant Shallman told LBReport.com and continued:
"She is absolutely not homophobic in any way. She's been supported in the past by LAMDA, by former LB Councilman Dan Baker and others because they know it's not true. This is beyond offensive to Laura. It's offensive to those who have endorsed her [cites endorsements separately reported by LBReport.com]. This is just a nasty political trick and very offensive to start this kind of negative campaign barely a week after Cong. Millender-McDonald has been laid to rest."
Regarding the 2004 City Council proceedings referenced by Sen. Kuehl, LBReport.com reported them at the time as follows:
|(June 2, 2004) -- The Long Beach City Council chamber was filled beyond capacity -- and the adjacent Main Library auditorium was pressed into service with a televised feed to handle the overflow crowd -- as the legislative body of California's fifth largest city confronted a proposed resolution on the subject of same sex marriage.|
Courtesy LBTV 8
A resolution (text below) proposed at the June 1 Council meeting by Councilmembers Bonnie Lowenthal, Dan Baker and Tonia Reyes Uranga sought to oppose federal legislation which, if passed by 2/3 of the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate and ratified by legislatures of 3/4 of the states within seven years, would amend the U.S. Constitution to provide that U.S. marriages "shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman" and neither the U.S. constitution, any state constitution or any state or federal law shall be construed to require that marital status or its legal incidents be conferred on unmarried couples or groups.
Their proposed resolution failed.
After nearly two hours of impassioned oratory and sometimes heated Council colloquy, the Council voted 4-4 (Kell absent for entire meeting) on a resolution to oppose HJR 56 and SJR 26 (text below).
Faced with one of the largest Council crowds in recent memory, LB Mayor Beverly O'Neill asked that both sides limit their speakers to ten on each side...and advocates pro and con complied.
Councilmembers Lowenthal, Baker and Reyes Uranga opened...and drew a heated response from Councilman Val Lerch who made a motion to receive and file (i.e. take no action on) their proposed resolution.
Councilman Baker responded to several points...and added that he would never forgive Councilman Lerch for "the indignation and the assertion that I'm wasting your time by bringing this issue forward..." Councilman Baker made a substitute motion to pass the resolution opposing the proposed constitutional amendment. Later in the meeting, a heated exchange ensued when Councilman Lerch reiterated that he believed the Council shouldn't be debating the issue at this point...and responded to Councilman Baker. "How dare you sit there and attack me personally and say you'll never forgive me for this? How dare you, Mr. Baker?" Councilman Baker shot back, "You know what, Councilmember? You sit there every friggin' week and pull your high and mighty indignation and it's about time you get called on it..."
The verbal wrestling continued until the Mayor restored calm.
After Councilman Baker made his substitute motion to adopt the resolution, Vice Mayor Colonna proposed a second substitute motion that the Council support only such constitutional amendments that guarantees the right of all men, women and children to equal protection under the law." He added that in his view, his motion should end the Council discussion until the matter is fully vetted at the Congressional and the state level.
City Attorney Bob Shannon noted that the two substitute motions were not necessarily inconsistent...and explained that if the Council passed Colonna's motion, Baker's motion wouldn't be dead (meaning the Council would still have to vote on Baker's substitute motion if Baker intended to press it...which he did.)
Councilwoman Richardson said she would support Colonna's substitute motion if he would accept a friendly amendment to include a proviso not to violate anyone's rights. Colonna agreed and added Richardson's verbiage, resulting in the following: "...that the City Council supports those amendments to our Constitution that guarantee the rights of all men, women and children to equal protection under the law and oppose amendments that would deny equal protection under the law."
With Councilwoman Jackie Kell absent for the entire meeting, the votes went as follows:
Vice Mayor Colonna's substitute motion as amended passed 7-1 (Lerch dissenting).
Councilman Baker's substitute motion -- to pass a resolution opposing the proposed U.S. constitutional amendment -- failed 4-4 (Yes: Lowenthal, Baker, Carroll, Uranga. No: Colonna, Richardson, Webb, Lerch)
Councilman Lerch's motion to "receive and file" (take no further action on) the resolution opposing the constitutional amendment passed 5-3 (Yes: Carroll, Colonna, Richardson, Webb, Lerch; No: Lowenthal, Baker, Uranga).
In their joint memo that originally agendized the item, Councilmembers Baker, Lowenthal and Reyes Uranga wrote:
As the most diverse large city in the United States, and one that honors that
diversity by protecting the dignity of all of its people, we have a responsibility to
oppose efforts to deprive any of our citizens the right to live freely.
Traditionally, our Constitution has been amended to enumerate and expand the
rights Americans enjoy. It would be a tragedy to undo this long history by
amending our Constitution to limit the rights of a group of Americans, especially
as we so recently celebrated the 50" Anniversary of the landmark Brown vs.
Board of Education decision.
Two bills in Congress would change the U.S. Constitution in a way that would
move our country away from the ideals established at our founding: that we may
all live in a country dedicated to the proposition that all persons are created
equal, with unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Request the City Attorney to prepare a resolution opposing the Federal
Marriage Amendment (H.J.Res.56 & S.J.Res.26)
The draft resolution attached to the Councilmembers' agendizing memo stated:
A RESOLUTION URGING DEFEAT OF THE PROPOSED FEDERAL MARRIAGE
AMMENDMENT (H.J.Res.56 & S.J.Res.26)
WHEREAS, Long Beach is committed to fair and equitable treatment of all persons and
has codified its commitment to non-discriminatory treatment of individuals with the
enactment of Long Beach Municipal Code Chapter 2.72, which prohibits discrimination
on the basis of marital status, sex, gender, and sexual orientation; and
WHEREAS, Long Beach is committed to protecting the dignity of all people and the
encouragement of positive human relations among citizens, groups and institutions and
to consider, promote and develop programs for the reduction of tension, conflict, or
violence which may arise from intolerance, prejudice and discrimination based upon
race, religion, national origin, age, gender, sexual orientation or physical or mental
disability through the Human Relations Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City of Long Beach finds that any attempt to codify discrimination in the
United States Constitution runs counter to the tradition of equality that we as a people
hold dear, and
WHEREAS, the United States Constitution serves as the basic contract that has united
us as a people and governed the manner in which we live, and
WHEREAS, both the United States Constitution and California Constitution clearly state
that no person within its jurisdiction will be denied equal protection of the laws, and
WHEREAS, over the course of our Nation’s history, the Constitution of the United
States, has been amended to protect the rights of individuals and minority groups from
the tyranny of political majorities; and
WHEREAS, amendments to the Constitution of the United States have steadily
expanded notions of full and equal citizenship and have secured civil rights for persons
previously denied participation in civil society; and
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court of the United States and high state courts in Hawaii,
Vermont and Massachusetts have held or intimated that bans on same-sex marriages
are unconstitutional; and
WHEREAS, in 1967, the Supreme Court of the United States, in unanimously declaring
anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional, recognized marriage as "one of the ‘basic civil
rights of man fundamental to our very existence and survival"; and
WHEREAS, in this same decision, the Supreme Court stated, "the freedom to marry has
long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit
of happiness by free men"; and
WHEREAS, denying civil marriage for same-sex couples would deprive gay and lesbian
families of the benefits, privileges, protections, and responsibilities provided to opposite-
sex couples and their families; and
WHEREAS, discriminatory marriage laws undermine the constitutional commitment of
the United States and the State of California to equality, privacy, and justice for all
WHEREAS, the opportunity to publicly and legally commit to sharing one’s life with a
person of one’s choice is one of the most central aspects of human experience; and
WHEREAS, the denial of marriage to same-sex couples is denial of fundamental human
Now therefore be it RESOLVED: that the Long Beach City Council hereby urges our
United States Senators and Representatives to reject and defeat the Federal Marriage
Amendment now being proposed to the Constitution of the United States (H.J.Res.56 &
S.J.Res.26) so we may all live in a country dedicated to the proposition that all persons
are created equal with unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;
And be it FURTHER RESOLVED: that the City Council directs the City Clerk to forward
the above positions to our representatives in the United States Senate and House of
The text of HJR 56 and SJR 26 is identical:
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:
`SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.'.
Return To Front Page
Contact us: mail@LBReport.com
Springtime Garden Guidance From Kathy Alford of Alford's English Gardens, Click Here
Mike & Kathie Kowal know Los Cerritos, Bixby Knolls, Cal Hts. and beyond. Click to learn more
Want An Energy-Saving Tankless Water Heater? DrainPros Will Install One For You. Info, Click Here
For Your 2007 Wedding & Special Events, Bill Lovelace Entertainment (Wedding Entertainment Planning A Specialty). Info, Click Here
Preserve Your Family's Most Precious Photos and Videos on DVD. Click For Info
Carter Wood Floors, a LB company, will restore your wood floor or install a new one. Enhance your home. Click pic.