I wrote two weeks ago that I wanted Shoreline to appoint Kevin Grossman to fill the vacancy created by Councilwoman Linda Montgomery’s late resignation, but Grossman, a Council incumbent who lost in the recent election, has said he will not apply for the open position after Councilwoman-elect Maggie Fimia defeated him.
 The other losers in the Nov. 4 election, Cindy Ryu and Janet Way, also should take themselves out.
 Instead, the Council, or whatever authority makes the decision, should appoint a caretaker candidate, who will come to the Council with an open mind on the controversial issues that divide the Council, particularly the Aurora Avenue development project and does not expect to be a candidate for re-election, when the term expires in two years.
 The Aurora project will divide the Council, particularly when Fimia joins two current council members who oppose the project. What the Council needs is not someone who will come to the Council with a predisposition to join one side, but someone with the wisdom of Solomon who can bring the two sides together.
 If the Council cannot reach a decision before the new year, when Fimia will join the Council, the council will be split 3-3 on picking a replacement, on picking a mayor and on any major issues, Shoreline’s government will stand still while the County Council picks a replacement. If, for some reason, the County Council can’t come to a decision, the governor will have to make the decision. The Council could be deadlocked for months.
Don’t give up on the primary
Washington Legislators meet today to consider canceling Washington’s 2004 presidential primary, Considering the state’s budget problems and the fact that the political parties won’t recognize the results, the lawmakers have little choice but to cancel it. But, while doing that, they should find a way to start a meaningful presidential primary for the future.
 A meaningful primary is needed to make the state’s role in the nominating process democratic.
 The current caucus process is exclusionary, and it tends to put Washington behind the most unelectable and often unnominatable candidates:
 The current caucus system discriminates against the aged and handicapped who can’t make it to places where the caucuses are held but can vote by absentee ballot in a primary and discriminates against anyone who does not want to declare a party preference publicly.
 A primary would help the parties pick the kind of candidate who will appeal to the middle-of-the-road voters who decide general elections. Political parties who want to win should support this. They shouldn’t want a repeat of 1988. when conservative Christians packed Republican caucuses to nominate the Rev. Pat Robertson, who had no chance of winning the nomination or the election.
 But, the party organizations are afraid of democracy.
 If they want to show that they are interested in real people, they will find a way to compromise. Such a compromise would mean allowing the voters to choose a large portion of their delegates in exchange for forcing those whose want their votes to count to declare a party for that election only.
 If Washington does away with the presidential primary, it will join seven other states which, so far this year, have canceled their primaries for 2004 or eliminated them altogether.
 Primary supporters, led by former Washington Secretary of State Ralph Munro, will urge lawmakers to save the primary.
 “The political parties have never wanted a presidential primary,” Munro said. “They want to be able to pick and choose their candidate and they don’t want the public involved.”
 For 20 years, states have competed with each other by making their primaries earlier and earlier.
 It’s time to start a national primary for some time in May.
 Washington Republican’s support of Robertson in 1988 led to a citizens’ movement to create a primary.
 Turnout was low in 1992 and 1996, never exceeding 25 percent in those years. And the primary was held late enough that the nominations were already largely decided.
 In 2000, though, the election was moved up to late February. Candidates of both parties campaigned hard here. Voters responded, with nearly 43 percent going to the polls.
 But the primary remained an even harder sell to the parties.
 Democrats never counted the results toward selecting delegates to the national convention. They stuck with the caucus results. Republicans used the primary for only a minority of the delegate selections and have been reducing the number apportioned by the primary results.
 Voters who did show up at the polls were required in 1996 and 2000 to choose one of three ballots: Democratic, Republican or unaffiliated.
 Many voters chose unaffiliated, continuing the state’s long tradition of independent voting and no party registration. Those ballots didn’t count for anything other than an informal popularity contest. But a voter’s ballot selection was recorded by county auditors and was available to the political parties. It ought to give the parties an idea of which candidates appeal to the state’s independent voters.
 So far this year, legislatures in Colorado, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, North Dakota and Utah have voted to do away with their 2004 presidential primaries. New Mexico voted to make it optional. Minnesota had previously voted to suspend its primary.
 State Democratic Party Chairman Paul Berendt has said that if the state did away with the unaffiliated ballots and required every voter to chose a party ballot, Democrats would count the primary results.
 Republican Chairman Chris Vance says that the caucus system is a better way to select nominees because the decision is left in the hands of party members. He said the primary was an attempt by politicians to weaken the parties. However, Vance has said that he wants candidates with broad appeal, That is most likely when the parties represent a broad spectrum of the electorate.
Gay marriage: Why not?
 “We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution.”
 —Margaret Marshall. Chief Justice, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
 With those words, Massachusetts’ highest court gave that state’s legislature six months to come up with a scheme to allow gay and lesbian marriage.
 Many of us will find this hard to accept. We are accustomed to marriage meaning a man and woman becoming husband and wife, but it is a matter of civil rights. A century ago, many states forbade interracial marriage and others wouldn’t allow deaf people to marry, fearing that they might produce disabled offspring. Those prejudges ended; this one should, too.
 The movement will be on to amend the Massachusetts constitution, but that will be hard because the Massachusetts constitution takes three years to amend. Both houses of the Legislature must pass an amendment in consecutive sessions; then voters must approve the amendment.
 The U.S. Constitution requires states to give “full faith and credit” to the acts of other states, but Massachusetts law does not allow residents of other states to be married there if the marriage would not be legal in their home state. In addition, legal experts say that gay and lesbian marriages from Massachusetts will not be recognized in the 37 states, including Washington, that have passed “Defense of Marriage” laws.
 But, the best way to defend marriage would seem to be to allow homosexual couples to marry. It’s in society’s interest to be sure that couples living together, whether their relationships are homosexual or heterosexual, are in legally recognized, commited relationships.
 A few months ago, I attended the wedding of some friends’ daughter to a nice young man. Her former roommate was accompanied by another woman. I later asked my friend if the roommate was a lesbian. He said that she was, and that the two couples often went out together as any two couples would.
 While the heterosexual couple has married, the lesbian couple’s relationship can not be recognized in this state.
 I hope that someone takes this issue to the federal courts. I believe a ban on gay and lesbian marriage violates Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which says in part “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
 Gay and lesbian people, like racial, ethnic and religious minorities, deserve equal protection of the law.
 Many conservative religious groups are opposed to gay marriages. They will be, and always should be, free to keep their own traditions on marriage.
 But, rather than worry about gay marriage or the civil commitment allowed to gay and lesbian couples in Vermont, they should worry about perversions of heterosexuality found in pornography, strip clubs and prostitution.
 There are also perversions of homosexuality, but those will be fewer if we encourage healthy homosexual relationships.
 Government’s role should be to provide services that people need, not to force people’s moral prejudices on others.
Evan Smith is the Enterprise Forum editor.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
