Does the Obama Administration need to take a stance on same-sex marriage soon? Is an injunction against removing homeless’ belongings setting back the clock on skid row? Should California force treatment on the mentally ill? BREAKING: Rick Santorum suspends his campaign for the GOP nomination, what does this mean for Romney? Plus, the latest news.
Why hasn’t the Obama administration committed to same-sex marriage?
President Obama is getting pressure from his own party and gay rights groups to declare his support for gay marriage and to make marriage equality part of the party’s platform. Technically the administration has until June to get the 180 members of its platform committee in place.
But party politics may force President Obama to take a stand in favor of gay marriage before then as he goes after votes and money from gay rights supporters. He is scheduled to attend a fundraiser in Florida with gay rights advocates today. In the past the president has stated that he does not support same-sex marriage but more recently has said his views on the subject “are evolving.”
Can he ask this constituency for financial support without coming out for gay marriage? If he does endorse gay marriage, will a sudden change in his position be seen as politically expedient or simply smart politics?
GUESTS
Ed Espinoza, Democratic political and public relations consultant
Michael Cole-Schwartz, Communications Director, Human Rights Campaign
The ban on removing homeless’ belongings has messy outcome in Skid Row
According to an op-ed in Monday’s Los Angeles Times, a year-old injunction against picking up and tossing out the belongings of homeless people is having a slew of unintended consequences.
Last year, a group of homeless people brought a suit against the city alleging that when they went to the bathroom or to have a meal, the LAPD or the Bureau of Street Services would round up and destroy their personal belongings.
A judge sided with the homeless men and women, saying the city is violating their 4th amendment right to be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures. A temporary injunction was filed against the city and the homeless population on skid row was able to leave their property untended without threat of removal from the city.
But now, a year later, business owners and residents in the areas surrounding downtown say conditions have deteriorated dramatically. They say sidewalks are blocked with piles of detritus, and the growing mounds of soiled mattresses, blankets, bags and shopping carts are causing a public health hazard.
"This is an area that is completely over run with chaos. I cannot describe it with any other term. You see it, you smell it, you sense it," said Estela Lopez, executive director of, Central City East Association, a group of property owners based in downtown working to improve the area. "People are not living on skid row; they're dying on skid row. They have for a long time, and this injunction has exacerbated that."
People can’t get to their places of business, customers are put off and resident’s quality of life is seriously at risk.
According to Carol Schatz, the author of the op-ed and the president of the business group, The Central City Association, the injunction has done more harm than good. But that may not be the end of the story.
Carol Sobel is lawyer who requested the original injunction and is pushing to make it permanent. She says the problem is not that the homeless are accruing and leaving their belongings everywhere, it’s that the city has decided to make the problem worse by not picking up ANY trash from the streets.
Sobel said L.A. needs to look past the injunction towards greater issues. "The injunction is not contributing to the problem on skid row. The problem on Skid Row, as it is in other parts of the city is the long time lack of political will to do in this city what every other major metropolitan area has done to start to address the problem of homeless individuals," she said.
She also alleges that the LAPD is even telling homeless in other areas that they must move to Skid Row, which is bumping up the population there. According to Sobel, taking away someone's belongings removes their dignity.
"When you take away someone's identification and then they can't get services, when you take away the last photographs of their family and they have no attachments, when you take away what little property they have, you are taking away their dignity. I agree that people should not be living on the street. But the alternative for that is not to take away all their property," she said.
Lopez disagrees. "I walk on these streets every single day. There are mentally ill people, people with rotting limbs, people with gangrene, lying in their own filth. That's what this injunction has brought about," she said.
The business leaders have a point, the conditions on Skid Row have gotten worse and it’s affecting other areas. But is the injunction to blame? Is the city actively trying to exacerbate the problem? How likely is it that a rule like this will be adopted city wide?
GUEST
Carol Sobel, Executive Vice President, National Lawyers Guild
Estela Lopez, Executive Director, Central City East Association, a group of property owners based in downtown working to improve the area. She lives and works near Skid Row.
Should California force treatment on the mentally ill?
How do you treat people with mental illness if they don't think they're sick? How much autonomy should be given to someone with severe schizophrenia? Why is it okay to intervene after someone with paranoid delusions commits a crime, but not before?
These questions are at the center of a new report with some controversial recommendations. The LPS Reform Task Force II is made of long-time advocates in the area of mental-health laws. Their number one recommendation is about an individual's ability, or lack thereof, to consent to treatment. In California, the legal rights of mentally ill patients have been paramount since an act passed in 1967. The Lanterman-Petris-Short Act sought to protect sick people from being committed to institutions without any due process. Since then, these task force advocates argue, too many people aren't being treated at all. They end up in jail. They are on the streets and in emergency rooms.
One of the editors of the Task Force report, Mark Gale whose son has a schizoaffective disorder, believes the LPS Act served its purpose for a time, but that some people are too "gravely disabled" to choose their own care. Gale added: "Every day, doctors and family members make decisions for their relatives sick in hospitals.... Why do we have a whole different set of rules for this class of people?" But who decides? What protections will be in place for those without family or friends to advocate on their behalf?
GUESTS
Mark Gale, Editor, The LPS (Lanterman-Petris-Short) Reform Task Force II; long-time advocate in the area of mental health laws
Rusty Selix, Executive Director, California Council of Community Mental Health Agencies
Rick Santorum suspends campaign for GOP presidential nomination
Rick Santorum announced today he is suspending his GOP presidential campaign.
GUEST
Jonathan Wilcox, Republican Strategist; Former Speechwriter for GOV. Pete Wilson; Adjunct professor at USC
Tim Lefever, Chairman of the Board, Capitol Resource Institute