California crossroads: the first Democratic governor of California in almost two decades, Gray Davis is running for reelection on a record of historic gains for gay rights. But will he continue to take the Golden State in the direction of Vermont? (politics).

California governor Gray Davis is often described as the incarnation of his first name. Yet when it comes to gay and lesbian rights, the admittedly "not the most exciting" governor of the nation's most populous state has been uncharacteristically bold. Indeed, no single state officeholder has remade the gay and lesbian political landscape so radically in so short a time. Not long after taking office in 1999, Davis signed sweeping legislation banning sexual orientation-based discrimination in housing, employment, and public schools. He has signed several additional pro-gay bills since then, culminating last October, when he approved the most extensive domestic-partnership legislation in the nation other than Vermont's civil unions law.

To be sure, Davis has benefited from becoming the first Democratic governor of the state since Jerry Brown left office in 1983. A succession of Republican governors held back statewide break-throughs in socially progressive California. Frustration among the state's gay activists peaked in 1991 when riots broke out after Pete Wilson, Davis's GOP predecessor, vetoed legislation banning antigay discrimination.

Because of his record and the growing clout of the state's large and prosperous gay population, Davis has made appeals to gay voters a centerpiece of this year's gubernatorial campaign against Republican Bill Simon, a conservative businessman. Davis may have caught a political break when Simon upset popular former Los Angeles mayor Richard Riordan, a staunch gay rights supporter, in the Republican primary. In an exclusive interview with The Advocate, Davis spoke about his reelection bid, same-sex marriage, and his gay friends and staffers.

How do you envision gay issues shaping up in the campaign? Your opponent says he's shying away from social issues.

It's not up to me or Mr. Simon to determine what issues will come up in this campaign. Voters have a right to know our position on a whole range of issues. My opponent has come along and said he wants to talk only about two or three things. I can assure you, as governor you have to talk about a lot more than that.

The most obvious issue is domestic partnership, since you signed the bill last fall and now legislators are pressing to expand the rights and benefits granted in it even further.

When I came into office there was no official recognition of gay couples in California. We have expanded the rights and responsibilities accorded to domestic partners. We have done it in a way that has not instigated a backlash or a referendum. Society has a strong interest in committed, loving, stable relationships.

Simon has been linked with Phil Sheldon, the son of antigay activist Lou Sheldon.

It's more than just a link. Mr. Simon hired Phil Sheldon to help get out the vote. In that capacity, [Sheldon] E-mailed and communicated with voters.

True. One of his missives promised that if elected, Simon would "undo four years of liberalism, homosexuality, and antifamily values in California at the hands of Gov. Gray Davis."

Californians are interested in one thing: whether you can get the job done. We don't care where you went to school, where your family was born, as long as you are a law-abiding citizen and you contribute to the civility and productivity of our society. I have long believed that it is a big mistake to try to divide one Californian against another. I've tried very hard to eliminate wedge-issue politics. In all my speeches, I've tried to encourage Californians to see the value in sharing the state with all our fellow residents, whoever they may be. Alan Greenspan once told me that California will be prosperous because we have more immigrants than anyone else. Immigrants are always meeting resistance, and they work harder to prove their doubters wrong. They end up making a better product or making themselves a better employee. All that extra effort is what economists call productivity.

Would you make the same argument about the state's gay and lesbian minority?

Any community that meets resistance always strives harder to prove its worth and value to society. As a society we have a vested interest in encouraging people to be productive. To push people to the back of the bus is counterproductive.

Sometimes it seems the California Republican Party ignores the lesson of the toxicity of associating with the wildly antigay activists. In 1998, for instance, Republican Matt Fong was trying to unseat Democratic U.S. senator Barbara Boxer when it was revealed he had contributed to Lou Sheldon's Traditional Values Coalition.

I don't want to disparage one of the two major parties in this country, but I will say this: They have presented voters with a crystal-clear choice. Mr. Simon signed a "marriage protection pledge" to oppose domestic-partnership legislation of any kind. I have no doubt that Mr. Simon did that out of sincerity, but that, in my view, is not how to lead California. We're all God's children; he made us all differently. After I was elected to office, I went to Mexico to try to repair relations that had been damaged by my predecessor. Reaching out to the gay community and signing a whole series of bills recognizing their contribution to our society is an important achievement. But it's not isolated. It's something I've done in a lot of areas.

But you can't run on the Sheldon-Simon connection alone. Now that Riordan has been dispatched, gay and lesbian voters really don't have anywhere else to go. Given your clear advantage in this area, what is the motivation to continue reaching out? There could be a temptation to take the gay vote for granted.

I take no vote for granted, nor do I cede any vote. I was very pleased to see that the Human Rights Campaign rated California second only to Vermont as the state that best understands the needs of its gay and lesbian citizens. I don't want to sound patronizing, but I want to remind Californians of the gay and lesbian contribution to the arts and entertainment, to science, and a whole range of areas.

You have used what might be called an incremental strategy when it comes to gay rights.

I think that's a fair comment on my governance style across the board. Trust me on this: People are always trying to push me faster. Remember that Vermont was acting pursuant to a court order. California has gone further than anyone not facing a court order. I have taken an incrementalist approach on everything, from education to the environment. We have come a long way on gay rights, and we've done it without any backlash. That's a sign that people have accepted our slow but true progress.

But is that the best strategy for a constituency that's waited so long to see progress?

It's just about keeping your word and not promising more than you can do. I had a father who was constantly making promises he wouldn't keep. That was a big disappointment to me as a child, and I reacted against that. I've tried to underpromise and, if anything, overdeliver. I may not be the most exciting politician in the world, but happily, in California we've got Hollywood for entertainment. I live in West Hollywood. My first marriage to my wife, Sharon--I actually got married to her twice--was at the Bel Air home of Sheldon Andelson, a gay activist and dear friend of ours. He died about 18 months later. His passing wakened me to issues I've worked on ever since.

Tell me about Sheldon Andelson.

Sheldon had a lot of events at his house for Governor [Jerry] Brown, whom I was chief of staff for. I had been at his place at least once a month for the four or five years prior to my getting married there. He was the first openly gay member of the University of California board of regents. He offered us his home, and it just felt natural for us. We were also married in a church. I felt so comfortable going there that the enormity of the day didn't dawn on me. As Sharon came down the stairs, I was so ashen that she grabbed my hand and said, "How are you doing, honey?"

There was a headline in the Los Angeles Times in March that read, "The Davis Enigma: Success Comes Without Popularity." Have gay voters embraced you more warmly than nongay voters?

Certainly the people who came to the signing [of the domestic-partnership bill] felt very good about it and realized it was a historic event. I've spoken at gay events across the state and gotten very warm receptions.

It was about a decade ago that Pete Wilson vetoed a gay rights bill. Rioting broke out across the state. Is California a more tolerant place today?

California has always been tolerant. In many ways Californians are libertarians--they live and let live. What's changed is leadership, and that makes a difference. There are two sides to everything. My predecessor chose to stress the negative. I try to emphasize the positive of all of us sharing the same space. That reminds people of their better instinct.

Then how do you reconcile the tolerance of the state with the ugliness of some of the rhetoric of the Knight initiative, the 2000 ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage?

I'm not sure I can. I do think it's important for leaders to remind us that we're all God's children, and it's not up to us to disrespect those plans.

There's a sweeping civil unions bill in the California legislature [Assembly Bill 1338] that proposes to go much further than the DP bill you signed in October. What's your position?

I haven't taken a position. I've asked my staff to look at the Vermont experience. My staff will probably begin its work as soon as we get the budget done. We will seek the advice of various members of the community. There may be various aspects of that law that they recommend we adopt. We want to see how the law is actually working.

But a stronger bill is consistent with your position to adopt all the rights and responsibilities of marriage without the religious trappings of it. Why do you need to study it?

No other state in America has done more in this area, save for Vermont.

Does it conflict with Knight's ban on same-sex marriage, as opponents have argued?

I haven't looked into that matter. I don't want to be nonresponsive to that question, but we have to take a look at what's going on in Vermont, and we are asking for the assistance of the community in answering these questions.

You have talked about your religious objection as a Catholic to same-sex marriage. But wouldn't it in some ways alleviate many of the problems we are seeing with survivor benefits for victims of terrorism and with all the different domestic-partnership bills across the country?

I do believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I said that in 1998. I've worked hard to recognize the contributions gays and lesbians have made to our economy and to our life here.

But you've mentioned several times in this interview that "we are all God's children." You didn't say, "We are all God's children except when it comes to marriage rights."

We have a long tradition of separation of church and state.

Daniel Zingale and Chuck Supple, a couple, work for you in prominent positions. They are raising two adopted children together.

I've known them both for some time. I just saw Chuck the other day at a Cesar Chavez celebration. I have great respect for both of them, and I certainly don't want anything to happen to their children. They have been raising their children in a loving, supportive environment. We have gone to great lengths in this administration to be sure that the experts, and not the politicians, handle adoption.

I want to ask you about Robert Rosenkrantz, the young man who, when in high school in the 1980s, shot and killed another young man who had outed him. Some gay activists have been pushing for you to grant Rosenkrantz clemency. By all accounts, he's been a model prisoner. Weren't there extenuating circumstances to his crime? Hasn't the young man paid his dues? Isn't 17 years in prison punishment enough?

I've tried to look at every [parole] case regardless of the circumstances. As you know, I served in the Vietnam War 30 years ago. One of the people I didn't grant clemency happened to be a Vietnam veteran and a Latino. His lawyers argued that he suffered from flashbacks when he raped and killed an 82year-old woman. I try to focus on the case, and I look at recommendations from the prosecutor and family and relatives of the victim and make my best judgment. I am reluctant to overturn the wisdom of a jury.

In these days of terrorism and war, AIDS has slipped off the front pages. In a state with a heavy caseload and rising infection rates, how do you plan to keep it front and center?

Notwithstanding that this is a terrible budget year and we are facing a $17 billion shortfall, we are still providing as much money as last year for AIDS education, treatment, and prevention. There is a $24 million increase for the AIDS Drug Assistance Program. While not every program will go up and some will go down, we are asking an advisory committee to guide us on these choices. Sheldon Andelson's life and death had a big impact on me. I had been interested in AIDS even before it was a front-page issue, and my interest has not diminished over time one iota.