I think that Arnold the Governator has been inhaling a bit too much of the foul California air. I am not talking about the cloud of toxicity that is often hovering above the Los Angeles basin. Nor am I referring to the terrible smoke belching from the fires that are once again proving money and fame are no guarantee against natural disaster. No, I am talking about the pure vile and hate being spewed by those protesting against the passage of Proposition 8 as their nationwide hissy fit drones on.
This post is not going to discuss the relative merits or prejudices of that proposition. There are enough opinion pieces floating around that have opened plenty of back doors for the bath house and pillow biting crowd to rant through. To be honest I am somewhat politically ambivalent about the whole thing. However, trying to find the best man at a lesbian wedding is a real pain in the ass. Ok, perhaps that isn’t the best way to phrase that given the subject matter. How about it gives me a headache?
What struck me like a lightning rod on a dry mountain top was the complete duplicity in several comments made by Arnold “my spell check is quaking” Schwarzenegger on This Week with George “my spell check just quit” Stephanopoulos. My consistency checker fired up faster than a Santa Barbara hillside under a vengeful God’s wrath when the muscle bound Austrian performed an about face faster than Larry Craig entering a cop filled Minneapolis men’s room as he praised Proposition 11 passing in California immediately after railing about Prop 8 passing too!
Proposition 11 was a proposed amendment to the California constitution and provides guidelines around the every ten year redrawing of the boundaries of legislative districts. Called the Voters First Act, this proposition was supported by as many liberal organizations as opposed it. Republican groups, the one or two of them in California, tended to support the measure. It passed by a very narrow margin.
Proposition 8, for those of you who have been stuck in a line for High School Musical 3 and haven’t heard, adds a new amendment to the California Constitution which says, "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". The lines were fairly well drawn between left and right lobbying groups on this one. This amendment, too, passed and by a margin that was, albeit thin, three times that of Proposition 11.
When asked by the wee one George if he thought the California Supreme Court should overturn Prop 8, Conan the Governor said:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Proposition 8 here in California, it passed, defining marriage as exclusively for men and women. I know you've said you hope the court overturns it. Will you join Democrats who are filing a challenge in the court?
SCHWARZENEGGER: No. I mean …for me, marriage is between a man and a woman. But I don't want to ever force my will on anyone. I think that the Supreme Court was right by saying that it's unconstitutional. And that everyone should have the right, just like we had the battle in 1948 and the Supreme Court decision came down, that, you know, it was unconstitutional for blacks and whites not to be able to get married with each other, and they overturned that. And since then, that has been taken care of.
And now the Supreme Court says that it's also unconstitutional to not let gay people get married, the same-sex marriage. So to me, that is the important decision here, and everything else is not that important…
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you think the courts should overturn Proposition 8?
SCHWARZENEGGER: The court has overturned it. And now they went back. And the people have voted for it again, against the gay marriage. So the Supreme Court, you know, I think ought to go and look at that again. And we'll go back to the same decision, basically… And I think that the important thing now is to resolve this issue in that way.
Let me make sure I understand this. The Supreme Court decided to allow homosexual marriage. The people of the State of California, following the guidelines prescribed in the state constitution, voted to change the state constitution so marriage would only be between a man and a woman and Sergeant Shriver’s son-in-law feels the court should tell the people of the state to shove their votes up their, well, once again we won’t go there given the subject matter, and over turn the vote! Got it? State Supreme Court = good/smart. People of California = stupid/homophobes to be equated with racists and bigots.
Fast forward in the interview a whopping 20 to 30 seconds:
STEPHANOPOULOS: How about Proposition 11? The opponents of Proposition 11, which will set up this independent commission to draw up the congressional districts, haven't given up the fight yet. Do you think they actually have a chance of still winning?
SCHWARZENEGGER: In Proposition 11? This is over. Proposition 11 has won… And thank God. I think the people of California were very smart in this, because five times before it has not succeeded…And I said, you know, that, whenever you lose, you analyze why you have lost. What have you done wrong? Because the idea is not wrong. It's just the way you went about was wrong…in 2005, I tried that same battle. And I was not inclusive enough…And so we lost. And we went back again, regrouped…And we won.
Once more let me make sure I understand this. The people voted on an issue and, that’s it. The amendment is good, passed, fini, over and done! No Supreme Court to outsmart the people is needed on this one. Got it? Oh, and if any of the "..." edits have you worried, here is the whole transcript.
On second thought I don’t get it. The majority of the electorate voting for a proposition on one hand is fine while the same majority of the electorate voting for a proposition on the other hand is wrong. I am more confused than a bi-sexual cross dresser in a coed bathroom. (Just think about that one!)
I am not happy with the results of several highly contested issues and races in this past election. But I will live with them and will take the opportunity to express my God given right to vote the next time I can. In politics there are winners and losers in every vote. Whining, protests and law suits are but a loser’s way to try to subvert the system and change the will put forth by the people. Some of these subversions will work and that is a shame. Shame on those who bring these suits and partake in these protests. Shame on those who sit idly by and say nothing as these protests and suits progress.
The next time you see somebody whining about their loss in an election and they are protesting seeking to somehow change or overcome the vote, tell them they lost. Work harder next time and they might win. Tell them to sit down, shut up and suck it up. Well, perhaps that last one is once again a poor choice of words but you know what I mean.
S2
Monday, November 17, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
It sounds as though you're less than enthusiastic about CA's Proposition 8. May I attempt to change your mind?
I neither advocate homosexuality nor condemn it. But I'm uncertain as to whether its a matter of choice or one of inheritance. If the latter, I'm puzzled as to why it hasn't been bred out of the gene pool by sheer force of numbers. Maybe so many have "passed" over the years, marrying rather than endangering themselves by coming out, that the gene gets passed along through the generations. I don't know.
But whether it's a case of nature or nurture, I think that laws that prohibit gays from enjoying the same contractual and civil rights as the rest of us are wrong. Many opponents of gay marriage phrase their arguments in terms of procreation. Let's suppose for a moment that they are right. Then what about hetero couples who can't or choose not to have children. Are their marriages legitimate? What about single parents? Suppose that a gay man and a gay woman are good, life-long friends. Should they be allowed to marry? If they were in the closet to everyone but themselves, who would know, anyway? Why shouldn't people who are close to each other be able to inherit from each other as survivors? Make life and death decisions for each other? Share their assets for tax purposes? You can probably see that I'm headed in the direction of what are called civil unions. I'll get back to that.
Other opponents argue about the sacredness of marriage-- that marriage between a man and a woman is the way a deity intended it to be. I'm sorry, but in this country, I can't see that. There are a lot of people here (some say as many as 12%) that are effectively non-believers. Even if it's one percent, isn't it a violation of their freedom of religion to impose laws on them that are founded on religious beliefs that aren't theirs?
Today (and I think even more often than we like to admit in times past), "coupling" itself occurs somewhat casually outside of marriage. Many people don't seem to feel that marriage is a prerequisite for intimacy. Laws about this are for the most part removed from the books or enforced sporadically. Lightning hasn't struck them dead yet. I don't think that's likely to change soon. If intimacy happens inside and outside of marriage, maybe, at least civilly, it shouldn't be a consideration in deciding who marries.
I believe that this country should be an inclusive society-- open to all who come here or grow up here with a mind-set of peace, honesty and fairness to others. Religion shouldn't enter into it. Governments should base their laws on the least common denominator of religious beliefs. There is such a wide spectrum of those that the only practical approach to law making is to keep religion out of the process. Stipulate that individuals have rights. There's no need to say where they come from. Judeo-Christians have their opinion, and Randites have theirs, with a whole lot of other theories in between. Then set up a system of government that exists to protect those rights. I think that's what the Founders were trying to do in the Constitution.
So, what about "marriage?" If the law shouldn't deal with its sacredness, and reproduction, although often a desired goal, isn't a necessary outcome, and intimacy happens without it, what's left? The civil, contractual stuff. That's what governments should be registering, sanctioning and upholding, as they do with other contracts. Any two people should be able to enter into one. Why not even three or more? Everyone who wants the contractual benefits should be able to participate. Leave the sacred parts to churches and other organizations. They could decide who they want as members and who can partake in the sacred side of relationships, just as they do now. It's a true separation of church and state. Marriage in the form of a civil union would establish the legal aspect of a couple's relationship. Those who want more could, but wouldn't be obliged to, partake in ceremonies that add the other aspects.
What about that?
CrackerBarrel.
Cracker,
Thanks for the well made and civil comment. Not one to ever shy from a good conversation, I hope I don't seem to be doing that now. But, the intent of my post wasn't so much to comment on the merits of Prop 8 but to
1. Highlight an obvious inconsistency in the governor's statements and
2. Suggest that the highly emotionally charged protests by opponents of the legally passed amendment are not serving in their communities best interests.
If more people would put forth their arguments calmly, coherently and sanely as you have just done, the divide between the far flung factions on each side just might close a bit.
I am sorry that, I really haven't thought through the issue to a point where I feel comfortable making a stand for either side. What I see though are people putting self interest (on both sides) ahead of proper discourse and political action.
It is to that that my post was directed.
Also, thanks a ton for taking the time to both read my post and comment on it. I hope you will continue to do so.
Post a Comment