Lightening the Loafers

I think this cinches the deal -- if Schwarzenegger can handle the gay marriage ruling here in Homofornia, then the rest of the manly men in Gawd's Own Party oughta should be able to.

In a meeting with The Chronicle's editorial board on Friday, Schwarzenegger was asked to clarify his position.

"First, I have always said that for me, marriage is between a man and a woman," he said.

Then he added: "But I don't want to make everyone else go in that direction."

Schwarzenegger said he vetoed same-sex marriage legislation because he felt the Legislature shouldn't override voter-approved Proposition 22, which had defined marriage as between a man and a woman and was nullified by the high court on Thursday.

However, the governor said he doesn't necessarily feel the same when it comes to the Supreme Court overturning a statute enacted by a voter initiative.

"When the people vote, people are not legal experts, constitutional experts or any of that," he said. "I think that's why we have the courts. People may vote with good intentions, but then the court says, 'This is not constitutional.'

"It's not that the court interferes with the will of the people," he added. "But the court says, 'You voted for something, but it's not constitutionally right, so let's rework this.' That's really the idea."

While he supports the notion that same-sex couples should enjoy the same protections as heterosexual couples, the governor said same-sex marriage is not something that he has felt strongly about. He added that he has attended ceremonies for domestic partnerships.

He's exactly right, legally and morally. People (including myself) have given Ahnold a hard time here and there for some of his more meatheaded antics, but the guy was the biggest movie star on the planet not so long ago. You don't get to that point without understanding what motivates large groups of people, and here he iterates precisely that the reason this court ruling is pretty solid is because it restricts the ability of one group of people to impose their proprietary "morality" on another group of people, to the detriment of their basic rights. And that's why future initiatives in California's much-abused referendum process are doomed to fail.

But more than that, what was refreshing about Schwarzenegger's take on this was his personal observation. Essentially he's saying, "It's not my thing personally, but I've been to gay weddings, and it's not a big deal. There are more important issues."

Indeed, you would think that with two simultaneous wars, a tanking economy, and a fractious campaign to anoint the next schmuck who thinks they want to lead this dog-and-pony show, this would not even be a blip. But naturally, the focus instantly turns to how the timing of this ruling favors Saint Straight Talk, especially since Obama couldn't win California. Well, it doesn't help McCain here, except in the areas (such as, um, the one I live in) that were going for him in the first place. So McCain takes San Diego, Orange and Ventura Counties, and most of Central California and the Sacramento Valley. That's not nearly enough to take the whole state, especially in a demotivated Republican climate, especially in a state where the state Republican party leadership is probably a used-car dealer from Bakersfield and a staff of three. Seriously, these guys are fuckin' incompetent.

However, it's the perfect roughage for the constant ideological kampfers. Let's take a trip to ClownHall and see what their geniuses are up to, starting with convicted felon Chuck Colson:

In essence, these judges have created a new right out of thin air. Now, they base this decision, in part, on a precedent of the case in California declaring the ban on interracial marriage unconstitutional.

But over the centuries in Western civilization, public policy has recognized the vital role of the family—that the heterosexual family needed to be protected and defended in the law, because it provided crucial benefits for the well-being of society and family. That is different than a question of civil rights. Marriage always, everywhere until recent years, has been protected for the good of the state and the families.

Now, the problem is that the people of California cannot overturn this decision. Even an amendment to the California constitution will not help now. It all boils down to this: the need for a federal constitutional amendment—and soon, before other states start doing the same thing.

....

I guess I am not surprised by what happened in California. I have seen judges out of control for years. What I cannot fathom is how they would do it under the guise of natural rights. If the democratic process means anything, it means the consent of the governed. We cannot let the courts do this, or we do not have a democracy.

This is unfettered nonsense. Maybe Colson should have read the Federalist Papers while he was in the joint, and better understood what the Founding Fathers meant by "the necessity of auxiliary precautions"; i.e., the need for checks and balances, not only between branches of government, but on the occasions of buffoonery the people tend to visit upon themselves.

What the predominately Republican California Supreme Court has said is that the "will of the people" cannot be used to deny basic rights to homosexuals any more than it can be utilized to disenfranchise women or keep slaves. There is never a shortage of yahoos begging for the chance to vote against themselves or for the stupidest tripe to be plastered against a brick wall, if they think it voices their need for tribal self-identification. The court recognized that, wisely using Loving as a precedent. What Colson and his cohort need to do, instead of wasting everyone's time and diddling with the Constitution, is just get over it and grow the hell up already.

Another ClownHall denizen takes a more snide attack on California itself, for having the temerity to upset the Gawwwwwd-uh! that lives in her head:

By one vote, the California Supreme Court today rejected the expressed will of Californians to limit marriage to a man and a woman.

In 2000, a 61.4 percent majority of Californians passed Proposition 22, which limited marriage to a man and a woman and precluded California’s recognition of same-sex “marriages” consummated elsewhere.

....

The California Supreme Court has opened the door to a legal battle royal across the nation. Homosexual couples will flock to California to marry, return to their home states, and file lawsuits to force the recognition of their Land of Fruits and Nuts marriages—and the destruction of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Heh. "Land of Fruits and Nuts". Never heard that one before. Listen here, Sweet Cheeks -- one in every nine Americans lives in California. The state is the sixth largest economy in the world. We get less back from our federal tax dollars than anyone else, because of all the fucking deadbeat states in flyover country, who apparently don't produce much other than "Jesus Saves" billboards, enormous balls of twine, and the kind of desperation that can only be produced by generations of failure and cultural stasis. What else could possibly be available in Cawker City, Kansas, besides a Stuckey's and poorly-given (if no doubt eager) blowjobs? So, you know, fuck you and the horse you rode in on, m'kay?

As for Plop 22, there was a funny -- no, hilarious -- pained missive on the local news station's viewer e-mail segment. (Unfortunately, no available link to the specific e-mail.) Out of six e-mails read, five were howling in dismay at what these black-robed despots had wrought, and how mad Jeezus was going to be about it. Really, I felt like getting them a tissue.

Anyway, one of these spiteful little goobers wrote in whinging about how she had put in so much work canvassing houses for Plop 22, how all her hard work was now for naught, blah blah blah. Lady, I hope it put corns and calluses on your feet, and 'roids in your pooter. I hope it keeps you up at night, for a while at least. And I can't wait for them to come back by my house this time around; neither I nor my (yes, female) wife will be nearly as polite as last time.

But really, more than the usual scorn and contempt, what I'm really starting to feel for these people is pity, because they're utterly wasting their lives, their time, whatever good fortune they've had in life so far, squandering it on something that means utterly nothing. Their time would be better spent making a house-sized ball of twine, than endlessly nurturing this pointless obsession of theirs.

Finally we have (for ClownHall) the voice of reason, Debra J. Saunders. Saunders, to her credit, voted against Plop 22 and as a libertarian on social matters, has no weird issues about the ickiness of pole-smokers and donut-bumpers. (In fact, with this crowd, the more vocal they are, the more likely that either they're closet-cases or they have gay children that they're embarrassed about.) So Deb's on the right track, but ends her (reader-rated) one-star column on a diminished chord:

Mayor Gavin Newsom went on CNN to chide the fogies of the world who see this decision as a threat to civilization as we know it.

Newsom is right. America will not fall into the sea and Western civilization will not collapse.

In fact, this decision changed little. California law already has ensured equal rights for gays and lesbians. All this ruling did is change a name.

In short, there was no substantive reason for the court to rule as it did. And in jumping in too soon, the judges have created a permanent opposition -- similar to the permanent opposition to abortion laws -- that would not exist if California voters had changed the law for themselves, as they eventually would have done.

Which makes the George court's decision all that much more heavy-handed.

Feh. You can't have it both ways; you can't take the path of moral bravery (given your party base's rhetorical constraints) for yourself, and then turn around and excuse the moral cowardice or stupidity of others on the same issue. This is awful weak tea, prognosticating that Californians "eventually" would have grown up and overturned the previous initiative. It's like the Lost Causers claiming that the former Confederacy would have "eventually" repudiated slavery on their own had that meddling bastard Lincoln not interfered. Some things simply do not deserve to be excused or overlooked.

Not that they won't try, but this is going to be a non-starter for the mossback theosophists this time around. This ain't 2004, fools -- people are broke and pissed, and the current Republican nominee is locked in an ideological embrace with the Worst Preznit Evah, even as he finds the balls to talk about "the change [we] deserve", using a pharmaceutical slogan to inappropriately position himself. [Correction: the "change" slogan is actually being put forth by House Republicans, not directly by McCain himself. It is no less hilarious for that. Perhaps they can put Tom DeLay's mug shot on the posters.] Change what, muthafucka? From Iraq to Iran, from younger and dumber to older and crankier, from a Pinto to a Pacer? Straight Talk might peel a couple of points from the "Gawd Hates Fags" contingent, but fuck 'em anyways. I don't want to find common ground with them, I'm just waiting for them to die off already.

In the meantime, congratulations to the gay peoples for the legal recognition of a formality which many of them had already been living de facto, and hopefully this small victory proves more lasting for you.