California is stupid

Well, I can't say it was unexpected. All the inside reports from California predicted the outcome of the state's Supreme Court case regarding Proposition 8. It was still somewhat disheartening.

I am a supporter of the rights of same-sex couples to get married, plain and simple. I can't find any non-arbitrary, non-religious justification for why people of the same sex cannot be married under our Constitution. What rationale is there? The Declaration of Independence, the proclamation of our freedoms and the written demand that they be upheld, cites certain "inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Apparently, the will of the majority decrees that only said majority can pursue happiness. Who are we, the heterosexuals in this country, to impose upon others "our" will for how they are to live their lives? The will of the majority must not come at the expense of the rights of the minority. To do so would be oppression. We live in a democratic society, to be sure, where We the People assert our will through elections; it is still the job of the government to protect those who may be exploited. Think, just over 40 years ago, it was illegal in 36 states for a black person and a white person to get married. Why?

Insert answer here...I'll wait.

Exactly. It was arbitrary. The minority was oppressed due to the will of the majority, which, thankfully, changed over time, along with the passage of civil rights legislation in the latter half of the 1960's. It seems that every generation has to have some group to oppress. Maybe it's human nature, to exploit those who are perceived as weaker, who traditionally hold less clout.

The only arguments that I have heard against same-sex marriage are religious or moral in nature. It is "an abomination" or homosexuals are "perverts" or otherwise offensive to God. So, if God made everyone in his own image, yet you find them offensive...slippery slope. Not going there. Oh, and according to Leviticus, shellfish are an abomination too.

But let's stick to the legal arguments. The United States government cannot and should not legislate morality. Religious organizations founded the Prohibitionist movements as early as the 19th century, culminating in the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The Twenty-first Amendment repealed the Eighteenth after widespread dissatisfaction with, and disregard of, Prohibition (as well as rampant crime, i.e. the Mafia). The point? When the government invades the private lives of its citizens, it fails. That does not mean, of course, that people can do whatever they want and claim government oppression when they commit a crime. When someone's actions affect others negatively, then the government can step in. So explain to me exactly how same-sex marriage negatively affects my life?

Thomas Jefferson called for a "wall of separation" between church and state. He was a Founder of this country, and one of its earliest presidents. I should think he would be rolling over in his grave if he heard the arguments being made by the fanatics on the extreme right about this issue. If you can't make a political argument without invoking God, then you shouldn't be making it.

Now, the decision handed down by the California Supreme Court does not completely prevent same-sex marriage. As court cases typically are, the issue at hand was narrow. Did the voters of California have the authority to amend the state's constitution in this case? The answer, under existing law, is yes. California has some crazy ways of governing, but unfortunately this action was legal, and I won't attempt to fight that. Maybe California needs to change the way it does business, but that's a whole other issue. Thankfully, the existing 18,000 same-sex marriages were upheld. Had they not been, that would have been an abomination.

I want to see this issue continually fought, all the way to the United States Supreme Court if necessary. I defy the highest court in the country to find sound justification for the prevention of same-sex marriage. What Constitutional provision demands that marriage be defined as between one man and one woman, or even allows the government to make such a decision? I think the answer should be obvious. I don't think this particular case that was decided today will proceed to appellate court, because it was so narrow in scope and the decision is pretty clear. I am sure that one day we will see this case before the Supreme Court, in one way or another.

Until then, we'll have to see what the gay rights activists do in 2009. I hear the opposing proposition will be on the ballot in the next election. And this time, tell the Mormon Church to keep its $20 million out of the ads and propaganda. If you want to keep your status as a tax-exempt church, act as a church, and not a damn political action committee.

Political Theater

Nancy Pelosi cracks me up. I watched the news conference where Pelosi attempted to refute the accusations that she knew more than she has claimed about waterboarding and enhanced interrogation techniques. Man, that was almost as good as watching Clinton ask for clarification on what the definition of "is" is.

Now, any of you who read my blog often know that I typically harp on the Republican Party. But more than anything, I like to think of myself as a critic of all politicians. My mind changes over time on who I ally myself with, based on who I feel has the best ideas.

Tonight, my subject is the Speaker of the House and what she may or may not have known about waterboarding.

Here's how I see it. Of course she knew we were waterboarding terrorism suspects. She was a prominent leader in the minority party at the time in question, 2002. She was briefed on these so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" after they had been used. So she knew about it, then she didn't know about it, then she knew that there was the potential to maybe be used but hadn't really but it wasn't so clear.

What? That's political drivel for "I knew about it and now I know I'm screwed."

She knew. She was told by the CIA what was going on, and she was doing what was politically popular. There was a prevailing anti-terrorist sentiment that surged through the country post-9/11. I think we are all still very anti-terrorism, but maybe now we ask more questions because other nations don't really like some of the things we may or may not be doing. Back in 2002, the definition of "terrorist" was also probably a bit wider than it is now, but that's not really the point. We know that Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were terrorists, so they got the worst. So what was the popular choice? Nail the bastards and get whatever we can out of them.

So she went along with it. If Pelosi had objected to torture, as she claims now, she would have spoken out based on principle right then and there, if she were honest. But there was no need for honesty; there were points to be scored with the public.

Fast forward a few years. The public tide is turning on Bush and Cheney. They've done some questionable stuff, and the public doesn't like it. Pelosi is now Speaker of the House, giving her a very prominent bully pulpit. Waterboarding is torture, waterboarding is wrong. This is what the public wants to hear. This is what Madam Speaker pronounces.

The political tide continues to turn, with a sweeping Democratic victory in the 2008 election. The time is right for change. I voted for that change. So now what does the public want? That's not entirely clear. Do we let it go? Do we form a Congressional truth commission? Speaker Pelosi calls for a truth commission. This would seem to be a reasonably popular choice - do everything we can to get to the bottom of any illegality, prosecute it, and let justice be done. In principal, this is the American Way. Obey the Constitution, do what is right.

This is what Speaker Pelosi calls for. The rest of Congress, however, is not so convinced. Republicans sense that there may be a witch hunt brewing, potentially smearing an already-smarting political party. Democrats (whose noses are also not fully clean in the matter) don't really want to push it, because some of their own may be at risk. They hold the power and they like it. Any political party likes to be in charge. So what are the odds of a truth commission? Probably pretty slim, given the overwhelming indecision throughout our Legislative Branch.

So where does Nancy Pelosi sit in all of this? Exactly where she wants to be - safe. She played the game in 2002 and went with the prevailing hawkish political tide. Now she speaks out forcefully against waterboarding, again, just what the public wants to hear. She speaks out so forcefully that she even promotes the idea of a truth commission, the American Way - justice for all.

Because she knows it will never happen.

She knows it keeps her safe. Those in the public who aren't sure what's going on hear what they want, and behind the scenes, the political gears continue to turn. How, if she is so enthusiastic about 100% transparency, can she have anything to hide? That's exactly the point she wants to make. She promotes something that she knows will not come to pass. Political theater at its best. She's playing all sides, likely will not face any real trouble aside from the political sniping from the Republican Party, which is mostly on point on this issue, I think.

See? I agreed with conservatives.

All well and good, and nothing major is going to happen. I just thought I'd observe that this is some interesting politics at play here. It's all about message and spin. And sometimes, just ever so often, you can play all sides until you're in the position you wanted after all.