Barak Obama is Two Steps Forward; Prop 8 is One Step Back: California's Ideological Paradox
60
As Barak Obama was swept into the presidency upon a wave hope and votes declaring that, in fact, the American dream is not dead but living vibrantly, the great state of California -- believed by many and proclaimed by its own voice to be the "leader" of progress and tolerance -- still managed to prove in its approval of Propostion 8 that it is not the state it so vociferously proclaims itself to be.
California did manage to put its votes with the rest of the nation in favor of an African-American president, which is great, and I am proud to be amongst those who believe that America is a place that values equality and opportunity for everyone. I just wish that my home state of California felt that way about everyone and in all things.
Our votes spoke in favor of a black man for president in the same breath that we said we were happy to amend our state constitution so that not all Californians have the same rights as the rest. We said, "Yes," to the triumph of a vast portion of our populace realizing for once that they are equal to all the rest in fact rather than in words, and at the same time we said, "No," to another portion of our populace, told them, "you are free to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but only if you do so in the manner we tell you to." We said to a vast number of people, "We don't care how you were born, or how your path through life has made you to be, you are less than us and deserve to be treated differently."
The California vote screamed a great loud paradox into the universe, declaring we believe in freedom for everyone and at the same that we don't. We proved that we are not quite done percolating the American dream. We proved that we see the dream, that we know it is an idea that sort of exists, but it exists for some of us more than others, that we don't have the egalitarian wherewithal to carry it all the way through. We still can't escape that human instinct to hate and hold difference in fear, to impose our beliefs on others so that the world resembles us as we want to see ourselves rather than how we are. We in California chose moral despotism over equality. Technically it's fair, "majority rules" is the nature of democracy, which is a form for governing a nation or a state, but we weren't really voting on how we run the state's government. We the people voted against ourselves.
The opportunity for America to truly be free came closer with the election of Obama, so all in all, November 4th, 2008 was a good day. But in California we also proved that the journey is not yet done. After the Civil War, blacks won their freedom and eventually got the right to vote. Women did not get that right on the same day that black men did, but eventually they got it too. Blacks finally got the right to go to college and sit where they wanted on the bus, but not for a hundred years after they were free from slavery. History has proven that America is slow to recognize its own bigotry; that it clings to its traditions of oppressing difference when it can despite the things it says or writes or broadcasts on TV. We've proven we don't act as we say that we believe, at least not all the way, and that we are slow to match our actions with our words. But that's how these things just seem to go historically. Two steps forward, one step back. We just took all the steps on the same election night this time out. So don't despair if you were let down by California's ironic vote, by its contradiction and its ideological paradox. Apparently we're only capable of winning one battle at a time.
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
The loss was decisive, and that's the most demoralizing part. Was it because of the double negative? To vote "yes" was to vote "no" and vice versa? Did that confuse voters who didn't understand what they were voting for? Was it because of the deceptive ads mongering fear that kids will be taught a "homosexual agenda" in our schools? It's puzzling to me that such a blue state could do such a thing.
Propositions are (IMO) a waste of time and should be banned from the ballots. Isn't that what we pay those people who hang out in the Capitol for????
Meantime, as disheartening as this is, we need to look at the greater good. As a country, I think we've took more than 2 steps forward last night. Imagine if things had gone the opposite way? Say Prop 8 had prevailed, but all the other positive wins across the country had gone the other way?
What's the saying, a rising tide raises all boats? I'm optimistic that greater tolerance is in the wind...
Shadesbreath, great job with this hub! It's extremely well written and your hopes for humanity shine through. I agree with Spryte about the passing of Prop 102 in Arizona--this is the quote our conservative newspaper (the AZ Republic) posted online about it: "Prop. 102's victory shows that a simple and timeless value like marriage unites people of all ethnic, religious and political backgrounds," said Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy, which lobbied heavily to get lawmakers to refer the matter to the ballot.
How's that for short sighted? And you'll notice that "people of all ethnic, religious and political backgrounds" certainly doesn't mean gay people. Heavens no. They don't count, apparently.
So, I share your disappointment, but also your optimism in the wake of Obama's presidential victory! This is a huge leap forward for our nation, and I hope it's a sign of greater tolerance and humanity in the days to come.
Yeah, baby steps is right, Spryte. Still, Obama was a giant step, so I'm very happy. I just couldn't help being a little dissapointed this morning is all. I so hoped we could have a clean sweep for equality.
And MM, I am optimistic too. Eventually we'll stamp out all hate-based legislation, even the ones that don't think they're hate based. I don't think the "separate but equal" people were willing to acknowledge they're "reasonable position" was hate based either. But eventually the true course of what is right overcame the "traditional" view.
And Melissa: Yeah, seriously, talk about irony... How can someone actually write a line like that:
"... timeless value like marriage unites people of all ethnic, religious and political backgrounds [except the ones we don't like, so F- those guys, but, woohaa for the rest of us!!!]."
Nice job. Unfortunately, I think a majority of Americans are easily influenced, and things like elections, propositions, all the way to what kind of toothpaste to buy, are victorious not because of real value but who does the best with propaganda/advertising. This is nothing new in American Politics, going all the way back to George Washington. In fact, it was even more brutal and ridiculous, where candidates where subjected to outrageous accusations, such as so-and-so is a hermaphrodite or pedophile or anything else they could think of. I would like to think that we have grown as a society - wiser, more informed, more tolerant, less gullible - but I am sad to say we haven't changed much. As you have pointed out, it took a long, long time for the one step of progress (or is it two) we have made. I worry that the step was more of an accident than a concious effort. The republicans had a lot to overcome, and there were a lot of mistakes. If these gaffs were removed, would Obama still have won? We elected Bush twice (with a little help from Bush appointees), but it should not have even been close 4 years ago. I'm happy, just not as happy as I should be.
I guess I am with Chris on that. Barely half a step forward if you ask me...
this may the good start for him
Great Hub, and you echoed my sentiments exactly. I agree with most of the comments, too.
Thank you for writing this because your words echo my thoughts. This news is disheartening, and it leaves me feeling sick to my stomach because I cannot believe we are so slow to treat people equally.
Christoph, I hear what you're saying, but you know, I think Obama stood on his own anyway. Think about it, he beat Hilary down and she was the good old boy network favorite with her high profile hubby and white as ivory. I choose to believe America has proven itself even if California hasn't. We set ourselves up here as being THE most open minded and proved we're still just talking. Maybe some old ideas just have to finish aging and die out first.
Misha, I think two steps, fully two. But two steps does not get you anywhere, so, we'll see. I'm very hopeful right now though, and feel pretty damn good about being an American, if not so much about being a Californian.
Lgali, Livelonger, and Stacie: thanks and let's hope the potential becomes a larger reality in time. :)
Thank you for this, Shadesbreath. Frankly, I've been too angry to write a proper Hub on this.
I heard some "No on 8" folks wondering how to reach folks who planned to vote Yes because "uhh ... 'Yes' means we support gays, right?" Don't know if that was a major factor, but it was a concern. The fact that in California, a constitutional amendment by simple majority was likely a biggie. On top of bad old-fashioned bigotry, that is.
Yeah, Marian, the whole constitutional amendment thing really makes it much worse than if it was just an regular law banning equality for gays and lesbians. But to make it part of the foundational document is brutal. I really hate to wipe that kind of offal onto something like our Constitution, the kind of document that is normally thought of as being composed for the establishment of high ideals and inclusive philosophy. Just deny them rights with a regular law, don't make discrimination a formal part of the founding document of the state. What kind of precedent does that set?
:) Imagine me, writing this to you. Shadesbreath, you have fully earned my respect, in more ways than one.
Well done.
LOL Lita, glad to hear it. :)
I was visiting my son in Orange last weekend and every corner hosted people with posters declaring, "Vote NO on Prop 8" which meant Yes to Gay Marriage, (or did I get that backwards?). I was shocked to hear Prop 8 had failed. What a roller coaster ride the gay population in California has experienced- such a hateful initiative. I hope it doesn't dishearten this minority. Certainly, as I wrote my son, Americans are slow to embrace change. We still have not had a viable female candidate run as a major party candidate for President...
Thanks for this, Shadesbreath, I've linked it!
Very nice Shades. There's nothing I can add to what's already been said except to say that it always burns my cookies when the government exercises control over what should be rightful liberties and freedom of choice for each person.
Wow I couldn't believe this was your hub! Not because of the sentiments expressed, which I totally agree with, but because you so seldom write on political topics. It's a good hub, and yes, it was very sad that Prop 8 passed. I wish people would get off the gay marriage thing. You know--if they don't like it, then just don't be gay and don't get marred--but stay out of everybody else's business. These days, its so hard to get decent health insurance, I'd be all for letting whole cities get married, or bowling teams, or whatever it took to get everyone treated decently and humanely.
You know I was (am) a rabid Obamunist, so I was crying like a baby when he won and barely got 4 hours of sleep Tuesday night because exhausted as I was, I couldn't tear myself away from the TV or calm down. I'm going to end up like one of the little old Polish ladies from the town I grew up in--they all had home shrines that featured a crucifix, a statue of the infant of Prague, and a framed photo of JFK. My home shrine will feature a photo of Obama and his beautiful family, a portrait of FDR and a copy of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
A memorable historic day for pinkos like me--except for Prop 8. Sad.
Storyteller, it will come, just slowly.
Elena, you're welcome, and thanks for the link.
Pam, I hate burnt cookies, so I'm right with you.
Pgrundy: You know the worst part is, I'm not a pinko at all and I'm pissed too. I think that just shows how totally wrong this outcome is. I was thinking yesterday, I bet the Yes on 8 people are so happy they won. So I was trying to think, what must their celebrations look like. Can you imagine that party? I mean, how do you celebrate the opression of someone else? I imagined something like this: "Wooo haa, great job everyone, we did it! No rights for those F-ers. [high fives]. Oh yeah, we've got those godless bastards down now! Nice work, people. Our beliefs dominate all! [cheers and clinking of drinks]."
This California referendum system ought to be abolished. It has caused Californians nothing but grief from day one. What's the point of having a state legislature and supreme court if anyone with a few bucks can start a campaign of confusion to push through propositions like this abominable #8?
Agreed, vitaeb. I find myself either fighting referenda, or wondering why the hell the California Assembly can't take care of them. At this point, the only ballot measure I'd be more than happy to support is one that abolishes the system.
The existence of the system does seem to be a declaration of our lack of faith in our "representatives." I suppose that's what happens in broken systems and systems in which the citizens take no interest. I would bet you money 75% of Californians have no clue who their state reps are. Why should the legislature work?
Shadesbreath - it's hard to know, though, how the situation would be different had the system not completely sapped the Assembly's power, and put so much legislative power into the voter. The system's been in place for about a century, if I'm not mistaken. I'm sure if the only way to affect legislation were to contact your Assemblyperson, then California activism would look more like it does for federal issues, where ballot measures, thankfully, don't exist.
Also, if the Lege did its job, voters might not like it. Then the members might be -out- of a job.
Yeah, then voters could get legislators who made laws that ... represented ... the will of their constituency. Gosh, that sounds so much like how a republic is supposed to work. Wonder how we drifted so far off course.
Shades, if you don't mind, I post a link to the hub I can sign under - so precisely it mirrors my sentiment about what is going on in USA right now :) BTW, other hubs of that author are worth reading, too...
Nah, link away dude. I'll check it out when i get some time.
Just went and checked that out, Misha. That dude is too anti-American to be taken seriously. I like political and social theory, but to be taken seriously, writers at least have to try to hide how much their panties are in a bunch when they write it or it's too easy to find where the argument falls apart. Seems like a super sharp guy, though, I'd probably like him if I met him until as long as we didn't talk politics.... I'd even like him then as long as he's one of those guys who can let it drop after an hour or so.
LOL sure, just thought it might be of some interest for you :)
It was. I dashed off a long ass rebuttal, wish I'd re-read it because I have typos in it, but meh. lol. Oh, and you should check out Misty's jobs for hubbers thing, you just got nominated for fashion secretary in Christoph's adoring-fan-induced presidential regime. Bring your purse.
Nice job. Government by referendum is a poor approach as Vitaeb observed. Fortunately it worked out okay in Michigan where a law prohibitin stem cell research was revoked despite fierce opposition from the right to lifers.
Chris Reilly, IMHO you couldn't be more wrong in your opinion that our country "hasn't changed much" since George Washington. That is a ridiuclous statement. Slaves were freed but in my lifetime couldn't vote or be hired or served in a white restaurant or go to a white movie theater, let alone be elected president. Obama won't perform miracles, but his election is a giant step in progress toward racial equality in the United States although it's true that we still have a long way to go as evidenced by the racial smears against him in the campaign.
Yeah, Obama isn't going to save the universe. Frankly, he's just a man. He has the exact same chance to end up yet another moron in a sequence of 43 humans who preceded him. But I'm glad he was elected. At least his message was one of hope. Whether he turns out to be just another pawn in the game if inevitablity remains to be seen, but there are some things that his election has done that are permanent. That alone is worth more than any damage he will do. Checks and Balances still have value, despite what all the Chicken Little morons try to say.
I predict he'll be the most successful president in recent history. Ironic that he's following the least successful president in recent history.
Here are the reasons: 1) he's bright, rational and thoughtful, 2) he is really only beholden to his 3 million campaign contributors, since they will be funding his reelection, 3) he has or will have some exceptionally bright people on his team, 4) a huge part of the planet wants him to succeed.
I learned early on not to understimate the man. He ran an almost perfect campaign. His attention to detail is amazing, as is his ability to quell rancor in his campaign team (two things Hillary was unfortunately unable to master).
I know it's a good idea to not set up unrealistic expectations, because you're only setting yourself up for disappointment. But within the realm of what's possible politically, I think we can expect a tremendous amount of good from #44.
Hillary is the only candidate who could have possibly been worse than George Bush. We dodged a huge bullet on that one. She would have finished off destroying this country, taking out the remaining strengths we have.
Hey, Shades--
Yes, my sentiments exactly--what you said a couple comments ago. Obama IS just a man, not a God, not the Messiah--and I think he knows that. That is one of the reasons I've come to admire and respect him during this long political process and believe he will be a good leader. I think this will begin (hopefully) a new generation of politics where we realize it is about governing and working towards a better future--rather than power and money and cynicism.
Did you see the photo of him, by chance, with his feet on a desk and holes in the bottom of his shoes? That image for me, sums up a lot about him. Did you also see how he handles himself on stage, with others? It isn't just about his ego--I don't think--he shares the stage when his family is with him, and is always the first to give credit where credit is due to someone else--even the opposition. I honestly believe we have elected somebody who is interested in serving the people.
Wow! I wanted to say that. Thanks for creating a place to do so!
(I know this is horribly, terribly, unforgivably bad of me, probably, but my big prejudice is that I like smart people!)
Plus, I'm a big cry-baby pinko like pgrundy, so go figure.
Lita -- Are you serious? Smart people? Smart people just don't get it. What do they know about Joe Sixpack? Joe the Plumber? Joe Anybody?
I would feel so much more comfortable handing the reins of our country to someone who graduated 5th from the bottom of his class. Friendly. Folksy. Winky. Smirky. That's the kind of leadership we need here in Amuricuh.
:) OK, MM! I think you are still a fan and friend of mine, so I'm going to take that as a lovely, smart, satirical comment. (I'm a little shell shocked!)
And, yes. Sigh. It's kind of obvious, isn't it, if you are making a decision based on fact finding?
And now those same people who gave us Joe Sixpack and Joe Plumber are cannibalizing their own--Palin. Who I absolutely believe was not qualified, wink, wink, who probably did charge up all those clothes, but who I have a hard time believing--even her--didn't know that Africa was a continent, etc., etc. But there they go with the Rove style politics again, soooooooo effective and helpful--and just plain mean.
Hey, Palin was hawt. Hawt chicks are excused from competence.
Not by other women they aren't :)
Lita, darling, of course my comment was intended as satire. Sometimes I simply forget to add the :-) and smilies. You know (or I hope you know) I'm totally with you on the smart people thing. I can't speak for our gracious host Shadesbreath or Ms. Spryte, but I'm reasonably sure they and all the other hubbers who comment regularly are of like mind on this.
As for Palin, hawt chicks and competence. Brains and beauty are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I've learned some of my best lines watching Miss America over the years.
Good point, Spryte. Further evidence of why we should never have allowed women to read. If women didn't read, they wouldn't have been paying attention to politics. If they weren't paying attention to politics, no one would have pointed out how unqualified Palin is. If no one pointed out how unqualified she was, I would have had a hawt chick to look at in my government news for the next four years. So, clearly you can see how allowing women access to books has ruined my media experience.
MM, you're right, they aren't mutually exclusive. The difference is, a hawt chick can still get by without brains, even do excedingly well. I'm not sure the same can be said for a good looking guy. I'm sure there a a smattering of counter-examples, but I'm talking in meaningful numbers here. (And, yes, sarcasm and satire are the rule not the exception for the regular cross-commenters we see most I think. In fact, I would say it's safe to ALWAYS assume sarcasm before being offended by anything I say, and I'd even go on a limb and say the same for Spryte as well).
But it is fun to fake offense. :)
I always love it when somebody who doesn't catch sarcasm very well comes in and thinks you must be the most misogynistic b*stard in the world. LOL!
Men are just threatened by women who know how to read. Since they never read the instructions themselves, it's rather embarrassing when a woman comes along , reads them and is capable of pointing out everything they are doing wrong. Perhaps you should get one of Christoph's dolls. I hear they agree with everything a man says...or at the very least they don't disagree.
The problem with Christoph's dolls is that I don't think I could get one of them to poledance for me with any more success than I can my wife. At least my wife talks to me. So, as nice as his dolls look from a distance, I'm going to have to pass.
Well, Ok! I fully admit it, I'm a hawt, dumb chick who gets by on my looks, mainly in real--not internet-- life! Oh, its kinda true! And yes! We do have special privileges! Just like many women fear!
Truth is, I slept with my theatre professor in college cuz I couldn't make the A on my satire assignment and! He was really really impressed. So impressed, he turned me into a democrat! Then I went to that graduate school thing where I slept with everybody in sight, since I'm very easy, and wound up graduating magna cum laude and writing three books. Hey, she was a female editor! But I'm not picky. Nor am I embarrassed! I'm into spreading love--even through pole dancing--not nastiness.
God knows its all about the relationships, real or cyber. Heck no, I'm not interested in $$ of any sort, who is? You betcha!
LOL I choose to believe that because it's hawt. However, if you really want to sell that "dumb" thing, you need to use smaller words, more generic diction in general and perhaps break a few more grammatical rules.
I heard my name being bandied about, sometimes in a less than positive fashion (bite me, Ralphie boy!) so thought I'd stop in. Hey, don't get me wrong, I am 100% behind Obama - I voted for him - I am just a little more cynical about what someone can accomplish within the Washington way of doing business. I prefer to think of it as more realistic, but you can think of it in anyway you choose. How about cautiously optimistic?
So, Ralphie boy, answer me this: After the first 4 years of the Bush Presidency where he proved an incompetence heretofore unseen, and complete disregard for the well being of the American people, how is it he was elected a second time? That alone proves my theory, so your protestations are meaningless.
I just used you for an example in a hub, Christoph. LOL. That's why your ears were ringing.
I thought your theory was that nothing has changed since George Washington. I pointed out a few changes that strike me as significant such as freeing the slaves, allowing women to vote, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, the SEC, the FDA, the NLRB, Social Security, Medicare. Most of those programs were passed by Democrats or progressive Republicans. Bush got reelected by crying terrorism and spreading fear. Also, some of his henchmen conducted a slime attack against Kerry. Had it not been for the fact that the election was stolen from Gore in 2000 Bush would not have been president at all. I don't get your point. Nobody is saying that the system is foolproof, witness Coolidge, Hoover, Nixon and a few other incompetents and crooks who get elected. I'm not sure what your theory is?? But I'm glad you voted for Obama, and I agree that it would be a mistake to expect miracles. In appointing Emmanuel he's already moved toward the middle. A lot of liberals are likely to be disappointed at how conservative Obama turns out to be. That's why all the claims that he's a socialist are ridiculous--just look at his economic advisers. Not a socialist in the bunch.
D*mn English majors! They know how to read, like, thru all the words and stuff!
(Maybe that's a little bit hawt!!)
lol much better
Since it's apparent that only messages favoring your viewpoint are getting published, I'd like to leave this private message with you.
You say that Obama is two steps forward. Isn't he the guy who voted four times, three times as the lone vote, to let unwanted babies die in a linen closet?
Isn't he the same guy who had on his web site (before the word "require" was removed) that he would REQUIRE students to go into civilian service to the government?
Be careful for what you ask for...you just might get it.
The reason prop 8 failed is that 70% of black voters opposed it. There is no surprise there...blacks generally oppose homosexuality. So it wasn't a matter of misunderstanding the ballot question.
I could go on and list a dozen more aggregious faults in Mr. Two Step, but I'll leave it at that.
The best to you.
Kelly, the only thing apparent is that you started out your post with an erroneous assumption about me. I haven't and don't delete posts and have railed against that very practice in comments, forum posts and even a hub:
http://hubpages.com/hub/How-to-Perpetuate-Common-M
It would be hypocritical of me to delete dissenting opinion, and I don't. Frankly, I love a good argument and will gladly engage with any considered opinion from an opposing view point, and I will gladly mock any ill-considered opinion from an opposing view point. Toying with ignorance is almost as much fun as a good, intelligent debate. So, before we (you and I) begin, take a nice long breath and let go the angst and spring-wound defensiveness you came in with. You are amongst friends, even if we might disagree on particular points along the way. :)
On the mandatory civil service thing... that is not Obama's idea. It's an old, old idea that comes up and goes down frequently in many modern societies. The fact that the word "require" was removed proves that he is open to conversations about ideas and willing to adjust his stance based on advice. (Here's your chance to spin that to mean he's wishy-washy... but I confess that if you do I will yawn at you.)
As for the rest, I won't get into a tit-for-tat argument with you on voting choices (or absences) or about people who Obama has met in his life, as that's silly and pointless. I will just say that I believe it is a tremendous overstatement to assert that the black vote is "the reason prop 8 failed" given that the black vote (and this relies on the giant assumption that all blacks are mindless automatons and vote as one without personal opinions or choices - which I don't buy into, but it appears you do) does not in and of itself have the numbers to singularly pass anything in California. Tremendous ammounts of money were spent by religious associations (I believe the Mormon numbers alone are approaching 20 million dollars now) and I am reasonably certain that had something to do with "the reason prop 8 failed" too. Among many others. To assert something as simplistic as blaming black voters seems absurd and perhaps not thoroughly thought out.
Kelly - I don't share some of the same viewpoints as a lot of my friends here on hubpages regarding Obama either...but even I have to point out a flaw in your argument regarding Prop 8.
Arizona had Prop 102 which was essentially the same thing as it's Californian counterpart. It passed as well...yet, Arizona as a whole went for McCain.
It leads me to believe that these propositions are in no way related to the "type" of people that would choose Obama as their president. In my opinion, the proposition was grossly worded and misleading right off the bat and when you add the prejudice of certain religious groups and old school types...well, there you have it.
I don't blame the black voters for supporting marriage as being reserved for a man and a woman, I praise them for it. Amongst Whites, Asians and Hispanic voters, their votes were split almost evenly between support and non-support among each group.
Had it not been for blacks voting as they did, the vote for the amendment would not have passed. Seven out of every ten voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman only. That means three in ten opposed it. So the vote among blacks wasn't unanimous, but it was overwhelming.
Blacks did vote as automitons for Obama with 98% of them voting for him, with many admitting that they voted for him because he is black.
My opposition to him is due to his many views that I find to be repulsive and that could spell the end of the US, including but not limited to, allowing Iran to strike the US with EMP nukes. Such an attack would result in the deaths of all 300 million of us.
If you are unfamiliar with EMP, Google "electromagnetic pulse" and "Graham." William E. Graham was the chief scientific adviser to President Reagan.
Iran is preparing to strike the US with these nukes. This is serious business. So instead of going two steps forward, we are likely to go back about 400 years. We are ill equipped to do that in the blink of an eye, so we'll end up dying from pestilence, dehydration and starvation instead.
So you might say I'm quite unhappy with Obama's election.
Perhaps Israel and/or the US will knock out Iran's nuclear capability in the next two months. If not, it's only a matter of time before the great experiment called the US is no longer in existence.
Benjamin Franklin said as soon as the US Constitution was agreed to, "Now let's see if they can keep it." We've kept it for 219 years. But it's future is in great peril.
I'm not going to convince you of these things, so I'll let it go from here. I do ask you to look up Graham and EMP in the meantime.
The best to you.
Wow! I wasn't aware that Obama is in favor of "allowing Iran to attack the U.S. EMP nukes." I'll have a hard time going to sleep tonight.
And as far as the Constitution is concerned, Obama was a professor of Constitutional law at one of the best and most conservative law schools in the country. My impression is that his instinct will be to protect the Constitution and hopefully rectify the breaches of it by George Bush--violating the principle of separation of church and state; violating the Church FISA bill which is supposed to prohibit spying on American citizens; and his routine and repeated use of presidential signing statements stating that he will not abide by certain portions of laws passed by Congress, etc.
Kelley, that's a heck of a theory you got there. While I'll confess to seeing that as totally absurd beyond comprehension, I'll just say that it must be difficult to sleep at night knowing how intricate the plot against you (and us) is. I certainly hope your version of reality doesn't prove to be the real one and will have to suffice myself to a more realistic version for now. I will check out your links though, as they may prove interesting, even enlightening, and at the very least, amusing for sure.
Best to you as well.
Ralph. LoL @ you. I was not aware that Obama was in favor of that either. I guess now we both know. I wonder if anyone has told him yet?
Mmmmkay, then.
The fact that blacks overwhelmingly supported Prop. 8 while also supporting Obama primarily because of race I think is a little sad, but probably not surprising. I don't think any marginalized group really likes being 'the other,' but that doesn't necessarily stop them from scapegoating others, either. I'd prefer all people have the opportunity and/or inclination to think this all through before they vote, but I don't believe they do.
We are getting better (look at all those revelations since George Washington), but, no, we are still not there.
And I have familiarized myself with EMP and Graham's views. It all boils down to the same thing--a world view that is primarily based on fear vs. a world view that is based on hope. I am not saying that we should not be wary, should not strive to protect ourselves--and Graham notes that improving our infrastructure (which Obama strongly supports) is one of the ways to do this--I am saying you can't live your life in a bunker, reverting to reptilian-brain, us vs. them strategies concerning anything.
See South Park, The Movie, ie, for excellent nonpartisan elemental commentary on above philosophy.
I read some stuff on EMP and Graham's views, and I confess some of it is interesting. But, as Lita said, it's just fear mongering. You can focus on a worst-case, most terrible outcome plausible future or you can focus on a rainbows and unicorns future with My Little Pony and ice cream for everyone. OR, you can find some sort of more realistic place to dwell, someplace that allows for hope and for caution. Work towards peace while strengthening infrastructure and redundant systems etc. I am not one to follow Chicken Little around the barnyard and I don't believe the sky is falling. It may rain, it may even flood for awhile, but those are clouds, not signs of the apocalypse.
There will always be people that grow up in an environment that feels they need to control what they don't understand ..but on the funny side of it Shadebreath ...why shouldn't they suffer the pain of marriage and divorce that the rest of us have had to do. What say? Really that is only to lighten up the tempo.
Good hub and good to view the humanitarian side of you!My best to you!
Yeah, Gjcody, for sure. They should have to get married. I think there's a reason the stereotype gay man is always so flippin' happy all the time. That bastard doesn't have an ex and an alimony payment, of course he's happy. lol
Nice spot of writing, sir :)
I wasn't following this issue because really the only news coming out of the US recently has been about the election. But I agree with your position entirely.
Hopefully it will pass next time around with a majority.
It might get overturned still. The protests are getting pretty huge at the state capital. Obama getting elected fueled the fires of hope and belief in human dignity for everyone. The increasing information on how flagrant and manipulative the mormon church was has got protests outside of their facilities all over now too.
A bit off topic, but is John Doolittle still a U.S. rep for CA? His name says it all.
Yep, he is. Probably spends too much time talking with the animals, eh?
When I was in high school, I was in Close Up, which is a club that travels to DC to learn more about politics. We scheduled a meeting with Doolittle before we went. When we showed up, his aide said he was unavailable. He double booked the time, and decided to see us since we weren't actually in his district. Our advisor asked the aide to show us a map so we could prove we actually were in his district. Idiot. All of us were just 18 or about to turn 18--talk about losing potential votes.
Yeah, doesn't say much for him keeping where he came from in mind. I imagine that's more typical than either of us would like to think. Not too many humans do "power" very well.
Oops. In my last comment, I meant to say he decided NOT to see us.
This hub and the following comments make me proud to belong to this wonderful community!
Gay marriage has been legalized in Israel a while ago and fortunately it's not that much big of a deal here. Israel is (surprisngly?) very gay-friendly, especially in the Tel Aviv area, and other than our own religious groups, for most people it's almost a non-issue.
Yeah, it's only religion trying to keep these people down. Everyone else doesn't really care what they do. I guess if you are armed with The Truth you feel compelled to make everyone follow your rules.
Hi Shadesbreath,
I've learned so much about America through HubPages, and I'm constantly surprised by the things that go on on the other side of the Atlantic. This Hub is particularly surprising to me for some reason, perhaps because I've always thought that we Brits would be more conservative (small 'c') on such matters, and I'm amazed to find that we're not. Gay marriage was legalised her a while ago, and high profile gay weddings are openly celebrated in the media, just as we would report those of straight people. There's no nudge, nudge, attitude about it, at least not amongst my generation or younger (and I'm not such a spring chicken these days! LOL!)
Lets throw out the bible for a second and go to Websters Dictionary
Marriage : the state of being united to a person of the OPPISITE SEX as husband or wife In a consensual and contractual relationship .
The origins of the word date to the 14th century ! There ya go !
In the UK we use the term 'civil partnership'.
Europe is generally more "liberal" in such matters. In many ways I'm perfectly happy to be more conservative here in the states, but I don't think denying our own professed values of equality for all should be one of those "ways."
And Tony, seriously, if you "threw out your Bible" for a second for real, you certainly wouldn't run to Webster's Dictionary for cues on how to live. The fact that you must "throw it out" only proves that the problem is entirely based on the imposition of religion to begin. The Webster's dictionary is subject to regular rewrites and includes multiple definitions for words (you know all those 1, 2, 3, and 4's you see in there?) with new ones being added when the editors recognize a word has evolved to KEEP UP WITH THE TIMES.
So, I mean, I hear what you are saying, I just wished you actually meant it.
But Shadesbreath you merely want to throw out religion because It does,nt coincide with your Ideology so obviously religion Is wrong! I who lives on the west coast as well know all kinds of people who are like that, they worship their own wannabe Intellectualism . Religion has been around since the dawn of time but obviously you have evolved to some new enlightenment In you 20,30,40 years or whatever It may be correct ? And to say we have evolved ? You must not watch the same TV I do or read the same papers , I see no evidence of your hypothesis
Some states recognize "civil unions." But those unions generally do not grant the same rights and protections as marriage, such as co-ownership of property, medical power of attorney or rights of inheritance.
The federal tax system does not recognize civil unions at all.
Civil unions are a prime example of "separate but equal," a principle that, in fact, denies equality.
Historically, "separate but equal" restricts certain groups from equal use of public accommodations, education and legal protection. And it is very often "justified" by quoting from the Bible or other scripture, the dictionary and history books, and by a determined effort to uphold bad laws rather than change them.
PS: It's not a matter of throwing out religion. There are many, many religions, all worthy of equal protection under the law.
Just to be clear, the UK has civil partnerships open to gay couples, and marriage that is only open to straight couples. This is similar to what California has, with one key differences: UK's civil partnerships are recognized at the national level, so partnered gay couples enjoy *all* the same rights that married straight couples do. The only difference is terminology (one that Americans would have trouble swallowing, frankly, due to the "separate but equal" Plessy vs Ferguson case)
Tony: no, my comment in no way asserts my opinion as being representative of "intellectualism" nor does it speak of any kind of "enlightenment" on my part, that is a largely religious term too, Renaissance use aside. So, you can take a big deep breath and step back from the brink of indignation. I'm not challenging your personal Truth or anything else. I happily, willingly concede the existence of religions all over the world since the time the first cave man buried his dead comrade with a flower.
I know really religious people are easily upset and get defensive fast, so I'll not respond to the insulting tone of your comment and just let that part go. Seriously, I'm not attacking your faith.
My point is to point out that you want to legislate what marriage can be based on your religion. It's that simple. You said "throw out the Bible" for a minute, which means, throw out your selected religion, and then tried to make a secular argument for why we should dictate how other people live their lives. I showed you where that secular argument fell apart, and thus eliminated your STATED ability to defend your position of denying gays and lesbians the same right you enjoy. For you to justify that position, you will require your favorite Holy Book again, which is, by definition, imposing your religion on secular law once again.
That was the only point I made. Any threat or insult to your faith was not given on my part but perhaps a bit reflexively assumed on yours.
I will admit that the paradox in this hub interests me. I am confused, befuddled even, at how odd the CA voting came about, and the fact that 3/4 of the black vote was for Prop 8....it's weird and almost hypocritical in my mind. K. Olbermann even mentioned it on his TV address.
Why, oh why, is it that we'll vote in a black man and have 98% of his coloured people in close tow when the same people in CA will vote to ban the civil rights that they themselves fought so desperately for for decades?????
someone...please...inform me. I am irish, we've been abused and enslaved by America yet we're still here and functioning ... and yet this whole thing of civil rights bothers me, where we'll deny one group the same exact standard we've tossed at another...
Gays will eventually be at the level blacks have achieved. No doubt in my mind, and when they are, I'm pretty certain who will be laughing atop that mountain when it's over.
Livelonger, yeah, that's the big problem right now. People are shocked and outraged at how, in this day in age, we can so flagrantly do what we so loudly profess not be doing any more, and what Obama's election seems to give evidence of.
I guess we still have to prove that gays and lesbians are actually humans too, just as arguments had to be made in our past that the people in slavery were in fact people and not animals. When someone has convinced themselves of their superiority over another for whatever reason, it can be very difficult to convince them to let that superiority go. For many that's akin to wallowing with pigs. Raising someone up is held by many to be more like lowering themselves.
T.Keeley,
I think the issue with many black voters is that they identify first with the religious traditions, and secondly, enjoy the superiority that having the 'moral high ground' has as much as any other Christian does quite outside of race.
It is much easier to identify with those who are "like" us than those who are not, so a white Christian and a black Christian have more in common than a heterosexual of any color does with a homosexual.
Quite aside from the gay/straight issue, there are other types of long-term relationships that need to be recognised in law, such as a case I read of recently where two elderly spinsters had shared a home for half a life-time, without any hint of a sexual relationship. When the property owning partner passed on without a valid will, her non-property owning companion was immediately threatened with eviction by the deceased lady's next of kin. There should be laws to protect the interests of both parties in any situation where two people share a life over a long period of time. Marriage itself is a blessing conferred by organised religion. As an institution, it shouldn't be confused with the legal necessity of protecting those co-habitees who do not 'fit' the established norm.
Shaddesbreath - "If no one pointed out how unqualified she was, I would have had a hawt chick to look at in my government news for the next four years. So, clearly you can see how allowing women access to books has ruined my media experience" This is of course assuming that Ms. Palin can read or indeed could read well before the other members of her sisterhood, and therefore had a head start on others because not only could she read but also looked "hawt"! lol.
Amanda I so agree with you - everyone on the face of this earth deserves to have their rights protected be they gay or straight. To include automatic assumption of their legal rights in a partnership should one partner pre-decease the other , their access to health benefits plus superannuation after death, and the list goes on.
cheers.
Hmm, you may be on to something there Ajcor. I hadn't thought about that. Give me time, I'll find a way to wriggle out of that oversight somehow. She couldn't give the name of a magazine she liked to read when Katie Couric asked, maybe I have some defensive ground in that. :P
I look forward to that with bated breath!!
Prop 8 put furturistic Californians in the Dark Ages. Sad. Great Hub.
America is not free for everyone?
It is absurd and RIDICULOUS to make such a statement.
Pedophiles, multiple partner marriages, criminals and more are precluded from being free in this and many countries.
Gays are a result of defective dna much like any disorder such as Autism. Gays cannot procreate on their own and that is the reason for creating two genders.
I wonder if close-mindedness is the result of defective dna.
spryte says:
14 months ago
Thought provoking and yet rather sad at the same time. AZ approved prop 108 to define the word "marriage" as the union between a man and a woman only...so I'm feeling a bit let down this morning as well.
Ah well...baby steps against bigotry, I guess!