Log in

No account? Create an account
Recent Entries Friends Archive Profile Tags My wildlife photography
As Gov. Schwartzenegger has yet to formally veto AB 849, you might wish to visit his feedback form, and offer your thoughts.

I think, despite the kitchen, I shall make a Thai beef salad on the morrow. I've got some fish sauce, some bird's eye peppers, cilantro, and mint, plus a nice little reduced Argentinian steak that's quietly aging in the fridge.

On leaving LJ. ^_^ (Don't miss the comments, either :)

MCI's apparently launched a phone-based service for reaching Katrina refugees, intended to connect family members or other concerned parties.

Interesting reading.. the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights has published internal memos from Mobil, Chevron, and Texaco, noting a strategy of reducing refinery capacity in the US over the past decade, in order to raise prices.

Via funos, a coined quote: "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice."
As much as I'm rooting for civil rights, I can't help but agree with Schwarzenegger on this move. Prop 22 is still in the courts. AB 849, which passed the legislature with an appallingly narrow margin, will go the same place. Signing would be irresponsible. It would have accomplished nothing and cost the taxpayers a bundle, while further galvanizing opposing sides.

The time for change is nigh, but the legislature could and should have waited. They have to learn to choose their battles and spend their energy when and where it will have positive effect.

Besides, it's dumb that we continue to accept that government has any dominion over marriage to begin with. The more layers of law they add to it, the more distasteful the topic becomes. Get their grubby hands out of it and all these problems will disappear.

Frankly, I don't believe S. is genuinely examining the procedural legitimacy of the legislative process - to me, this feels much more like keeping the Party happy, for future ambitions; consider his marshland style ratings, and his likely chances within the state.

I think I'm approaching the issue from a different angle, in two ways:

- what choice do opponents of discrimination have? The laws are as they are, and equality means codifying that into those laws.

- civil rights are a poor testing ground for democracy. Consider the vicious opposition to the ending of black segregation - wholly in opposition to the popular opinion of the time. Is a majority often inclined to grant a minority rights?

If S., by some chance, actually were to sign 849 into law, he could stand a chance at genuine fame in political history, for a highly worthy porpoise. I don't often admire politicians, but this would be suitable justification - standing up for what's right, not expedient. Gods know, there haven't been many such banner-worthy political occasions in the past.. well, quite a while. (I'm more or less cool with Clinton, though it was under his watch the ignoble "don't ask, don't tell" policy was instituted, despite his earlier promises, with the Defense of Marriage Act his parting gift. And then there was the unholy mess of the CDA, not to mention that happy DMCA)
The groundwork for positive change has to be carefully laid. Rushing the construction before the foundation has set will result in a falling house and a foundation which must be rebuilt.

Our Founding Fathers, in particular Thomas Paine, wanted to abolish slavery from the outset. But our fledgling nation would not have survived the early turmoil and disunity such a change would have created. Was it an important issue? Far more so than the one today facing California (especially since many of the issues of discrimination are already addressed in separate bills). Was it right for it to be back-burnered? No -- but they laid the groundwork which enabled a growing nation to address it when it was strong enough to do so. Otherwise it could have been much longer, and the situation gotten much worse, before change became possible.

I believe we can afford a little more patience and git this sucker done right. You already do your part to lay the groundwork by speaking your mind. Others must continue to do the same. We know we cannot rely on politicians, courts or our fellow voters to change the world overnight, and therefore we must relentlessly wash them with words of good sense and support for positive change.

In your entry, you used the words "on the morrow," and then in your comment you used the word "porpoise." Complete with a link to a primary source.

This is why I love your posts. =:D
*giggle* As much of a commercial whore as Adams may be, he is often funny, and almost routinely insightful[1]. ^_^ And hey, shiny is good. (Making a cetacean's surely about the most severe challenge such a designer can face, but that's a rare example where the result really does work, looking (aside from the neckline :-P) surprisingly plausible)

[1] Though it's probably a fairly bad sign in any given workplace to have lots of Dilbert taped up. :) I've thankfully never been anywhere near such outfits. (Indeed, my first place let me dedicate a NeXTstation to running two MU*s. And even paid to upgrade the memory and disk when the load suggested that'd be helpful :)
Thank you for the link. My response was;

I find it very sad that a governor of California, faced with the possibility of allowing fellow Californians the stability and happiness of marriage, would choose to veto that possibility to appease his wealthy allies from other states.
From the outside looking in, I think that Arnold is idealogoically against same sex marriage proposals. However he is smart enough to realise that he needs the support of people who are FOR it in order to get re-elected.

Making the decision that it was "up to the courts to decide" was a stroke of genius on his part. This way he can honestly hold his hands up to whatever party loses the debate and say "I tried my best for you.."

I myself do not believe that churches should be FORCED to ordain same sex marriages. I think the state should offer a "marriage in all but name" package to same sex couples under strict secular principles.

If any religious organisations want to follow suit, then thats fine too. Although my personal hope is that they thiesm continues along the path of "self-destruction through irrelevancy".