Hypocrites Lose and Other News

There is new information for several stories I have posted here in the Premise Loft and elsewhere. For those keeping score, here are some updates on Proposition 8, banks taking tax money, and the digital television conversion date.

Initially I wrote that the California’s Proposition 8 amounted to legalized bigotry. It received almost 200 comment postings at Blogcritics Magazine after it appeared on New Year’s Day. On March 5, 2009, the state Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a series of lawsuits seeking to overturn Proposition 8. After the court's seven justices hear those arguments, they have 90 days in which to issue a ruling.

For me it is difficult to fathom the amount of money supporters and opponents spent on the proposition. During the contest's closing days, elected officials, businesses, churches and individuals poured more than $28 million into the race. In all more than $83 million went to the ballot initiative that abolished same-sex marriage in California.

Of the supporters of Proposition 8, the money attributed to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints now has a dollar amount. According to the church's report, nearly $190,000 went to its role in getting the initiative passed. $97,000 of that money went to the Utah-based Mormon Church staff for their time devoted to the Yes on 8 campaign.

In the follow-up article I wrote that the Proposition’s backers demonstrated their hypocrisy by petitioning the state Supreme Court to overturn a different ballot initiative than theirs. Citing a potential for harassment, supporters wanted the court to grant a preliminary injunction to remove the contributors’ identities removed from the secretary of state's Web site. The court told them No and noted that most of the activity the plaintiffs called harassment, such as threats of boycotts, was actually protected free speech.

I took banking accountability to task in two articles, especially in Broke Banks Mounting. The president has capped executive pay, but there is a lot more to be done. Bank public relations took yet another hit recently after a torrent of criticism that Wells Fargo was misusing $25 billion in federal taxpayer bailout money. Calling it a “recognition event,” Wells Fargo had booked 12 nights at two of the most expensive hotels in Las Vegas— the Wynn Las Vegas and its sister hotel, the Encore Las Vegas. The bank cancelled the junket.

Wells Fargo spokesperson Kevin Waetke defended the cancelled trip. “This year, we have the unique opportunity to bring together our Wells Fargo and new Wachovia mortgage consultants to focus on continuing to do all we can for U.S. homeowners.” Continuing to do all we can to U.S. homeowners would have been more accurate.

$25 billion TARP recipient Morgan Stanley had been planning to send its top employees to Monte Carlo along with a similar event in the Bahamas. They cancelled those trips. Likewise Bank of America, which purchased Wall Street financial house Merrill Lynch and mortgage giant Countrywide, canceled all employee incentive trips.

Finally, there is new information about the digital television conversion date delay, although it might have gotten lost. In No Viewer Left Behind I concluded, “The Obama administration may know who its friends are, but millions of viewers are now left behind.” House Republicans blocked the postponement. Supporters of the postponement could not make the two-thirds majority when it came to a vote. However, under a "closed rule" vote prohibiting new amendments, the House held the full floor vote and passed the Democratic-backed bill to delay the mandatory shutdown until June 12. President Obama urged the delay and is expected to sign the bill.

I appreciate your comments and invite you to join the conversation at Blogcritics, where the Fairness Doctrine is being debated.

New Bigotry II

I had not intended to write a follow up to Proposition 8: The New Bigotry until I read about the latest hypocrisy in the ongoing debate since the ballot initiative passed. Supporters of Proposition 8, so vocal about voter approval to amend the California State Constitution, now want the same Constitution to overturn another voter-approved initiative -- the Political Reform Act of 1974. They seem to believe that they can have it both ways and have asked the court to back them.

Proposition 8 added fourteen words to the Constitution of the State of California: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” California voters approved it by 52.3% of the November 4 vote. In 2000, California voters approved Proposition 22, which defined “marriage as between a man and a woman,” by 61% of the vote. On May 15 last year, the California State Supreme Court declared that statute unconstitutional and legalized same-sex marriage in California.

The constitutionality of Proposition 8 is before the California Supreme Court.

The amendments co-author Kenneth Starr represents its supporters in asking the court to uphold the Proposition. By the close of business on January 15, a number of groups filed

amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” briefs to ad to Starr’s. Among them, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Family Research Council, and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations filed briefs.

Of its legal filing, San Francisco Archbishop George H. Niederauer wrote that under California Law, “Same sex couples who register as domestic partners will continue to have ‘the same rights, protections and benefits’ as married couples. Proposition 8 simply recognizes that there is a difference between traditional marriage and a same sex partnership.”

One can interpret that as supporting "separate but equal" treatment under the law which is unconstitutional. Nonetheless, Father Neiderauer's opinion is protected speech under the 1st Amendment.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown represents the measure’s opponents in asking the court to overturn the Proposition. Joining the opponents, the League of Women Voters of California, the California Council of Churches, and the California Labor Federation have now asked the court to invalidate Proposition 8.

Of its amicus brief the California Council of Churches said, “ The brief argues that Proposition 8 poses a severe threat to the guarantee of equal protection for all and was not enacted through the constitutionally required process for such a dramatic change to the California Constitution.”

Even Google has weighed in. On its official company blog, the Internet search company joined other businesses in signing a brief in support of the lawsuits to overturn Proposition 8. “Denying employees basic rights isn't right, and it isn't good for businesses," Google General Counsel Kent Walker wrote. He added, “California's image has suffered since the divisive election.”

The Washington Post conservative scribe George Will also weighed in. In a recent column he took to task Jerry Brown’s 111-page argument to invalidate Proposition 8. He wrote, “Passing laws by referenda is an imprudent departure from the core principle of republican government -- representation: The people do not decide issues, they decide who shall decide. But the right of Californians to make laws through the direct democracy of referenda is as firmly established as it is promiscuously exercised.” While I usually disagree with what George writes, I agree it puts the court where it should not be and agree about the promiscuous part.

You may say, “So far, so good. It’s now in the Court’s hands.” You would be correct and, in addition to all those briefs, amicus or otherwise, there is an additional law suit to consider. That suit alleges that California’s Political Reform Act is unconstitutional. The Political Reform Act was adopted as a statewide initiative (Proposition 9) by an overwhelming vote of the electorate in 1974.

According to the State of California, “the law's most fundamental purpose [is that] of ensuring that ‘receipts and expenditures in election campaigns should be fully and truthfully disclosed in order that the voters may be fully informed. . . .’” However, supporters of Proposition 8 have filed a lawsuit that seeks to keep the public from seeing the supporters’ campaign finance records, which are required under the post-Watergate law to be posted for 10-years.

Claiming that the reports have led to harassment of donors, they have asked the court to declare the law unconstitutional.

The First Amendment Coalition says that the suit probably will not succeed. According to the Coalition’s executive director, Peter Scheer, "The problem with their argument, of course, is that campaign finance laws, both at the state and federal level, have been litigated endlessly now since Watergate and the argument has, in one form or another, been rejected."

Still, it is amazing what can be done with data today. While the suits are being considered, much has been done with Proposition 8 supporter information. Not only is it a matter of public record, it can be found online on a map. That is pretty darned amazing.

Incidentally, if you have not seen Jack Black in Proposition 8 – the Musical, have a look.

As I wrote in my initial piece, it was “the effort to invalidate 18,000 gay marriages that changed my mind on writing about the issue to expose it as the sheer, unadulterated bigotry it is.” Adding hypocrisy makes it New Bigotry II. The courts will rule as early as March.

# # #
Originally published in Blogcritics Magazine on January 17, 2009.

Proposition 8: The New Bigotry

I had not planned to write about the controversy being exploited by each side of California’s Proposition 8. I did not care who voted for it, how much money was spent on it or the margin of its approval. As far as I was concerned the issue would play itself out in public opinion and in time become just another footnote of our culture. While the California Supreme Court is considering whether Proposition 8 violates the State Constitution, it is the effort to invalidate 18,000 gay marriages that changed my mind on writing about the issue to expose it as the sheer, unadulterated bigotry it is – our new bigotry.

However, where to start has been a bug-bear. Then it came to me – Rush Limbaugh, who decided to lead the charge on the day after the election. He claimed that California’s passing of Proposition 8 told judges that they could not override what conservatives did in that ballot initiative, defining marriage as a legal bond only between a man and a woman. Although I think he is a huckster, such a digression obfuscates the point that Prop 8 is bigotry.

Rick Warren came to mind next. He is more of a media magnet than Rush these days and he is smooth. He refers to a “five-thousand-year . . . definition of marriage” with a smile, referring to Proposition 8 as a “free--speech issue.” Warren’s artful dodge is that he “objects to the redefinition of marriage.” Smooth sounding intolerance is still intolerance, which is at the core of bigotry.

By definition, “one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ” is a bigot. Bigotry is “the attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot; intolerance.” The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, also notes, “Bigot is first recorded in English in 1598 with the sense ‘a superstitious hypocrite.’"

What I am writing about is bigotry as an ideology. The obvious form is racism characterized by hostility, a belief in inferiority and an assumption that one race is superior to another. Today that is considered a human rights violation. Another form is sexism, characterized by judgments based upon gender rather than upon individualism and an assumption that one sex is superior to another. Other forms include fascism, nationalism, ageism, classism and pretty much any where narrow mindedness and stereotypes overcome logical thinking.

It is the will of 52% of a voting public over 48% that changed the stance of California’s Attorney General Jerry Brown. He has filed suit to overturn the Proposition, writing that the courts have already said that the right to marry is protected as an “inalienable right.” Brown writes further that a “tyranny of the majority” would be established if a ballot initiative could to take away an inalienable right. This is something that the Constitution was designed to prevent.

The sponsors of Proposition 8 are championed by Kenneth Starr, dean of Pepperdine University's law school and the former independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton. He argues that by upholding the initiative and invalidating 18,000 same-sex weddings performed before the election, the court would preserve the people's lawmaking powers. "Proposition 8's brevity is matched by its clarity,” Starr wrote. “There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions or exclusions." He would know since he was one of its authors.

Although I am not a lawyer, it occurs to me that there is also the pesky matter of ex post facto law, also known as retroactive law and prohibited by the Constitution. The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition, says, “A law that makes illegal an act that was legal when committed . . . “In the case of Proposition 8, same-sex marriages may no longer be performed, at least for now. However, to invalidate marriages performed while they were legal makes the Proposition an ex post facto law.

The new bigotry has plenty of articulate spokespeople to espouse its specious cause. I would be interested to know what they think about repealing laws that prohibited marriages between blacks and whites. But that is the old bigotry.

# # #

Originally published in Blogcritics Magazine on January 1, 2009.

Out With the Old

It’s hard to believe that the last time the night sky lit up with personal fireworks that make the neighborhood sound like it is having a fire-fight was way back in July on the 4th. We like fireworks. I do wonder why there are no road-side fireworks vendors, this time of year. Maybe next year the Christmas tree vendors will increase their revenues with exploding devises. I am digressing. It is time to usher in 2009.

The 2008 election seemed to have taken up the entire year. I am hopeful that 2009 goes by more quickly than 2008. I am hoping it will pass with less carping and complaint a lot more compassion and care. Out with the old and in with the new has never made more sense to me.

I like the inescapable symbolism the New Year brings when Martin Luther King Day is immediately followed by Inauguration Day. It is the ultimate posthumous birthday gift a nation could give to one of its patriots. It will be the culmination of Dr. King’s dream come true. I hope that the buzz lasts a long time, at least another 40 years.

I am pleased to report that I have joined Blogcritics Magazine, “a sinister cabal of superior writers” as it calls itself. It is related to Technorati, that little green button on the side bar of this blog. Now, in addition to my bride, I have additional editors to help make my prose deft. Let me invite you to press the red button on the side bar and take a look.

I hope that the backers of Proposition 8 rejoice in the fact that gay bars are on the top ten list of businesses that will not be around in 10 years, according to MSNBC as reported by the Orlando Sentinel. Neither are record stores, crop dusting, pay phones, and coin-operated arcades albeit for vastly different reasons. The reason given in the report is that “gay men and women have been gaining greater acceptance in society.”

I also hope that the California Supreme Court rules that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, but that is another story you will be able to read in Blogcritics Magazine.

I hope that we were able to find some real Christmas spirit this year as a benefit of what would otherwise be considered tough economic times. Mostly I hope we all will start spending again and kick the crap out of those times. Let us resolve to make prosperity happen and retain our sanity when we succeed.

Finally, let me quote Edward R. Murrow this New Year and wish us all a “good night and good luck.”