Meg Whitman, putative frontrunner for the Republican nomination for Governor of California, wants to make something perfectly clear about the kind of leader she'll be: The kind who doesn't give a shit.
She'd like to cut corporate taxes and get rid of some regulations and that's it. On any issue but the bottom line, you're on your own. Here's twenty bucks. Now get out of here before I change my mind.
This kind of... oh, let's call it "vision"... lets her avoid a lot of baggage that would bog down your average candidate, who has a lot of fool "positions" on "issues." It also leads to some pretty funny reporting from people who expect her to care about the things that generally interest office-seekers. How can you characterize the opinions of someone who doesn't have any? You end up with scoops like this:
"So first of all, what you should know is I'm not running for governor based on social issues -- I'm running for governor to fix and really transform the California economy." said Whitman, a Presbyterian.
She's not a stealth candidate; that would imply she has something to hide. She truly hasn't given government any thought. It's not just that she hasn't voted very much. It's like she's spent the last fifty years being fed through a tube.
Which should make her the perfect Republican candidate for a Democratic state except for one thing: You're not allowed to not have an opinion about gay marriage.
Meg Whitman tried. And here's what she came up with:
"I want you to know I am all about equal rights and I want to make sure that gay and lesbian people are treated equally under the eyes of the law."
But:
"The reason that I voted 'yes' on Prop. 8 was that civil unions provide virtually all the rights and remedies to gay and lesbian couples that marriage does and my personal point of view is that the definition of 'marriage' is a religious term that should be between and man and a woman."
In other words:
Marriage is strictly a religious idea, and that's why I voted to have it written into state law.
And:
Gay people must have equal rights. And by "equal," I mean "not equal."
As Alan Bennett has the Headmaster say in Forty Years On -- "I'm all in favour of free expression, provided it's kept rigidly under control."
So why did a smart cookie like Meg Whitman choose to make the first political opinion of her life something so tortured we probably do it to detainees?
Because she knows she can't get win a general election without white women, and 53% of them support gay marriage, and she can't get the Republican nomination without Republicans, and 82% of them don't.
Chris Kelly: Meg Whitman Week -- Monday: Meg Actually Gives an Interview
Meg Whitman has spent her life in fairly high profile business positions. There's evidence that she's spoken to groups. So why is she only engaging in interviews that are the journalistic version of pity sex?
Chris Kelly: Meg Whitman Week -- Wednesday: A Tawdry Episode
Meg Whitman earned her money herself. All $1.4 billion of it. It came from perseverance, patience and long hard honest work. Except for the $1.78 million from Goldman Sachs. Which she stole.
Matt Littman: Why Would Anyone Want to Be Governor of California?
The next leader of our state should be so lucky as to be caught picking up a prostitute -- that appears to be a better career path than the dead-end job of Governor of California.
Chris Kelly: Five Questions for Meg Whitman
Meg Whitman, the richest female CEO in U.S. history, will officially announce that she's running for Governor of California today. Because who doesn't love people who've made a lot of money in the market.
I think I hurt my neck
I don't think so, Meg. Better think again.
the truth is that in 20 years, gay marriage will be legal everywhere, and all of us, including our children will look back at these times and shake their heads and wonder how these bigots could think the way they do.
it's like civil rights. how many churches opposed it. interracial marriage. how many churches opposed it. the answer is a lot. (http://www.nbjcoalition.org/news/interracial-marriage-bans-vs.html)
(https://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/2005/198_Racial_Harmony_and_Interracial_Marriage/)
but we grow, we show progress. even now there those who believe black people are inferior and they should not marry white people. some believe God wanted it that way.
but when most of us hear that we either cringe, or feel sorry for that person, but we certainly don't tolerate it. it's seen as a primitive instinct of lesser minds. bigotry and racism are throwbacks to people living in caves and worshiping the sun.
that's the same way we will all feel in 20 years. we will look at this bigotry as a shameful and pathetic excuse for fear and hate that it is.
stay strong, and fight for equality. anything less is intolerance.
Be honest and think back to 15 years ago...heck, even just ten years ago. Tolerance for homosexuality was hardly less than it is today, yet same sex marriage as a concept was pretty much unheard of--at least there was no serious debate about it. The truth is, this concept that you're a bigot if you don't want to change the definition of marriage is pretty new, and is based more on the political correctness du jour than on reality.
You are quite wrong. 20 years ago, a man could be convicted for felony commission of sodomy for merely cohabiting with another man (Bowers v. Hardwick), but just 5 years ago the SCOTUS declared that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional if they target gays only.
What about a dowry?
Do modern men own their submissive wives?
Weren't the people who fought against changing the definition of marriage, allowing inter-racial couples to partner, bigots?
We have changed "traditional" marriage several times just in the last century.
What about the atheists? Do you deny them their rights also?
Like it or not, there are fundamental differences between men and a women, therefore there are fundamental differences between a loving committed relationship between a man and a woman and a loving committed relationship between a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
Though pens and pencils are both writing utensils and can do many of the same things, we know that they are made differently and operate differently; therefore, we don't call both things "pens".
you don't have to like it. no one cares. equality is equality.
and gay couples do NOT have the same rights. civil unions do NOT give the same rights. and they should not have to be treated differently to satisfy your bigotry.
move to a extremist country where they stone homosexuals. you'll fit in just fine there.
PS don't tell them you're Christian. they tend not to like it that much.
My question was a hypothetical (see the word "if"). IF the state gave gay couples (or any couple, for that matter) the same civil rights as it gives actual marriages, there is no civil rights issue that a thing be called what it is and not be called what it is not.
in fact, gay people can be legally fired, denied housing, or public accomodation -- a seat in a restaurant, or help from a doctor solely because of being gay in 30 states in this country today.
Also, I think you're confusing "help from a doctor" with getting health insurance through a partner's work or something. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me with some facts, but I have never heard of any doctor denying someone needed medical care because of their sexual preference.
DUH. Nice try, but your comment blatantly transparent LIE.
And no, I can't tell who will win.
If this criticism of Whitman disqualifies her to be governor based on this issue, then you would presumptively disqualify Obama or the Clintons from holding similar offices.