I'm reposting this entry I made early on in my contributions to The Opine Editorials.
The San Francisco Chronicle's political writer, Carla Marinucci, had an article discussing the fact that current California Governor General Jerry Brown, while Governor the first go-round, signed into law a bill codifying the legal definition of marriage as being a bride-groom pairing. There are lots of quotes defending Brown for his "progress" on the issue as he fights to remove California’s Marriage Amendment and prepares to run for Governor again. I found a quote in the article that stood out to me.
Veteran journalist Marty Nolan, who covered Brown for the Boston Globe in the 1970s and 1980s, said the defense represents Brown's longtime political mantra. "He's got a six-word answer - 'that was then, this is now,' " Nolan laughed. "It's an all-purpose shield."
This is an example of why we are supposed to be a nation of laws, not men, and we have a constitution and a representative republic. Opinions and votes can change over time, even if the truth and right and wrong do not. But we should not be held hostage to the whims of a single person. "That was then, this is now" is not a justification for a past or current action or policy, no more than saying "It's the twenty-first century." Yes, and the sky is blue. So? Was Brown wrong then? Is he wrong now? Why? Has a "right" to a state-licensed marriage for brideless or groomless couples emerged since the 1970s, or has it always existed and just not been recognized by flawed politicians? If the politicians were wrong then, what makes anyone so sure they are right now?
No comments:
Post a Comment
I always welcome comments. Be aware that anything you write may be thoroughly analyzed and used in subsequent blog entries.