California Dreamin', The Rebuttal

I expected a bit more activity around my previous post concerning Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's impending veto of the California Assembly's recently-passed bill allowing gay marriage.

Fortunately, Blog Ally Dunner took up the challenge, and let me have it. Several of his points are definitely worth bringing up and deconstructing.

Perhaps now you "completely understand" why Kerry said what he did about gay marriage?

Not really. As I've already blogged, Kerry's stance was completely unnecessary. What makes it worse is that, since liberal gays insist that we should always vote for Democrats because they never pander to the religious right, to whom was Kerry pandering, then?

Does he get the same "crass politics" get-out-of-jail-free card that Schwarzenegger now has, according to you?

This is in response to my statement:

There is no reason other than crass politics for him (Schwarzenegger) to do otherwise (veto the gay marriage bill).

which was preceded by (new emphasis mine):

Schwarzenegger is wrong to veto this bill. Even though I have my doubts that the Assembly is representative in doing it, allowing gay marriage is simply the right thing to do, period.

Many people confuse understanding someone else's position with a) agreeing with it and b) supporting it. I don't agree with Schwarzenegger's position. I certainly don't support it, and I don't excuse it. But I DO understand it, and I can explain the reasoning behind it. Let the chips fall where they may at that point.

This was what I found most interesting and illuminating in Dunner's response:

He's lost the gay vote and has simply shown that he's just another anti-gay Republican.

Quite honestly, the first part of that makes me laugh. Did Schwarzenegger ever HAVE the "gay vote"? In San Francisco, 80% of voters voted against the recall in the first place, with over 50% doing the same statewide. Every time I walk by the intersection of Castro and 18th, I am accosted by people shouting "Stop Schwarzenegger now", and that has been taking place since the day he was elected. You can't lose what you don't have, and I would severely doubt that Schwarzenegger ever HAD the "gay vote", or a majority of gay voters, mainly because of the "R" after his name.

Taking that a step farther, when we look at the second part of Dunner's remark, it becomes even more illuminating what the problem is. Schwarzenegger supports California's domestic partnership law, equality in insurance benefits, and nondiscrimination, but opposes gay marriage -- exactly the same position as Gray Davis and arguably better than John Kerry. However, as I've previously noted, Kerry's position is called pro-gay and "gay-supportive", while Schwarzenegger is "antigay".

The problem here is that the gay community has demonstrated time and again that it cares less about what one does than to what political party one belongs. This is why you have Mike Rogers and John Aravosis protecting Democrats who vote for the FMA and MPA while attacking Republicans who voted against both. This is why Joe Solmonese and Ellen Malcom, both card-carrying members of the gay oligarchy, can say that those who criticize them for giving money to a candidate who supports the FMA are missing the "bigger picture".

Put bluntly, Schwarzenegger loses nothing, because he knows that gays, by and large, will never vote for him anyway and will oppose him regardless of what he does. Furthermore, the gay community's argument that his actions are wrong are fatally impaired when they give millions of dollars and accolades to Democratic candidates who act similarly or even worse. This is the direct result of the exploitation of gays by unscrupulous gay leaders who value power and their personal finances above all else and the refusal of gays to stand up and say that what is being done to them is wrong, regardless of who is doing it.

As long as the gay community plays only by party, we will remain irrelevant. I'm more than happy to identify and call out antigay bigotry; however, blaming antigay bigotry is useless and counterproductive when we deride it in one party and support it in the other.