George Takei and longtime partner Brad Altman attend the Friars Club's "So You Think You Can Roast?!" of George Takei on August 19, 2008 in New York City.
I can’t believe I’m blogging about an article from USMagazine.com, but apparently (and amusingly) George Takei of Star Trek – and, more recently, Heroes - fame reportedly told US Magazine:
It was astounding to think that the hard won equality that made my recent marriage to Brad Altman would no longer be possible for others.
Now, I’ve always been of the mind that Mr. Sulu was a little goofy – even before I knew he was gay. He just seemed… I dunno… more of a “Lost In Space” kind-of guy than a Star Trek guy. I guess that would endear me to William Shatner, but maybe not.
It seems peculiar to me, though, that anybody would be “astounded” by the passage of Proposition 8. I mean, if nothing else, it stands entirely to reason that the population of a state would stand up to liberal, activist judges and say, “We’re tired of liberals bypassing the democratic process to get their dirty work done!” Perhaps he was astounded that California isn’t as wacky he is – and as wacky as a lot of people thought it was. When you look at it from that point of view, yeah George, it is a bit “astounding.”
Astounding!
I can’t get enough of that. Just say “astounding” to yourself a few times in your best Mr. Sulu voice, and you’ll get the humor. “Astounding!”
It seems peculiar to me, though, that anybody would be “astounded” by the passage of Proposition 8.
Because it is the first time that California’s state constitution has been used to remove a right from its citizenry: to attempt to annul marriages already legally and validly made.
George Takei was astounded, I should think, because he had a higher opinion of his fellow Californian citizens than many of them deserved. If that makes him “goofy”, so be it. You think they’re a bunch of bigots who don’t like judges protecting equal rights for everyone, and as it turned out, your pessimism was moderately well-founded, as his optimism was not.
But I doubt Proposition 8 will even be part of the constitution for even another 8 years: I think George Takei may well live to see it overthrown.
Hey, thanks for your polite, thoughtful response! I’m glad you didn’t fixate on the minutiae (e.g. – easy jabs at Mr. Sulu’s expense, all in good fun of course) in the post, and stuck to the issues. That’s what we like to see, here.
To respond, however, I’d like to say that (1) homosexual marriage is not a protected “right” under the California State Constitution – regardless of what liberal, activist judges say – and (2) this was not an “attempt to annul marriages already legally and validly made.”
The first point is one that can be made by simply reading the State Constitution of California and interpreting it in an originalist (i.e. – strict constructionalist) manner, as any reasonable person unmotivated by an ulterior agenda would do. Had the liberal, activist judges in California done this, the myth of a “right” to homosexual “marriage” would never have existed, and there would be a lot fewer disillusioned people living in California, right now.
The second point relates to the first. This was not an attempt to “undo” the homosexual “marriage” ruling, nor to remove a “right” (which doesn’t exist, and never truly did) from any member or subgroup of the population of California. This was simply a message from the people of California to liberals and homosexual “rights” activists that said very clearly: (1) We do not want to redefine “marriage” to include homosexuals and (2) we do not want you to take your dirty work through the Courts.
If homosexuals want to redefine marriage to include their deviant behavior, they need to go through the legislative (read: democratic) process, not through the courts. They won’t do that, though, because they know that they do not have the will of the majority on their side, as the passage of Proposition 8 clearly demonstrated. They know that the only way they can get their agenda made into law is to go through the liberal, activist (Democrat-appointed) judges in the Courts.
Now, my opinions about homosexual couples are this (just so there’s no confusion). I think that “civil unions” are entirely permissible, even if morally undesirable, under the law. Redefining “marriage,” a sacred institution to the 81% of self-described Christians in this country is sacrilegious and offensive, and homosexuals just do this to piss off Christians, traditionalists and moral conservatives. So, take your “civil union” and be happy with that. It works just the same as a “marriage,” by tidying up the contract law into a condensed, easily-understood package for your demographic without insulting millions of traditionalist Americans that disagree with your lifestyle.
Besides, homosexuals already have all the rights they would have if they were successful in redefining marriage. No one is taking anything away from homosexuals. They can use contracts and contract law to make all the arrangements they and their partner(s) may desire. Under the law, that’s all marriage is: a contract.
But in society, it’s much more; culturally, marriage is much, much more than just a contract. That’s why it’s called “holy matrimony.” For homosexuals to try to defile that is repugnant, and offensive.
Liberals always QQ about conservatives pushing their beliefs and values on everyone else. This whole “gay marriage” is a massive exhibition in liberal hypocrisy, because that is exactly what liberals are trying to do to the moral majority: push their values (homosexual “marriage” is the same as heterosexual marriage) on the rest of society – the vast majority of which disagrees with them.
We do not want what you are selling. Please keep your lifestyle and wacky notions to yourself. We’re willing to live and let live, but you have to do so as well. Stop trying to redefine marriage and go hold your ankles for your boyfriend while you watch E! in the privacy of your own residence. I promise, I won’t ask and I won’t tell.