I gotta tell ya, I don’t really have anything new of substance to say about the larger issue involved in the whole battle over same-sex marriage, the locus of which continues to be California because the state’s highest court will hear the case about whether Proposition 8 can stand. I just keep writing about it because the commentariat keeps making it easy by putting some interesting and some silly -- mostly silly -- stuff out there even though the pundits themselves have relatively little new to say about the larger issue, but seem to feel they have to say it anyway. (Yes, like me, but I have to write every week!)
 
The interesting and silly this past week was in Saturday’s New York Times, titled “Showdown in the Big Tent.”

The authors focused on what it means to the “big tent” of the Democratic Party that blacks and “white, liberal Hollywood” are on different sides of an issue. (Exit polls indicate that black voters overwhelmingly supported Prop 8 and, with nary an exit poll in tow, the authors seem to argue that “white, liberal Hollywood” is wholly against Prop 8.) I thought that the concept of the “big tent” was that it could hold different opinions inside of it and still be a tent.
 
The op-ed begins with what one hopes the authors realize can be taken as, even if it wasn’t meant to be, parody:

“The attitude of white, liberal Hollywood toward African-American churches has long been one of almost participatory respect. Whether it’s Gospel Brunch at the House of Blues on Sunset Boulevard, or the Blind Boys of Alabama on the iPod, or a serious — reverential — mention of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference over dinner, the understanding is clear: the black church is a foundational institution in the history of the civil rights struggle, and its music (although it makes reference to Jesus Christ as a personal savior) is smoking hot.
“It was only recently that the A-list discovered that this love is unrequited.”
As to the “almost participatory respect” allegedly held by Hollywood, that sentiment does not seem to get to the “almost” level outside the aforementioned tent. Greg Braxton recently wrote in the Los Angeles Times a piece about blacks in television titled, “Where are TV’s Obama-like Characters?”
“[A]s Obama prepares to move into the White House in January, he and his family will be hard- pressed to find black people like themselves represented on any of the major networks: ABC, NBC, CBS or Fox.“In fact, not only will they have great difficulty locating any black family in a leading role on the networks, but they also will see it's nearly impossible to find a scripted comedy or drama that features a young person of color in a central role.”
*
The mostly silly take on the continuing same-sex marriage thing – and I say that to agitate because, dang it, that’s what I do -- was Jonah Goldberg’s curious -- and by “curious,” I mean delusional -- column in the Los Angeles Times, “An Ugly Attack on Mormons.” 
 
Mr. Goldberg’s main, way-off-the-beaten-point contention is that the problem in the difference of opinion over Prop 8 is that the side in favor of same-sex marriage is using dirty tactics against the Mormon backers of the initiative to deny the right of Adam and Steve to wed.
“At a pro-gay-marriage rally in Los Angeles after the vote, chants of ‘Mormon scum!’ were reported. Envelopes containing white powder have been sent to Mormon temples in California and Utah; vandals hit other temples. Lists of businesses to boycott -- essentially Mormon blacklists -- have sprung up on the Internet. The artistic director of the California Musical Theatre resigned because of pressure after it was revealed he gave $1,000 to a pro-Proposition 8 group.

“It's amazing. Hollywood liberals, who shout ‘McCarthyism! ’ as a first resort, see nothing wrong with this. If Jews were attacked in this way for giving too much money to a political cause, Barbra Streisand would already have a French passport.”
“It’s amazing?” I agree with Mr. Goldberg that mirroring the tactics of those in favor of Prop 8 is about as stupid a thing the anti-8 folks could do if the effort is meant to win support.  But it’s hardly amazing. One wonders if Mr. Goldberg read his own column when a little later he wrote:
“It's often lost on gay-rights groups that they and their allies are the aggressors in the culture war. Indeed, they admit to being the ‘forces of change’ and the ‘agents of progress.’ They proudly want to rewrite tradition and overturn laws. But whenever they're challenged democratically and peaceably, they instantly complain of being victims of entrenched bigots, even as they adopt the very tactics they abhor.”
“Democratically” in this context apparently refers to the idea that if there’s a vote, and the majority wants to remove your constitutional rights, that’s okay. Curious, then, that those whose rights would be denied might get miffed. What’s the saying? When the going gets tough, those who have their rights denied get uglier than the ones who started the fight even if it was them? No? I could be forgetting.
 
Okay, Mr. Goldberg apparently is against “change” and “progress,” but at the end of his column, he can’t seem to avoid truth: “My own view is that gay marriage is likely inevitable, and won't be nearly the disaster many of my fellow conservatives fear it will be.”
*

Back in June, I wrote about the Sycuan tribe not having paid $30 million in gaming profits “as part of the deal that we voters approved [Props 94 through 97] allowing four Indian tribes to expand their casinos for which they would pay to the state a larger share of the take.”
 
The governor approved the delay (until January 1, 2009) for the Sycuan to pay the $30 million after the tribe “gave $45,000 to the campaign for a November redistricting initiative promoted by Schwarzenegger," the Los Angeles Times reported.”
 
Now, we learn the Sycuan have met everyone’s expectations.
 
“Blaming a punishing economy,” the San Diego Union-Tribune reported, “the Sycuan band of El Cajon on Thursday walked away from a multibillion-dollar gambling agreement that it had pursued for years and spent $6 million to defend.”
 
“We're disappointed but understand the tribe's situation,” said Camille Anderson, a spokeswoman for the governor.
 
You understand? Really? Good to know somebody does. Maybe Ms. Anderson can now explain why the governor sold a deal to voters before a deal was done.

*

I think the governor of California just might have stumbled onto a solution for the foreclosure crisis.
 
In a bold financial stroke of “genius” on a level challenging the deal with the Sycuans, the government of California “may pay vendors with IOUs for only the second time since the Great Depression, State Finance Director Mike Genest said.”
 
As Bloomberg.com reported:
 
“In a letter to legislative leaders Dec. 1, Genest said the state ‘will begin delaying payments or paying in registered warrants in March’ unless an $11.2 billion deficit is closed or reduced. California, which approved its budget less than three months ago, may run out of cash by March, state officials say.

“Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger warned that the state may issue the warrants, which are a promise to pay with interest, to suppliers and contractors as the seizure in credit markets may make it too costly to borrow.”
I didn’t read anything about this in the state’s media, but The Financial Times, of the United Kingdom, had the best headline, “The Governator: I’ll pay you back”.