Submitted to a Candid World

Color me optimistic. My earlier post, which assumed McCain would stridently oppose the California Supreme Court’s pro-gay rights ruling, and that the Democrats would keep silent, assumed that we were still in a religious-right dominated nation, and therefore a religious-right dominated campaign.

Based on their reactions, my assumption could be wrong. The McCain campaign voiced their candidate’s support for states’ rights to decide the issue (while subtly commenting on “judicial activism”), while Obama and Hillary both suggested that they would fight for civil unions on the national stage. These are bold moves from all the candidates. Nothing less than outright condemnation from McCain could appease the religious right, but McCain’s response was slightly more than “neutral” on the issue. Anything more than silence from the Democrats could be damaging, but they boldly lent their voices to the cause for equality.

Apparently none of the candidates are willing to foster or suborn bigotry just to win.  The tide may be turning.  I’m very proud of our country today.

The UK Parliament has a fantastic tradition, known as Prime Minister’s Questions. Every Wednesday at noon, the Prime Minister faces pointed, brutally phrased questions, which he must deflect with wit and candor. Should he fail, he faces the harangues of his colleagues from both sides of the aisle. It’s a political trial by fire, which has the effect of forcing the Prime Minister to be a skilled public speaker, intelligent, and above all accountable.

When I worked in Parliament in the summer of 2005, I routinely wished that we would institute this practice for our President. PMQs routinely exposes the failings of the sitting executive for all the world to see. It forces the Prime Minister to defend himself, stripped bare of the insulation provided by spin, the media, and sound bytes. More than one party leader has stepped down after PMQs displayed his incompetence for all the world to see (think Iain Duncan Smith). Imagine: if we’d had PMQs in 2000, how quickly would Bush have been gone?

Now McCain wants to institute this practice, according to Reuters. While I sincerely hope he never has the chance to do so, I hope our new Democratic president will take a cue from him, adopt a “President’s Questions” weekly event, and make it permanent. Over the past seven years - facilitated by a willing media - American “anti-elitism” has morphed into a veritable embrace of the ignorant, the dim-witted, and the uninformed, a trend which threatens to swallow our politics and our country. A “President’s Questions” session would have the effect of partially lifting this cloud, making intellect once more a prized commodity in the White House.

The genius of these sessions lies in the fact that, although questions are known in advance and the answer is scripted, the active and competitive nature of the House of Commons turns the single question into a ten-minute impromptu debate system. It’s the Marketplace of Ideas at its best: without restriction.

It’s also occasionally hilarious. When I was there, on June 15, 2005, this exchange occurred. The question was proferred by Iain Duncan Smith, former Conservative Prime Minister:

The Prime Minister has been against Europe and then for it. He has been for the pound and then against it. He has been against a referendum and then for it. And although he has been against negotiating on our rebate, I discovered at the weekend that he is for it, although to be fair to him he is both for and against it right now. The Prime Minister has taken more positions than the “Kama Sutra.”

As you can see, the Honourable Mr. Smith, MP, has learned to debate.

This morning, the California Supreme Court ruled, in a 4-3 decision, that the equal protection clause of California’s Constitution mandates equal rights for the gay men and women of the state, entitling them to marry. The decision expands upon gay couples’ earlier entitlements to the “separate but equal” institution of civil unions. This victory for the gay rights movement, though, has its own problems, and could potentially affect the November election, turning California’s bold move into a Pyrrhic victory for equal rights advocates.

In re Marriage Cases (Cal. 2008) is available here.

(more…)

Our humble site is featured in Tangled Bank #105, hosted at the Beagle Project, for our entry “How Ben Stein Destroyed Intelligent Design.”  For those of you who don’t know, Tangled Bank publishes a regular collection of blog posts on biology and science.  It’s administered by PZ Myers of Pharyngula: snark and knowledge are always guaranteed.

Also, good news everyone! I hope you’ve got a Starbucks venti iced chai latte handy (my favorite!), because we’ll be working on the first post of “Carnival of the Elitist Bastards,” hosted by Dana Hunter of En Tequila Es Verdad.

And thanks to PalMD of Denialism Blog, for a little positive press. Pal, you’re a gentleman and a scholar.

I promise a return to substantive entries tomorrow. Please forgive this brief hiatus.