So it's been almost a week since we elected Barack Obama to the presidency, among other things. And for all my political ranting and raving, it would appear that I am the only person in the world who hasn't blogged, twittered, Facebook-statused, or otherwise blabbed about it yet. Well, that may or may not be calculated hyperbole, but it turns out that, the decision made, I haven't much to add. I supported Obama over Clinton back in the Primary days, but ultimately cast my vote for those who consistently opposed the bailout. I'm neither horrified nor particularly anxious for an Obama presidency; I still think his tech policy is promising and his tax plan, disturbing.

Chapter One: President-elect Obama

I remember the end-of-days attitude a lot of conservatives adopted when Clinton won back in 1992--in fact this is my earliest memory of presidential politics. Obama will socialize a lot of stuff, doubtless, but Bush-Two is the one who really got that ball rolling again. Frankly, it would be hard to do worse, by any measure, than Bush-Two, and the potential is certainly there to do a whole lot better. So the "red scare" sweeping certain hard-right demographics is, I think, uncalled for.

Certainly Obama's place in history as the first non-white president of the United States is noteworthy for the obvious reasons but, I think in the very long run, it will prove little more than an historic curiosity. African, European, whatever, history will judge Obama by what he accomplishes in the next four-to-eight--which, I think, is the point (judging the content of his character rather than the color of his skin).

And with regard to those accomplishments, we will know shortly whether Obama remains beholden to the Democratic machine. His best ideas--those most strongly opposed, I think, by his running-mate--may or may not be real priorities to him or his party. Time will tell.

So, on this particular front, consider me "cautiously optimistic."

Chapter Two: Same-sex Marriage

Somewhat more controversially, several states passed initiatives declining to expand the traditional definition of marriage to include same-sex unions. Prior to the election, I think my position on these initiatives could be summed up as "apathetic." As I suggested to several of my classmates, the "traditional marriage lobby" lost a long time ago; for the most part these amendments were haggling over the terms of surrender. Because California law recognizes same-sex unions as substantively identical to heterosexual marriages, I felt that the Proposition 8 drama was shockingly overwrought for what amounted to an exercise in semantics. I'm not so naive as to suggest that the word is unimportant (on either side of the debate), but I just didn't find the disagreement worth my attention.

I admit this got me in hot water with some people--after all, the LDS Church (of which I remain, against every reasonable expectation, a member in good standing) made it a point to get behind Proposition 8 in a big way. It's weird how everyone jumps for these scraps of highly-politicized barn-door closing. Traditional marriage really ended with the advent of no-fault divorce. The gradual switch of emphasis in family law from family-as-fundamental-unit to individual-as-fundamental-unit has clearly deprived traditional marriage of its once-favored status. I'll leave the question open as to whether this does more harm than good, but when was the last time the LDS or any other church worked this hard to eliminate no-fault divorce? Near as I can discern, the answer is "never."

Estimates of homosexual population range from 1% to 10%. Let's grant the dubious 10% figure in exchange for the equally contested claim that children of same-sex couples exhibit higher rates of suicide and unhealthy promiscuity. Even then, American families (especially children) are radically more likely to suffer from no-fault divorce than from same-sex marriage. Furthermore, the damage purportedly done to children by same-sex "marriage" is done whether you call it marriage or not! I guess what I'm trying to say is, there is clear merit to the argument that homosexuals have been unfairly singled-out (no pun intended!). Because while there is ample room to argue that the traditional nuclear family should be favored by the government for various reasons, we don't seem to care about those arguments in any other context.

In short, were I a California resident, I would have been hard-pressed to vote either way. It seems like bickering with no substantive legal rights in play. But it got a lot of press! Which of course means it must be a lot more important than I realize. Someone care to explain this to me? I think it's clear that homosexuals see this as another way to marginalize and discriminate against them, and that religious folks see this as another relativistic attack on the morals that built Western civilization, so it's not that their passion is misplaced... more, this particular battle seems strategically unrewarding, for both positions, on a lot of levels. The cost-benefit just doesn't add up.

Chapter Three: Same-sex Marriage Reaction

All of that said, I'm disappointed with the protesters targeting the LDS Church. The Church and its members put a lot of money into Proposition 8, but the idea that this somehow violates separation of Church and State is patently ludicrous. Influencing people's thoughts and morals is what churches do. If you think the Church took the wrong position, that's fine. It turns out that a lot of people don't agree with the Church's position--and, crazily enough, some of those people even belong to the Church! But this "separation of Church and State" nonsense has gotten completely out-of-hand.

Furthermore, the polls suggest that the person most responsible for Proposition 8's passage is in fact the President-elect, who attracted African-Americans to the polls en masse--African Americans who overwhelmingly voted both for Obama and for Proposition 8. Indeed, millions of Californians--a scant few hundred thousand of whom belong to the LDS church--supported Proposition 8. Blame the voters. Seriously--if you opposed Proposition 8, you lost. The voters have spoken. Repeatedly, in fact.

[UPDATE: Looks like the blame has spilled over from anti-Mormonism to full-blown racism. Unbelievable.]

But I'd be willing to wager that within the next 10 years, the same-sex marriage lobby will win anyway. Funny how that works out--but stamina is what really wins these battles, and I don't think the "traditional marriage" lobby is in any position to put up a protracted fight.

Chapter Four: Same-sex Adoption

Sensing a theme or two? Despite my comparative apathy toward the marriage amendments, I think the most significant victory for traditional marriage--or loss for same-sex marriage, depending on your position--was the Arkansas initiative limiting adoption to married couples (in a state where same-sex unions do not qualify as a marriage). This is a substantive right, a clear statement of law that there is something heterosexual couples can do that same-sex couples unequivocally cannot, at least in Arkansas.

I have seen some response to this online--certainly a lot of people are upset about it. But the outcry really pales by comparison with the outpouring of bigotry directed at Latter-day Saints over the success of Proposition 8. Where's the call to boycott Arkansas? Where are the protests? Where's the news coverage? California's not the only state in the union, you know, and Proposition 8 doesn't eliminate anything resembling a substantive right--it just maintains a semantic distinction that has existed for, um, all of history.

That doesn't necessarily make it right, but I would think that the Arkansas initiative would garner more attention seeing as how it actually deprives homosexuals of something more weighty than a label. The simple, biological fact is that homosexuals cannot have children without some kind of third-party intervention, be it medical or adoptive or whatever. One of the surest roads to childrearing in a committed homosexual partnership has been closed, and the outpouring of anger takes place in a state where homosexual couples can still adopt children?

It just... doesn't make any strategic sense.

Chapter Five: Or Does It?

That pretty much wraps up my contemplation. I assure you that my general apathy is not poll fatigue. I enjoyed the election and the debate and will continue to do so. But the "big ticket" items were all lukewarm contests in my view; no one and nothing really captured my imagination. I had some strong feelings about the bailout, but that was a done deal almost before it began. I strongly opposed Clinton, and she was out months ago. I detest Bush, but he wasn't up for re-election.

Do I overthink these things? Am I missing out by eschewing the "politics-as-sports" mentality that gives me a team to cheer for? See here (number five), I guess. I can't decide if I'm lukewarm, or if all the "sides" in our most recent "battle" are so lukewarm that it bothers me to pretend there's some kind of meaningful difference between them. I'm sure to folks in the McCain and Obama camps, the differences were tremendous. Same goes for the same-sex and so-called "traditional marriage" camps. Some people are quite passionate about their positions! But I'm not in any of those camps, and from the outside, it looks like so much tribal warfare; Yooks and Zooks; Sneetches; whatever.

I guess I'll keep longing for that technology party. d^_^b