 Oakland and San Francisco currently find themselves at opposite ends on applying the U.S. Constitution.
A San Francisco federal court is convening Perry v. Schwarzenegger. This case is challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8, which was passed by California voters that limits the definition of marriage to between a man and a woman. The argument against Prop.8, which is one I’ have long held, it violates the equal protection clause of 14th Amendment. Meanwhile, a number of Oakland residents are spending their time and civic engagement by attempting to have a 96-year-old man removed from the Paramount Theatre board of directors because they disagree with how he exercised his First Amendment rights. Before the vote was taken at last week’s City Council meeting, Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums had the nomination of Lorenzo Hoopes and others pulled from reappointment to the Paramount Theatre board for further consideration. Hoopes has served on the Paramount board for 20 years as well as the Oakland School Board for an additional 17 years. He is also a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (The Mormons).
Leaders of the Mormon Church were vocal proponents of Prop.8, with many of its members contributing millions, and it was reported Hoopes was Oakland’s largest contributor to the Yes on Prop.8 campaign. Let me see if I understand, a group of Oakland residents protested the appointment of a 96-year-old individual, who has given at minimum 37 years of public service to the city, because they disagreed with his position on Prop.8 and the mayor, at least temporarily, capitulated? Please tell me there is more to this story. What does serving on the Paramount board have to do with same-sex marriage? Did Hoopes systematically block events he felt were too gay? Holding up Hoopes’ reconfirmation based on how he used his First Amendment rights in a matter totally unrelated to his board responsibilities hardly sounds consistent with the liberal/progressive philosophy Oakland is known for.
Does that liberal/progressive philosophy only have vacancy for those who think in lockstep? It sounds more like a group who feels right is so entrenched on their side they are impervious to wrong. Much of the public commentary in opposition to Hoopes relied on the predictable trite historical comparisons, void of any context, to validate their position. They were quick to cite Dr. Martin Luther King, but never got around to identifying the portion of the King philosophy that validated their desires to freely participate in the eye for an eye cesspool. I understand the root of their frustration, but this in no way will change hearts and minds. If change is what they seek, it cannot be realized by the short cut known as revenge. Imagine if similar were done to someone who supported a progressive cause, would there not be accusations of fascism? The other curious sidebar to this yarn is how the mayor acquiesced to their demands. Frankly, I would be surprised if Hoopes was not reconfirmed to the Paramount board, but to merely hold up his confirmation for “further consideration” based on the existing reasoning is nothing short of overt pandering. Reelection is the only reason I am aware that an elected official would pander. If nothing else, I think it is a safe bet to conclude the mayor has not closed the door on seeking a second term. For more than a decade I’ve publicly advocated my unwavering support for same-gender marriage. But I cannot back this latest act of desperation that has opted for the same low road taken by many they claim to oppose. Opposing Hoopes’ reconfirmation has nothing to do with same-gender marriage; it has everything to do with revenge shrouded in a veneer of intolerance toward different perspectives. I’m certain there will be emails that will seek to demonstrate how this case is the exception—historically a favorite tool of those who want to justify their particular act of injustice. What message does it send if one can be removed from public service because they used their First Amendment rights to support something unrelated to their duties but to the dismay of certain constituencies? This is a sad display of democracy. Actually, its not democracy, it is more akin to the colloquial definition usually reserved for male cow manure.
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Post a Comment. 
