Many believed this day would never come. Most of us hoped and prayed that it would, but few of us actually believed we would live to see it. Racism is an ugly thing in all of its forms and there is little doubt that if this man had moved into this house fifteen years ago, there would have been a great outcry – possibly even rioting in the streets.
Today, we can all be both grateful and proud that no such mayhem will take place when this man takes up residency in this house.

This man, moving into this house at this time in our nation’s history is much more than a simple change of addresses for him – it is proof of a change in our attitude as a nation. It is an amends of sorts – the righting of a great wrong. It is a symbol of our growth, and of our willingness to “judge a man, not by the color of his skin but by the content of his character”.

There can be little doubt now that the vast majority of us truly believe that this man has earned both his place in history and his new address. His time in this house will not be easy – it will be fraught with danger and he will face many challenges. There will be many times when he asks himself how in the world he ended up here and like all who have gone before him, the experience will age him greatly.

But do not waste an ounce of worry for his sake – because in every way a man can, he asked for this.
His whole life for the past fifteen years appears to have been inexorably leading this man toward this house.
It is highly probable that that in the past, despite all of his actions, racism would have kept this man out of this house.
Today, we should thank the lord above that we are Americans and that we live in a nation where wrongs are righted, where justice matters and where truly anything is possible.

The man being discussed:

Inaugural Fun Facts:
George Washington’s was the shortest inaugural address at 135 words. (1793)

William H. Harrison’s was the longest inaugural address at 8,445 words. (1841)

Abraham Lincoln was the first to include African-Americans in his parade. (1865)

Women were included for the first time in Woodrow Wilson’s second inaugural parade. (1917)

Lyndon Johnson was the first (and so far) only president to be sworn in by a woman, U.S. District Judge Sarah T. Hughes. (1963)

Ronald Reagan’s second inaugural had to compete with Super Bowl Sunday. (1985)

The first ceremony broadcast on the Internet was Bill Clinton’s second inauguration. (1997)

All but six presidents took the presidential oath in Washington, D.C.The exceptions were:
• George Washington-1789, New York City; 1793, Philadelphia
• John Adams-1797, Philadelphia
• Chester Alan Arthur-1881, New York City
• Theodore Roosevelt-1901, Buffalo
• Calvin Coolidge-1923, Plymouth, Vt.
• Lyndon Baines Johnson-1963, Dallas

Theodore Roosevelt’s 1901 oath was the only one not sworn in on a Bible.

Only four retiring presidents have not attended the inaugurations of their successors. Those who were absent:
• John Adams missed Thomas Jefferson’s inaugural.
• John Quincy Adams was not present at Andrew Jackson’s.
• Andrew Johnson was not at Ulysses Grant’s ceremony.
• Richard Nixon was not present at Gerald Ford’s inaugural.

Here we go once again America. Game on.

The people voted. The people’s will was decided.

California: 2004:From February 12 to March 11, under the direction of Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco, officials of the City and County of San Francisco issued marriage licenses to approximately 4,000 same-sex couples, in apparent defiance of state law. During the month that licenses were issued, couples travelled from all over the United States and from other countries to be married.

The people’s will and vote was ignored… by a city mayor.

On August 12, the state Supreme Court releases its decision, exactly six months after the first same-sex marriages were performed in San Francisco. The court rules unanimously that the City and County of San Francisco exceeded its authority and violated state law by issuing the marriage licenses. In a 5-2 decision, the court also declares all same-sex marriages performed in San Francisco to be void, while expressing no opinion on the constitutionality of marriage restrictions.

The people’s will and vote was respected and defended… by the California Supreme Court.

California: 2005. When California State Legislature opened the 2005-2006 session, Assembly member Mark Leno introduced Assembly Bill 19, which proposed legalizing same-sex marriage. The bill enjoyed the support of then-Speaker Fabian Núñez among others. Leno had introduced a similar bill in the prior session, but it died in committee. Assembly committees reported out Assembly Bill 19 favorably, but the measure failed on the Assembly floor on June 2, 2005. Later that month, Assembly member Patty Berg amended the text of her fisheries-research measure, Assembly Bill 849, which was already in the Senate, to the text of Leno’s failed bill.

On September 2, 2005, the California Senate approved the bill 21-15 and on September 6, the California State Assembly followed suit with a vote of 41-35, making California’s legislature the first in the nation to approve a same-sex marriage bill without court pressure.

The people’s will and vote was again ignored… by the State House and Senate.

The next day, September 7, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger indicated he would veto the bill, citing Proposition 22, which had passed with the approval a majority of voters five years earlier. Like the statutes amended by AB 849, Prop 22 prohibited the state from recognizing same-sex marriages, but as an initiative statute, it was not affected by AB 849. The legislature avoided physically delivering the bill to the governor for over two weeks, during which time advocacy groups urged Schwarzenegger to change his mind.

Ultimately, the bill was delivered on September 23 and vetoed on September 29, 2005. Schwarzenegger stated he believed that same-sex marriage should be settled by the courts or another vote by the people via a statewide initiative or referendum

The people’s will and vote was respected and defended… by the governor.

Shortly after the newly elected Assembly was sworn in, Leno resubmitted a similar bill on December 4, 2006. AB 43 was passed by the legislature in early September 2007, giving the governor until October 14, 2007, to either sign or veto the bill. Schwarzenegger had stated months before that he would veto AB 43 on the grounds that the issue at hand had already been voted on by California by way of Proposition 22.

The people’s will and vote was once again ignored… again by the State House and Senate.

The governor followed through on his statement and on October 12, 2007, he vetoed AB 43. Schwarzenegger wrote in his veto statement that to solve the issue of gender-neutral marriage, the California Supreme Court needed to finish its rule on the challenge which had been made to Proposition 22.

The people’s will and vote was respected and defended… by the governor.

On May 15, 2008 the Supreme Court of California overturned the State’s existing statutes limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples in a 4-3 ruling. The judicial ruling overturned the one-man, one-woman marriage law which the California Legislature had passed in 1977 and Proposition 22.

The people’s will and vote was again ignored… by the Supreme Court of California.

After the ruling, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued a statement repeating his pledge to oppose Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that would override the ruling.

The people’s will and vote was being ignored again… by the governor.

California: November 2008. Proposition 8 is a proposed constitutional amendment titled Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry Act, whose proponents intend to override the Court’s decision. The measure appeared on the 2008 California general election ballot in November 2008.

November 4th, 2008: The amendment was passed by a margin of 52.2% in favor and 47.8% opposed with a remarkable 68.6% voter turnout.

The people had gone back to the polls to regain their will and vote. The people had already previously voted on this… but had the victory taken away from them by the very court that had defended them back in August of 2004.

Interestingly, 70 percent of African Americans voted to ban same-sex marriages in California.

The vote coincided with the overwhelming support among African Americans for a black presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama. In the aftermath, some Proposition 8 supporters are viewing the black vote as proof that same-sex marriage is a moral rather than a civil rights issue.

Religion was just as pronounced. Prop. 8 found support among 81 percent of white evangelicals, 65 percent of white Protestants, 64 percent of Catholics and 84 percent of weekly worshipers. In the exit poll’s only nonwhite category involving race and religion, 58 percent of nonwhite religious voters supported the measure.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger expressed hope that the California Supreme Court would overturn Proposition 8.

The people’s newly-regained will and vote is already being ignored again… by the governor.

He urged backers of gay marriage to follow the lesson he learned as a bodybuilder trying to lift weights that were too heavy for him at first, “I learned that you should never ever give up. . . . They should never give up. They should be on it and on it until they get it done.”

California continues to allow domestic-partner registration, a right similar to civil unions found in other states. This grants “same-sex couples all state-level rights and obligations of marriage – in areas such as inheritance, income tax, insurance and hospital visitation” but does not apply to “federal-level rights of marriage that cannot be granted by states”.

November 4th 2008: Arizona Proposition 102 – a proposed amendment to the Constitution of Arizona defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The amendment was passed by a margin of 56% in favor and 44% opposed.

November 4th 2008: Florida Amendment 2 – a proposed amendment to the Constitution of Florida that defined marriage as between only one man and one woman and banned the creation of similar unions, such as civil unions.

The amendment was passed by a margin of 62.4% in favor and 37.6% opposed.

The people voted. The people’s will was decided…

…until a city mayor, governor, state house, senate or Supreme Court decides otherwise.

The sheer roller-coaster ride the will of the California people has taken is astounding. Regardless of the issue at hand… this alone should be a major concern and focus. Authority and the rule-of-law have to not only be defined… but enforced by checks and balances. Is it fair to say that the California processes could use some tightening up?

Too bad the Hall of Justice is a fictional cartoon facility. Where are the original Superfriends when you need them? (The current ones are tools)