> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Governor seals his legacy as opportunistic social neanderthal - URL: https://www.smdp.com/governor-seals-his-legacy-as-opportunistic-social-neanderthal-2/ - Published: 2005-09-13T15:00:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-25T01:00:22.000Z - Author: David Pisarra - Tags: Opinion, Santa Monica, #archive-import In 1994 I was in my second year of law school. A time in a budding lawyer’s life when recreational reading is generally limited to bathroom wall scripture, and the occasional bar coaster under one’s beer. But a book came out called “Straight from the Heart” — a love story. It was written by two male bodybuilders, who had fallen in love, and thanks to the efforts of the National Enquirer had quickly become a national sensation for their “marriage” at the time. The early ‘90s being what they were, it really was a commitment ceremony in their eyes and those of their friends and family. “Rod and I wanted to get married because in our culture that’s the highest level of public and private commitment we could make to one another. We wanted to get married in a church before God — whatever God is — because we both have deep spiritual beliefs. And we wanted to get married in front of our friends because we wanted them there to witness us making an important statement of commitment,” wrote Bob Paris. What is telling in this book is the fact that then-superstar Arnold Schwarzeneg-ger was invited, along with many other bodybuilders, to the wedding. In the book, Paris and Rod Jackson say that the other bodybuilders looked to Arnold for direction on whether to go or not. He is alleged to have said that if they liked Bob and Rod, and they wanted to go, they should. On the one hand this is a leadership statement that people should do what they want and support the people they believe in. On the other hand, he didn’t go to the wedding. It could have been a scheduling problem, but I think it is a window into his soul. The governor has been quoted as saying that Europeans have the knowledge of how to come here and become successful — to use the system to make money, and he certainly has proven that point well. But he also has a history of using the gay community to get what he needs. For example in 1977 when he was a young and presumably cash-strapped young man, he posed naked for the gay magazine “After Dark.” Later he was a model who was photographed by the well-known Robert Mapplethorpe. He has been quoted as saying, “Gay people are fighting the same kind of stereotyping that bodybuilders are: People have certain misconceptions about them just as they do about us. Well, I have absolutely no hang-ups about the fag business.” So if he is to be believed when he says, “Let’s reform California so that together, we can rebuild it,” why is he vetoing legislation that has passed both the Assembly and the Senate? Because he wants the people or the courts to decide the issue — which I find immensely entertaining, since the Republican cry of “activist judges” is heard almost as much as “we are winning the war on terrorism in Iraq.” In an ABC News/Washington Post Poll in June of 2005, the public was asked who should decide the rules of marriage. Surprisingly enough it was 45 percent for the state legislatures, 40 percent for the courts and 11 percent for both. With public opinion clearly moving in the direction of allowing same-sex marriage, why would a man who wants to “reform California” avoid making what is by all accounts a historic decision? The governor doesn’t want to be seen as a “girlie man.” Unfortunately, I believe his legacy will be more from the mold of Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus, and President James Buchanan. The governor opposed desegregation and laid the groundwork for President Eisenhower to force the issue. President Buchanan thought he could avoid the issue of the North/South split on slavery by letting the courts decide. In his inaugural speech, the president referred to the territorial question as “happily, a matter of but little practical importance” since the Supreme Court was about to settle it “speedily and finally.” He thought the courts would go one way on the now-famous Dred Scott case. He was wrong. It led to a civil war. History has shown that standing up for what is right, even though politically unpopular, will guarantee a man a place in history that is well regarded, and failing to do so will guarantee a place in obscurity, or worse, in the hall of cowards. The governor’s ratings are plummeting. He is trying to shore up his base, so that his highly unpopular, unwanted and stupidly expensive special election can get him the reforms he wants. It’s probably going to fail. He’d have a better chance, though, if he showed the public what a real man is — not one who is opportunistic in his courting of a segment of the community when it suits his financial and political needs, but one who stands for what is right. I’d like to say I’m disappointed in him, but the truth is I didn’t vote for him. I voted for a man with solid credentials in running a business. A man who knows how to build a consensus. Someone who puts his money where his mouth is, and who has stood up for civil rights. My guy has demonstrated a working knowledge of the Constitution, and has been a long time supporter of the Bill of Rights. I voted for Larry Flynt. (David Pisarra is a business development lawyer in the Santa Monica firm of Pisarra & Grist. He welcomes your questions and comments. He or (310) 664-9969.) *Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on September 13, 2005.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/091305.pdf?ref=smdp.com)