Posted on 10/28/2008 6:33:09 PM PDT by nickcarraway
If Prop. 8 wins, Newsom will be scapegoated. But the recriminations should focus on Ronald George.
I voted against Proposition 8, just as I voted against Proposition 22 in 2000, on equality-under-the-law grounds. I hope the anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendment fails on Tuesday.
But I'm increasingly beginning to suspect it will pass. Backers have mounted a shrewdly framed TV ad campaign that doesn't have the harsh edge many expected from die-hard opponents of gay marriage. Its focus on the possibility that school kids might be taught about gay marriage has touched a chord among parents. (No, I don't think this claim is preposterous, given how our legal and education communities work. I just don't find the prospect particularly scary.)
Prop. 8's odds have also been greatly increased by vast donations pouring in from the country from cultural and religious conservatives who see the fight as pivotal to preventing gay marriage becoming the norm around the nation and even the world. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, told The New York Times that Prop. 8 was "more important than the presidential election."
So the stakes are high -- and the recriminations will be intense if Prop. 8 succeeds. I think San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom will be haunted forever by his braying, arrogant soundbite after the May state Supreme Court ruling declaring gay marriage legal in California: "The door's wide-open now. It's gonna happen, whether you like it or not!" It was off-the-charts smart for the pro-8 forces to replay the clip over and over in their ads.
For my money, though, any recriminations should focus on California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George. This state was gradually moving toward a gay-marriage consensus. But it just wasn't there yet when George, in his own way, declared it's gonna happen, whether you like it or not.
I found George's legal reasoning to be sound and persuasive. But given his past moderation and unadventurousness, his decisive vote to impose gay marriage on California was deeply uncharacteristic. It may well have been principled. Yet given George's history, it looks far more like posturing for the history books than anything else.
There's a lot of that going on around at the highest levels of state government. The guy at the top of the executive branch (Arnold Schwarzenegger) hunted for global acclaim by signing sweeping, unprecedented climate-change legislation and by pushing a sweeping, unprecedented (and plainly illegal) health insurance mandate. The guy who used to be the most powerful leader of the legislative branch (Fabian Nunez) hunted for the same acclaim by working with Arnold on both his crusades.
This spring, it was the guy at the top of the state judicial branch's chance to bask in global acclaim -- and Ron George jumped at the opportunity. But he may have hurt the cause of gay marriage far more than he helped it.
Homosexuals already have all the benefits of marriage without the name.
Since science says homosexuals are not born that way, and there's a growing ex-gay population, changing the definition of marriage for 2% of the population is more of a social experiment than anything else.
A social experiment that the CDC, year after year, reports that MSM (Men have Sex with Men) are the least healthy in the nation and who spread a deadly, contagious disease, should be encouraged to continue their behavior? And you voted to encourage this behavior...
You should read the links I provided.
The Bill of Rights.
Teachers are gay and their "partners" pick them up from work and kiss and hug them. Some have pictures on their desks. All this without marriage. So homeschooling or keep the kids inside or live far out in the country.
The issue is school curriculum with sexual content. I would consider homosexuality and such to be in that category. I don't see why young children would have such classes. That's the issue now. It will not be a new issues if we have gay marriage.
Bingo! The supposedly libertarian advocates of same-sex “marriage” insist that the state can’t stop such “marriages” because the Constitution is silent on the matter, but then insist that the state must license those same “marriages”.
Indeed. All we have to do is look at what continues to happen in Massachusetts.
What is the source of the right to teach sex content to young children?
So you do believe t hat there is a right to incestuous marriage between siblings and parents and children. How about polygamy as practiced by the various Mormon heretical sects?
Calling all who love this country and love God to VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 8.
God designed marriage and He said it is to be between one man and one woman. God designed marriage so He is the only one that can say what it is.
Why would an atheist gay man want to be labeled as married when it is God who came up with the idea of marriage? If he does not believe in God, why would he believe in this ideology? There is more to it that is why! The leftist liberal gays want to close down churches and destroy traditional families. As Joan pointed out in her article, not all gays want this. Stop those that do!
I do pray that we will never see the day when a church has to close its doors because hateful activist gay couples are suing them for preaching the Bible and the church is getting sued for a hate crime.
Vote YES on proposition 8. Tell your entire family to vote YES on proposition 8. Tell all your friends to vote YES on proposition 8. Tell your co-workers to vote YES on proposition 8. Tell strangers and new aquaintances to vote YES on proposition 8. Thank you. God bless traditional family.
Marrriage is mutually agreed upon like a contract. If you get an initiatve together to force people to marry you, some people will actually vote against your "right" to force them. Better luck next time.
This is the last thoughtless, idiotic question from you, I will respond to.
You need to raise your game or stop playing.
The words I mentioned are in the Declaration of Independence as was mentioned in another post. Still not binding as law.
Yes, if you can.
No
Not if you're voting to restrict the right of another.
correct. Some of the posts I left off pursuit. Nice save.
I don't believe that it is entirely coincidental that the CDC demographic mentioned above has the same acronym as the Main Stream Media. :-(~)
Maybe you can tell me why the state is issuing marriage licenses.
But not hard for parents to explain their views to their children that while people must be respected not all people live life as it should be lived. IOW's moral lessons are taught by the parent, not the state. When the state puts thier imprimatur on homosexual marraige children are required by law to be taught that homosexual "marraige" is the moral equivalent of heterosexual marraige. Many people disagree, I certainly do and I don't want the state contradciting what I taught my children.
Teachers are gay and their "partners" pick them up from work and kiss and hug them. Some have pictures on their desks. All this without marriage. So homeschooling or keep the kids inside or live far out in the country.
So now my kids and I are banished to the country? Very fascist of you but I think I'll pass. I'd prefer the state leave marraige alone and I'll continue to exercise my liberty rights to live where I choose, folks like you not withstanding. Of course, you are free to vote with your feet and leave California should Prop 8 pass. Mass beckons your liberty rights.
The issue is school curriculum with sexual content. I would consider homosexuality and such to be in that category. I don't see why young children would have such classes. That's the issue now. It will not be a new issues if we have gay marriage.
Your opinion is worthless, the data is in in Massachusetts. What I describe is exactly what happened.
Prop 8 is definitely going to win. In my daughter’s neighborhood in Chico (a college town), most of the homes have “Yes on 8” signs. I think the vast majority of Californians are sick of homosexuals flaunting their lifestyle and now trying to push it on kids through the schools. Enough is enough.
The main reason I explained or expanded “MSM” was so people wouldn’t think I was referring to the Main Stream Media, but you make a good point!
The problem with school curriculum already exists and gay marriage is not creatinjg that situation. The issue is that young kids should not be taught moral or sexual content withour parental approval.
Kids already see gay teachers hug before and after school and pictures of "partners' on their desks. they see gay couples holding hands in public. How will you protect your children from that?
The answer is in school choice. Banning gay marriage will not solve that problem. It will merely put in our constitution a restriction of a liberty.
I am shocked by your ignorance of the purpose of the constitution and the intention of some of the sections being in there.
If you're just testing me, knock it off. I'm already 10 replies behind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.