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.
Rights are niether regulated nor licensed. And if they are then they certainly can't be absolute rights so your argument falls apart either way.
The fact that the state issues a license means they are obligated to issue it eqially and have justifiable restrictions.
The state is not some great beast in the sky, it is "the people". And "the people" should have the final say. This is what is happening in California. Simple stuff. Of course not all rights should be rgeualted by the whims of the majority, I agree with you there. But there is no traditional right to allow same sex couples to marry so it's not a right. I believe you have a right to life, liberty, property, political speech and freedom to choose the religion or non religion of your choice. I don't believe you have a "right" to healthcare, a 3000 sq ft house, an SUV and 6 weeks a year on holiday.
Maybe you can tell me why the state is issuing marriage licenses
To protect property rights and children.
Commune? Rules of sopciety. Would you like to reinstitute the rules on society from the 1700s. Com'n think about what your saying. Given your name, I assume not.
So take your best shot and make your case.
Californians voted to keep marriage as one man, one woman but the state supremes decided they didn't care what we wanted so they used judicial coup to over throw it, illegally of course. There is nothing unconstitutional about an initiative that prohibits same sex "marriage".
Domestics Unions in CA have the same rights that marriages do but they are not sanctified as marriages.
As for saying queers being married won't affect marriage that is probably true, but it will affect marriages in the long run and eventually result in destruction of the family unit, which is what this is all about.
Communist have always used the destruction of moral values as a way to help take over a country. Destroy morals and replace them with nothing. When people become disoriented and without guidance of rules and regulations(Read that morals)the wonderful left wing state steps in and says "follow me I can save you!" and the uneducated, rudderless sheep follow them. Has happened all over the world and is happening in africa and Europe now as we speak.
Fortunately your beliefs are in the minority and Prop 8 will pass. While you might be a republican(I really don't think so)you are certainly not a conservative, the best case scenario you are a libertarian, worse case a flaming liberal. Have a nice night.
Rights are not subject to majority vote.
Teach your children as you will. That doesn't give you license to restrict others because of how you want to teach your children. The governmenmt nis under no obligation to teach your version of morality or religion by restricting the rights of other citizens.
You say I’m a troll because I believe in the pursuit oif happiness and liberty. That’s a strange definition. Asd for my posts on other threads against Obama or liberal stupidity, which of those were troll like?
Correction this sentence “As for saying queers being married won’t affect marriage that is probably true, but it will affect marriages in the long run and eventually result in destruction of the family unit, which is what this is all about.” should have read “As for saying queers being married won’t affect YOUR marriage that is probably true, but it will affect marriages in the long run and eventually result in the destruction of the family unit,which is what this is all about.” Post #124
No my firend, it is incumbent on you to make the case that same sex couples marrying is a fundamental right. Fundamental rights are few and those that are recognized are either from long tradition or explicit language in the US Constitution or the California Constitution either of which can be amended which makes that amendment constitutional.
I think you can freely argue that your fellow citizens should allow homosexuals to marry but you don't have a leg to stand on when you say it is a right.
And when you agree that marriage can be regualted and licensed you hurt your case fatally.
Anyway, good luck with your argument. Adios.
The fact that men and women are of the opposite sex, and that marriage is a sexual bonding of people of the opposite sex (otherwise, what differentiates it from any other bonding, such as between brothers or friends?), seems to be reason enough for the restriction. People for many, many thousands of years have agreed, across every culture on earth, and it never remotely crossed their minds that people of the same sex could "marry". The Founding Fathers never even so much as entertained the idea. Neither has any great philosopher, theologian, or legal scholar. The alleged "right" to same-sex "marriage" wasn't mentioned in the Magna Carta, the writings of Confucius, or the works of Edmund Burke. Yet a few leftists and libertines come prancing along and act as if this alleged "right" is self-evident, for no other reason than that they demand it, like some spoiled brat who wants to throw a plate of spaghetti against the wall because, well, because he wants to do it, damn it!
The question I posited earlier is who is harmed by gay marriage and the answer I gave is no one.
If you read Articles IX and X of the Bill of Rights, you will see that you are mistaken.
Don't see how forming more families will destroy families.
You should be out petitioning to make divorce illegal.
Cases of HIV infection and AIDS in the United States and Dependent Areas, 2006 (Published in 2008)
Since there is no scientific evidence to support the idea that homosexuals are born that way, and all the scientific evidence states environment is a causal factor in same-sex attraction, why should the state of California change the definition of marriage for 2% of the people, especially when there's a growing ex-gay population?
Freedom was never intended to be a trophy for perversion, depravity, immorality. nufsed!
When I wake up in the morning I will decide what to do tomorrow. Do I not have the right to do that? Or should we vote on it?
Some reason why you are so shy about whether there is a right of old men to ‘marry’ 20 or 30 pubescent girls?
You keep bringing up choice and born that way. I have said nothing about that and it doesn't effect whether something is a right or not.
If I'm born a US citizen I have certain rights. If I chose a religion, I have the right to do that also, Choice or birth does not matter to me.
If you're basing your argument on nature nurture, be careful. You may be one scientific breakthrough from turning your entire argument into a house of cards.
Rights are not based upon nature or nurture.
Freedom is what it is. The rest is the judgement you place upon the exercise of that freedom. Shall we make all things you consider a sin or wrong illegal?
No.
Yes, the Bill of Rights recognizes that right.
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.