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.
So can we put you on record as supporting plural marriage and marriage to farm animals (bestiality) since some would find restriction of these “marriages” to be a restriction on liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
I see what your interest are.
If some one is a child they can be forced and easilly manipulated. They should be protected by their parents, society, and the government by lecherous men who ask starnge questions on the internet. Also, I agree that they cannot enter into contracts.
Your question is out of left field and deserves and more negative response, but I chose to answer it respectfully.
Please explain the ability of the farm animal to enter into the marriage contract willfully and knowingly.
Is this why you oppose gay marriage, you're fearful of someone attacking your herd?
Yes. If I can get a majority to agree, and it doesn't violate your rights in the Bill of Rights. Or if I can get a Consttitutional Majority (2/3 of both houses of Congress plus 3/4 of the states), even if it does violate what had been up to then your constitutional righta.
Yes. If I can get a majority to agree, and it doesn't violate your rights in the Bill of Rights. Or if I can get a Consttitutional Majority (2/3 of both houses of Congress plus 3/4 of the states), even if it does violate what had been up to then your constitutional righta.
Christian is spelled with a capital “c.”
The lack of respect is obvious, and not just as demonstrated by your poor grammar. You come to a patently conservative website to post your opinion the day after you sign up. You attempt to bait and engage us in debate, as though we have never had this conversation before.
You should have been here last week, when we were discussing the op-ed by Denver’s Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, “Little Murders.” http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2008.10.18_Chaput_Charles%20J._Little%20Murders_.xml
Substitute the general, “Christian,” for the specific, “Catholic,” in this statement by Archbishop Chaput wrote:
“We need to remember that tolerance is not a Christian virtue, and it’s never an end in itself. In fact, tolerating grave evil within a society is itself a form of evil. Likewise, democratic pluralism does not mean that Catholics should be quiet in public about serious moral issues because of some misguided sense of good manners. A healthy democracy requires vigorous moral debate to survive. Real pluralism demands that people of strong beliefs will advance their convictions in the public square - peacefully, legally and respectfully, but energetically and without embarrassment. Anything less is bad citizenship and a form of theft from the public conversation.”
Okay, your on record as opposing bestiality, but plural marriage is acceptable. So any limit on the number of consenting marriages? Is one guy with 100 wives okay? They all consent and its all about liberty and freedom right?
Nothing on this thread would persuade me to vote to restrict the rights of other taxpayers and place it ion our state constitution.
My dad fought for those principles and took a bullet for them. He taught me better and I believe both of my parents were right. You don't have to like the behavior to let people live their lives.
Most of you will rejoice when this passes because you've put those wicked people in their places. You can be very proud of yourselves.
Good night all and thanks for the discussion.
But if the children are of minimal legal age, and if their parents approve, as in the case in the cults I was referring to, it is fine by you.
I thought the gay men and lesbian women wanted to be able to visit each other in the hospital, inherit, etc., all those legal privileges of marriage.
If I were to go to Japan, and demand that they change a cherished institution (one that dates back centuries), it would be incumbent upon me to convince them that the change I demand is appropriate. It would be the height of arrogance for me to demand that they have to show me why the cherished institution shouldn't be changed to meet my demand.
Yet, the pervert “marriage” advocates insist that an institution which has never included same-sex pairings, for thousands and thousands of years, and throughout the entire history of America, and of our historical antecedent British law, be changed, unless we can demonstrate why we shouldn't change to the satisfaction of those demanding the change (an impossible task, for obvious reasons).
This is of the same ilk as Obama bemoaning that the Constitution granted people certain rights, but didn't obligate the state to provide for their execution.
On what do you base that belief? Have you considered all the ramifications of allowing gay marriage? You've apparently ignored the links I and others have provided.
And you keep missing the point. There is no scientific evidence homosexuals are born that way. In fact, science is quite hostile to the born that way theory and yet, for years now, homosexual radicals have been saying homosexuals are born that way. Science and every single credible study says otherwise. I'll take my chances with science, decades of study and a growing ex-gay population.
But you have a belief... and you think California should change the definition of marriage, something Californian's already voted on but that vote was over ruled by 4 judges.
The unmittigated arrogance of this gentleman, who is willing to put his judgement against the accumulated wisdom and ideas of the human race brings to mind the attitude of the French Revolutionaries. We see what their ‘Liberte’ wrought on the world.
Nick, you need to get a bunch of judges to force someone to marry nufsed. He doesn’t believe that the people should be able to vote against what 4 out of 7 judges decide.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
It depends on what the definition of "is" is.. where have we heard that before? Perversion is what it is, ever learn the definition of perversion? Your idea of freedom sounds like moral relativist liberal drivel to me.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
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.