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.
Post 197 BUMP!
Since America is/was a Christian country, it would have a profound effect on the raising of the next generation. You would have the propaganda from government telling everyone of the major religions that their beliefs are wrong. It would erode parent-child relationships.
Happened in Christian Europe and now that vacuum of the secular soul is being filled with Islam.
Christianity in the US is the one religion which created the best, most productive, and free society for both men and women on earth. According to God, everyone is valued (even the unbeliever). No other philosophy--especially atheistic, marxist ideology can create a society with such freedom for all.
Homosexuals want to have special rights and want to exclude half of the population in their selfish, nihilistic little union. Where homosexuality was exalted and practice (pagan societies, Nazi party (SS stormtroopers and the Hitler Youths)various native tribes) the societies have been totalitarian and horrible for women (the breeders).
I’m voting for it... precisely because I do think. The impact this will have on traditional families is tremendous. The impact gay marriage has on the rights of those who believe their ‘choice’ is sin and the right to teach their own children that belief is also threatened.
Gays already have rights to registration of domestic partnerships in California.
“Now, now,” you’re the one who believes that an oligarchy of judges trumps all the individual freedoms of our representative, 3 branch government.
If the definition of marriage can be manipulated to include same sex couples at the whim of 4 judges and against the explicit vote of over 60% of California voters, then there is no “liberty,” only that oligarchy and license.
You’re a coward who can’t follow the logic of your argument. If the majority of the voters can be overturned, then the voters are without power.
The people of California had given the homosexuals all of the protections under the law, withholding only the changing of the definition of the word, “marriage.”
There is no reason that any consenting grouping of any mix of people should not, and would not be allowed to “marry” once the traditional man/woman definition of marriage is nullified.
This is actually an insightful piece regarding George. He and Newsom will be rightly considered two legs of the footstool which set back the gay's "marriage equality" movement in CA. George will be sighted for judicial activism and Nitwit Newsom for audacity as exemplified in the "whether you like it or not" soundbite.
I think the third leg would be the sign thieves. There is some hint of organized bandits doing recon and crossing across neighborhoods. I've read and heard about it happening across the state at levels never seen in a campaign.
Rights can not be limited or licensed. They can only be infringed.
There is no right to a marriage *license issued by the State,* by definition.
Coward. Troll. Newbie, not for long.
"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
"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
the one where I posted my e-mail for the secretary state of CA to disqualify Obama from the ballot?
The one where I show relief that we killed terrorists in Syria?
The one in which I call Obama a communist for wanting to redistribute wealth.
The one in which I said Daniel Craig was a good James Bond.
The one where I oppose illegal immigration?
The one in which I congratulate a man for shooting a burglar terrorizing his family?
The one in which I lauigh because the FR spellcheck does not recognize the name Obama?
Or the one in which I stand up for people's rights?
Coward?
Rights exist above the law as clearly spelled out in the declaration of independence. There is no law intended to list all of your rights and no government at any level in the US which stated as it’s purpose to list your rights.
Gavin, Is that you? lmao.
You call the USSC the ultimate authority on rights. You really need to read the declaration on independence.
The science of nature or nurture on homosexuality is irrelevant on the issue of rights. I gave you examples of rights earlier, one based on choice and the other based on birth. I don’t know why you’re not getting this. I can’t make it anymore clear.
Never said or implied that anyone could. Merely said they could get married. If you think that's doing anything you want, you're guilty of gross generalization.
All those great thinkers lived during slavery, women as second class citizens and such. Not impressed by the old days.
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.