If Prop. 8 wins, Newsom will be scapegoated. But the recriminations should focus on Ronald George.

San Diego Union-Tribune ^ | October 28, 2008 | Chris Reed

[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.

[nufsed]

Actually I had the right to get married at age 18. It was not created in the context of homosexual marriage. They merely want to exercise the same right.

[puroresu]

So can people walk nude down the street since it might make them happy and it's among the gadzillion unenumerated rights the people retain?

Your argument is absurd. It's based on an assumption that the present-day, mindless political fetish the left has developed for homosexuality overrides the entire constitutional history of America, repeals a thousand years of Anglo-Saxon common law, nullifies the historical traditions of every great civilization that ever existed, crushes the Judeo-Christian heritage of Western Civilization, and repeals the right of the people to self-government, one of our Founders’ most cherished representations.

I need not even get into the issue of nature itself (how can two people of the same sex mate?) and the obvious purpose of marriage in the first place being antithetical to people of the same sex participating in it.

You're at a complete loss to explain why no one, and I mean literally NO ONE, ever claimed there was a “right” to same-sex “marriage” until the “modern” era of leftist judicial activism and the trashing of our culture. The Founders didn't grapple with this issue and come up with a compromise, a la slavery. They didn't even discuss it. If someone had popped up at the Constitutional Convention and suggested that there existed a “right” to same-sex “marriage”, they'd have had him locked in a loony bin.

There are indeed such things as unenumerated rights, but by definition they are things that are obvious to the general function of a free society. The right to travel, for example, though even that can be restricted in some cases, just as the enumerated right to free speech can sometimes be limited (noise ordinances, etc.).

You might just as well assert that pet owners have a “right” to a child tax deduction. After all, their pets make them happy, right? So the “right” to regard one’s pet as a surrogate child and to be treated “equally” by society and government in pursuit of your “happiness” obligates the state to toss out tax deductions to everyone with a parakeet. What's that? Historically we've never regarded pets as being the same legally as children? Well, who cares? We want people to be happy and free, so we'll just force society to treat pet ownership as being the same as having a child. And if a business won't allow dogs or pigs inside, then we'll pass a law banning “discrimination”. After all, they let kids in, why not tarantulas and monitor lizards? And since we fund child adoption programs, we must also use tax dollars to fund pet adoption programs. In fact, unless Catholic Charities spends as much time helping people adopt pets as they spend helping them adopt kids, we'll ban them from state funded adoption programs.

There has never been a “right” to same-sex “marriage” and it's Newspeak to claim that there is one. It's beyond the pale for you to claim that it's self-evident but that no one noticed until particularly brilliant people such as yourself, Barney Frank, and Gavin Newsom came along and ran intellectual rings around James Madison.

[puroresu]

Thanks! You’re doing a great job in this debate, BTW!

[puroresu]

Not impressed by the old days.

Then you really do think you're brighter than our Founding Fathers. Heck, you think you're brighter than Moses. I suspected as much. You worship the zeitgeist.

BTW, how was slavery abolished in America, and how were women given the vote?

Here's a hint: It wasn't because someone like you showed up and declared the right to be "happy" to be an inherent right, followed by an assertion that "happiness" requires slave emancipation and female suffrage. Quite the contrary, it took constitutional amendments to make those changes because your idea of a "happiness right" is an idiocy, and in saner times it would have been treated as such.

[cartoonistx]

In the DOI the persuit of happiness refers to the ownership of property. Civil Marriage is not a constitutional right and, as a state-regulated institution, it’s definition is subject to the will of the people. Few, outside of CA or MA, would be very concerned with what a state decides in this regard if it were not for the Full Faith and Credit provisions that require states to honor contracts that citizens legally enter into state to state. (This was the basis of the Dred Scott ruling which required non-slave state officials to uphold the “property rights” of southern slaveholders vis a vis their runaway slaves.)

[scripter]

Because gays have insisted for decades they are born that way, cannot change and must be accepted for who they are, science is indeed relevant. Science does not support the born that way theory but science supports the fact that gays can change. Many scientists (some of them gay) who used to think gays were born that way have changed their mind.

I've provided the following links for you:

• the severe health hazards of the gay life from the CDC
• studies that demonstrate gays can change
• references to well known gays who have changed
• articles demonstrating those susceptible to same-sex attraction

Why is the above relevant? Because study after study tells us gays are confused about their sexuality. As you apparently see it, a minority group of sexually confused people should be able to force acceptance of their confusion on society. Full acceptance, that is, to where that small confused 2% of the population can redefine marriage. Full acceptance to where children are taught being gay is perfectly normal. Full acceptance to where experimenting with same-sex attraction is to be encouraged.

It appears you haven't considered all the ramifications of redefining marriage for any group of sexually confused people.

For those in California: vote yes on Proposition 8.

[hocndoc]

It’s a shame you haven’t followed our board long enough to understand the local customs.

While you’ve demonstrated your troll-ness from the original post (see my post # 17 for details), the “coward” and note that you probably aren’t around here for long is in reply to your announcement that you are terminating your part of the conversation.

However, you don’t seem to value the customs of others or follow through on your own announcements about your intentions.

[nufsed]

I get tired when I get tired. I quit when I want. You can call that a coward all you want. You don't determine when I leave a thread. Now I can see whay you're so upset about someone excercising their rights. You want to control what they do.

I value freedom over customs. Slavery was a custom, hopw much did you value that.

I posted my positions and asked which were troll like. Is this your answer?

[hocndoc]

Actually, it’s my post # 146 in response to your #17 that outlines why you reminded most of us of a troll from the OP.

[nufsed]

"Most of us?" LOL! "Most of us" engaged me in an adult conversation. It was just a few who can't articulate a response who engaged in personal attacks.

You got upset because I said people were consistent with their religious teachings and didn't capitalize the name of the religion. We'll I'm suroprised you didn't call the FBI for that major felony.

You need to develop a sense of proportionality before you personally attack people.

Why would anyone want to stay on a site where some hothead like you can run them off?

[nufsed]

"Your argument is absurd. It's based on an assumption that the present-day, mindless political fetish the left has developed for homosexuality overrides the entire constitutional history of America, repeals a thousand years of Anglo-Saxon common law, nullifies the historical traditions of every great civilization that ever existed, crushes the Judeo-Christian heritage of Western Civilization, and repeals the right of the people to self-government, one of our Founders’ most cherished representations."

If you knew anything about history or the law, you'd know this won't be the first time.

[nufsed]

Most of your post has already been debunked on this thread, but you seem to only be reading bits and pieces and want to repeat questions whioch have been answered.

"I need not even get into the issue of nature itself (how can two people of the same sex mate?) and the obvious purpose of marriage in the first place being antithetical to people of the same sex participating in it."

People don't just get married to have children. How old are you or little experienced that you don't know that? Plus, it was explained before on the thread.

You need to step up your game and stop wasting everyone's time.

[nufsed]

So you’re advocating a constitutional right TO have gay marriage? My guess is you’re actually advocating a constitutional amendment to restrict rights. A nefarious purpose for changing the constitution of a state.

[nufsed]

LOL!

Well we certainly don't want a group of sexually confused people running around getting married. Tell me, is that just 79.7% of the gay population, all of them, or just a few you've seen on the street?

You have some quiky, ridiculous way of deciding who gets to exercise rights and who doesn't. If you want to see confused people, work the polls next week and tell the confused ones they can't vote.

Pathetic!

[nufsed]

Not sour grapes at all. It’s based on my objective view of what will happened. That’s whay I acknowledged the ad. I’m 61 years old. You may not believe it, but once my vote was on the losing side.

[nufsed]

Now you want to prevent unintended consequences for people getting married? Good luck! Please don’t get married, you don’t know what will happen! LOL!

[Fee]

In Los Angeles County gays represent up to 7 percent of population but 70 percent of STD cases. In acturian tables used by life insurance companies show that gays on average live less than ten years than straights (this does not include AIDS), have higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse and suicide rates. There is a correlation between their life style and mortality rates. Thus the government should not be promoting it by legitimizing it with marriage licenses and civil rights status when the issue is really behavior. After all we do not give underage kids licences to get cigarettes and booze. That is one of my conflicts with civil libertarian conservatives, they believe in principles not bound by any sanity check call wisdom.