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.
I just don't see anything in your replies that would restrict someone's right to marry.
Maybe I'm missing something. Here's what I think you're saying and why I don't think it's relevant to the issue of marriage.
1. You say gays can change. Okay. Let them. Are you expecting all gays to change and therefore the question of them marrying has become moot? I don't see the point. If gays can change. maybe some heterosexuals will change and we'll have a zero sum situation. Then what would we do?
Gays have more STS. No argument from me. That's why I think gay marriage may improve public health. But you don't agree that marriage reduces promiscuity, so we disagree on this point.
I already addressed the issue of confused sexuality.
Gays are made by nurture not nature. Never stated a position one way or the other. If it's a choice then they have that choice, just like they should be able to choose their spouse. Why would choosing to be gay abridge someone's rights? Where is that in the law?
I know you are sincere, I just don't think your info and opinions are on point to restrict gay marriage.
You can opt your children out of sex content classes, at least in CA.
What are your kids doing in public school anyway? Don't you know the teachers put pictures of their same-sex lovers on their desks. They pick each other up from work and kiss and hug. They hold hands downtown, at the mall and in public. How do you protect your children from all that gay militancy?
Science tells us homosexuals are not born that way. Science also tells us gays can change. The CDC tells us the homosexual lifestyle carries with it deadly, contagious health hazards. Some in the gay community are bug chasers, that is, some gays seek to give while others seek to receive, AIDS, because they think it's sexy. Those who discourage gay behavior are the true friends of gays.
The ex-gay population is growing. Ex-gays state they didn't choose their same-sex attraction, nor were they born with it, but they were confused about their sexuality. Those aren't my words, they are the words of ex-gays, some of them very well known and very popular in the gay community. You would know that if you read the links provided for you.
I encourage you to read what the growing ex-gay population says about their previous lifestyle in the gay community.
I guess this thought never entered your mind as remotely possible. Marriage may reduce promiscuity. Reduced promiscuity will reduce STS? Don't bother, I don't want to create a dissonance.I guess if LA has all that gay disease, the rest of the gays in the state can forget about their rights because of those nasty Angelenos.
Amazing view of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You can't marry, you're in the sick group. Great stuff!
That’s your reply to those comments? I’d say you’re trying a little projection.
When someone says they understand, accept it an move on. You're like a salesman at the door who won't remove his foot after being told no 5 times. You;'re arguing points on your own. No one here disagreed with you. Claim victory and carry on. I don't give a twit how many gays you convert, good for you and them, if that's what they want.
There's something wrong in the way you respond. I can't quite figure it our, probably because I don't know you well enough to diagnose it. But after telling you five times that your points are not relevant to some one exercising their rights,I have nothing new to add.
Fini!
**************************
Not happy with sandy's reply? Maybe this will impress you:
As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc
~Jim Robinson
I see you are distorting constitutional law.
You're evading the issues because you've been totally thrashed in this debate.
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 couldn't be so stupid that you missed the part about marriage being a societal celebration of the sexual bonding of people of the opposite sex. Or could you?
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.
Uh, no. I think anyone with an IQ above that of a stalk of celery knows I was pointing out that the ONLY way the Constitution can be changed is by amendment. It doesn't change because some fruitcake judge decides the time is "ripe" for a particular change. BTW, you do understand (don't you?) that in just about any contentious debate, both sides can assert that they have rights, therefore whichever side prevails in a constitutional battle can be accused of restricting the rights of the other side.
One obvious example: The constitutional amendment banning slavery restricted the right to own slaves, as asserted by many people for thousands of years. Anyone can assert a right, but that doesn't mean that the right exists.
I know you are sincere, I just don't think your info and opinions are on point to restrict gay marriage.
Of course I disagree and here's why: I'm quite familiar with arguments from gays and what they've been saying for decades in regards to why they should be accepted and allowed to marry. Their entire defense (if I may) has been that they are born that way. As I've repeated over and over, science doesn't support that theory.
If their one and only argument for decades has been wrong from the outset, why, on this fact alone, should California redefine marriage, especially when gays already have the exact same benefits of marriage without the name?
Are you of the opinion that any group, no matter how fringe, should be able to redefine marriage? If not, what fringe group crosses the line for you? That is, where do you draw the line on redefining marriage?
It's not all about you. I'm posting for the lurkers, those familiar with what gays have been saying for decades, those who are less likely to support gay rights when they realize what science really says about same-sex attraction and those interested in learning what they won't hear from the main stream media. So don't take it personally.
Please stop that harassing practice. Respond to me on point or use the "all" address to advertise your information. Or start your own thread.
You're just being a nuisance to me after I said I got the point.
I guess your making some point I don’t get. I read the owners info when I signed up. It says he’s pro-freedom. What part of my post was not pro-freedom. That was my basic point.
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.