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.
You aren't advocating a free society, you want a permissive society. Freedom is freedom of religion and freedom from judicial tyranny.
If you want a permissive society you should move to Canada, France,Spain, Holland or some other permissive multicultural liberal utopia who's people embrace moral relativism and grant credence to such.
Not at all and I'm not really surprised. Stating the information I've posted isn't relevant doesn't make it so. The information I've posted, the links, the references are all very much related to the issue of gay marriage.
And again that issue is: gays have for decades insisted they are born that way.
Here is what I said in the post you have so far ignored:
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?
I am off this topic. You admitted you posted repeat harassing comments to me so that others could read your links. That’s all we have to know about you.
******************
I can't say I'm surprised.
Why don’t you splain it to a newbie?
*******************
Excellent! It's clear that your knowledge of this issue is incomplete.
*******************
Gladly. This site is not pro-homosexual. Is that clear enough?
If death, and suffering does not refrain a gay person from high risk behavior, how would a marriage licence reduce it??? If that is all it took to reduce our public health costs from AIDS/STD, I would print the license myself and give it to them for free. Unfortunately the health data does not indicate that STD/AIDS is a rare disease amongst gays, it is disproportionately very high compared to heterosexuals (except for those engaged in self injection of illegal drugs who lost all self control as their rational side of the brain is lost in the addiction). Homosexuality is a mental/behavior problem that needs medical attention, not promoted as equal to normal sexual behavior. Otherwise the health statistics for gays (drug and alcohol abuse, suicide, breakup rates amongst couples and shorter life span) would not be so dire. Encouraging and legitimizing such a life style has social costs to the taxpayers and society, a prospect that I am not prepare to open my wallet to. CDC and life insurance acturian statistics are available for all to see and draw conclusions for public policy. I think the Constitution also asks government to promote domestic tranquility and promote general welfare in conjuction with individual liberty. Founding fathers also uses the term liberty extensively (and not freedom) because liberty is defined as freedom bound by time tested morality (spiritual in origin but time proven - known as wisdom). Promote individual freedom and rights divorced of limits based on morality/wisdom (basis for libertine philosophy) and you will create a licentious society (which we have today) and history has shown such an unwholesome society has health, psychological, spiritual, economic and political costs. That underminds domestic tranquility and general welfare.
If you were honest, you'd acknowledge that point and address my original question.
You came here to defend someone whose reply was basically nonsensical; probably a friend who was in trouble. In order to do so, you tried to point out how I was off-mission. I thought you were going to explain to me how supporting freedom was not conservative?
How many pivots will you make before you back-up your first post?
I also support the right to the pursuit of happiness and liberty. I guess you don't think homosexuals are included in that? Is that what you meant by "pro-homosexual?"
You need to think before you misrepresent someone. Read the rest of the thread.
I guess you can’t answer the comments about the other poster’s repeat posts. You were dishonest not to do so. And I’ll not let you fade away without pointing it out. That’s okay, I’ve worked with many inmates who were like you. Change the subject and dance around when they’re on the spot.
Are you sure it wasn't the inmates who were working on you?
Again?
You admitted you posted repeat harassing comments to me so that others could read your links.
I said no such thing. As previously said, I'm not surprised you didn't understand what was said and now you are misrepresenting me.
Apparently you're not going to respond to post 257.
I was wondering. Do you know where I can get some information on homosexuals and STDS and conversion of gays?
Indeed. And before that it was misrepresentation.
You betcha! Why this thread alone has enough information for anybody (even those who try to dodge the issue) to be well equipped to discuss gay marriage.
How old are you and what kind of gotcha game are you playing?
To: nufsed
But after telling you five times that your points are not relevant to some one exercising their rights,I have nothing new to add.
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.
258 posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2008 12:59:41 PM by scripter ("You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
When you admit to the truth, you both may be suitable to school newbies.
a present for you truthers in 276
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.