Likely voters oppose marriage initiative

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 7/18/8

[B Knotts]

In the intervening years we've had an influx of out-of-staters from other liberal areas of the countrycountries.

Net growth in California has been negative among U.S. citizens, from what I've read. It is possible, though that New Yorkers are almost displacing native/long-time Californians, who are leaving in droves.

[Carry_Okie]

Why don’t we go back to focusing on lower taxes, cutting spenidng, and shirnking government, and forget about this crap.

Allow me to spell it out for you (seeing as you can't): Gay marriage breeds government expenditures to cover welfare dependency, health-care expenses, therapy for destroyed families, and crime.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

Society will accept or reject what it will. Government can’t do anything about it, by either banning or forcing gay marriage.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

I’m not imposing anything on anyone. I don’t think government should be in the business of defining a religious institution to begin with, be it in favor of gay marriage or against it.

By the way, why is it your mind always goes to “butt-sex”? I think that says a lot about you.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

I never said I’d expect limited government in a place like San Francisco. A lot of gays are liberals. Furthermore, some might have conservative leanings, but we scare them away from embracing conservatism. I’ve met people who are very conservative on issues like guns and taxes, but would never vote Republican because of this crap.

[princess leah]

Romans 1:24-27 “So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each others bodies. They traded the truth about God for a lie. SO they worshiped and served the creation rather than the creator Himself, who is worthy of eternal praise. That is WHY God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead induled in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having NORMAL sexual relations with women, BURNED with Lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this SIN, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.”

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

I’m not speaking in favor of gay marriage. I’m against government marriage in the first place, as well as all the various welfare you are listing. I’m just curious what the reaction will be from people who claimed to favor the “will of the voters” if this thing loses. I guess the will of the voters only matters if the voters decide what they want them to - kind of like liberals with the court system.

[SoldierDad]

Not relevant? Hmmmm. I guess, then, you are not paying any attention to those posts to you which specify the reasons why this is relevant for “government”. Oh, and while we’re on the topic of “government”, you might want to pay attention to the fact that WE are the “government”.

[goldstategop]

The Field Poll is bunk... its as far Lefty as they come.

"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

[SoldierDad]

So, if the “will of the voters” in the state of California were to pass a bill allowing for sexual relations between adults and children, you would expect everyone to stay out of the affairs of those voters, right?

[eclecticEel]

SFGate is certainly seeing what they want to see. The Hispanic population here will pass Prop. 8; they’ll gladly vote democrat so they can get on the gravy train of government handouts - but they’re all at least marginally Catholic and will oppose gay marriage.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

Exactly, so if the people (AKA the “government) of California decide they’re okay with gay marriage, than that’s their business. I personally think it’s a mistake to have state marriage in the first place.

[gidget7]

You didn't lose your values over the last 8 years. A lesson from MA: the media and activist groups put out these stories to convince the populous that the amendment will not win, don't bother voting. They had lots of these so called polls in MA. They were doing it because they were terrified, were the Amendment made it to the ballot, they would lose big! And they were right. In the end, the legislature did a secret voice vote and refused to put it on the ballot, thereby denying the constitutional right of all the petition signers and the voters, to vote on the Amendment. Lesson: Hang tough, do not fall prey to their manipulations.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

I wouldn't be in favor of such a law, and I doubt many others would be, but let's say it did pass. That would suggest that society has accepted those types of relationships. Since children can't vote, that must mean a decent number of parents or other adults decided they were okay with that. If society felt that way, then laws banning such relationships would be futile. Who would enforce them? Who would be watching everybody at all times to make sure they weren't violated? If people were that accepting of it, it would be too widespread to keep on it.

Bottom line is, society has whatever morals it has. If government reflects it, it makes no difference. If government opposes it, will do so ineffectively. Two examples; Prohibition and Reconstruction. Despite Constitutional amendments, drinking and civil rights abuses continue during those times, respectively. You could pass a gay marriage amendment, but if society accepts homosexuality, the presence of a Constitutional amendment will do nothing to change that.

[puroresu]

The reason the left devotes so much time to culturally liberalizing the populace, with special effort made at propagandizing kids, is that a socially liberal society will be a weak society. You may be able to find an occasional homosexual who is conservative on other issues, but the majority never will be.

Social liberalism is hedonistic. People attracted to that, and absorbed into this cult of "tolerance", aren't going to be rugged individualists who disdain whiners and dependent classes of people. They're mostly going to BE whiners and dependent people.

You may be able to find an occasional iconoclastic type person who favors "gay rights" but opposes national health care, but such people will always be exceptions. As society becomes more accepting of things like homosexual unions, abortion, teen sexual experimentation, it becomes more "soft" and self-indulgent. It also becomes more passive towards its own defense.

Look north of your home state at Canada. A nation much more socially liberal than America (they in fact have same-sex "marriage" there). It's also more committed to socialism and (here's the real irony) it's becoming more socially repressive due to all the hate speech regulations and Human Rights Commissions that monitor even the letters to the editor sections of newspapers to hunt down thoughtcrime perpetrators.

Legalizing same-sex "marriage" will increase the size, scope, and expenses of government. Not only does it create a whole new class of people eligible for assorted benefits, but to "protect" the alleged rights of homosexuals all kinds of restrictions are placed on the populace. Imagine being a Christian restaurant owner and offering a valentine's day discount to couples. Think you'll be permitted to exclude gays? Not a chance. You'll be told that your freedom of association, your property rights, and even your religious liberty must be sacrificed on the altar of the newly declared "right to same-sex 'marriage'".

Acceptance of same-sex "marriage" opens up a whole new cornucopia of expansions of government power over the citizenry, which is why the left favors it.

[isrul]

In truth, society accepts what it is fed. If it is nourished, it will survive. If it is fed poison, it will die.

[gidget7]

While I agree with most of your post, we cannot, mustn't, continue to have the attitude of writing off states one by one. It would a serious folly to do that. Reasons are numerous. Pelosi is one, the 9th circus court of appeals is another. Out of state we write off, can come Speakers, Judges, Governors, reps and senators who rally to destroy the entire nation. One such state is poised to eliminate a 1913 law that prevents same sex couples from other states “marrying” in MA if the “marriage” is not legal in their own state. The Gov. has already promised to sign such legislation if it passes both houses, one of which already passed it. That will open the door to same sex “marriage” in all states that do not have an Amendment in place.

We cannot continue a throw away attitude for liberal states! It is like a cancer that spreads.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

I'm not in favor of same-sex marriage; I'm against government marriage, period. Also, like I said before, there's no logical connect between some issues. I think the focus on social issues has both frightend off people who are very much in favor of smaller government, while attracting religious statists. I think the modern GOP with people like George W. Bush and that sorry loser Tom DeLay at the helm is why it's completely abandoned conservatism and is now going down in flames.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

Who's feeding? You know there are other sources of information other than the government. I would like to make them more prevalent by reducing the power of government.

[SoldierDad]

Well, hell then, let’s all give up and just commit suicide since there is no absolute answer to any problem. Sorry, I don’t accept your defeatism.