Skip to comments.If Prop. 8 wins, Newsom will be scapegoated. But the recriminations should focus on Ronald George.
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 voted against prop 8. I believe it will be defeated. The recording of Newsom “whether you like it or not” played twice in the ad is very effective for people who don’t think very much; which in calif is the majority of the electorate.
Here in Placer county about 1 out of 10 homes have a Yes on 8 sign in the yard and then the car stickers...I will win.
Correction. I believe it will pass.
But you did vote against it?
You voted against Prop 8?
Your post doesn’t make sense. You say you think it will be defeated but also that the Newsom tape will convince the majority of voters to vote for Prop 8. Or am I reading you wrong?
Yes, why would I vote to put the restriction of rights in the constitution? Contrary to pursuit of happiness and liberty.
Strangely enough, by means of the worm hole that joins our two universes, I agree with you.
About the majority of the people in California not thinking very much. They re-elect the same legislature repeatedly, although they are hell-bent (pun intended) on bankrupting the once financially healthiest state in the entire country.
Welcome to FR.
Even pervert trolls are free to post on FR.
I wonder if I can do that on KOSonline or DU?
Placer County is about the most conservative county in the state, but I do think it will win. There was a pro-8 rally at the Capitol today, and I heard there were a number of black preachers there. Odd that a lot of blacks and hispanics will go to the polls and vote yes on 8 and for Obama at the same time.
Haven’t seen any pervert trolls, but there’s always a first time. I’ll ping you if one comes along.
I've read some threads here about threat to marriage and the sky is falling. But it's mostly fearmongering. My marriage is not threatened by any of this.
Rose Bird suffered from the identical malady.
People aren't ready for it so they want to stop it by putting a rights restriction in the constitution.
A bad thing to do IMO.
I don’t mind gay life style as long as they don’t come to me after contracting AIDS and demanding that I do something about his/her health care costs. If any group does something stupid, creates a problem and demands for my tax dollars, then I as the payer have the rights to demand for limits as a precondition to head off future problems. If I was in CA I would vote for Prop 8 on the grounds of public health.
A lot of christian preachers, black, hispanic and otherwise oppose it. Isn’t that what their religion says they should do?
So...I guess you are great with pedophilia, prostitution, drugs, group marriages, etc? As long as it makes people happy?
If I had to make a wild guess, without researching it of course, I don’t think the Founding Fathers, who actually wrote the Constitution, would see it your way.
Why should we bother tto have initiatives or voting in California at all?
I'm a liberal democrat, and support Prop 8. I've supported gay rights since I was a teenager, but over the past few years, I've had my eyes opened to the cold hard facts that the gay activists are more interested in grinding an axe against the religious, than any kind of equality. Today for example, reading comments to an article online, I read comments by gays waging the no on prop 8 battle online, shrilly excusing the attack against a man who was only handing out lawn signs outside of a church, by a gay man who tried to steal the signs. The comments included that the religious don't have rights, that they should get over it, and accept the fact that they would be challenged now at every turn and subject to derision. Those were the words of a person who is pickled in hatred, and a obsessive desire to persecute the religious. Not the words of an activist for civil rights, but a despot looking to trample the rights of others. I'd never expect a gay or lesbian to conform to a heterosexual norm, so why do so many of them demand that heterosexuals, especially religious heterosexuals, have to conform to theirs? Are they that blind to their own hypocrisy? Can't they understand that the religious have every right to protect their children, and raise them in their faith? So please understand that there are many of us who refuse to ignore what is little more than fascism, and a corruption of the gay rights movement. Our constitution and bill of rights are our protections. We've put up with the far right tampering with them, so we don't need the far left attempting to do the same. I've come to the conclusion that we can't afford another Clinton like presidency that will appoint judges who I've come to realize do not respect our rights and freedoms as much as seek to exploit them for their extremist agenda. I've decided to vote for a republican for the first time to prevent any further bleed to the left, and to punish my party for it's selling out the American people to the corporate and global elites.
Posted by: Jenny at October 28, 2008 06:01 PM
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.