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 would think if more gays settle down, it would reduce promiscuity and perhaps reduce health problems. Could be good for them. Isn't being marruied supposed to extend life and be a healthy thing? Why wouldn't they want to marry if it's such a beneficial thing?
What does the “pursuit of happiness and liberty,” mean? The Constitution means I have a right to anything that will add to my happiness?
My happiness can be achieved by you buying me a new car. Can you please give me your email, so we can make arrangements for that. I wouldn’t want you violating my California Constitution right to happiness.
Isn't that why most people get married? Happiness?
Many people also are frustrated at activist judges making up the law as they go along.
In the case of marriage, everyone was already treated equally. Any eligible man can marry any eligible woman. And vice versa. Everyone is limited to one partner. Nobody can marry a sibling or certain other close relatives.
There is nothing about homosexuality in our existing family law. The law talks about men and women, not about sex orientation/identity, whatever the current politically correct term is. So based on the interpretation of the law, the judges clearly invented a right to homosexual marriage. There was no denial of anyone’s rights in the first place to justify the court ruling. Gay people can marry anyone of the opposite sex. I understand that they don’t want to, but the law doesn’t ban a lesbian female from marrying a male. Millions of single adults don’t want to get married either. Their rights aren’t being violated either, if they choose not to marry.
I’ve talked to a few people, some of whom are sympathetic about gay rights, but agree that the legal reasoning used is questionable, because of the fact that there was nothing about homosexuality in the law in the first place.
Don't bother.
I don't respond to pings.
Certainly not from anyone who can't grasp the distinction between "pursuit of happiness" and license.
Do you think it will be beneficial to end the institution of marriage in this country.
What about Madame George ?
I am voting for it. One does not do away with thousands of years of tradition with a 4-3 vote. The original “restriction” of marriage to one man and one woman was not necessary until groups started defining marriage as something other than that traditional concept. The proposition enshrines the traditional meaning. Sorry, but gay relationship didn’t need marriage to begin and won’t be stopped by not having marriage. You are aware that all the privileges of marriage in California are already in place for civil unions? It isn’t needed except to bludgeon the federal government and other states to accept that radical redefinition of marriage, and to further harass those who have personal objections to same-sex relationships.
By the way, I think—a lot, especially since I don’t watch television. I have heard the commercial on my way to work a couple of times but it didn’t sway me.
They can get "married" in any state in the union right now. All they have to do is find a minister (or whatever) to "marry" them. What they are after is more than that, though. They're after state recognition of their "marriages" so they can get government benefits and harness state power to force school textbooks to promote their "lifestyle" to kids, force private businesses, private landlords, etc. to rent to them, and so forth.
State recognition of same-sex "marriages" is an expansion of state power, not a contraction, and it results in a net loss of liberty for the population as a whole.
Maybe you should read up on it. Marriage is a beneficial thing- but only when you do it the right way. It didn't work out for O.J. & Nicole, or Scott & Laci.
I think you are “over generalizing.” Just because the California Constitution mentions a right to happiness means anything anyone wants it to mean?
Jenny, can I call you? Is your number 867-5309?
Just joking..........
Seriously, Jenny is an intellectually honest liberal. She doesn’t want to see the gay agenda being forced on society, though she wants all to have their individual rights. It seems to me that on this marriage issue, there is far more hatred coming from the left than the right. The conservatives do not hate the activists who are pushing same sex marriage. They disagree with it as a social policy, but don’t hate anyone. Whereas it sure sounds like all too often, that the activists/leftists are expressing hatred towards any who disagree with them.
This happens on other issues too. The left seems so angry about everything that they perceive that is wrong with America, that they have never ever considered all that is right with America, and how their lives are good precisely because of all that is good with America.
Face it, Chris. Gavin Newsom’s performance on that tape shows a smugness and arrogance that’s pandemic in California’s left. He just put a face and voice to it.
If you did ANY homework, you would have found that they already have all the rights we do. With people like you, we sure don’t need enemies.
You may not think it scary, Chris, but millions of parents in CA can look to MA to see how it would work. A First Grader came home talking about the teacher reading a story about a handsome Prince who dint not want to marry a Princess at all, but another man. When the father politely asked the school that their son NOT have to listen to that type of story, but be taken out of the group until after the story and it's 'explanation' by the teacher have finished, that father was villified in the press in his town. Later, when he tried to attend a function at the school, he was arrested and ordered not to set foot on the school grounds again, under threat of another arrest.
I don't think many parents in CA will be too thrilled to hear of this jack-booted attitude among the homosexual activists.
Ah! You're voting "present".
I am not an advocate of changing the contract laws or the age of majority to allow adults to have sex with children.
If you're engaging in a behavior with some one else, it would not make them very happy if you forced them to do something so you could be happy. We assume children are vulnerable to adult manipulation and force and we protect them.
Regarding the other things, you tell me why they should be outlawed. In a free country you should justify your position not those who advocate freedom. Government power and restriction should be justified. Odd, that I would have to explain that on a conservative site.
My 18 addresses your question. If you didn’t get married to be happy, I feel sorry for you.
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.