Posted on 11/24/2008 7:58:26 AM PST by SmithL
The group that persuaded California voters this month to pass Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage, now is fighting its friends as well as its foes.
Other conservative groups that loudly backed Prop. 8 are being targeted as too extreme and off-putting by ProtectMarriage.com, which put the constitutional amendment on the Nov. 4 ballot and hopes to help persuade the state Supreme Court to uphold the measure.
"We represent the people who got things done, who got Prop. 8 passed," said Andrew Pugno, general counsel for the Yes on Prop. 8 campaign. "An important part of defending Prop. 8 is eliminating arguments not helpful to our concerns."
Pugno, for example, persuaded the Supreme Court last week to bar the Campaign for California Families from intervening in the court case over the validity of Prop. 8 and the same-sex marriage ban.
"That organization represents the extreme fringe and is not representative of the coalition that got it passed," Pugno said. "They didn't even support Prop. 8 until sometime in the summer."
People associated with the group didn't expect the Prop. 8 campaign's efforts to push them to the sidelines.
"I'm surprised, because we've litigated beside each other for 4 1/2 years" in the unsuccessful effort to keep the Supreme Court from overturning Prop. 22 same-sex marriage ban in 2000, said Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, which represents the Campaign for California Families. "We have the same goal, which is to defend Prop. 8."
The group, now known as the Campaign for Children and Families, is run by Randy Thomasson, who for years has been one of California's most visible opponents of gay rights and what he bills as "the homosexual agenda."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
This coming from a SF paper. You guys were soundly defended, yet again. Grovel and try to dig up all the mud you want. Nothing can change the fact that you gay supporters were trounced, again.
The only "right" under question is what the homosexuals call their relationships.
Hmmm ... seems to be the standard liberal tactic. In-fighting among the opposition. Didn’t they do that with the McCain campaign, too?
This is just what the San Fran Nan crowd would like to for us to believe.
We The People voted and spoke...loudly.
Those who backed Prop8 are under severe attack by the Brownshirts Left.
The people voted..........leave it alone. No need for any fighting..........of course that assumes that the people have the right to change their own Constitution. If they don’t have that right......it’s over for the people.
I remain confused. Can someone explain to me how the CA Supreme Court has any jurisdiction whatsoever in this matter? The people have spoken through their constitutional right of initiative and referendum—to OVERRIDE the CASC. My legal opinion is that they are DONE. How can they claim jurisdiction to reinsert themselves now?
Propaganda from the SFC.
The Communists in Hollywood and the MSM are using the same tactic as they have, and continue to do, with Gov. Palin, Joe The Plumber, and anyone else who dare oppose their ideology. The Hollywood elite and their ilk are now publicizing supporters of the ban in order to humiliate them as well as force these conservatives to loose their jobs.
Here’s a timely piece by Dr. Albert Mohler:
A Sign of Things to Come?
Posted: Monday, November 24, 2008 at 9:38 am ET
Printer Version E-mail Permalink Bookmark and Share
The passage of Proposition 8 in California has reset the table with respect to the issue of same-sex marriage. Clearly, those pushing for legalized same-sex marriage thought that the decision of the California Supreme Court last May was the final word, and same-sex marriage would be an established legal reality in California. The fact that Proposition 8 passed on November 4 threw that assumption aside, and an ugly new chapter is opening.
The Los Angeles Times provides an eye-opening report into the response of Hollywood’s cultural liberals to the passage of Proposition 8. Reporters Rachel Abramowitz and Tina Daunt open their article with this question: “Should there be boycotts, blacklists, firings or de facto shunning of those who supported Proposition 8?”
More:
That’s the issue consuming many in liberal Hollywood who fought to defeat the initiative banning same-sex marriage and are now reeling with recrimination and dismay. Meanwhile, activists continue to comb donor lists and employ the Internet to expose those who donated money to support the ban.
Already out is Scott Eckern, director of the nonprofit California Musical Theatre in Sacramento, who resigned after a flurry of complaints from prominent theater artists, including “Hairspray” composer Marc Shaiman, when word of his contribution to the Yes on 8 campaign surfaced.
Other targets include Film Independent, the nonprofit arts organization that puts on both the Los Angeles Film Festival and the Spirit Awards; the Cinemark theater chain; and the Sundance Film Festival.
The response of Hollywood is the temptation to blacklist anyone who supported Proposition 8 and to eliminate or marginalize their influence in liberal Hollywood. This response deserves a close look, for it almost surely represents the shape of the future when it comes to the issue of gay marriage.
For some time now, many legal scholars and observers have warned that the issue of same-sex marriage represents one of the most coercive dynamics in our culture. Where same-sex marriage is legal, the coercive effect is to punish anyone who will not recognize, endorse, or celebrate same-sex marriages. As groups like the Becket Fund have warned, churches and religious institutions are very vulnerable in this respect.
Now, as these developments in California unfold, it is clear that where efforts to legalize same-sex marriage fail, proponents will hunt down opponents of gay marriage for sanction and opposition. Note carefully the fact that Hollywood insiders and gay rights activists are scrutinizing the list of those who contributed to Proposition 8 support, looking for individuals, organizations, and corporations to isolate and punish. At least some are out to get people fired.
The opposition and outrage are also directed at churches and religious organizations. Take a careful look at this development. In all probability, it’s the shape of things to come.
“Propaganda from the SFC.”
Welcome to The People’s Republic of Communism USA.
Yup. Divide and conqueor.
I think they have a valid point.
We have too many idiots who have no foundation in legal argument clouding the issue with “biblical static” which is NOT the issue here.
The question NOW before the court is whether procedures were followed correctly.
It is akin to the nonsense of deinstitutionalizing marriage by precluding government recognition.
This is a sound LEGAL strategy to eliminate the static.
Bingo.
The CASC has a massive “conflict of interest” and should recuse themselves, immediately.
Pugno is right. The guy who runs CCF, Randy Thomasson is a nutcase podium pounder. He has appointed himself as arbiter of all that is moral in the world. This is a guy who holds press conferences to denounce conservative Republican nominees in the closing days of a campaign over some staffer's gaff or other misstep. It's all about getting his face on the news. It's a one-man show and there really is no "group" there. Go to his web page and check the photos, every single one of them is about him. Of course the media love it because he fits their stereotype of a Christian conservative.
In some previous campaigns people have paid him just to shut up.
“I think they have a valid point.”
BULL BOVINE!
The people, for a variety of reasons, voiced their decision....TWICE. Now, because that decision did not reflect the liberals ideology (and you wish to bring up “biblical static”?), they tried to use the courts (and are now trying to use our judicial branch AGAIN) to completely invalid the publics decisions.
What are ya, a gay advocate?!
Exactly! See my post #16
The CA Supreme Court has two avenues they can follow that justify their insertion here.
First, the referendum process can amend the state constitution, but cannot revise it. Revisions must go through the standard process, originating in the legislature. There is no actual guidance on the difference between amending and revising. The courts have ruled in the past that a revision is a larger rewriting, affecting multiple areas of the Constitution. By that criteria, prop 8 appears to be OK, but since the amendment/revision criteria is pretty much at the Court’s discretion, they do have room to insert themselves.
The other way they can insert themselves is to claim that prop 8 violates the federal constitution. Given that DOMA is current law, this seems unlikely. Yes, they’re a state court, but I understand they are allowed to rule on the federal issues, or maybe it was passing it to a federal court - a friend went over these with me, I might be messing up this second point.
Hope that answers your question,
Drew Garrett
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.