Patterico's Pontifications

11/5/2008

How About The Rest of the Election?

Filed under: 2008 Election,General — Patterico @ 7:06 am



All my picks for judge won.

Congratulations to Hilleri Merritt, Tom Rubinson (who bucked an L.A. Times endorsement for his opponent!), Pat Connolly, Mike O’Gara (aka MOG, a reader of this blog), and Michael Jesic.

I’m very, very pleased about these results. Y’all done good.

I’m also very pleased that Mark Ridley-Thomas defeated Bernard Parks to become an L.A. County Supervisor. Parks showed his lack of principle while at LAPD, in my view, and it would have been a disaster for him to become a Supervisor.

The results of California’s statewide propositions, with 92% of precincts reporting, are more of a mixed bag. Here is what the L.A. Times is showing at the time of this post:

If there is no check-mark or red “x” then the race hasn’t been called yet.

I am very pleased about the passage of Proposition 2, mandating more humane treatment of chickens and other farm animals, and about the overwhelming defeat of the disastrous Proposition 5. I am sad that the gay marriage ban looks like it may pass, and that a perfectly reasonable parental notification law for abortion appears likely to fail.

As for the rest of them, there are some where the voters agreed with me, and others where they disagreed, but I can respectfully disagree with most of the decisions.

Back to the national level, the balance of power appears to be what we all expected: gains in the House and Senate for Democrats. No filibuster-proof majority, but close enough, given the number of squishy RINOs we have.

It’s going to be a very depressing 2-4 years (if not longer).

53 Responses to “How About The Rest of the Election?”

  1. What a revoltin’ development! I shoulda stood in bed. The sight of all those snot-nosed grinning jackasses cheering for the Left’s big victory gives me the creeps and makes my blood run cold. I’m going to shower and shave, cook my breakfast, then put on a big pot of beans and lay low for a day or two, but I’ll be back.

    Ropelight (5b609a)

  2. The big Obama turn out turned out to get all the prosecutors elected to the Superior Court and enact Prop. 8. Irony!

    Alta Bob (408027)

  3. Yay for MOG!!! I’m glad my 30 mail-in votes were able to help you secure the win! 🙂

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  4. Though your recommendations came back after I had already voted, I checked my sample ballot and found that I favored all those who id’d themselves as a prosecutor, and voted the “good” slate. We need to remember this, and review, when they come up for renewal in 6-years.

    As to Mark Ridley-Thomas v Bernard Park:
    This is a distinction without a difference.
    Park is a weasel.
    R-T is a race-hustler in the finest tradition of Jesse and Al,
    and is IMO one of the prime architects of the Rodney King riots.
    The more things change on the Board of Supes, the worse that body looks.

    Another Drew (579482)

  5. But for your recommendations, I would have left all the judge positions [blank]. Wonder how many of them owe their election to a lonely blogger.

    Fascinating new world.

    ManlyDad (22e85d)

  6. Some good news (for me, anyway): According to this, Blacks went 70/30 in favor of Prop. 8 (constitutional ban on gay marriage) here in California. Hispanics also helped. Whites and Asians went the other way, so without the black support the proposition clearly would have failed.

    Old Coot (8a493c)

  7. Patterico, why are you still reading the Los Angeles Times?

    Official Internet Data Office (df6254)

  8. I’m (predictably) very unhappy with the result on Proposition 8.

    But in good news … in 2000, it was 61.4-38.6. And more people voted ‘no’ yesterday than voted ‘yes’ in 2000.

    This will come back in 10 years or so.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  9. Patterico, I’m concerned about the precedent set by the passage of Prop 8, that any group of Californians can potentially have existing rights removed by any future initiative such as this. Theoretically, what’s to stop the winds from changing and people deciding that, say, Mormons shouldn’t be allowed to vote? Do you have any thoughts on that?

    Tom (12e3c7)

  10. aphrael – yep. Thanks for the perspective.

    Tom (12e3c7)

  11. Tom: Theoretically, what’s to stop people deciding that it’s OK to marry farm animals or to sanction polygamy? Do you have any thoughts on that?

    Old Coot (8a493c)

  12. @11: Yes. We’re talking about same sex marriage here, not some other freaky fantasy scenario.

    Tom (12e3c7)

  13. #12: Guess I’m confused; aren’t you the one who put forth a freaky fantasy scenario about the denying Mormons the right to vote? Help me here.

    Old Coot (8a493c)

  14. Well, Tom, let’s hope in 10 years they do it through the people as opposed to the courts.

    Frankly, the social stuff for me was a bit of a wash. The thing I am really irritated about is how California’s can keep adding debt when we already have huge shortfalls (and begging for a bailout and creating sweetners for citizens to invest in the debt). Not to say some of these were not worthy ideas or causes, but we as a state seem to have to a complete inability to financially restrain ourselves. Disgusting!!!!

    pwr (348c40)

  15. I absolutely voted your recommendations on this, Patterico.
    Thanks. And Congratulations to the victors!

    MayBee (37070f)

  16. Californians can’t get together to decide Mormons shouldn’t be allowed to vote because it would be contrary to the California state constitution.
    And Mormons didn’t get the right to vote in the first place through a ruling of the California Supreme Court.

    Official Internet Data Office (df6254)

  17. I meant to say I followed your recommendations on the judges.

    I am really surprised about Prop 8. The combination of Prop 4 failing and Prop 8 passing shows a complex society, doesn’t it?

    Time is on the side of gay marriage, I think.

    MayBee (37070f)

  18. Rocky Crabb is a delightful name, though.

    MayBee (37070f)

  19. Here in southern Arizona they passed an initiative that bans owners of racing greyhounds from feeding their dogs raw meat . . .

    Maybe Neal Boortz has a point about not letting everybody vote.

    On the good side (sorry, Patterico) the constitutional gay-marriage ban passed here as well.

    Icy Truth (0466e6)

  20. Tom wrote:

    Patterico, I’m concerned about the precedent set by the passage of Prop 8, that any group of Californians can potentially have existing rights removed by any future initiative such as this. Theoretically, what’s to stop the winds from changing and people deciding that, say, Mormons shouldn’t be allowed to vote? Do you have any thoughts on that?

    I have some thoughts on that.

    You have it backwards. “The winds” have not yet changed regarding the concept of same-sex marriage among the People of California, they changed among the majority of the Supreme Court.

    After the California Supreme Court’s 1948 decision in Perez v. Sharp established that ethnic restrictions on marriage were a violation of the State’s constitution, there was consternation, to be sure. But none sufficient to cause the action taken by the People after Gavin Newsom and others stuck a finger in the eye of the law as established by 2000’s Prop 22 with one hand, and flipped The People the bird with the other. Click here for a revealing map of how Cal counties voted for 22.

    But in answer to your question about what would prevent an initiative barring the vote to Mormons: Heeeere’s the Voting Rights Act of 1964, Title II, Sec. 202 (a) (bold mine):

    All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion or
    national origin * * *

    That oughta cover it. But I ain’t no lawyuh, so I dunno fer sure.

    Next red herring!

    L.N. Smithee (b048eb)

  21. LN, unfortunately the Secretary of State’s office doesn’t have maps for 2008 currently (it did a few hours ago but they’ve gone down since then).

    However, the LA Times map shows that things have changed a great deal since 2000.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  22. It would be nice to take a bullet train down to LA or San Diego.

    I hope they don’t take the bond money and piss it away doing nothing like they did in 1995 when this project started.

    luagha (5cbe06)

  23. Old Coot wrote: [ …] Blacks went 70/30 in favor of Prop. 8 (constitutional ban on gay marriage) here in California. Hispanics also helped. Whites and Asians went the other way, so without the black support the proposition clearly would have failed.

    Note to Tom: Maybe instead of being concerned about an amendment to bar the Mormon vote, you should be concerned about stopping blacks and Hispanics from voting.

    L.N. Smithee (b048eb)

  24. #23: Damn, wish I had said that.

    Old Coot (8a493c)

  25. Comment by luagha — 11/5/2008 @ 11:16 am

    Someone entering kindergarten today, would have a very slim chance of riding that train within their lifetime.
    Between NIMBY’s & BANANA’s, it is hard enough getting a toll-road continued to link with the I-5 in Camp Pendleton, let alone building a high-speed rail corridor 2/3rds the length of CA.
    If you want to enjoy any benefit from the passage of 1-A, you should open a firm that conducts urban-planning, and bid for one of the many study contracts that will devour this bond money, because not one shovel-full of dirt will ever be turned in construction.

    Another Drew (579482)

  26. I’m concerned about the precedent set by the passage of Prop 8, that any group of Californians can potentially have existing rights removed by any future initiative such as this.

    But not so concerned with the Supreme Court giving the finger to the citizens of California.

    Blacks and hispanics vs. the GLBT lobby. When interest groups collide …

    JD (5b4781)

  27. Quick question for my fellow Californians (or anyone that knows the rules of CA ballot initiatives): What is to stop proponents of gay marriage from putting a new Prop 8 (well, a reverse of Prop 8) on the ballot every year? I know it is an amendment to the CA constitution, but with only 50% required, can they not just put it on there every year until it passes? (Note: I voted “no” on 8, so this isn’t a policy question, but a procedural one – thanks). CANKLE

    Cankle (8aa31a)

  28. Here in southern Arizona they passed an initiative that bans owners of racing greyhounds from feeding their dogs raw meat . . .

    Really?
    Here is California it is a WholeFoods-crowd pet-friendly trend to feed your dogs raw meat. How odd.

    MayBee (37070f)

  29. CANKLE: yes. we can.

    I suspect that my side is feeling pretty demoralized right now, and that nobody is going to want to put such an amendment forward until the polls show it winning 60-40 … which means not in 2010, at the very least.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  30. aphrael – Until that point in time, I hope the Supremes do not try to rewrite the Constitution. This issue is going to come to its natural conclusion at some point, by the will of the people. Until that point in time, Judges forcing it down peoples throats will only push that date further out.

    JD (5b4781)

  31. JD: I think the next step comes in NJ and NY where the legislature adopts, and the governor signs, a gay marriage bill.

    I also think that there will be a backlash if the yes-on-8 group now tries to sue to get domestic partnerships thrown out.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  32. aphrael wrote:

    LN, unfortunately the Secretary of State’s office doesn’t have maps for 2008 currently (it did a few hours ago but they’ve gone down since then).

    However, the LA Times map shows that things have changed a great deal since 2000.

    There is no doubt about that. But make no mistake, Proposition 8 was a revolt against judicial activism, just as Prop 22 was in ’02 against trends in the Shallow North (Vermont, Massachusetts). Across the nation, the general public saw a one-justice majority in Massachusetts redefine marriage for everyone in the state, and took action.

    If same-sex marriage eventually happens in the state, it will be because the people demand it, not because a handful of judges impose it. The People of California, in a bipartisan effort, took their power back from the judiciary when it stepped over the line. It’s about time. Maybe it will start a trend.

    L.N. Smithee (b048eb)

  33. aphrael wrote: I also think that there will be a backlash if the yes-on-8 group now tries to sue to get domestic partnerships thrown out.

    Wow! I called for another red herring, and BANG! It’s here just like that! That’s what I call service!

    L.N. Smithee (b048eb)

  34. Aphrael, that suit would be a non-starter since it was already tried and failed against the identically-worded Prop 22. However, there is a suit by sore losers in the gay marriage community who are now arguing in effect that the Constitution is unconstitutional.

    Xrlq (62cad4)

  35. LN: I’m not convinced that concern about judicial activism is what motivated the voters on this issue. I’d like to think that it was, because it would be easier on me emotionally to take solace in believing that than in believing what I think actually happened:

    a slim majority of the voters in California just declared that gay relationships are not equal to straight relationships, and one some level that gays are merely tolerated on sufferance.

    I have never in my life felt more unwelcome in my home state than I do today.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  36. LN Smithee: is it a red herring? The lawsuit was filed before, as XRLQ says. I would happily put up $50 to bet that it is filed again within 18 months.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  37. aphrael –

    a slim majority of the voters in California just declared that gay relationships are not equal to straight relationships, and one some level that gays are merely tolerated on sufferance.

    I have never in my life felt more unwelcome in my home state than I do today.

    I am sorry, even though I could not vote for this since I am half way across the country. It is obvious that this hurt.

    JD (5b4781)

  38. Aphrael,
    First, thank you for clarifying. Second, I am sorry for you feeling unwelcome (I think it’s a shame that 8 passed, although like many others on this particular board, I’d much rather see the will of the people on these matters than judges making these decisions). Finally, we need to seriously think about our amendment process. 50% thresholds and really no major barriers (anyone can get enough signatures) isn’t enough to amend a constitution, IMO. The US C is much better when it comes to thresholds. CANKLE

    Cankle (8aa31a)

  39. Thanks again Patterico. I appreciate your support and more importantly, your friendship.

    MOG (c949f7)

  40. aphrael wrote:

    LN Smithee: is it a red herring? The lawsuit was filed before, as XRLQ says. I would happily put up $50 to bet that it is filed again within 18 months.

    The same people behind the amendment embodied by Prop 8 tried to put a measure on the ballot to revoke civil unions on the basis that it was de facto marriage, and that per Prop 22, marriage was for one-man/one-woman couples only. It failed to garner enough signatures to qualify.

    The pro-tradition folks are going to have their hands full dealing with all the suits being prepared as we speak seeking to invalidate the vote of the People — again. They know how much closer the vote was this time around. Unless they’re truly stupid, they won’t overreach.

    LN: I’m not convinced that concern about judicial activism is what motivated the voters on this issue. I’d like to think that it was, because it would be easier on me emotionally to take solace in believing that than in believing what I think actually happened:

    a slim majority of the voters in California just declared that gay relationships are not equal to straight relationships, and one some level that gays are merely tolerated on sufferance.

    I have never in my life felt more unwelcome in my home state than I do today.

    It’s interesting that you say that, because unless you are a very young man, I don’t know if you should feel that way.

    Being a black man, it annoys the heck out of me when other black men act as if nothing has changed for us since Little Rock, Selma, and MLK Jr.’s “Dream” speech because of dissatisfaction regarding one particular present-day issue. For example, the NAACP Voter Fund ad in 2000 bashing then-Texas Governor and Presidential candidate George W. Bush for not supporting what he thought to be an unnecessary and politically-motivated amendment to existing hate-crime law. That bill was disingenuously named after James Byrd Jr., who in 1998 was dragged to his death and dismemberment while chained to a pickup truck. A daughter of Byrd narrated that ad, saying “when Governor George W. Bush refused to support hate crimes legislation, it was like my father was killed all over again.”

    It made no difference that Governor Bush supported the death penalty for the three white men in the truck (the driver will die in prison; his two accomplices are on Death Row); Byrd’s daughter was focused on that signature piece of legislation, and if that was denied her, the justice of the Texas’ gas chamber for the murder of her father was meaningless.

    Such attitudes lead to anger and frustration that ought to be tempered by looking back at the way things were, and how far things have come. Thankfully, the backwards-looking reparations talk of the nineties is dying down — IMHO, the only black people who should be complaining about not getting forty acres and a mule after they were freed from slavery are people who actually WERE slaves (that is to say, of course, nobody who is still alive). After years and years of threats of revenge on whitey, overblown charges of discrimination, and financial shakedowns, we have a President-elect who is (partially) black. He’ll get to the White House because he successfully convinced white America he wasn’t Malcolm, Jesse, or Al; had he not, he would still be just a freshman Senator (which is what I would prefer him to be this morning — but I digress).

    It was in 1978 that Californians defeated the Briggs Initiative (aka Proposition 6), which would have barred homosexuals from teaching in public schools. Ronald Reagan spoke out against it; singer and Florida Orange Juice spokeswoman Anita Bryant spoke up for it. Bryant’s career went into a tailspin shortly after 6 lost, and never recovered (BTW — nobody who decried the backlash against the Dixie Chicks for speaking their minds did the same for Bryant). Harvey Milk emerged from obscurity to fight the Briggs Initiative, became an influential and inspirational leader among gays. Assassinated later that year, Milk is now a genuine American martyr.

    (I’m sure you know all this — it’s for the others who may not be aware.)

    Fast forward thirty years. Gays not only can teach, they are school principals, school board members, Superintendents. Gays have the right to domestic partnership rights equivalent to those of married couples. Gays enjoy equal non-discrimination laws designed for racial minorities. Gays can adopt children. And they flex their political muscle regularly and effectively disproportionate to their percentage of the population. Gays are not only supervisors in San Francisco, but they are mayors, state Representatives (no “out” Senators yet), Presidential staffers, etc. The gay lobby — in its various forms — is not only respected, it is feared.

    You seem to be an intelligent, mature man, so I presume you are NOT too young to have missed all of that history. So, think about what you wrote again: “Never in your life…”? Really?

    I can’t speak for everyone, but I am NOT saying you are “unwelcome” in California. What I do NOT welcome are the in-your-face, you’re-a-bigot-until-proven-innocent attitudes that don’t work for black radicals and won’t work for gays. If what gays want is to be part of a “melting pot” society, it’s unwise for them to act as if they are trying to silence and marginalize the majority, which is the current state in public schools.

    When you ask for a hug and then deliver a knee to the crotch, the next hug request will be viewed with skepticism.

    L.N. Smithee (0931d2)

  41. LN Smithee, I’m saying that I have never in my life felt so unwelcome. I was not a resident of California in 1978, nor was I old enough for politics to have meant anything to me. 🙂

    I was not as upset in 2000 for many reasons as I am today, nowhere near it; and I acknowledge that it is obvious from the data that today’s defeat was nowhere near as devastating as that one was. And even the vote in 2000 would have been unthinkable ten years before that. “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” is almost certainly dead within the year, and that isn’t even particularly controversial; a far sight from 1992.

    Times have changed, and the mood of the public is slowly shifting in the direction I want it to, and that is to be cheered. But neither can I deny that today has been a grievous, *personal* defeat.

    I understand that all struggles of this sort contain defeats along the road, and that I have to pick myself up and carry on, confident that this is merely a short-term defeat; and in a few days I will do that.

    But not today.

    Today I look around and see that half of the voters in the state believe, not just that my marriage is not equal to theirs, but that the state must as a matter of constitutional law discriminate between the two. Of course I’m hurt by that.

    What I do NOT welcome are the in-your-face, you’re-a-bigot-until-proven-innocent attitudes that don’t work for black radicals and won’t work for gays

    I haven’t been engaged in that; and yet I still have to pay the price that people choose to inflict upon me in response to the behavior of those who are. I would never put up a sign of the nature that the people who drove the SUV in your link did; tis obnoxious and rude to do so.

    And yet I must say: every single ‘yes on 8’ sign I’ve seen as they’ve proliferated on the peninsula in the last week has left me upset; because every single one of them was a reminder that millions of my fellow citizens have prejudged that my relationship is just not as good as theirs is.

    And now I know they are a majority.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  42. JD, Cankle, thank you. Your support is appreciated.

    LN Smithee, thank you as well; you are treating with me rationally and calmly when i’m not entirely sure I am treating you rationally and calmly, and I appreciate it greatly.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  43. Comment by aphrael — 11/5/2008 @ 5:11 pm

    aphrael, posted some book lists for you on the other thread.

    Another Drew (579482)

  44. We’re talking about same sex marriage here, not some other freaky fantasy scenario. Comment by Tom — 11/5/2008 @ 9:50 am

    Nothing quite as freaky or certainly fantasy-like about this situation:

    http://www.dw-world.de, March 2005:

    Between 150,000 and 400,000 people live in polygamous households in France, in which a man is married to more than one woman. The French state is trying to change the situation — with mixed results.

    The government argues that living in polygamy prevents immigrants from becoming integrated into French society and that it goes against the principles of gender equality enshrined in the constitution. Polygamy was made illegal in France in 1993. Those who still live in polygamy have either been doing so since before the law was passed or they married abroad.

    Though polygamy isn’t very common in the northern Paris suburb of Cergy, most people in the African community there seem to know at least one polygamous family, usually with roots in Mali.

    “I’m against polygamy, even though I’m African,” explained Kofi Jumeau, who, along with his 43 brothers and sisters, could speak from first-hand experience. “My father had between nine and 11 wives. And unfortunately it really hurt us kids, because there was no family cohesion. It was really bad for us.”

    The French authorities employ a strategy they call “de-cohabitation” to reduce the numbers of polygamous households. It involves social workers helping second and third wives move into separate apartments with their children, breaking up the polygamous arrangement.

    The government offers women large, subsidized apartments to encourage them to leave polygamous families. They may also receive the 10-year-residence permits issued to other foreign residents. Polygamous families are only eligible for permits that must be renewed every year, which can make it difficult to find a job or travel internationally.

    [French] Parliamentarian Chantal Brunel has taken up the issue [of polygamy] and would like the government to be more aggressive in dealing with it. “I think we have to send a strong message to other countries and to foreigners who live here and don’t respect the laws on our soil. Polygamy is completely illegal in France, and yet it exists.”

    Mark (411533)

  45. because every single one of them was a reminder that millions of my fellow citizens have prejudged that my relationship is just not as good as theirs is.

    Or, they might object to the hijacking of the language. Civil unions, with all of the legal and tax and hospital visitations, etc … were not enough. The term marriage seems to have some idea of societal acceptance attached to it, and that is what bothers people.

    I saw this comment on another site, that I found interesting …

    Bah. The whole “gay marriage” discussion always descends into trivialities and personalities without addressing the point. It’s a matter near and dear to the heart of Our Host: language, the use, misuse, and fiat-declarations thereof.

    There is and has been, in every language of every tribe that exists or has existed on the planet, a word (sometimes more than one) that can be translated as “marriage”. In every case, without exception, it means and has meant at least one man and one woman.

    Neither Andrew Sullivan nor Twuman Capote invented homosexual behavior. It hasn’t been all that long, as societal changes are measured, since rich and/or powerful men were expected to keep catamites as well as mistresses — and to be married, to a woman, as well if they intended social acceptance. But in no language, anywhere at any time, have homosexual relationships, permanent or otherwise, been described as “marriage”. Even the Sacred Band, who are always brought up eventually in arguments about homosexual behavior, did not use the word “marriage” to describe their relationships; they did argue that they were the equivalent, as have many other commentators, but the word wasn’t used, and the one or two who left the Band to take up relations with a woman (in order to have progeny) did describe the resulting relationship as “marriage”.

    Now the homosexual lobby in the United States demands that their relationships be so characterized. It can’t be done, therefore it won’t. Laws are irrelevant. I have no idea if the story is true, but it’s said that a Mississippi legislator became offended by the value of pi. It sez rat thar in thah Bible that the “sea” in the forecourt of the Temple was ten cubits across and thirty cubits around; God therefore says that pi is exactly three, and the Legislature duly so enacted. It didn’t work, because some things are beyond the reach of legislation. Pi stubbornly remains an irrational number approximated by 3.141592646, the Law of Gravity remains unamended, and “marriage” continues to describe a relationship between male and female human beings.

    Prior to the San Francisco and Massachusetts nonsense, the homosexual community could have had civil unions — the legal equivalent of marriage, including inheritance, hospital visitations, and the rest of it — essentially free. Oh, there would have been a lot of grumbling, and there really are people who are offended by homosexuality, but even out here in rural Texas, among the white-painted Pentecostal and Baptist churches dotted around the landscape, practical opposition would have been minimal to nonexistent. Sin is not Caesar’s, and trying to make it so is futile, and most of us realize that — and the ones who don’t have been rebuffed often enough to realize that it won’t fly, anyway.

    But that wasn’t good enough. Homosexuals aren’t trying to change their legal status; they’re trying to change the dictionary, and that won’t work. A rose is a rose is a rose, and nothing else is, and having a Legislature or a judge declare it a pineapple doesn’t install four ounces of C4 in it or give it a removable pin. Marriage is a heterosexual relationship. If you want to compel different definitions, move to Mississippi and run for the Legislature.

    JD (008a90)

  46. Homosexuals aren’t trying to change their legal status; they’re trying to change the dictionary, and that won’t work.

    Exactly!

    It’s not so much the purely legal ramifications that are fueling a lot of the opposition to, or unhappiness about, Proposition 8—from proponents of same-sex relationships. No, it’s the symbolism of society (and the state, meaning government) not treating gay couples 1000% in the same way that traditional married couples are treated that’s fueling the anti-Prop-8 sentiment of “civil rights for all, civil rights for all!!!”

    So if a magic spell were cast over America, in which the existence of same-sex marriages suddenly were recognized by the law of the land — so that there was absolutely no difference legally between straight and gay partners — but, on the other, homosexual couples suddenly started looking more and more peculiar and alien to larger numbers of the public, I bet a lot of big backers of same-sex marriage would lose their enthusiasm for the idea of government treating (and labeling) same-sex unions as identical to marriage.

    Mark (411533)

  47. Gays never legitimately had the right to marry in CA. What they had was a fictitious “right” invented by Ron George & friends. As Byron White noted in Moore v. City of East Cleveland:

    “The Judiciary, including this Court, is the most vulnerable and comes nearest to illegitimacy when it deals with judge-made constitutional law having little or no cognizable roots in the language or even the design of the Constitution.”

    Robert O'Brien (58d9a8)

  48. Why fret over ballot result?

    Your judicial friends will overturn everything they don’t agree with and make whatever laws they want.

    This is Justice in America, get used to it.

    syn (5e8e54)

  49. Amen, syn! Now that Obama and his leftist illuminati ideals are headed to the White House, get ready for moral decay in our country. I shudder to think what the future will hold.

    Jeff (7082b1)

  50. I have never in my life felt more unwelcome in my home state than I do today.

    My friend, welcome to my world over the last seven years living as a Republican in NYC.

    And to think I used to belong to the liberal mindset until my conversion to conservatism after 9/11/2001.

    I never realized until about a year after 9/11 around the time I was completely been ostricized out of my social network just because I questioned the groupthink just how ugly Liberalism had become.

    Hye Sweeties, don’t feel bad if you come to NYC and go to LIPS at least you can choose to use The Mens Room or The Other Room because LIPS doesn’t provide bathrooms for The Womens Room.

    Lucky for you.

    syn (5e8e54)

  51. Cankle wrote:

    “Quick question for my fellow Californians (or anyone that knows the rules of CA ballot initiatives): What is to stop proponents of gay marriage from putting a new Prop 8 (well, a reverse of Prop on the ballot every year? I know it is an amendment to the CA constitution, but with only 50% required.”

    One million signatures. That’s about how many you need to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot. Other than that, there is nothing to limit Prop 8 opponents from revisiting the issue in 2, 4, 6 or 8 years if they want to. It happens all the time here; amendments to take redistricting out of the hands of the legislature was voted down in 1990, 2005 and one other year I can’t remember, but it still wound up on the ballot this year — and passed, this time. This is the 2nd election in a row where a parental notification for abortion law was put on the ballot (an almost an identical version was voted down in 2006).

    Sean P (e57269)

  52. Sean P: the number of signatures varies from year to year as it is defined in terms of a percentage of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election.

    But the general point is correct: any time those of us who want gay marriage believe we have the votes, and are willing to risk being wrong, we can do this again.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  53. apharel: I understand your comment, but I was trying to keep it simple. Using the formula you mentioned, it usually works out to around one million signatures to put a constitutional amendment and half a million signatures to put a statute on the ballot.

    Sean P (e57269)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1028 secs.