The University of Southern California’s Initiative and Referendum Institute has a fascinating new report on Proposition 8, which seeks to outlaw gay marriage in California.
Besides walking readers through a history of gay marriage measures in other states, the report offers a succinct analysis of why so much — money, effort, time — has been dumped into this campaign.As the report states: "The huge amount of money being channeled to fight this proposition, despite its minimal economic impact, reflects the view of both sides that California is a critical firewall in the battle over gay marriage. Rejection of Proposition 8, in effect a popular affirmation of the right to gay marriage, would provide tremendous momentum to the gay rights side, especially since it comes in a huge state that is seen by many as a trendsetter."
The report adds that campaign finance reports show out-of-state contributions to both the Yes and No campaigns for Prop. 8 are high. It concludes that "Spending on Proposition 8, currently at $55 million, is likely to reach a record level for a social issue."
That dovetails with something my colleague at the Register, Marla Jo Fisher, told me — that her mother, in Utah, that the Mormon church is asking residents there to urge their California friends to support Prop. 8.
This measure, clearly, means something to activists across the country. It’ll be interesting to see how that plays out on Nov. 4.
What individual right, pray tell, had been taken away prior to the state Supreme Court decision? Was there a prior "right" to same-sex marriage?
No, there was not. The court cited the domestic partnership laws that had been passed during the last decade and decided those created second-class citizenship for gays - never mind that domestic partnerships aren't limited to gay people, or that they were passed in order to give more legal rights to gay couples.
And it bears mentioning that Prop. 8 is not simply "a majority vote, legislative enactment or administrative decision." It is a proposed constitutional amendment, and in case the esteemed libertarian hands at the Reg have forgotten, we the people have the right to alter or abolish any form of government that is destructive of our liberties - and I think the judicial despotism of which the Reg approves qualifies. That's why the Founders gave us the amendment process, so we could do the altering peacefully.
Posts
5 comments:
i love this site. i am very happy for your famousness! good work!
i had to change my blog address becuase i got some very creepy people saying very intolerant and unsafe stuff.
i'm very flattered that you posted a link to my site. i know you are busy, so if you don't get around to it--no prob. but here is the new link. it still has all the discussions with their comments.
i really love wordpress already.
http://prop8discussion.wordpress.com/
p.s. dear zoey! please comment on my new blog with your email address.
http://prop8discussion.wordpress.com/
if you read this.
Thanks, Emily - the link is updated. Keep up the good work!!! And don't let the haters get you down. (Funny, isn't it, how "Tolerance" seems to be a one-way street with so many - tolerant only of those with the same views.)
Ah, how both of you are misguided. I'm tolerant of your views and can respect them. Although I doubt you are taking about me. The sad state of these debates is their are intolerant people on both sides. Unfortunately the rational minds who can discuss it are few and far between. With that said, your push to repeal my brother’s rights is not tolerant. Thankfully he already got married to his partner and thankfully it can't be taken away. It’s judicially unprecedented. He is lucky and was in a position to get married, sadly some of his friends arent rushing in to marriage and might have that right taken away.
Blake, thanks for your comment. With all due respect, I disagree that we are misguided - we have a different perspective than you do, and I'm so grateful that we are able to discuss our views and hear different sides of the topics. I've had lengthy discussions with gay friends on the topic, and while we finally have to "agree to disagree," I feel strongly that we're both enriched by engaging in a dialogue.
No rights will be taken away by Prop. 8 - it's a matter of semantics by calling it marriage or a civil union, and that name change opens a Pandora's box. What it's called will affect what children are taught in schools and how much freedom religions have, but it will in no way affect the day-to-day life or rights of gay couples.
You're entitled to your views, as are we - but that's my perspective.
Post a Comment