« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Will California Restore Traditional Marriage

The November Vote May Determine the Fate of DOMA

The Wall Street Journal’s Political Diary reports today on the sudden surge in support for California’s Proposition 8, which would restore the traditional definition of marriage:

Opponents of California’s anti-gay marriage proposition have been playing hardball. Back in July, Attorney General Jerry Brown reworded the ballot measure to indicate an attempt to “eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry,” which supporters complained cast it in a harsh and negative light. Their preferred wording described Proposition 8 simply as reinstating in the state constitution a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.

Now supporters are hitting back with a new ad campaign that looks like it’s having a significant effect. According to a survey conducted last week for CBS, Prop. 8 has jumped out to a five-point lead, just 11 days after being down by the same margin.

A big reason appears to be a promotional effort by the National Organization for Marriage that reminds voters that a previous 2000 ballot initiative had been supported by 61% of voters but was overturned by “four activist judges” last May. The ad campaign also emphasizes the heavy-handed approach used by same-sex marriage supporters. One ad features San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom saying same-sex marriage is here “whether you like it or not.”

Here’s one of the ads being run by the National Organization for Marriage:

Back before he was thinking about running for president, Barack Obama supported same-sex marriage. Now he claims to oppose it, but has come out against the California initiative to re-enshrine traditional marriage in law. His hypocrisy on the issue becomes fully clear however, when you take into account his stance in support of repealing the Defense of Marriage Act. There’s no doubt that in the absence of federal legislation protecting the right of each state to define marriage as it sees fit, activist judges are likely to require states to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions.

No less a legal scholar than Obama supporter Doug Kmiec agrees:

ABC News’ Teddy Davis Reports: If Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., succeeds in repealing the entire Defense of Marriage Act, the recognition of same-sex marriage is more likely to spread from state to state, according to a leading conservative constitutional law expert.

“Certainly, I think it would be fair to say that it would be more likely for a court decision to impose the recognition of same-sex marriage from Massachusetts on another state in the event of the repeal of D.O.M.A.,” Pepperdine Law Prof. Douglas Kmiec told ABC News.

If California does succeed in re-establishing its prohibition on same-sex marriages, it will be a powerful signal to Obama and others in Washington that the American people still support traditional marriage, and are likely to punish politicians who try to end it.

COMMENTS

  • robertallen

    But, you see, that could never happen at the SCOTUS level because we know ginsburg, souter, stevens and breyer would never force that upon the country and justice kennedy is a surefire vote against that! That is why we dare not mention that possibility, because is is just so farfetched!

  • Anteater

    It will help with the Hispanic vote for sure, which has been trending heavily for Obama.

    • robertallen

      Why this has been left on the table and not explained to the American people is amazing.

  • towdogInCal

    There’s a commercial running with SF Mayor Gavin Newsom having a a Howard Dean moment;
    Local News Coverage
    It’s been very effective around these parts. Put out by this group;
    ProtectMarriage.com

  • Swamp_Yankee

    -I recall reading Nobama’s piece on McCain’s hidden vote in the primary. It focused on California, where McCain recieved 7 percent higher total than the polls predicted. He is polling -10 in the CA general.

    • The gay marriage vote typically steers general voters towards a conservative ticket.

    -California is liberal like Michigan and Massachusetts in the sense there is a growing sense of malaise for high rhetoric. The idealistic enthusiasm is old and fading.

    -There may be a bradley effect, but not where people think. Here’s a dirty little secret, hispanics in Greater L.A. are more hostile to blacks than whites. The growing racial riff between blacks and hispanics is becomeing epidemic.

    • Palin campaigned in Carson and it was called a Californian Repubican woodstock (what was she doing in California anyway).

    • California Democrats are not organized and motivated in CA like they are in battleground states. Dems not high GOTV efforts and fraud to compete with Republicans. They are not organized in CA.

    • CA is liberal, but vey unpredictable. You could say they like being a maverick state.

    • On election night, McCain loses key red states, all is lost, Democrats are drunk and celebrating, but midnight hits, what’s this a close race in CA, could McCain pull it off in CA – an election for the ages.

    Yes, its just a dream – well maybe 2% plausibility.

  • westcoasttexan

    I hate to admit to being a little conflicted on Prop 8. Maybe it’s a libertarian streak in me because despite my strong Southern Baptist upbringing, I’m fifth generation Texan and I guess I just get uncomfortable with government telling people what to do. And now that I live in California, I’ve definitely started to get annoyed by the Mormons from Utah trying to influence California state politics. Fiscal conservatism is what I know, and my parents pretty much raised me to live and let live, so I can’t get too jazzed up about some of these cultural issues.

    I think with or without my vote, however, the Yes on Prop 8 group has far more financial support than the opponents. I am pleasantly surprised by the lack of donations from very rich, influential gay Californians.

    • Neil_Stevens

      The party doesn’t have to do squat. The unions do it for them.

      2% is highly optimistic for McCain or Prop. 8.

      • robertallen

        The Supreme Court is a branch of government. THEY told the people (who voted over 60% otherwise) WHAT TO DO. The Secretary of State of California, also a member of government, manipulated the ballot question in an attempt to affect the voters.
        There would be no more pleasing outcome that to send the message to those who choose to bugger members of the same sex that you can do whatever disgusting and despicable act you want “behind closed doors”, but we the people are not going to accept or endorse your filthy lifestyle.

        • robertallen

          The combination of unions and the majority minority demographics are too much for McCain to overcome. But these same groups can also be to the correct side on this proposition; thereby denying homosexuals the endorsement and acceptance they do not deserve as these participants in filth.

  • charliehall

    Nothing on what Connecticut’s Supreme Court did today?

  • shooflyguy68

    …to defeat Prop 8. No on 8

  • birdmojo

    Have McCain campaign in California in support of Proposition 8.

    Talk about family values. Talk about the importance of two-parent households. All that stuff. Yes, the democrats will start screaming about how many marriages he’s had and all that but, hey. Most of the country is divorced anymore. That backlash against McCain would do more harm than good.

    End the speeches with “While you’re there, vote for me… because you know that if Prop 8 fails, Obama will push for a Prop 8 1/2.” (Or something like that. A decent speechwriter could come up with something funny.)

    Hit the Latino Catholics, the Baptist African-Americans, and the Mega-church folks in the northern part of the state. Have your own folks videotape the protestors.

    The media would cover this sort of thing relentlessly as evidence of McCain’s bigotry and it would act as an advertisment for the rest of the country. Additionally, there would be the occasional internal poll that could be announced that McCain is within Bradley Effect distance of Obama in California and force Obama to stop campaigning in the swing states and force him to defend his turf… meanwhile, the “McCain is such a bigoted bigot JUST LIKE YOU PEOPLE!!!” news stories would be running in the swing states.

    I mean, yeah, I’m a gay marriage supporter but I saw Prop 8 as McCain’s foot in the door and I don’t understand why he hasn’t done more with it.

  • Ehud

    protectmarriage.com is the organization leading the efforts to pass prop 8. Their ads have been very effective so far, but the opposition is raising millions from the ACLU, hollywood, etc.

    Because of the nature of CA, if this measure fails gay marriage is coming to the country soon. If it passes it is going to set back efforts to impose gay marriage by decades.

    Please consider visiting the website and making a donation.

  • Eyriq

    We should have amended the constitution to avoid any of this non-sense spreading.

    We need more mainstream focus on the power of the family unit so that people can appreciate that while they are free to do as they will, there are certain cherished traditions that they do not have the right to destroy, simply because they view themselves as being different from other.

    Trying to please everyone by having a live and let live attitude is a slippery slope that leads to absolute relativism, a paradox that cannot not function and leads to decay and eventual failure. The more political correctness takes hold of the American dialogue, the closer we get to sliding on down.

    • westcoasttexan

      If we, God forbid, become the minority in this country to a bunch of crazy socialists, then I am still going to want the courts around protecting rights despite what a misguided majority may want to legislate. But I guess I just can’t summon the vitriol about this particular issue because I find Fannie/Freddie/Acorn way more disgusting and despicable.

      • birdmojo

        When Obama went back to California to campaign for himself, he would be asked “so what do you think about Proposition 8″ and he would give one of the following 3 answers:

        1) Oh, I support Prop 8!
        2) Oh, I oppose Prop 8!
        3) I think that Prop 8 has this going for it but I oppose it for this reason but think that there is a real issue here that requires real discussions among a bipartisan consensus, I have a task force set up investigating this very issue, now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go back to my breakfast.

        1 and 2 would hurt him.
        1 might help him nationally… but the damage among the base would be catastrophic.
        2 would really get the base fired up… but it would hurt him nationally.

        3 is most likely what he’d say… but the final result would be a somewhat disspirited base (being forced into a position where they’d be defending yet another FISA vote) and, nationally, he’d be seen as “Republican-lite” on the issue.

        Again: No idea why McCain hasn’t played this to the hilt.

        • skorrent

          That if we fall prey to “a bunch of crazy socialists” the craziest of them all will be wearing black robes and imposing whatever foreign laws and international regulations they take a fancy to?

          An opportunity to smack down the supremacy of the Supremes should not be missed.

  • E_Pluribus_Unum
    • E_Pluribus_Unum

      now it’s working again.

  • SteveLA

    I am in California and I am voting for Prop 8, but not because of the reasons stated above. Nope, I’m voting in favor of 8 not because of the underlying social issue, but instead because I can’t stand the idea of 4 out of 7 justices in the CA supreme court overturning the will of the people.

    If the CA Supreme court justices are allowed to do this, what’s next for these judges? Redefine what is a citizen, what restrictions should be placed on my other rights?

    The battle over this is being framed now in CA is one of “human rights”, with the usual groups on each side of that term. I personally think the way the conservative side is being fought is based on the wrong argument, the social issue, instead of the issue of justices overturning the will of the people as originally expressed in Prop 22, but I’m still voting in favor of Prop 8.

    • Jack_Savage

      You don’t want to blow your cover, do you?

      • shooflyguy68

        I’ve been consistently pro same-sex marriage. I think these types of issues and their most fervent supporters are destroying this party. I’ve never pretended to be anything other than a social libertarian.

        • noufa

          You must be a troll. I see that you just registered a couple of hours ago.

          In the off-chance you’re serious, Mormons have much deeper roots in CA than you. I have no problem with them participating in the political process. They’re one of the few groups in CA that unabashedly support conservatism.

          The out-of-staters who seem to think they can relocate in CA to “let their freak flag fly” have turned the state into a financial mess.

          Support gay marriage? Fine. Make the case for it. Quit trying to play conservatives against themselves.

  • Dee

    Like Steve, I am voting for Prop 8 because of the tyranny of the courts. When four lawyers can overturn the will of the people, freedom is lost.

    • westcoasttexan

      To turn your argument on its head, what if the majority of people wanted to ban all guns? Of course the courts would overturn that as being unconstitutional. That’s what the courts do – they analyze laws that are passed legislatively to make sure they conform to the rules of our country and states set out in their respective constitutions. The courts are not about the majority. Even in the best democracy, minority rights must be protected.

      So for me, the issue here is whether same sex marriage is constitutional. I find states that amend their constitutions based on a simple majority rather than a super majority to be fundamentally flawed because that functions as a work around of the judicial branch, which does exist for a reason. So, I’m tending to lean towards not supporting the proposition because I don’t think there is any way that a super majority would support it in California. That’s the only way I would feel comfortable stripping away the rights of anyone, even people I completely disagree with.

      • SteveLA

        Have you read the actual Supreme court decision? I have, and it “finds” a constitutional right to marriage based on civil rights protection for interracial marriage. I obviously disagree with this assertion and will be voting for Prop 8.

        If gay folks want to change the law, let them put the question to a vote of the people, not a vote of 4 out of 7 CA supreme court justices. By the way, it only takes a simple majority to amend the constitution of CA, not a Super one.

  • magdelaine

    I think we are really mixed up on the answer to this question, or Prop 8 would pass in a landslide.

    A couple of things:

    Marriage has a purpose; it’s more than a contractual arrangement.

    Marriage extracts a certain cost for society and government, therefore there must be a reciprocal and meaningful benefit for said society.

    Historically, the purpose of marriage was to provide a protected and lasting biological unit for rearing children. Marriage protects children, our future, which is a pretty big benefit.

    What is the benefit given society in exchange for legal same-sex marriage? I’ve yet to hear a convincing argument, aside from an emotional plea about rights.

    Unfortunately, redefining marriage will erode the currently shrinking protection marriage affords children. Remember, there was a reason why at one time no fault divorce was illegal. But so quickly we forget…

    Please, please vote for this amendment.

    • westcoasttexan

      Yes, I only registered today, but I have been reading this site for months. As I said previously, I have deep Republican roots, but maybe I have some libertarian streaks running in there as well. I wasn’t trying to vilify any Californian Mormons, but I’m a bit of a states’ rights kinda person, and I’m admittedly put off by the political campaigning coming out of Utah.

      I also think there is a credible distinction between supporting gays to marry and the idea of just not being comfortable with a constitutional amendment. And sure, maybe that has something to do with being relatively new to California and the idea of having a dozen propositions on a ballot. Feel free to read my other comments about super majorities, etc.

      I saw a post that was relevant to a tight race here in California where every vote will make a difference, and I was trying to engage in a dialogue about it because it is admittedly a more confusing issue to me than some others. I currently think I will likely vote No, but that has more to do with my ambivalence about the way this political process works and less to do with my opinion of gay marriage or any overt support for it.

      • Jack_Savage

        But now I take it you are saying you are pretty much in sync with Republicans with the lone exception of this teeny weeny little issue?

        • familyman

          Would not have noticed it except for the Mormon line you’re pushing. DKos and other left leaning organizations have been pushing this meme for a few days now. Mormon church didn’t start prop. 8. They asked members of their church to support it, as have other religious organizations, yet somehow this is being framed as Utah Mormons pushing their will onto the entire state of California. It’s a good line of attack because then you don’t have to defend gay marriage, just decry Mormons.

          • shooflyguy68

            I believe in low taxes supporting minimal government spending, not low taxes and out of control spending. I believe in the government staying out of our bedrooms, and not trying to legislate sexual morality. I believe that the government should not encourage anti-intellectualism that lessens the value of science and reason at the expense of superstition and fundamentalism. I supported John McCain because I thought he was that type of Republican and then he went all Mitt Romney on us and transformed himself into something that appeals to the so-called “base”.

          • CSUFBomb

            …the CA Dems are a sorry bunch of scheming socialists with no discernable leadership and a tragically bad legislative record second only to Michigan.

            Alas, Neil’s right. The real Democrat party in CA is an extremely well organized cadre of public unions who have ruthlessly protected their own interests while driving our economy into crisis.

  • lonebeagle

    I live in California and it is outrageous that the California Supreme Court has decided to invalidate the will of the people and create a right that doesn’t exist in the Constitution.

    The Court wants to redefine what marriage is–that is an outrage! No where in the California State Constitution or the U.S. Constitution does it say that gay people have the right to marry.

    The definition of marriage has always been defined as the union of one man and one woman.

    This is the issue. It is not a civil rights issue and gay people already enjoy all of the benefits that married people have in California.

    The court and liberals are attempting to control and redefine basic concepts of our culture–this is a slippery slope since when will the stop?

    I’ll be damned if I am forced to say that Bob and Joe are “married”. But under the current situation I can see the day when people will be sanctioned or punished for NOT recognizing publicly and privately gay “married” couples.

    What’s next? Perhaps the liberals will end up banning conservatives. They already are attempting to ban hunting. There’s a proposition on the ballot to ban caged chickens in egg producing farms!

    The extreme liberals of California have conservative and traditional American values in their sights.

    • Jack_Savage

      That is exactly what I thought – sort of along the lines of a Lincoln Chafee Republican. Thanks for clearing that up.

      • shooflyguy68

        but whatever makes you happy is fine.

  • McCainForPrez

    nt

    • JakePrime

      It won’t help with any presidential vote. If you really think that gay marriage even begins to register as a relevant issue for the presidential election, you’re wasting your time.

      • JakePrime

        Very few people are going to be voting on social issues this year. The economy, healthcare, and foreign policy/Iraq war are dominating the election. Even the last two have taken a back seat in the past month.

  • CheaGuy

    where is the stories on sarah palin? i know the report was called a “partisan attack by obama supporters” but the report was actually made possible through bipartisan support. what gives?

    • itrytobenice

      Pinning him down on a controversial issue is like nailing jello to a wall, to quote a famous politician :) .

      He benefits by being so new to the scene. He can flip flop ten times before it ever hits the public conscience.

      • CountryFirst08

        About the open-mind culture that permeates California cities and a good part of the entire state. Unlike other states of our Union, CA has great diversity (ethnic and political) and an average higher political IQ than the rest of the United States. This is why the most progressive ideas and people live in our state. The rest of the US should be so lucky to follow suit and vote for the smartest (or only at this point) political option available, that is Obama-Biden. Palin and the ‘man of the past century’ will never be able to take our beloved country back to the world leadership that we Americans deserve.

        • MrSandman

          I’m going to dress up as a gay person for Halloween….they sound SCARY!!

          • SteveLA

            Please post some pictures of the costume once you get it together if you would, feather boas are a favorite accessory by the way. Well unless you’re going for the Barny Frank look.

          • Neil_Stevens