The Challenge
May 23, 2008
From the Los Angeles Times: "Among registered voters in California, 54 percent support a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages, and 35 percent oppose it.... Of those who said they didn't know a gay person, 70 percent support the amendment..."
The Times tries to give the findings a positive spin as a "narrow margin" for the amendment's passage, but actually, I'm told, pre-vote polls on state anti-gay amendments have undercounted the support for banning same-sex unions by an average of 10% — amendment backers don't feel comfortable giving their real views, it seems, perhaps fearing that the pollster will think they're bigots.
Equality California's PAC is the right place to donate, I'm told.
If the anti-gay marriage amendment fails (as did a similar effort in Arizona two years ago), it will mark an historic turning point. If the amendment passes, marriage equality will be delayed in the nation's most populous state for perhaps a generation — which demonstrates both the promise and real risks of pursing a judicial strategy.
Comments to "The Challenge":
Zeke | May 25, 2008, 10:32pm | #
If the amendment passes in November ALL civil marriages will be ruled unconstitutional. The ruling was written VERY carefully in such a way that any initiative that defines "marriage" in a discriminatory way will result in civil marriages, because of their discriminatory definition, being ruled unconstitutional.
Not only that. With the CA Supreme Court ruling there is now a real question as to whether the voter initiative will even be allowed since such action would be considered a Constutional revision rather than an amendment and revisions require a Constitutional Convention.
This argument is layed out very clearly by Kevin Norte, from a conservative perspective. It's an interesting and thought provoking read.
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2008/inmyopinion052108.htm
I think the Supreme Court ruling was well thought out to put us in an extremely favorable position regardless of whether or not the voters fall for the November amendment.
Craig2 | May 26, 2008, 8:10pm | #
Has anyone given any thought to repealing the legislation that enables these ridiculous populist
plebiscites to be held in the first place?
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
Ashpenaz | May 27, 2008, 2:42pm | #
Here's the problem with gay marriage: It used to be that if you were over 40 and unmarried, people thought you were gay. If gay marriage becomes acceptable, now, if you're over 40 and unmarried, people will think it's because you're unattractive! :(
Pat | May 29, 2008, 8:33am | #
I don't know Ashpenaz. Speculating on whether one is gay doesn't seem the same as speculating on whether one is unattractive. Besides, I've met many attractive men, straight and gay, who are not married. In many of these cases, attractiveness comes with an over-inflated sense of entitlement. Hard to get married with that condition.
Justin S. | June 12, 2008, 1:27pm | #
Norte has more to say:
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=134494511&blogID=404835490
Mark F. | May 25, 2008, 3:58pm | #
I have to wonder if the courts might consider this amendment as invalidating civil unions as well. After all, civil unions are de facto gay marriages in all but name.