First Ose, then Charlie Brown - Now the CA Supreme Court (Supporting Gay Marriage)
Posted by: Aaron Park | 05/15/2008 1:04 PM
HR 3313, Roll Call #410, July 2004 - Doug Ose voted against Marriage Protection Act - effectively paving the way for today's California Supreme Court decision.
When Ose was contesting what Blogger Ken Campbell and myself wrote earlier - his explanation for supporting Gay Marriage was that it was a State Issue. Rather than lead on this issue, he deferred to the States knowing full well that some would have activist courst use judicial fiat to force Gay marraige upon us.
Charlie Brown's campaign website has very carefully worded language on it. However, his comments on the Radio Tuesday indicated, "I support Gay Rights".
Gay veterans everywhere should applaud Brown and Ose's leadership as only Tom McClintock stood against rights for Gay Veterans.
You will see a constitutional marriage ammendment on the ballot which will pass and will tremendously help the Republican Party in California.
Once again, Ose's record exposes the truth about his Liberal Views on Issues. Charlie Brown on the other hand, did not need this ruling as he is now desperately trying to paint himself as a moderate.
Perhaps Ose and Brown are calling Gavin Newsome as I am typing this post, who knows?
Houston, Charlie has a problem...
Charlie can use all the weasel words he wants for now, but there will be a ballot measure to amend the State Constitution and overturn this decision.
Will Charlie be for it or against it?
John
I suspect he won't take a strong position on it. He's more interested in the economy and the war than stuff like this.
Bob,
So will it be a weak YES or a weak NO?
John
I don't think you'll see a statement at all. I am not affiliated with the campaign, though. It's a fair debate question but if I were Charlie and I were asked I'd just reiterate that in my family tradition marriage is a religious ceremony between a man and a woman but that I would never vote to impose my religious beliefs on someone else. Period.
Then I would use the rest of the time allotted for the question to talk about the war, the economy, veteran's issues, etc.
Bob,
Here is Senator McClintock's statement today, so that Charlie has fair warning of what he will be up against in those debates:
"Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a travesty of judicial activism and is based not on California law – which is crystal-clear – but on the social views of the individual justices. Fortunately, the initiative process allows voters the opportunity to overturn this ruling by adopting the Marriage Protection initiative this November. I intend to do everything in my power to campaign for this initiative.
"Marriage is an institution that exists in nature and ultimately is beyond the power of any government or court to redefine. It is the union of a man and a woman to summon new life into the world. It is this act that creates a tapestry of unique responsibilities between the mother and father, both to each other and to the child. Our marriage laws are solely crafted to support this singular relationship and are inapplicable to any other partnership." Senator Tom McClintock
John
Tom's statement sounds unconstitutional to me, though he is trying to put the issue above the law by calling marriage "an institution that exists in nature". If so why is an amendment required? How can you amend something that is made by man to supposedly enshrine something else that is natural and by logical extension, therefore above the law?
I also think that using the initiative process to amend the state constitution is extremely dangerous. Let's put a different shoe on this foot. Let's say over 2/3 of Californians support handgun registration and a ban on concealed weapons. Someone brings an intiative to the ballot to amend the constitution to enshrine this popular notion into law and it passes. It can work both ways. We are supposed have a federal system to avoid this kind of populist governing.
Sigh. I just consider this whole issue a huge waste of time. Sorry, I just don't care too much about this one way or the other. I do feel that passing laws that are specifically designed to exclude or marginalize a segment of the population is inherently wrong but I don't think marriage should be required to provide gays and lesbians with equivalent benefits. I didn't support the ruling by the Supreme Court; I don't support a ballot initiative.