Both sides will fight hard for turnout on e-day – how will that affect the other elections? (In 2004, the gay marriage issue was credited with mobilizing the right-wing grassroots, incidentally ensuring Kerry’s defeat.)
An earlier initiative passed - this was for state law, not a constitutional amendment, and it was five years ago.
In the intervening time, voters have had a chance to see that Massachusetts has not been consumed by fiery demons (or, perhaps, that the percentage of Massachusetts that is Hell On Earth has not changed appreciably following their acceptance of same-sex marriage).
So – I don’t know. I’d like to see this issue soundly defeated, which would legitimize the decision; it would be a voter decision, perhaps nudged a bit, rather than solely a judicial one. But there may be contrarians who vote “yes” merely to spite the attempts of judges to legislate, if that’s how they see it. I’d want to get a sense of the poll numbers closer to November before offering a prediction.
It won’t help the Democrats in local elections. On the other hand, when did California last go Republican in the presidential race – 1984, for favorite son Ronald Reagan? I don’t think that’s likely to recur.
But I would be curious to hear the reactions of those who cheered for this decision – if, unlikely as it seems, California were to slip into the GOP column, McCain wins the White House, and exit polls suggest that the voter turnout for those voters pulling the GOP lever was largely motivated by opposition to the SSM decision – what would your reactions be? And what strategies might you adopt in the future?
I would think it was a Bad Thing ™ if that happened. As to future strategies, I don’t think it would change anything for me. I got into this argument about timing etc a while ago back when a case under Tennessee Equal Protection was in the offing (amazing how fast things change) and realized that it simply wasn’t up to me. As a straight man, it’s not up to me to tell gay friends that they have to sit at the back of the bus for a while longer, because it is, in my opinion, the wrong time to fight for their rights.
Has anyone seen the text of the proposed amendment? In one of the other threads there was a suggestion that it effectively repealed the domestic partnership legislation on top of banning gay marriage. If it does go that far I expect that might swing a fairly significant group of voters over to the No side.
Here’s to hoping Cali stays in our exclusive little jurisdictions-allowing-gay-marriages club! Not only has Saskatchewan not been consumed by fiery demons, but the years we’ve had legally recognized same-sex marriages have been the most prosperous in the province’s history. Coincidence?
The initiative would mobilize the right much more than the left in California. I think it was a bad move for liberals to push for this initiative during an election year, and I’m not confident at all in a Democrat victory in California.
What I don’t understand is how California liberals think they can possibly get this measure passed. The state is basically entirely made up of every type of group that opposes gay marriage - upper class suburban whites, poor mexican immgrants, blacks, members of the armed forces, and rural people with low education levels. If every single person in San Francisco votes, the measure will still get crushed by the rest of the state.
Not that it matters particularly, but my understanding was that this amendment had been put forward in advance of the ruling, i.e. the current effort predates the judgment and was already under way, and is not simply a reaction or response. Apparently those opposed to gay marriage (boo, hiss) feared exactly this judicial outcome, and had engaged the machinery to put a proposed amendment in front of the voters in November in order to deal with such a decision, hypothetically or actually. Now, of course, the urgency is increased, but this stuff, I thought, was already in the works.
The Governator is against the amendment, to his credit, so that might assuage things a bit. I’m not sure what you mean by “strategy.” The California Democratic Party did not bring the case, and the majority of judges on the court are Republican appointees, including the Chief Justice who wrote the decision. And no, I don’t think this is a Republican plot.
In a broader context, how much injustice should one accept for short term political advantage? Civil Rights legislation clearly hurt the Democratic party in 1968. If his support for Iraq causes McCain to lose this year, would you say that a better strategy would have been to go with the anti-war majority?
It sucks that we can amend our Constitution by simple majority vote. That has me worried.
Also, I am concerned for Dems in the Sacramento area running for Assembly and Congress in tight races. AD10, AD15, and CD4, which are all currently GOP held districts, are or were winnable by the Dems before this SCOCA ruling. Hopefully, people find other issues are more imortant and elect Dems anyway.
I don’t think this issue is big enough to throw CA to McCain, especially with the argument out there that the Republicans legalized SSM in CA.
I doubt anyone stupid enough to think anything like that in the first place (even allowing for exaggeration) is suddenly smart enough to appreciate the lack of hellfire now.
I would have been perfectly happy with the recent court decision having been last year, or last decade. It’s not that I wish they’d wait, it’s that I wish it had already been done so that it doesn’t cause a backlash NOW, at the worst possible moment in history.
But it was “the worst possible moment in history” four years ago. It’s ALWAYS “the worst possible moment in history.”
This is our brothers’ and sisters’ basic rights we are talking about. If this country chooses to elect McCain as a result of those rights being granted, then so be it.