Los Angeles Times reporters Phil Willon and Patrick McGreevy want you to know that yesterday's "Same-sex marriage ruling adds a volatile new issue to the presidential race." But to the Times staffers, the issue poses more dangers for Republicans than Democrats:
Although a November ballot measure could encourage higher turnout by conservatives who are not naturally aligned with McCain, it also could alienate moderates and young voters, who polls show are far more accepting of same-sex marriage.
Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had sketched out a more centrist path than the court's. The decision could encourage Democratic interest groups to press candidates to extend their support for civil unions to same-sex marriage itself.
So the danger for McCain is that those rascally social conservatives could doom his chances to win the White House. The danger for Democrats, that the left-wing activists might rattle the cage a bit more than usual. But the possibility of socially conservative but fiscally liberal Democrats in swing states like Ohio, West Virginia, Missouri, or Colorado once again eluding the Democratic vote was dismissed out of hand.
What's more, Willon and McGreevy let slip their bias on the 2004 ballot initiatives as "anti-gay" measures ginned up by Republicans. In fact many of these measures were more strongly advanced by independent social conservative groups as a defensive bulwark against judicial activism:
It would not be the first time that such a measure was wielded in a presidential election year, and it would not be the only one this year; a similar effort will be on the ballot in Florida, and Arizona may also vote on the issue. In 2004, Republicans sought to maximize turnout of conservative evangelical Christians by running anti-gay initiatives in swing states, including Ohio and Florida.
But that year, voters were almost evenly split between Democrats and Republicans when asked who should lead the country. This year, voters are more predisposed to side with Democrats, meaning that Republicans have to work harder to attract them.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I don't care but...
May 16, 2008 - 10:36 ET by okiehawk44I really don't care if others want to get into this "marriage game" with me, why they would want to is another question, but what concerns me is this: Why do we allow the judiciary to perform the function reserved by the original founders for the citizens' legislature? If a legislative body is no longer needed in America, let's cut it out and save some money. Something is severely out of whack here or maybe it's just me.
One thing is certain though. The judiciary should be elected by the people and have a definite term of office.
Yes - excellent point okiehawk
May 16, 2008 - 10:45 ET by Dee BunkI disagree with the marriage part but if the people decide rather than judges, I could go with it.
As I said in another post, people's sexual practices are their own business but marriage is about family and Children. Children deserve a mother and a father.
Civil unions can be used for all sorts of couple combinations who don't want children and want to spend their life with someone whether it's sexual or not.
Interesting questions
May 16, 2008 - 11:29 ET by libertycitizen1) What is the point of a judiciary? To rubber-stamp all decisions coming out of the legislature?
2) Where was the outrage when an "activist" governor vetoed the California legislature's attempt to legalize gay marriage? I mean, he flouted the will of the people, didn't he?
3) If marriage was so essential to the raising of children, why do we permit casual divorce? In fact, why do we permit divorce at all? Or drive-thru marriages? Or children born out of wedlock?
I'd have a lot more respect for opponents of gay equality if they'd be intellectually consistent here.
Do you think I care about your respect?
May 16, 2008 - 11:45 ET by Dee BunkI have to respect you first to care about it. Your arguments don't give much to be respected.
The point of the judiciary is to interpret the constitution of the state and only overrule laws that are found to be in violation of it
The so called activist Governor put the vote to the people so how can you say he flouted their will? That is ridiculous. California allows ballot initiatives and that is how all controversial issues like this should be decided.
I didn't say marriage was essential to raising children. It's the best chance for success and the best thing for children is to have both a mother and a father and a committed family. Marriage is about the ideal no one is going to force anyone to get married and no one is going to forbid divorce. Society has Marriage to encourage the ideal. You can have an ideal to live up to without shunning people who don't live up to it.
California Supreme Court decision
May 16, 2008 - 11:51 ET by merlin61Marriage is between a man and a woman period,
end of debate. United we stand, divided we fall.
Lets get this constitutional amendment passed in
each state or through the United States Constitution.
Its has been man and woman marriage since the
beginning of time and woman was created to have
children. The Bible says what it says, and
the Bible is the way God wanted it. He didn't
create man and man. He didn't create woman
and woman. Eve was made to be a companion
to Adam. Believe it or not!!!! Call me whatever
you want, that's what I believe, like it or not.
There is no "gay equality"
May 16, 2008 - 11:54 ET by mattmThere is no "gay equality" to be an opponent of. Homosexuality is abnormal sexual behavior - it is not 'equal' and should not be treated as if it were.
The people who gave us high divorce rates, out of wedlock births etc. are the same ones pushing the gay agenda, so it's a bit of a non-sequitur to try to use that as an argument against the so-called opponents of "gay equality."
I know this viewpoint angers some people, but their viewpoint angers me, so we're even.
"I'd have a lot more
May 16, 2008 - 12:46 ET by NL207"I'd have a lot more respect for opponents of gay equality if they'd be intellectually consistent here"
No one here is opposed to gay equality. Homosexuals are elligible for equal treatment under the law just like anyone else. With respect to the institution of marriage, gays have and have always had, the same rights as everyone else. They are permitted to marry anyone they like who is (1) of legal age of consent, (2) of sound mind to give consent (3) not already married to someone else and (4) a member of the opposite sex.
What you and the rest of this 'gay rights' lot seek to do is re-define the institution of marriage, which was originally defined by God as a man and a woman, exactly one of each. Your arguments have nothing whatever to do with equal treatment under the law.
The motives of gay people in demanding this are unclear. My personaly interpretation of this has been: Since homosexuality is defined by God as an abomination, and therefore is shunned by all proper religious authority, gays are seeking affirmation of their lifestyle choice and a source of authority to FORCE social acceptance of this abomination on the remainder of society who morally reject it. The only available authority meeting that criteria is the State. Therefore, if homosexuual liasons can be licensed and APPROVED by the State, then acceptance of them can be forced upon virtually every other institution in the country including the churches by means of government force and threats of government force.
This 'gay marriage' movement is truly an abomination for doing this.
Could be trouble for the RINOs in the GOP
May 16, 2008 - 11:58 ET by Daniel BakerRino appointed judges in Cali changed traditional marriage. McCain will have to appoint a judges like this to get through the senate. He caves to the will of the Democrats.
LAT Sees More Trouble for GOP Than Dems with Same-Sex Marriage
May 16, 2008 - 13:42 ET by JDWMore than 60% of the vote was against same sex marriage: Which party dominates CA?
JDW
If you mention ANWR it means you don't care about the environment but when congress says ANWR it means you don't care about the gasoline prices