Same-Sex Marriage Goes 0-3 on Election Day
California, Florida (two blue states) and Arizona voters rejected same-sex marriage in their states. As Tony Perkins from the Family Research Council notes, this signals that the electorate is still generally socially conservative, and that if Obama has a mandate, it’s an economic one.
This is especially true among Obama’s big support blocs; blacks and Hispanics. Byron York noted at the National Review Online that these constituents supported the ban 70-30 and 51-49 respectively. The 90+ percent of African-Americans that voted for Obama, and who rightly have celebrated the election of a black man to the White House, quite apparently think this is "Change We Can Do Without"(tm).
The limbo that those who were married under the Supreme Court decision find themselves in is of their own making. Rather than using the legislature or respecting the will of the people expressed in the last ballot initiative, they changed the battlefield. However, they took their initial success with irrational exuberance, and when they were met on that battlefield they were defeated, leaving them in an odd situation, and forcing the California legal system into a Gordian Knot. Once again, the "will of the people" cry we used to hear from the Left has died down to a whimper when they have an axe to grind.
Filed under: Culture • Doug • Government • Homosexuality • Judiciary • Politics
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
Three points of contention:
– I think it reasonable to say that if Obama has a mandate, it is in the economy and foreign policy.
– The “of their own making” comment strikes me as dismissive and uncaring.
– You are mistaken on the timeline and what had gone before: the legislative avenue had been tried, a measure approved, then vetoed twice, with the Governor apparently wanting a court or referendum. The former precipitated the latter. Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)#1977.E2.80.932008:_Opposite-sex_marriage
* Economic and foreign policy. Fair enough.
* I’m not being dismissive or uncaring; I’m simply stating that when you act before the law is clear, you invite this nebulous state they find themselves in. Gavin Newsom, as well as those that acted on his presumption, put themselves in the very same situation. These people are simply not learning from their mistakes.
* Thank you very much for the history and for clearing up the timeline. Apparently, the California legislators aren’t quite the representatives of the people they think they are or are supposed to be. So it wasn’t the Left that chose the battlefield; it was a moderate Republican. Fair enough, and I’m sorry for pointing the finger in the wrong direction.
Though the people have spoken, and via the process that Schwarzenegger suggested, there’s still a fight going on. Here’s hoping that the California Supreme Court will judge the law and not their personal preferences.
The Mormons are now being singled out for abuse for their support of Proposition 8 in California. However deep your theological disagreements with us, I hope you can put them aside to stand up for those who stood with you on this issue.
I indeed do, Kent, especially against that awful ad with a couple of Mormons going in and ransacking a house looking for the marriage license.