Topic: Gay Rights
Why Log Cabin Republicans Should Support Prop. 8 Log Cabin Republicans are gay Republicans that have raised funds for and campaigned for Republicans throughout the nation. However, many are also strong advocates for gay marriage. In California the Supreme Court's wrong-headed overreach has put them in a difficult position.by Paul Benedict
(Libertarian)
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Log Cabin Republicans are gay Republicans that have raised funds for and campaigned for Republicans throughout the nation. However, many are also strong advocates for gay marriage. In California the Supreme Court's wrong-headed overreach has put them in a difficult position. If they support the court's overreach, they risk alienating the citizens of California who have liberally supported non-discrimination amendments and civil unions at a pace far outstripping the nation as a whole. On the other hand, like many Californians, they will be torn by the chimera of victory seemingly heaped on the gay community by this ambitious and insensitive California court.
A recent, articulate, and well thought through article by George Stienburg (July 12) argues that Proposition 8, the California amendment initiative saying that marriage is between a man and a woman, will not succeed on the November ballot. In his article "Why Prop. 8 is a losing proposition," Stienburg explains that voting against "Gay Marriage" rather than voting for "Marriage" will cause nice people to vote "no" on Proposition 8. He also notes a number of other disadvantages that Proposition 8 faces in November, including the pull of the general election on the numbers of people who show up to vote.
Mr. Stienburg may have miscalculated. Many originally argued that Proposition 22 was an unnecessary measure. Because California law already makes plain that marriage is between a man and a woman, they may have been correct. But it's too late now. The willingness to overturn a measure passed by a vast majority of California voters has exposed the California Supreme Court. This court is now widely seen as tyrannical and lawless. It knows no boundaries; it is callous to the very human institutions and rights it is sworn to uphold. The electorate may not be as religious about the pontifications of the Supreme Court judges as many hope. Despite California voters' feelings about being good sports, despite the electorate's willingness to "live and let live," surely they will see that this court has gone too far. It is the citizens of California themselves who are now the oppressed. What must the people of California do to have a voice in the laws of their own state? Perhaps they know now... Perhaps now they have an idea.
Log Cabin Republicans would do well to tell all the courts that the laws of this land are more important to them than single issues. They should vote for Proposition 8 and campaign for and with all who support the ballot amendment. The laws of our land protect us all. The court's denial of the case to keep Prop 8 off the ballot in November, without even a hearing, should be a warning to the gay community; the will of modern courts, like the will of all bullies and tyrants, is unpredictable, violent and severe. Send a message Log Cabin Republicans. Tell Californians, citizens who have supported diversity with generous civil union laws, and tell every American that you are the real deal. Join us in keeping the theocracy of the golden gavel and the pontifications of the priests of "fairness" from rewriting our constitution and every other aspect of our laws.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 1 thumb so far
2008 Paul Benedict, all rights reserved.
Published: Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Last modified: Monday, August 4, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Paul Benedict only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Paul Benedict is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I think the real tyranny in California is to be found in the process that allows all these waste-of-time initiatives to make their way onto voters' ballots again and again and again. Isn't Prop 8 just another GOP get-out-the-vote tactic? Look at who's funding the Yes on 8 campaign. It's a bunch of rich Republicans looking to gain access, influence and favors by throwing some money at this initiative. Then take a look at who's being paid to execute the Yes on 8 campaign, and all doubt is removed. They're a bunch of amoral politicos who could care less about gay marriage and are concerned only with picking up a paycheck:
Two wrongs do not make a right (but three left turns do) Anyways. I understand why you think the California Supreme Court erred in its ruling; however; asking gay republicans to vote for prop 8 is silly and would not be prudent for gay republicans to do so.
Working under the assumption that the court erred; voting for prop 8 will do nothing to change that ruling but would subjugate gay republicans from receiving equal state recognition of the families they create. Then they would have to turn around and introduce a ballot initiative to undo prop 8 (with no help from the republican party). It is more prudent to ask them to vote out the justices that erred then to vote for prop 8. To ask them to do other wise is simply silly.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2008-07-17 13:06:47
You might be correct about the many problems all Californians face because this court overreached. I was thinking that if Prop. 8 passes, no one can appeal the California ruling to the U.S. Supremes. In turn, the nation does not need to get engaged, and the Courts don't get to say what a marriage is in the United States of America. It all remains a state problem. It all remains a state problem in a state that has been generally favorable on the issues of diversity.
Mr. Benedict, your proposition makes ABSOLUTELY no sense. At best, you make a case for the Log Cabin Republicans to oppose the Court removing the issue from the ballot. However, once the issue is on the ballot, what the Court did in the Marriage Cases is irrelevant and it's now up to the people to vote on, and why in the hell should the Log Cabin Republicans vote against their own interests? Voting against Prop. 8 is not voting for the Court decision; it's voting as a person (part of "The People"). A vote against is just as democratic as a vote for. I can't help but feel that you have alterior motives here with this garbage argument.
Are you serious? The ruling was callous and insensitive? To whom? To those who want to hurt other people for no other reason than they don't want to be equated to them? Sorry, the court was insensitive to those people, but they don't deserve sensitivity!
Furthermore, again, this issue is not appealable to the US Supreme Court. The decision was very in depth and reasonable. Just because you don't like the outcome doesn't mean the US Supreme Court can interfere in a state issue (afterall, again, this case was decided SOLEY on state constitutional grounds, not on federal constitutional grounds). The US Supreme Court has not jurisdiction over state constitutional issues.
This is just a pop-gun battle. The real fight about gay marriage will come when the U.S. Supreme Court has to decide if gay marriage will be legal across state lines, negating the 10th amendment in favor of interstate commerce laws. New York doesn't have gay marriage, but recognizes it in other states, because it's a joint contract of sorts.
Other western countries recognize gay marriage without thunderbolts and earthquakes. It'll probably happen in this country eventually. In general, I don't think it will affect my family much.
My wife and I are marriage preparation leaders in our church. One of the other leaders went on a rant how gay marriage can't be legal because it's immoral. I had to gently correct him in front of an engaged couple that the state's job is to make contractual relationships "legal", including property rights and other legal benefits. It's our job, at the church and community level, to help make marriages good and lasting, so that they don't end in divorce. I'm sure there is a gay church in California, where our counterparts are giving a similar speech.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2008-07-18 09:56:08
Hi John,
Have you read my other articles on the Court's decision? I did not pull these terms from the air without other presentations of evidence. Please check out “Dehumanizing Marriage” to start. The outcome was not as much my concern as the process that is reflected in the outcome.
Howdy DigitalBob,
Thanks for stopping by.
I'd have to see the actual laws by which the other countries have legislated "marriage equality" before I'd pass a judgment; however, in California the opinion the Court rendered IS the thunderbolt (we don't talk about earthquakes in California).
In the California since same sex couples cannot literally, or technically, be married, for equality's sake no one may any longer be married. Marriage contracts will only say "Party A" espouses "Party B." That is not only a linguistic curiosity, it is at the heart of the Court's rewrite of California's law.
Posted By: Wolfgang E. B.
Date: 2008-07-18 19:22:09
The Court ruled that relegating same-sex couples to "domestic partnership" while allowing opposite-sex couples to marry amounted to discrimination in violation of the equal protection clause in the State Constitution. It was the right decision. What I find appalling is the notion of people voting to take away someone else's constitutional rights. That should be illegal.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2008-07-18 19:55:53
Hi Wolfgang,I'm planning to post an article tomorrow, "Marriage is Not a School" that answers your question more directly. However, there is another article I've done, "Dehumanizing Marriage," that sheds some light on the ideas the U.S. Constitution (and even California's) maintain on civil liberties and constitutional rights.Courts and people have a right to say a guy is a guy and a girl is a girl. We have, actually, an obligation to "discriminate" or recognize differences. We still try to find ways that accommodate our differences and allow all of us, in our unique identities, access to the common good.
I don't think that this is a well written, nor a well thought of article. It sounds more like a fore-thought that needed to be given a little bit more time and understanding before it was written down. Next time...sit in front of your computer and don't just type away.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2008-07-31 17:31:14
Hi Franz,
You are a tough critic. This one seems to have fewer typos than is usual! Some of my ideas about the Supreme Court of California and the resulting oppression of all California's citizens are presented in greater detail in my other articles. If you don't "get" something, please let me know.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Paul Benedict, all rights reserved.