Gay Patriot Header Image

Should CA Supreme Court Uphold Prop 8 when it releases its ruling on Tuesday . . .

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 4:56 pm - May 24, 2009.
Filed under: California politics,Civil Discourse,Gay Marriage

While my rabbi differ on the result we’d prefer* from the California Supreme Court when it hands down its ruling Tuesday on Prop 8, she holds a few nearly identical to my own on how we should react should the court uphold that popular initiative.  On Friday, she said, “we don’t need to finger point; we need to roll up our sleeves.”

Her views pretty much echo my April 1 post, “Should CA Supreme Court Uphold Prop 8 . . .

. . . should the California Supreme Court uphold that proposition, as many court watchers expect it to do, that advocates of gay marriage use that setback to their advantage.  I believe that if, in the immediate aftermath of that decision, these advocates conduct themselves responsibly, they will all but guarantee repeal, perhaps as soon as 2010, but definitely by 2012.

Simply put, they need react not angrily, but rationally, saying they understand this decision, acknowledging they need to convince many voters about the merits of the change they propose, something to the effect of “We have not done a good enough job in the past of making that case. We’ll do a better job next time.”

In short, instead of lashing out against the Court and proponents of Prop 8, acknowledge the task ahead.  Don’t blame others, do acknowledge the magnitude of the change [being proposed] and the responsibility of those pushing such a change to act responsibly and to speak intelligently.  With solid arguments and the right attitude, they can change their minds of some of those who last year voted for the successful ballot initiative.

It’s all a question of approach.  And attitude.

The important thing to remember is that with the news coverage this decision receives, people will be paying close attention to how both sides react.  Juvenile antics and name-calling will not endear proponents of gay marriage to citizens ambivalent and skeptical about changing the state definition of this ancient institution.

Let us hope that should the court uphold 8, when leaders of the movement begin strategizing on how to overturn the the constitutional provision defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, they should make sure to reach out to gay conservatives as they have not done in the post.   They will also need to replace more partisan activists who hold positions of responsibility in gay organizations with those who capability of speaking to a broader audience.

There are many Republicans who would support state recognition of same-sex marriages, but need first be convinced that such recognition is a good thing and that it preserves the freedom of religious institutions to define marriage according to their creeds.

As I’ve said so many times before, gay marriage advocates need make a civil case for gay marriage.  It accomplishes nothing, indeed, is quite counterproductive, to attack supporters of the status quo.

RELATEDHow a Reasonable Person Should Respond to Carrie Prejean

The Gay Marriage Debate and the Needed Overhaul of the Gay Leadeship

*She believes the court should overturn 8; I believe it should uphold the Proposition, but not annul the (same-sex) marriages conducted between the court’s decision last May mandating state recognition of same-sex marriage and the passage of the Proposition.

Can Democrats be Counted on to Keep their Word?

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 1:21 pm - May 24, 2009.
Filed under: Congress (111th),Obama Watch,Pelosi Watch

In her latest (must-read) post, Jennifer Rubin comments on the President’s failure to take “personal responsibility for our current sea of red ink“, particularly n notable given the “stimulus” and the spendthrift budget he has proposed.  Instead, he blames Bush, just as his fellow Democrat, Nancy Pelosi, also blames the former President for her latest troubles.

Well, they may not hold themselves responsible for our nation’s (or their institutions’) problems which occur under their watch, but the American people, while always giving new presidents the benefit of the doubt, will soon start expecting some results.  And Democrats will be in big trouble if the measure Democrats by the standards they set for themselves.

Let’s recall Obama’s promise during the campaign:

But there is no doubt that we’ve been living beyond our means and we’re going to have to make some adjustments.

Now, what I’ve done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut.

And Mrs. Pelosi’s promise in 2006 just after Democrats took control of Congress:

The American people voted to restore integrity and honesty in Washington, D.C., and the Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history.

ACORN: Gerrymandering a permanent Democratic majority?

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 3:06 am - May 24, 2009.
Filed under: 2010 Elections,Liberals,Media Bias

As those who read conservative blogs and watch FoxNews know, the New York Timesspiked an election eve story on the possible illegal coordination between the Obama campaign and ACORN’s canvassing arm.”  While I doubt ties between the Democrat’s campaign and that corrupt organization would have cost Obam the election, it may have shaved a point or two off his margin of victory and cost him a state.

Not just that, it would have also shown that Obama had misrepresented his campaign’s relationship (and possibly his own) to that left-wing oganization indicted or facing indictment in several states.

Now, that the Administration is including ACORN in the 2010 census, it behooves us to know what they’re up to.  An intelligent and intrepid young blogger has been sifting through their documents and finds that the organization, possibly eligible for billions in “stimulus” funding, has a plan which it dubs ““Swing Congressional District Project” to “impact the post-2010 Congressional redistricting process by building progressive electoral majorities in swing state legislative districts” with the goal of building a “long-term, targeted organizing and electoral capacity needed if we are to have a Congress with a progressive [i.e. left wing] majority.”

Now, that they have such a Congress, will ACORN succeed in helping state legislatures gerrymander incumbent Democrats into safe seats?  Those Democrats will have to first survive the 2010 elections.  And since many state legislative seats will be up next year, even with ACORN’s federally beef-up coffers allowing it to divert resources to its electioneering efforts, those seats may not flip in the direction ACORN would like; people may not be so inclined to vote for the Democrats as they become increasingly aware of the bloated budgets Democrats hath wrought.  I mean, just this past week, the forces of big government outspent opponents of the California ballot initiatives by (according to some accounts) a margin of 10 to 1 and lost by a margin of nearly 2-1.

We can only hope that ACORN’s efforts will be similarly unsuccessful.  But, at least now, thanks to a diligent blogger, we have a better idea what they’re up to.  But, I daresay the MSM will pay as little attention to this as they did to the Times‘s spiking of the story of ACORN’s ties to the Obama campaign.  So, just chck out the post.