Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually I don't think the gay-rights issue WILL be that important. There are so many other issues. Like whether rich folks who have never paid any mind to politics before should be taken seriously as candidates.
I think you are correct but Meg Whitman may get desperate and pull the gay card [similar to the "race card"] in order to fire up Republicans. The LA Times showed Whitman at her East LA campaign office a few days ago; those opposed to her outnumbered her supporters 2 to 1. Whitman looked upset over being questioned by reporters [something she rarely allows] and had a terrible time with KFI shock jocks John & Ken [I think her campaign manager should be fired for putting her in the snake pits of LA but her campaign manager is former governor Pete Wilson who should know better].
But overall it think the issue of gay marriage will be mostly insignificant compared to all the real problems in California. We don't have the luxury to get side tracked by social issues when the state is struggling with survival
Anybody else remember the last time Jerry Brown was governor and then went off somewhere to become a Buddhist ascetic?
May be a nice guy, but um, is this the kind of *leadership* the state of California needs right now? I'm guessing not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon
Reading Comprehension 101, Lesson 1:
"...AND THEN went off somewhere to become a Buddhist ascetic." In other words, after he was Governor.
Curm, it could have been read two ways.
One, that he ran off somewhere to become a Buddhist ascetic just right after he became governor.
Two, as you stated, that he ran off to become a Buddhist ascetic after his term in office. Either way the confusion lies in whoever made the original statement.
Another confusion is in the poster's latter statement, it begs the question as to what he/she was referring to. One can assume that the poster referred to his/her former statement. The other assumption is that the poster just made an entirely different statement altogether, clarification is needed. Of course I would think that the former assumption would be the correct assumption.
Last edited by BVitamin; 08-07-2010 at 07:59 PM..
Reason: gender application he/she
I don't agree with Jerry Brown on this issue, but Im still voting for him. My only issue with him is his age, but Im willing to overlook that.
I wish he had dropped out of the primary and let Gavin Newsom have the nomination-that would have been better imo. Im not a Newsom fan, but I think he would have been very effective at building concensus.
I wish he had dropped out of the primary and let Gavin Newsom have the nomination-that would have been better imo.
A completely inept glamour boy with demagoguic tendencies who - while not without bad aspects - has proven to be totally unable to handle the only CA big city mayorship with any power, who has shown himself unable to handle basic management of SF, and who has a knack for saying stuff that alienates virtually everyone?
Haven't we learned our lesson about electing "celebrity-politicians" already?
Newsom's acceptable as Lt. Gov. because that position doesn't have any real responsibilities in normal times. Newsom running for governor would guarantee a GOP victory.
Quote:
Im not a Newsom fan, but I think he would have been very effective at building concensus.
Like he's been so great in building consensus as mayor....
Should the decision be stayed pending review by superior courts? I think that answer depends in the likelihood of the potential eventualities. The next stop is the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The court is well-known for its liberal leanings, and has a record of supporting the Due Process and Equal Protection arguments that made up the backbone of Judge Walker's decision. I would rate the ruling's chances of being upheld by the Ninth Circuit as quite high. After that, the case goes on to the United States Supreme Court. Conceivably, the high court could deny cert, and the Ninth Court's ruling would stand as law throughout the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit: California, Hawai'i, Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Montana, as well as Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. However, it seems exceedingly unlikely that the Supreme Court would refuse the case if indeed it is affirmed by the Ninth Circuit. So, what are the case's chances there?
Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito would all seem very likely to disagree with the ruling, while Justices Breyer and Ginsberg would seem very likely to agree with Judge Walker. This is based on their respective judicial track records.
Justices Sotomayor and Kagan would also seem very likely to vote to uphold the ruling, though their newness to the high court (and, in Kagan's case, to any court) casts just a bit more doubt about their stances. But again, we are now probably looking at four Justices in support of the ruling.
Chief Justice John Roberts would seem likely to side with his conservative brethren, but I think there's some doubt there. He has shown a bit of an unorthodox streak now and then. Also, he is the Chief Justice and no doubt acutely aware that he is building a legacy. He can also see which way the wind is blowing and probably knows that the question facing same-sex marriage being legal in all jurisdictions in the United States is not "if" but "when". For that reason, I would not be completely surprised to see John Roberts voting to affirm the decision by Judge Walker. But let's assume he doesn't. That leaves four Justices for and four Justices against.
On to Justice Anthony Kennedy, typically considering a conservative but swing vote. And indeed, Kennedy votes with the majority in more 5-4 decisions than any other Justice. How might he vote?
Well, consider that Judge Walker built his case primarily around precedents in Romer v. Evans (1996) and Lawrence v. Texas (2003). And who wrote the majority decisions in those cases? Justice Kennedy. Essentially, the decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger was constructed out of materials supplied by Anthony Kennedy. And for this reason, and the aforementioned ones about the other Justices, I think the odds are better than 50-50 that Judge Walker's ruling will be confirmed by both the Ninth Circuit and the United States Supreme Court.
Any turnover on the Supreme Court between now and when the decision might ultimately be issued would likely either not change the status of this case, or make affirmation of the current ruling even more likely.
One additional final point - if this case does indeed progress to the Supreme Court, a decision is likely sometime between summer 2012 and summer 2013. However, in 2012 opponents of Proposition 8 are likely to garner enough signatures to put a counter proposition on the ballot that would repeal Proposition 8. Recall that Proposition 8 passed by a margin of 52.2% to 47.8%. Also note that as a long-term trend, support for same-sex marriages has been growing at a rate of 1-2% annually. This is because of turnover in the voting electorate, with attrition mainly due to older people who were raised when the medical profession classified homosexuality as a mental disorder and most gays were closeted. Meanwhile, every year 18-year-olds enter the voting electorate. They have grown up in an era in which gays have been getting married for years in other states, in which there are gay celebrities who are out, in which mainstream sitcoms and films have gay characters, and they also have probably known various out gay individuals as friends, relatives, or simply acquaintances. They see homosexuality as very different than older generations. Not all of these age groups are of these opinions, but any means, but those are the generalities. This is why opposition to same-sex marriage is slowly by very surely eroding. And this is why, just from doing the math, Proposition 8 is likely to be repealed in 2012, either shortly after or before the Supreme Court rules in this case.
So failing to stay this decision might never result in gay marriage being performed in California with such marriages again being banned, and even of that happened the law would likely be changed within a few months to once again legalize same-sex unions.
For these reasons, I support the current decision not being stayed by Judge Walker.
A completely inept glamour boy with demagoguic tendencies who - while not without bad aspects - has proven to be totally unable to handle the only CA big city mayorship with any power, who has shown himself unable to handle basic management of SF, and who has a knack for saying stuff that alienates virtually everyone?
Haven't we learned our lesson about electing "celebrity-politicians" already?
Newsom's acceptable as Lt. Gov. because that position doesn't have any real responsibilities in normal times. Newsom running for governor would guarantee a GOP victory.
Like he's been so great in building consensus as mayor....
LOL...no really, don't hold back.
Or maybe I just like him cause he's easy on the eyes.*sighs*
Should the decision be stayed pending review by superior courts? I think that answer depends in the likelihood of the potential eventualities. The next stop is the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The court is well-known for its liberal leanings, and has a record of supporting the Due Process and Equal Protection arguments that made up the backbone of Judge Walker's decision. I would rate the ruling's chances of being upheld by the Ninth Circuit as quite high. After that, the case goes on to the United States Supreme Court. Conceivably, the high court could deny cert, and the Ninth Court's ruling would stand as law throughout the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit: California, Hawai'i, Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Montana, as well as Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. However, it seems exceedingly unlikely that the Supreme Court would refuse the case if indeed it is affirmed by the Ninth Circuit. So, what are the case's chances there?
Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito would all seem very likely to disagree with the ruling, while Justices Breyer and Ginsberg would seem very likely to agree with Judge Walker. This is based on their respective judicial track records.
Justices Sotomayor and Kagan would also seem very likely to vote to uphold the ruling, though their newness to the high court (and, in Kagan's case, to any court) casts just a bit more doubt about their stances. But again, we are now probably looking at four Justices in support of the ruling.
Chief Justice John Roberts would seem likely to side with his conservative brethren, but I think there's some doubt there. He has shown a bit of an unorthodox streak now and then. Also, he is the Chief Justice and no doubt acutely aware that he is building a legacy. He can also see which way the wind is blowing and probably knows that the question facing same-sex marriage being legal in all jurisdictions in the United States is not "if" but "when". For that reason, I would not be completely surprised to see John Roberts voting to affirm the decision by Judge Walker. But let's assume he doesn't. That leaves four Justices for and four Justices against.
On to Justice Anthony Kennedy, typically considering a conservative but swing vote. And indeed, Kennedy votes with the majority in more 5-4 decisions than any other Justice. How might he vote?
Well, consider that Judge Walker built his case primarily around precedents in Romer v. Evans (1996) and Lawrence v. Texas (2003). And who wrote the majority decisions in those cases? Justice Kennedy. Essentially, the decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger was constructed out of materials supplied by Anthony Kennedy. And for this reason, and the aforementioned ones about the other Justices, I think the odds are better than 50-50 that Judge Walker's ruling will be confirmed by both the Ninth Circuit and the United States Supreme Court.
Any turnover on the Supreme Court between now and when the decision might ultimately be issued would likely either not change the status of this case, or make affirmation of the current ruling even more likely.
One additional final point - if this case does indeed progress to the Supreme Court, a decision is likely sometime between summer 2012 and summer 2013. However, in 2012 opponents of Proposition 8 are likely to garner enough signatures to put a counter proposition on the ballot that would repeal Proposition 8. Recall that Proposition 8 passed by a margin of 52.2% to 47.8%. Also note that as a long-term trend, support for same-sex marriages has been growing at a rate of 1-2% annually. This is because of turnover in the voting electorate, with attrition mainly due to older people who were raised when the medical profession classified homosexuality as a mental disorder and most gays were closeted. Meanwhile, every year 18-year-olds enter the voting electorate. They have grown up in an era in which gays have been getting married for years in other states, in which there are gay celebrities who are out, in which mainstream sitcoms and films have gay characters, and they also have probably known various out gay individuals as friends, relatives, or simply acquaintances. They see homosexuality as very different than older generations. Not all of these age groups are of these opinions, but any means, but those are the generalities. This is why opposition to same-sex marriage is slowly by very surely eroding. And this is why, just from doing the math, Proposition 8 is likely to be repealed in 2012, either shortly after or before the Supreme Court rules in this case.
So failing to stay this decision might never result in gay marriage being performed in California with such marriages again being banned, and even of that happened the law would likely be changed within a few months to once again legalize same-sex unions.
For these reasons, I support the current decision not being stayed by Judge Walker.
Wow what a thoughtful reply. Thanks but the issue is the political ramifications of gay marriage and how candidates will deal with it. New to California closed down the discussion of gay marriage so this thread is more about how Jerry Brown, Whitman and the senate candidates are dealing with the issue. But thanks again for your response.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
