Posts

Prop 8 supporter information was not leaked by IRS

I just noticed Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit references a post at PJ Media, First Things and other sites suggesting the donation information concerning Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich in support of Proposition 8 in California back in 2008. The implication the information was leaked by the government is totally wrong.

Read more

Strange California Supreme Court decision – gay marriage

California’s Proposition 8 amended the state’s Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to opposite sex couples and a case was brought to California’s Supreme Court. In a 6 to 1 decision, the court upheld Prop 8 as law.

The big question is why the court elected to let stand the 18,000-plus same sex marriages that took effect prior to Prop. 8 becoming law.

I’m no lawyer, but does this decision – allowing the 18,000 same sex marriages to stand – cause an issue with the equal protection clause?

The story is at Fox News

The California Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld same sex marriages that were already performed but upheld voters’ rights to ban gay marriage through the state constitution.

An estimated 18,000 gay couples tied the knot before the law took effect. The ruling suggests that gay couples can be afforded equivalent rights to heterosexual married couples but perhaps under a different name.

Malkin has more here and the not-so-unexpected liberal bias from the San Fransisco Chronicle here. Ed at Hot Air is fully back from holiday and has commentary. Volokh Conspiracy has more on the legal stuff.

The California Supreme Court justified its earlier decision recognizing same-sex marriages by reference to the California Constitution, which in turns draws its authority from having been enacted by the people.

So let’s get this straight.

  1. Prop 22 (2000) prevents California from recognizing same-sex marriage. (You forgot about that one didn’t you?) It passed by an almost 2 to 1 margin.
  2. In 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom says “screw you” to the California voters and starts issuing same-sex marriage licenses.
  3. In May of 2008, liberal activists go to a courtroom and get Prop 22 invalidated.
  4. Prop 8 goes on the ballot.
  5. Liberal activists go to a courtroom to block the proposition from going on the ballot.
  6. Prop 8 passes by about 4.5 percent. A simple majority is all that is required to change California’s Constitution.
  7. Liberal activists go to a courtroom to invalidate the amendment to the California Constitution (Prop 8). They do not succeed.

Where next?

Are we seeing the theme here? Same-sex marriage advocates understand they have not been able to win the normal way, so they just keep their efforts to the courts, where they only need to rely on a few liberal justices to swing their way.

In the case of Prop 8, they bullied people into voting their way. How else can you explain the 10 point drop in support for the propositions? OK, maybe opinion changed, but what caused the opinion to change – you’ve got to ask the question.

Small Town Folk Just Don’t Get It

We small town folk just don’t have access to the richness of the rainbow. Excuse me Sig but do you really think Prop 8 passed in California because small town folk have no gay folk in town?

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSiwnHnI8Eg

Many deeply religious people believe that marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman ordained by God and the state should but out … but I guess that dog jumped the fence a long time ago.

California Prop 8 donor maps showing up

With campaign finance regulation, comes a great amounts of data. You had to know that this was coming. Does this map freak you out? Maybe just a little?

prop-8-donations

Many events tend to raise suspicion amongst the population. Take for instance, a person walking the street carrying a pistol in a holster openly; not concealed. Some may completely ignore the event, but others may feel threatened and totally freaked out by the person and call the cops.

Some of these people get arrested for disturbing the peace, when in fact, they were doing something that they were legally permitted to do.

Should the tolerant folk putting these maps together be considered for breach of peace charges? Of course, they are doing something legal, but it is freaking people out.

If you were on this donor list, would you feel this is a threat? Would you feel bullied into never supporting a cause in the future that you strongly believed in?

The donors who supported Proposition 8 are being targeted for violence. Will future attacks be considered a hate crime? Probably not…

Do we see any Google mash-ups that combine a map with those who donated for committees that were fighting against passage of Prop. 8? Would those folks feel that they were being targeted by “hate groups” that would target the people on that list?

My guess is that we’d see court action pretty quick if those mash-ups became popular on the Internet. (Note: we’re going to start seeing them soon if they are not already up)

Tom Hanks thinks Prop. 8 supporters are un-American. Gateway Pundit is mentioning the same map.

Malkin notes…

We were considered fascists for questioning theirs, but it’s patriotic for them to question ours.

“Oh, come on man… just because there is a map listing the home address and name of every donor does not mean it will come to violence in California”, you say?

Sure… it’s been going on since the day Prop 8 passed.

Tolerance on display in California – what a $100 donation can do

When California Proposition 8 passed in early November and I saw Hollywood actors, including Drew Barrymore, screaming that they would fight for the “rights” of tolerant gays who oppose the resolution that would define marriage as between a man and a woman, I knew it was going to get ugly.

So, how ugly did it get?

Read more