RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM spends six figures on North Carolina's Hagan/Tillis US Senate race » Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model » Sunday in Houston: Activists mad that churches were noted for their politicization head to a church—to politicize » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists'  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

04/01/2008

CA: Anti-gays closer to having to explain their bias to great grandkids

by Jeremy Hooper

Cali-2-2And now in "We wish this were an April Fool's joke" news: Protect Marriage, the duplicitiously-named group who is trying to put an historical abomination in the form of a gay marriage amendment on the California ballot, has announced that they are very close to collecting their needed petition signatures. With twenty days to go until the filing deadline, the group is reporting that they've obtained around 900,000 of the 1.1 million needed John get your -Han-ds off those-cocks:

Group Claims Near Required Signatures To Put Gay Marriage Ban On Calif. Ballot [365 Gay]

We'll have to wait and see if they ultimately reach their goal and proceed to muddy the state's November ballot with this thoroughly hurtful, throughly un-American, thoroughly discriminatory measure. Here's hoping for an outcome that is far more Castro District California, far less Reagan Library California.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

Well... maybe Reagan library California wouldn't be bad. After all Ronald Reagan did speak out against the Briggs Initiative - an action that is credited with its defeat.

As a point of good news, the California Republican Party voted not to endorse this effort - though they are pretty anti-gay. And I think it's assumed that the Governor will not lend it any political capital.

Posted by: Timothy Kincaid | Apr 1, 2008 8:31:56 PM

Timothy: Are you sure about the CA GOP not endorsing the measure?

http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2008/02/ca-gop-they-sur.html

Posted by: G-A-Y | Apr 1, 2008 8:37:12 PM

They took it out of the party platform and from the Bay Area Reporter article it doesn't sound like it received endorsement. (Plenty of other nasty stuff remained in the platform, though)

http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=2824

"Log Cabiners' optimism that their party is turning a lavender corner was buoyed last month at the California Republican Party's state convention, held in San Francisco. The party adopted a new platform that no longer calls for passage of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

"The change in stance on an amendment is a blow to conservative groups trying to place such a ballot measure before voters this November. And it reinforces gay GOPer's belief that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will oppose such a measure should it get on the ballot."

I can't find any source whatsoever that is reporting that the CRP endorsed Protect Marriage other than Englund's press release (which was reprinted by all the anti-gay sites). In fact, the organization's website doesn't include the CRP in their list of endorsements, though they do have a slew of individual Republican legislators.

Considering that I wouldn't believe Karen Englund if she told me that she had cornflakes for breakfast, I think that it may take more than her press release to make me think they got the endorsement.

But I'll gladly concede the point if someone had other evidence.

Posted by: Timothy Kincaid | Apr 1, 2008 9:28:27 PM

Is this the Randy Thomasson version or the Pete Knight affiliated version of the initiative.

If its the Randy Thomasson one I think that one could be defeated easier than the Knight version.

But the equality fighters need Republican support, we can not do it alone with Democrats alone. We need a broad base of support to fight these initiatives.

Also, we need to lobby the attorney general to make a blunt yet truthful initiative title so the voters would know what rights they are eliminating.

Posted by: Matt from California | Apr 2, 2008 12:48:21 AM

Matt,

This is the version that only bans the word "marriage" but doesn't try to ban similar arrangements.

But while this one doesn't have any impact on how things are at this exact moment (we already don't have the title "marriage"), it does make it harder to fight.

Frankly I don't think we can count on much Republican support, or at least not on a state wide basis (But I can hold out hope that Ahnold will speak out). But I think that there will be a lot of average Republican citizens who will see this for the bigotry and discrimination that it is. I just hope there are enough.

Posted by: Timothy Kincaid | Apr 2, 2008 6:31:41 PM

I have a correction to what I said above. From the Bay Area Reporter:

Political party platforms

Last week's Notebook mentioned that the California Republican Party voted in a new platform this year that no longer calls for the passage of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The change prompted Vaughn to conclude, in an interview and an e-mail to members, that the state GOP's stance on LGBT issues has improved.

Vaughn, however, failed to mention that the party did vote to support an initiative being sought by several anti-gay groups that would ban gay marriage. It has yet to qualify for the November ballot, and LGBT groups are trying to see that it doesn't.

Asked about the GOP's contradictory stances, Vaughn said this week that he was not aware until after the fact that the party's initiative committee had placed the anti-gay measure on the agenda of its meeting at the state convention last month.

"We weren't aware that was even happening because the rule has been you don't take a position on an initiative until it's been qualified by the state," said Vaughn. "If we had known about it, we would have tried to fight it."

Vaughn said he didn't learn about it until the Sunday morning of the convention and a report was read of the initiative committee's actions the prior day.

"At that point it was too late to do anything. It was a simple voice vote at that point," he said.


GEEZ I HATE BEING WRONG. Especially when news is suckier than I thought.

Posted by: Timothy | Apr 23, 2008 8:28:58 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails