Sponsors of (California) marriage ban to drop challenge to ballot description

[Newsjock]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

The state's official description of Proposition 8 on the November ballot will remain as is, a statement that the measure would eliminate same-sex couples' right to marry in California.

Sponsors of the measure argued that the title and summary drafted by Attorney General Jerry Brown were argumentative and designed to encourage voters to oppose Prop. 8. But after two defeats in court last week, the Yes on 8 campaign said today it would not appeal to the state Supreme Court.

"We intend to leave the final outcome to the voters," said campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Kerns.


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/11/BADU128V6V.DTL&tsp=1

[mike_c]

1. I cannot wait to vote against this turkey-- unfortunately...

...I fear that it has at least an even chance of passing, if not better. I suspect the best hope is that it's on the same ballot with a presidential election that's likely to galvanize liberal voters. There's an awful lot of red on the California political map, however.

on edit: the map of the 2002 gubernatorial election results pretty much sums it up. Note that Bill Simon was the Republican Party candidate running against the Democratic Party's Gray Davis (for those who don't remember).

[merwin]

2. Those maps are deceiving.

The majority of the people in most states live in the big cities... so even though there's a lot of red on the map, that doesn't mean there's more people there.

[mike_c]

11. I totally understand that-- it's just that...

...even if you look at the percentages, and despite Davis's win, most folks' perception of California as the land of latte liberals is not entirely accurate. The coastal counties-- albeit with the highest population densities-- are much more liberal than the rest of the state, which tends to be more generally republican leaning. Remember that the last "defense of marriage act" passed comfortably here just a few years ago, and although recently determined to be unconstitutional, it might very well be a bellwether for Prop 8.

[LiberalFighter]

13. It's easier to mobilize when the people live in concentrated areas too.

[Codeine]

4. That was 2002

Repukes were riding high on the wind of 9/11, and Gray Davis was an incompetent schmuck who couldn't galvanize his supporters. Californians are going to turn out in droves to send a big "Fuck You" to the GOP and elect Obama, and we'll be ticking NO on this measure while we do. I'm confident.

[mike_c]

12. I'm hopeful, but not confident....

eom

[The Croquist]

14. I think a more accurate measurement is presidential elections.

In California in 2004 53.57% voted Democrat and 43.76 Republican. The other votes were; Libertarian 0.40%, Green 0.32%, Peace and Freedom 0.22%, American Independent 0.21%.
The Democrats won by almost 10% and I think that most of the smaller parties would support gay marriage.
This is an issue that democrats can pass unless 10% of them decide that they are in favor of discrimination. Unfortunately that may be the case.

In my state of Georgia 41% voted Democrat and 58% voted Republican in 2004 but the same year 76% voted for a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. That means that allot of democrats voted for discrimination.

[David__77]

5. Well Davis did win.

Little SF provides a bigger Democratic vote margin that huge San Bernardino does for the GOP. Land area means little.

Also, this election provides that best chances for marriage equality. In an off-presidential election, I fear the odds would be more against a good outcome. We can win this one though!

[Codeine]

7. And he won

while being hated even by most Democrats. With a popular leader at the top of out ticket the Dems will be all over the polling places this year, just watch. :)

[David__77]

8. I know. I remember well campaigning for Davis.

At the local Democratic headquarters, not a person could be found to say one positive thing about him, except for me. I believe in party discipline I suppose... We face much better circumstances this year.

[Tempest]

3. The final outcome of the voters

Means you will lose.

The ballot measure is losing in the polls and opposition to it is growing.

[David__77]

6. I'm so pleased the description is now accurate.

This isn't about some vague "definition." It's about eliminating an existing right to marry. Indeed, it may actually force many thousands of annulments (divorces?). That would probably be unprecedented. Even in Nazi Germany, when interracial marriage was banned, never were existing such marriages annulled (granted, there was tremendous pressure on "Aryan" spouses to divorce their "non-Aryan" spouses).

[truedelphi]

9. I keep expecting the ballot to include language from the RW

Fundie groups suggesting that if a voter opposes a ban on Gay marriage, they might face an eternity in Hell spent with Satan.

[and-justice-for-all]

10. I can not believe we have to have a vote...

for this. It should be a given (Equal is Equal) and not negotiable; just who and the fuck do these people think they are? what makes them so fucking superior, that they can inject their bigotry and get away with it. It pisses me off to no end!