Brown and Schwarzenegger don't have to defend Prop. 8 -- but they should

[IndianaGreen]

I was alerted by a dear friend of mine to LA Times' latest dastardly exploit, a rabidly homophobic piece by George Skelton, prominently displayed on page 2 of the newspaper. I am posting a portion of my friend's message, with an excerpt of Skelton's hit piece in which he belittles Jerry Brown and sings praises to Meg Whitman. Now excuse me while I go to the bathroom to throw up.

:puke:

George Skelton had a the entire inside (Page Two) of the Los Angeles Times this morning with this unbelievable biased story. All of Page Two in the Front Section.

I want the LGBT community to see this crap and what the LA Times decided merited the entire second page of the paper this morning. Note that Skelton dedicates 5 paragraphs to attacking Jerry Brown about the death penalty and quotes an old aid to George Deukmajian (a real ass, if there ever was one). This was a hit piece against Jerry's campaign and against our LGBT community. He pretends that he was against Prop 8. Well, this article tells me that when he was alone, he voted for it..or that Meg's money has reached him or a family member (which is how it usually works...family member hired as a "consultant").

Brown and Schwarzenegger don't have to defend Prop. 8 -- but they should

George Skelton

The will of the California electorate is being undermined by Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The voters' rights are being denied.

Gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman struck a blow for good government — maybe even scored a political point or two — at a Republican state convention last weekend when she announced that, if elected, she'll defend Proposition 8 in the courts.

Brown and Schwarzenegger both have refused to defend the ballot measure that bans same-sex marriage.

But Whitman's low-key pronouncement, in answer to a reporter's question, may be moot by the time the next governor takes office.

There's a legal question whether, in the federal court system, a lower court ruling that declared Prop. 8 unconstitutional can be appealed by its campaign sponsors — its sole defenders so far — or must be shepherded by the state, meaning the governor or attorney general. There'll be a court hearing on the issue the week of Dec. 6 and the next governor doesn't take over until Jan. 3.

Moot or not — and regardless of Prop. 8's merits — there's a principle at stake here. The pertinent issue is whether voters should be hung out to dry and ignored by the state after they pass a ballot measure.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cap-20100826,0,5927851.column

If we were to subject fundamental human rights to the dictates of the majority, we would still have Rosa Parks riding in the back of the bus!

What a POS George Skelton is!

[NMMNG]

1. Let's start voting on their rights

Since they all think civil rights should be put to a popular vote let's hold them to their word. '

In CA so long as you get enough signatures on a petition you can put nearly anything on the ballot. Let's flood the system with outrageous ballot initiatives targeting all of the bigot's rights. There's one already in the works to ban divorce. Most of them wouldn't pass, but it would sure cause a buzz.

[HillWilliam]

2. Funny how they never mentioned the OTHER voters

who voted against Prop H8 OR how narrow the margin was OR how many said they'd either changed their minds or misunderstood the language after the vote.

Denied, my fruit-flavored arse. They've lost the war, they're desperate, and it's showing.

[dickthegrouch]

3. The pertinent question...

... is whether voters should be hung out to dry and ignored by the state after they pass a ballot measure.

And the answer: In this case, a resounding YES, they should be hung out to dry!