Political Hay
California Schemin'
Conservative votes, liberal victories.
Pundits who cast stones at social conservatives for the '08 thrashing need to look west.
Barack Obama won California handily, carrying most of the coastal counties by huge percentages. But Proposition 8, an amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, passed by almost half-a-million votes (52 percent to 48 percent) statewide. The initiative carried the day even though same-sex marriage was already legal in the state (courtesy of judicial fiat) and despite the linguistic gymnastics of California attorney general Jerry Brown.
In Arizona, a marriage amendment passed 56 percent to 44 percent, a remarkable turn-around considering the state shot down an amendment in 2006. John McCain won the state easily. So, marriage amendments passed in deep blue California and moderate red Arizona during a wildly Democratic year (to say nothing of the results in Florida, another state that went for Obama). That says something about the bi-partisan nature of the issue.
If only California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger realized it. Appearing on CNN during the weekend, Schwarzenegger made no play at moderation or fence straddling and instead suggested that the California Supreme Court overturn Proposition 8.
"It's unfortunate, obviously, but it's not the end," he said. "I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area."
Let's be clear on what this means. A Republican governor is encouraging a state supreme court to legislate from the bench and overturn the will of the people -- not for the first time, either. To legalize same-sex marriage, the California high court had to overturn Proposition 22, an initiative passed in 2000 that enshrined the traditional meaning of marriage in statutory law. A move by the California supremes to strike down Proposition 8 would be the second time the court overthrew the will of the people.
As the LA Times describes it in a supposedly straight news story, Schwarzenegger "appears to have evolved on the issue." I don't know about evolved, but he has had a few mood swings. He came out (pun very much intended) in opposition to a marriage amendment before. Lest you think him consistent, he also vetoed legislation passed by the state assembly that would have legalized same-sex marriage. Now, he's pushing a judicial intervention to accomplish what he shunned the legislature for doing before.
That's the confusion we get when Republicans nominate and elect moderate to liberal politicians. Remember the euphoria in 2003 when Arnold was first on the ticket. Even conservatives heralded the event as a positive step for the GOP -- just imagine the possibilities a Republican governor in California would bring, they told us. Well, now that Arnold has gone left of many Democrats, we know.
Those who argue it's better to have a leader who agrees with you on some things than a leader who agrees with you on none need a perspective shift. Successfully electing a moderate to liberal candidate to office -- whether for president, governor, or dogcatcher -- invariably tilts the party to the left. Better to be true to principle and remain an opposition movement than sell out and get a candidate who continually undercuts the conservative cause.
The silver lining of McCain's loss is that it gives the Republicans a chance to revive the principles that lead to revolutions in 1980 and 1994. McCain would inject even more liberalism into the party and would have equivocated on the pressing domestic concerns of our time. That was evident when he supported the bailout package and was mute at the now infamous meeting at the White House in September.
Candidates like Schwarzenegger are going to be the future of the party unless conservatives realize that a win on election night doesn't necessarily translate into a win for conservative principles.
About the Author
David N. Bass is an investigative reporter and associate editor with the John Locke Foundation and the CarolinaJournal.com. Follow him on Twitter@davidnbass.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (23) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
Related Articles
More Articles by David N. Bass
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2008/11/12/california-schemin
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Common Prayer, Uncommon Beauty
- Evolve or Die
- Madison vs. Obamacare
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Cynthia| 11.12.08 @ 9:45AM
"Candidates like Schwarzenegger are going to be the future of the party unless conservatives realize that a win on election night doesn't necessarily translate into a win for conservative principles. "
Well stated. Awesome points.
mnotaro| 11.12.08 @ 11:38AM
Yes, as for Arnold, just because someone is claiming Republican party doesn't mean he is what he claims. You have to do research and maybe we would have realized he is even farther to the left than most moderates? But as for Prop 8 here in Calif, being a Christian and believing in the bible and reading very clearly that marriage was designed by God for a man and a woman, I am so thrilled Prop 8 passed in CA! It was a nice feeling after feeling so down about the Obama win. The liberal illuminati gave one up to us!
Kerri| 11.12.08 @ 11:48AM
After 5000 years of defining marriage between a man and a woman why change our social structure now? If gays can "marry" why can't polygamists? Where does it ever end? If there is no structure to society there is no society and all we are left with is a mess!
Tim| 11.12.08 @ 12:04PM
In a way its good that Arnold came out of his phony concervative closet.
He is out of office in two years anyway and cannot run for president because he was foreign born and unlike Obama no one will change his Birth Certificate.
So unless he runs for the senate against Boxer or Feinstein he is basically a lame duck Governor in a state that is flooded with red ink and sinking faster then the Titantic.
If the California Supreme Court again overturns the will of the people then my guess is that the next popular vote will be by a 60-40 margin to say nothing of dozens potential political and judicial recalls along the way.
This year was the most Liberal political environmemnt in perhaps 60 years and my guess is that it will only start to swing back from here.
I think the gay community is best served by accepting the majority's rule and live with a compromise "Domestic Partner" law which affords them all of the same rights of hetrosexual couples anyway.
Consider this:
If we were to change the actual meaning of a MARRIAGE to include gay couples then what is to stop a polygamist Sect to demand their rights to marry multiple wives.
Or some cultures demanding that incest marriages be valid.
Where does this stop and more importantly where do you draw the line if any in a civilized society?
Saying no to gay marriage is light years away from saying that gays should not be afforded their rights as domestic partners.
Doctor Right| 11.12.08 @ 1:12PM
There is NO such thing as "gay marriage".
Oh, sure...A similarly named practice is recognized as legal by certain courts, and by certain states, too...But that's absolutely irrlevant.
Marriage is EXCLUSIVELY between a man and a woman. That's how God intended it to be. That's how all civilizations since the dawn of time have defined it. And that's how every "real" Religion defines it (and for the benefit of all those who may be offended by my "real" religion comment, too bad, but Wicca, Zoroastrianism, Shamanism, Unitarian Universalism, Scientology, and whatever the hell it is that that idiot Jeremiah Wright is practicing are NOT real religions).
Gay-groups and pro "gay-marriage" groups can call it whatever they like, but it doesn't matter because two men (or two women) can NEVER be "married". It's impossible. Oh sure...They can have a "civil union" that declares their legal partnership, and defines their assets...But that's NOT "marriage". Never will be, either...
One day, everyone who thinks they can "slip a fast one" past the Almighty will have to answer for gay marriage, abortion, etc, and the ultimate Judge isn't likely to entertain leftist drivel like the 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco does on a routine basis. Good luck with that one.
By the way, if I also offended any of the blue-blooded RINOs who populate the Republican Party with my Bible-belt "buffoonery", then good! Get used to it! Real Conservatism is making a comeback.
Charles Martel| 11.12.08 @ 1:49PM
"Dr. Right" may be over the top in some of his assertions, but nonetheless, Mr. Rules, you are wrong.
The Left is insistent on couching the debate about so-called "gay marriage" in terms of "rights", but they are mistaken in so doing. It is no more a "right" than my "right" to fly by flapping my arms.
No culture at any time or in any place in the whole of human history, or even in the anthropological evidence from pre-historical eras, has engaged in what the Leftist homosexual radicals are now claiming as a "right". End of story. It cannot be argued as a question of rights, because none such exist or have ever existed: it is entirely imaginary, arbitrary, and whimsical. To suddenly coin such a "right" out of nothing more than thin air would be nothing less than a complete cultural revolution, and we won't ever be doing that, thank you very much.
Some have rightly pointed out that once one erases the line separating real marriage from the whimsical desires of the militant homosexuals, one cannot then reasonably draw that line behind them and thus bar even more absurd or non-Western conjunctions, such as polygamy. But in fact, polygamists have a better leg to stand on, since there is ample evidence of such societies in history and even in the world today. As Westerners, we prohibit these as alien to our culture, but people don't have to live in the West: they are free to return to the societies that permit such behavior.
Radical homosexual militants are also free to relocate to cultures that permit their choice of behaviors, if they can find one. They are not free to change my culture without my expressed permission, which they will never receive.
Doctor Right| 11.12.08 @ 1:50PM
To: "Obama Rules"
Re: God's love
Dear "Obama Hussein Rules",
You are correct in your assertion that God loves each and every one of us, regardless of race or ethnicity, regardless of gender, and regardless of sexual orientation, equally.
What you fail to understand (and which, I fear you WILL one day understand when it's far too late) is that regardless of his love, and his desire that we all be redeemed through Christ Jesus, there are limits. Yes, God has rules. And these rules MUST be followed.
Now, here's the amazing part. God understands that we ALL fall short - each an every one of us. You, me, our friends, our families - none of us is worthy of His grace. That's why Christ died for our sins - so we would have ASSURANCE that, depsite our foible and our shortcomings and our propensity for sin, we are saved through him.
Unless (and here's where it gets sticky for you Libs)...Unless we are aware of our sin, and we openly disregard God's word, and CHOOSE (you see, God is ALL about Free Will...He doesn't condemn anyone...They choose to do it themselves...And they pay the consequences) to live a sinful lifestyle. If we do that, we are condemned to an eternity separate from God.
So...Getting back to your bizarre points...Homosexuality is a sin. That doesn't mean gay people can't go to heaven, because they can. But, as with any sin, they must first repent, and, as Christ says "Go forth and sin no more". Yes...That means no more hanky-panky in the bath-houses. But again...Asa we all sin, and we all fall short...Inevitably, a gay person might "fall off the wagon", so to speak - but that's not the end. Again...God will ALWAYS forgive the sincerely penitent heart.
I don't know where you learned to string together your analogies ("If this is like this, then this MUST be like this, so this, then, MUST be like this", and so forth), but you would benefit from a good course in Elementary Logic.
In fact, you would benefit greatly from courses in the following:
1. Comparative Religion
2. History of the Christian Church
3. The Life of Christ
4. The Newt Testament
5. American History: The Founding Fathers
6. Elementary American Civics
7. The United States Constitution
So...For your benefit (I'm all about "giving"), I've conclusively proved:
1. Gay people CANNOT "marry". It's meaningless to God.
2. You need to go back to school.
I'm here for you anytime, O.R...
Stan Redmond| 11.12.08 @ 2:08PM
Obama Rules, have you even read the bible or the constitution? Judging by your watered down leftist view (opinion) of warm and fuzzy bible interpretation you haven't read either. HINT: The 19th amendment was NOT written by the founding fathers.
Stan Redmond| 11.12.08 @ 2:12PM
Can a leftist clarify this for me. Popular vote (meaning a majority of people...) only counted in the 2000 presidential election and 2008 presidential election but NOT on prop. 8? How can this be?
Doctor Right| 11.12.08 @ 2:35PM
To: Stan Redmond
Re: Popular vote, etc...
Dear Stan,
Your question is a puzzling one that will be met with resounding silence by all the Libs who troll this board.
If that's confusing, try these gems from the media:
1. Bush wins 51% in 2004: "Nation DEEPLY divided..."
2. Gay-marriage amendment passes in California in 2008 with 52% in-support: "By SLIM margins, the gay marriage amendment has been passed..."
3. Barack Hussein Obam wins 2008 Presidential election with 52% of the vote: "In a LANDSLIDE, Obama wins the Presidency; nation UNITES behind new leader..."
It's maddening...That's why I disbelieve anything the media says...
Josh2005| 11.12.08 @ 5:43PM
Doctor Right, firstly, I completely agree with you. We are 100% on the same page. However, I hate to tell you this, but trying to argue with a hardcore liberal is completely futile. Liberalism is based entirely on emotions and and some bizarre notion of "fairness" that they think is missing from our society. It's not about the will of the people, and it's not about what's right. Examples:
1) The gay marriage ban in CA has been passed twice now by a majority vote (which is the entire basis of democracy). However, the liberals think this isn't fair, and they want the vote overturned.
2) Even some liberal churches (like the Episcopal Church) are saying homosexuality is okay. This is despite the fact that it is condemned numerous times in the Bible (both Old Testament and New Testament), and it goes against 2000 years of church history and doctrine.
3) Roe vs. Wade made abortion a protected right in the USA. This is despite the fact that abortion is never mentioned once in the Constitution, and the activist judges used some thin argument based on the privacy clause. Anyone who tries to negate Roe vs. Wade by strictly interpreting our Constitution (the document this nation was founded on) is called a bigot.
4) People who stay in school, get good educations, and work hard, and have good ideas end up financially successful. People who are lazy, who drop out of school, and who end up getting their 15-year-old girlfriend pregnant don't end up financially successful. This is the way of things. But liberals think that's not fair, and that rich people shouldn't be able to keep the money they earned. So, they advocate progressive taxes, widespread welfare, and social engineering programs.
This list goes on and on. You could probably add things to the list as well, but you get my gist. I have tried to argue these points with liberals before. It will never work. They are too blinded by this need for "fairness" that they forget the facts that 1) this is a democracy, not a dictatorship, and 2) this nation was built in support of Judeo-Christian values, small limited government, and the idea that anyone can succeed with hard work and ingenuity.
Dr. D| 11.12.08 @ 8:54PM
Obama Rules, you've swallowed too much joy juice. Frankly, you are clueless. Nice try, but a big swing and a miss.
Dr. Right| 11.13.08 @ 9:55AM
To: Josh2005
Re: Arguing with liberals
"...I hate to tell you this, but trying to argue with a hardcore liberal is completely futile."
Dear Josh2005,
I know...But it's gobs of fun!
- Doc Right
Spartuchis| 11.13.08 @ 12:24PM
Kerri,
I've changed my mind on the gay marraige issue and now support it. True, God created us male and female, but He also explicitly states that "it is not good for man to be alone". Why should any consenting adult be forced to be alone based on a biological quirk (believe me, no one in his right mind would choose to be gay if he had a choice). It isn't the same society now that it was 5000 years ago, when gays could be stoned to death with impunity, something which I doubt most reasonable conservatives support--and as a reasonable conservative, I support marraige as an institution, believe that they are good for the individual and society and thus believe that society would be far better served by more marraiges rather than fewer, gay or straight. As far as the slippery slope argument goes, marraiges are still defined as contracts between consenting adults, not between humans and animals or prepubescents.
Josh2005| 11.13.08 @ 8:03PM
Spartuchis,
There is a fatal flaw in your argument. Firstly, when God said, "It is not good for man to be alone," the next thing he did was CREATE WOMAN. That is what she was made for. God made man and woman to go together, period.
Secondly, being gay is NOT genetic or biological. Although it is also not 100% a choice (at least, not in the way we tend to think of it). Homosexuality is a sin, just like all other sins. Some people are more tempted by homosexuality than others. Likewise, some are tempted to steal, or to drink heavily. I am not tempted to be gay myself, but I am tempted by other sins. Lust, for instance. It is still a sin though, and temptation can ALWAYS be overcome.
Lastly, if you are going to define marriage as nothing more than "contracts between consenting adults," then what's to stop people from claiming the right to marry 16 women, or their own sister? Those could all be consenting adults too. But our culture (and other Western societies) have always stood firm on the ideas that polygamy and incest are wrong. Until very recently, they stood firm on homosexuality being wrong as well. Just because people want to do it doesn't make it okay.
Blacque Jacques Shellacque| 11.14.08 @ 10:22AM
"Candidates like Schwarzenegger are going to be the future of the party unless conservatives realize that a win on election night doesn't necessarily translate into a win for conservative principles."
This is precisely why I refused to vote for McCain.
daphne kenward| 11.15.08 @ 1:30AM
What difference does it make who is in charge of each Political Party. People may well not vote at all. Read the protocols of Zion, check it out on the web. Zionism and AIPAC A danger to everyone on earth. Look it up. False flag News and protocols of ZION. People are asking questions about why should they be borrowing to bailout private companies, its because you will become the new slave labour working there, when you are in enough debt you will do what ever they tell you.
Sounds crazy, open your eyes and your mind. You will soon not be able to buy or sell un-less you have the mark of the beast, it will get to the point where there will not be a single safe place for mankind these people are serious. Ever asked how Hillary lost the election, all the backers were behind Hillary and forced to change their mind why?. They wanted Obama, to use him for what they want he will be a soft touch to push through their agenda. America you have been had. Money to bailout people who keeps coming back to say they have no money. AIG Bankrupt how? People check who are the Rothschild on the net.
When Banks closes down you only have a set amount you get back, if you have more than that Amount the Bank gets to keep it. All phone calls is bugged in America, to find out who knows what is going on. Some do but the vast majority don't. Get ready for tough times ahead starting 2009.
Look up Synagogue of Satan on Google. The Ashkenazi jew. The secret History of world Domination.
The bible: Revelation Chapter 2 Verse 9 read it.
Josh2005| 11.15.08 @ 5:31AM
daphne kenward,
That was completely incomprehensible.