Home > Opinion > Brad Bannon > Prop 8 Ruling Will Be a Political Disaster for Romney and the GOP

Prop 8 Ruling Will Be a Political Disaster for Romney and the GOP

Reader Comments
Back to blog

@BILL HEDGES
Obama studied and is knowledgable regarding the US constitution, not CA's state constitution. Obama didn't do anything for or against prop 8, and while his stance personally is against it, he has shown support for LBGT. He did get the repeal of DADT after all.
The Morman church was the outside influence against it that poured millions, upon millions of the money that it extorted from its members for the movement against it.

TACT-acronym of CA 11:00PM February 13, 2012

@randy farmer & anyone else saying same sex marriage will lead to children being married to adults and farmers marrying their cow:
So the argument is:
-gay ppl want 2 marry,
--straight ppl that have the right say no,
--they say no because they say it'll lead to children and animal marriges.
I see that time and time again and it struck me - gay ppl want a right straight ppl have, straight ppl defend the gay exclusion saying it leads to children and animal marriges.
Are they saying that they, as straight people, also have the right to marry children and animals? And don't want to share that too? And gay people dont know it?
Don't worry straight people and farmers, gay people don't want those two things, they just want to marry a human consenting adult of their choosing.
Animals and children cannot give consent, and cannot enter into contract. And is not what the gay community is asking for, the gay community is asking to be recognized by the ppl (government) as well as contractual agreement between consenting adults, to say otherwise or slippery slope into something completely different is used simply to just distract.

TACT of CA 1:19PM February 10, 2012

@randy farmer:
I used the correct term, excuses. Terming them realities is incorrect, because it's not reality. :( sorry. The current arguments being used were used to defend hate, anger, and the illegality of interracial marriage - all of which are excuses ppl used to oppress a minority. Same case here.
I'm speaking in terms of demanding equal rights for all, because current marriage (civil) laws are currently based on ones sexuality, hello! It's one sided, heterosexuals enjoy the benifits of a civil marriage to someone they choose in line with their sexual preference as well as the right to be recognized as such by the government. Gay ppl do not have that right and the protections it affords from the government, they do get reconizition from their religions though.
Morals r something that fluidic between religions, sociatial norms, self exploration and upbringing. This is not about morals. If this was about morals, the Mormans could preach that's it's immoral to have less that 2 wife's, or an Islamic follower believing it's immoral to drink to excess. Get it now? This is separate from morals, it's a civil matter. Otherwise the tax code for the rich would be immoral. Heck, marriage would have been immoral at around 1200 AD.
And you go on to say that "on that basis.....sexually attracted to children or animals.... And ensuing the marriage therof." first let me say how ridiculous your statement was, is, and always will be. Second, name one animal that is legally recognized as an adult that can read, understand and sign a contract (marriage)...... Next, children cannot sign legally binding contracts, they are not adults and thus cannot. So, both of your mentions (animals and children) are moot - same arguments were used to try and keep interracial marriage illegal, was that moral? And are you saying that there are no morals to protecting children and animals from people who want to harm them other than "protecting marriage" to just man and woman?
And are you saying that your beliefs is what keeps you moral? There is a religion that marries grown men to little girls in Utah and Texas. What does that say about that?
And by your response, you don't get it. As a retort, you do realize that this isn't about beliefs, don't you? Some can see where I'm heading, but you don't. You see a slippery sloped argument to keep the statu quo of your beliefs, which are oppressive in nature, so you remain cozy and don't have to admit ur wrong.
I still see your remark as personal attack against the Arthur's appearance, it may be your opinion, but that doesn't make it any less of what it see it. So, you either communicate very poorly there, and I took it the wrong way, or ...
And you're right, further argument around legal child brides and beastility weddings is nonessential in relation to same sex marriges. One can c where You r heading, and if u searched YOUR Soul you'd know what i said to be true.

TACT of CA 12:33PM February 10, 2012

'Romney's defense of gay marriage will move him even further to the right...'
I think you mean Romney's attack on gay marriage and on the court decision.

Seeembee of FL 5:11PM February 08, 2012

A few points. The ninth circuit court has 11 members. This case was heard by a sub group of 3 members who are considered more liberal than the 11 member full court. The vote was 2-1 to overturn the ban. The next step is probably a hearing by the full 11 member court. Then on to the supreme court at some future time.
I believe CA already had a "domestic partner" law that essentially gave gay couples the same state defined contractual rights as married couples. It did not give the right to be married. The court decision was based on the fact that the domestic partner law was already in place. That is not true in many other states.
The key point that Bannon ignores is that Obama is also opposed to gay marriage. Many think he will change his position if reelected, but for now his position is the same as the Republicans.
Full disclosure. Texas passed a constitutional amendment a few years ago to ban gay marriage. I voted against it. It passed with about 67% of the vote.

Bob of TX 12:54PM February 08, 2012

TACT-acronim of CA
"...your slant in your writing suggests you're not in favor of gay marriage. It would be interesting to hear your excuses...." I believe the word "excuses" needs to be changed to "realities".
You are speaking in terms of demanding "special rights" solely on the basis of one's sexual orientation, which appears to be your arguement.
Your interpretation suggests that there is no morality issue R/T the legal marriage of a man/man or woman/woman, correct?
On that basis, there should be no morality issue R/T an adult who is sexually attracted to young children or animals, and the ensuing marriage thereof.
You also state, "Get it"? Of course, I "get it".
....but you do realize that you cannot limit your beliefs to only the acceptance of heterosexual and homosexual marriages and stop there, don't you? After all, there are no "morality issues" involved here!
One can easily see where we are headed, and if you searched your soul, you would know this to be true. If you cannot see where we are headed, then any further arguements on the subject would be nonessential.
Inasmuch as your statement, "And what does a personal attack against the authors appearance have anything to do with the articles content?" It would appear that I see something that you do not, hence, a difference of opinion between you and me, and you cannot deny me my opinion ....correct?

Randy Farmer of CO 7:08AM February 08, 2012

TACT-acronim of CA
"Get it" !!! In CA obuma helped defeat SAME SEX MARRIAGE. The guy taught CONSTITUTION after all. Is liberal as well...

Bill Hedges of MO 6:26AM February 08, 2012

@Randy Farmer of CO - "The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has blatantly overruled the will of the people!
Sound much like "communism" to you .....sure does to me!!"
Sounds like Freedom from repression to me. I don't think it's communistic for the 9th circuit to overturn a law that oppresses the freedoms and rights of a group of people, regardless of how many other people voted for it.
If people can vote on what rights and freedoms people should have, let's start with yours. And it doesn't matter if that group hasn't been able to enjoy that freedom and right in the past, oppression is oppression.
There is also the legal questioning around how prop 8 was passed (here's a hint - it was not constitutional under CA's constitution).
Also, let's not forget the millions of dollars a religion (mormons), in a different state (where's states rights and the fed's to ref again?), extorted from it's members from the pulpit and in there homes to funnel into CA for prop 8. Did I mention there's legal questioning revolving its passing?
A little FYI, polls are biased and skewed and there are very few that forecast the actual event with accuracy.
You didn't say it, but your slant in your writing suggests you're not in favor of gay marriage. It would be interesting to hear your excuses, if only to see if there are any new ones to look at and tear apart. But let's face it, gay marriages have always been happening (religions do it all the time and have through history) and it'll only be a matter of time before the Fed recognizes Marriage as a Civil matter regardless of gender specifics.
Realize that marriage exists in two places, religion and property ownership. Right now, as well as throughout the past, there are various religions that allow same gender marriages. Right now, the government only recognizes property ownership as opposite gender marriages only.
Get it? Gay people don't have the same property ownership contract rights that straight people do. That's it. Well, that, and the fact that they want their government to acknowledge that they exist.
And what does a personal attack against the authors appearance have anything to do with the articles content? ^_-

TACT-acronim of CA 12:45AM February 08, 2012

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is a three-judge panel. Two of the three are "activist judges" who nullified Prop. 8, the California ban on gay marriage.
The ban known as Proposition 8 was approved by voters in 2008 with 52 percent of the vote. So, how can bannon say, "...but the battle over gay marriage will put social conservatives on the wrong side of public opinion..."?? (...this bannon guy is a compulsive liar!).
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has blatantly overruled the will of the people!
Sound much like "communism" to you .....sure does to me!!
PS: I still think bannon should wipe off his chin (...check his photo)!

Randy Farmer of CO 8:25PM February 07, 2012

The equal protection clause states "nor shall any state deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Where does it say that we must change legal and traditional definitions of words to accommodate a whining victim class?
The government can extend rights without changing meanings and definitions. Judges are, as usual, acting on personal whimsy and agenda - not law.

R.L. Schaefer of CA 7:14PM February 07, 2012