Sorry, wrong on both counts. The sentence strikes down a popular initiative that had got a vast majority of votes in California, and removes from the "representatives" the task of ignoring popular will (as Arnold was clearly intending to do if it went wrong) and force "gay marriage" down the throat of his own voters anyway. And as for forthcoming initiatives, the difference is that California law, unlike Massachussets', does not contain any prohibition on offering such things to citizens of states where they are illegal. The openly declared strategy of the gay marriage party is to bring in dozens of couples from other states, "marry" them in California, and then bring in cases in the other states to force them to recognize Californian "marriage". Which will then proceed to the local supreme courts and demand equalization with California and other states. This is an assault on the principle that law is made in Congress by elected representatives or by the sovereign people themselves through referenda: its intention is to literally reverse a clear decision of the Californian electorate through a doctrine that no framer of the Californian constitution would have recognized in a million years, and to then use the deficiencies of Californian laws to force the same judicial coup on other states. It is as brutal an assault on democracy as Wade vs.Roe ever was, worse, if anything, because it is a direct insult on the will of the people. Those "republican" judges (and Arnold, who seems to have forgotten who put him there and how, shows us what Hollywood republicans are made of) ought to be impeached for their assault upon the principle of majority rule.
As for its results, do you seriously believe in polls? How often have they been correct on this sort of issue? The only poll that means anything is the kind that takes place in the ballot box; and I will remind you that in 2004, of ELEVEN-count'-em-eleven initiatives against "gay marriage", not one failed - including one in the hippy state Oregon, that makes California seem a bastion of conservatism. That is exactly why, as the New York Times said at the time - and I kept the article and will show it to you if you want - the "gay marriage" campaigners lost all hope of ever convincing a majority, and decided to change their strategy. What they changed it to is now all too clear. Of course, I have no sympathy at all for these people and ardently hope that they suffer a final defeat; but even from an opposition viewpoint, their rush to get what will beyond any reasonable doubt be a vastly unpopular judgment during an election year seems to me so misguided as to be suicidal. Could they not have waited twelve months? If the Republicans cannot get advantage from this, they are dead, and, what is more, they deserve to be.
no subject
As for its results, do you seriously believe in polls? How often have they been correct on this sort of issue? The only poll that means anything is the kind that takes place in the ballot box; and I will remind you that in 2004, of ELEVEN-count'-em-eleven initiatives against "gay marriage", not one failed - including one in the hippy state Oregon, that makes California seem a bastion of conservatism. That is exactly why, as the New York Times said at the time - and I kept the article and will show it to you if you want - the "gay marriage" campaigners lost all hope of ever convincing a majority, and decided to change their strategy. What they changed it to is now all too clear. Of course, I have no sympathy at all for these people and ardently hope that they suffer a final defeat; but even from an opposition viewpoint, their rush to get what will beyond any reasonable doubt be a vastly unpopular judgment during an election year seems to me so misguided as to be suicidal. Could they not have waited twelve months? If the Republicans cannot get advantage from this, they are dead, and, what is more, they deserve to be.