|
Published: December 3, 2009
Let’s call the whole thing off
Key backers of same-sex marriage say revisiting Prop 8 in 2010 doomed to failure
Two prominent groups backing same-sex marriage – the California-based Courage Campaign and Lambda Legal, a national legal organization for homosexuals headquartered in New York – announced earlier this week that attempts to repeal Proposition 8 by qualifying an initiative for the 2010 ballot should be postponed because of insufficient popular support.
California voters approved Prop 8 in November 2008 by a margin of 52% to 48%. The initiative, a constitutional amendment, overturned a 4-3 state supreme court decision declaring unconstitutional legal restrictions on same-sex marriages. Prop 8 added a provision to the state constitution restricting marriage to between one man and one woman. The proposition survived a post-election challenge before the state’s high court, but is now being contested before a federal judge.
 “For months, we have laid out the criteria for moving forward,” said Rick Jacobs, leader of the Courage Campaign, in a press release issued on Monday. “Like the Obama Campaign, we understand that we need a combination of powerful and clear research that informs an expertly run campaign, an unstoppable movement that harnesses the new energy we have seen since the passage of Prop. 8 and the connections through personal stories and outreach in order to win at the ballot box. We are taking the lessons learned from last year’s Prop. 8 campaign, the campaigns in Maine and other states to understand the fundamental work that must be done before moving forward in California. We also must come together as a community to create a broad coalition and governance structure, put in place a strong manager and secure the resources to win. Right now, the pieces are not all in place to do so confidently.”
In a simultaneous press release, Lambda Legal also said the time is not ripe for a repeal of Prop 8, calling for “more outreach, education, research and time to change hearts and minds before returning to the ballot to reopen marriage to gay and lesbian couples in California. At least one initiative to restore marriage equality for same-sex couples is currently circulating that, if it qualifies, would appear on the November, 2010 ballot, but Lambda Legal believes that putting this measure to a vote in 2012 is the strongest strategy.”
The Lambda Legal release said that, while research conducted in conjunction with the Courage Campaign showed movement toward acceptance of same-sex marriage in California, it also revealed that a 2010 repeal initiative would likely fall short. “It's essential that we choose wisely when to return to the ballot -- while we're within striking distance, we believe we're not there yet," said the statement.
The twin announcements marked the latest setback for proponents of placing repeal of Prop 8 on the 2010 ballot. In August, Equality California, the group that spearheaded opposition to Prop 8 in 2008, announced that its leaders had decided it would be better to wait until 2012 to seek repeal.
Restore Equality 2010, a statewide coalition pushing the repeal of Prop 8 in the 2010 elections, issued its own press release in response to those of the Courage Campaign and Lambda Legal, and vowed to continue circulating petitions to qualify such a measure for the ballot.
“This is a movement for equality,” said Jo Hoenninger, who leads Restore Equality’s executive committee, in a Nov. 30 press release. “Harvey Milk didn’t wait for research. He hit the streets year after year. We honor his memory by gathering signatures now so our rights can be restored in 2010 not at some later time when it might be an easier struggle.”
Nearly 60 percent of California voters say they don’t want to see an initiative seeking to overturn Proposition 8 on the 2010 ballot, a poll by the Los Angeles Times and the University of Southern California revealed. In a Nov. 6 story about the poll, the Times reported “almost three in five Californians did not want to revisit the issue in 2010.” The poll surveyed 1,500 registered voters between Oct. 27 and Nov. 3.
Posted Thursday, December 03, 2009 5:54 AM By OneoftheSheep
Music to my ears! May the movement towards same sex 'marriages' die the same unfruitful death as their own "unions." Sterile concept. Not life-affirming. Equality with the sacrament of marriage? Not in this lifetime!
It belongs to the Culture of Death. Shine the light of truth upon its precepts and the darkness of the concepts are exposed as a mimicry and a mockery by the Liar himself.
|
Posted Thursday, December 03, 2009 6:20 AM By JOHN
Just another way of saying that they can't convince the voters so they will concentrate on convincing Obama to ready himself with a new Supreme Cout appointment who will be confirmed by the weak GOP members of Senate and go on to become part of the new majority to create federal recognition of gay "marriage."
|
Posted Thursday, December 03, 2009 7:38 AM By ted
They only need to wait until the children in California public schools attain voting age. Proposition 8 cannot survive on its own. Truth must be taught to the following generations of children to call Prop 8 a victory. Those in opposition will not rest. They may have lost a battle, but the war is not over.
|
Posted Thursday, December 03, 2009 8:21 AM By WOODY GUIDRY
While preparing for another round, charitable gifts to others than themselves is guaranteed to elevate their image. A warm smile does wonders for removing froth from the face.
|
Posted Thursday, December 03, 2009 8:27 AM By Abeca Christian
Jo Hoenninger your so called movement for equality is just a big lie! There no such thing for such a cause, it may be for your lifestyle preference but re-defining marriage has nothing, I repeat, nothing to do with marriage! Get that through your thick head! Capisci!
|
Posted Thursday, December 03, 2009 9:37 AM By Chuck Anziulewicz
I still take comfort in knowing that sooner or later Gay and Straight couples in the U.S. will be treated equally ... and I really don't care they call it "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" or whatever. And when that happens, I promise that it will have precisely ZERO impact on your life, your marriage, your church, and your children. Your church will never be forced to marry Gay couples, any more than it is forced to marry non-Christian couples. Public schools will not be forced to "teach" about Gay marriage, any more than they are forced to teach about Straight marriage. And at last, Gay couples will finally be able take part in the legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that our tax dollars have been helping to subsidize throughout the history of this country.
|
Posted Thursday, December 03, 2009 11:02 AM By 1abqdad
It's interesting that they think that things will get "better" for them with time; hence the suggestion that they wait until 2012. I hope that as time goes on the people realize that it is NOT "anti-gay" or "gay bashing" to approve prop 8. It is simply accepting that God's desires for HIS sacrament are paramount over "man's" desires! Yes, there is a need for reform for BOTH gay couples and couples "living together" to resolve legal issues. BUT, gay marriage is NOT the answer...and never will be!
|
Posted Thursday, December 03, 2009 11:39 AM By Tony de New York
This people don't get it!
|
Posted Thursday, December 03, 2009 11:40 AM By The Truth Hurts
John Maguire, Your last response is rated as S.O.B. aka "Same Old Behavior" posts that do not inspire anyone to stop offending God. John, God created us to know Him to Love Him and to serve Him in this world. Please use your fine intellect to serve God with your whole heart and mind and soul. Please try hard to refrain from responses that are only PTY aka "Pleasing To Yourself".
|
Posted Thursday, December 03, 2009 12:42 PM By Brother Sebastian
The devil never stops seeking the ruin of souls! Pray to our Lady Blessed Mother: August Queen of Heaven, sovereign mystress of the Angels whom didst receive from the beginning the mission and the power to crush the serpents head, we beseech thee to send Thy holy Angels that under Thy command and by Thy power they may pursue the evil spirits, encounter them on everyside resist their bold attacks and drive them hence into the abyss of woe. Most Holy Mother, send Thy holy Angels to defend us and to drive the cruel enemy from us. All ye holy Angels and Archangels help and defend us. Oh good and tender Mother, though shalt ever be our love and our hope, holy Angels and Archangels keep and defend us. Amen.
|
Posted Thursday, December 03, 2009 1:38 PM By betty
Right on, tabqdad. I agree with you so much that I can't find any way to say it any better or louder orwhatever. All I can say is Iagree, Iagreem I agree.
|
Posted Thursday, December 03, 2009 1:53 PM By John F. Maguire
TTH: I don't read every CCD article nor every thread. Nor do I post on every thread that I do read. Nor have I posted on this thread. So: I don't know what you mean by "[my] last response." ~ You write: "[My] last response is rated as S.O.B...." -- TTH, you mean: Rated by you. But rating is not what civil discourse is about. Civil discouse is about the art of public conversation.
|
Posted Thursday, December 03, 2009 4:06 PM By Rick DeLano
I told ya :-)
By 2012 they will be ten points down, or more.
People like ted were all over this site during Prop 8, whining and kvetching about how it was hopeless.
Never listen to guys like ted.
They are either trolls, or they are just plum tuckered out and need to take a vacation and leave the defense of natural law to the fighters.
|
Posted Thursday, December 03, 2009 5:10 PM By JLS
Maguire, you do not know what civil discourse is about. It is about communicating, which is not what you do.
|
Posted Thursday, December 03, 2009 5:49 PM By aimee
wow... do you religious nuts realize how crazy you sound?
|
Posted Thursday, December 03, 2009 5:50 PM By aimee
Oh, i get it.... you edit the comments...i should have known
|
Posted Thursday, December 03, 2009 8:14 PM By The Truth Hurts
John Maguire, This is a wonderful Catholic website that has continually offered you the opportunity to make a difference. St. Alphonsus Liguori said that every second passed on this earth is a treasure that should not be wasted. Each second is a profound moment to serve God by loving our neighbor. True charity does not fret about the art of public conversation. John, with all of the turmoil in the Church, suffering from the sex abuse scandals and serious liturgical abuses, do you honestly think that the motivating purpose for this Catholic blog in turmoiled California was to master your art of public conversation? What does it spiritually profit a man to gain the art of conversation but ignore the loss of another's soul? Since your only focus is the art of public conversation it would be beneficial for you to learn the art of criticism. When you take the time to criticize those who work hard every day to promote Truth with topics that expose evil and praise others who promote Truth, an artful civil response would be to show appreciation and offer a better solution along with your correction. When you are willing to only correct the people who are working hard to please God, there is an artless and transparent imbalance. Since this is a Catholic blog, we accept the Church's Teachings that sins can be "rated" as Mortal and Venial. Deliberate silence is an omission Sins of omission are as serious as sins of commission. Listen to St. Alphonsus Liguori's words of wisdom about precious time wasted when we could have been an example to others. This is why this Catholic Website works so hard to help souls. Jesus said, "I have come to cause division." Jesus did not say "I have come to cause civil discourse and artful conversation." John, there are Emily Post Etiquette websites if you are only interested in tuning up your artful public conversations. Please take the precious time to help correct the dissenters or it will be obvious that you are simply an artful dodger.
|
Posted Thursday, December 03, 2009 9:39 PM By MoonChild02
It looks like the "gay rights" activists are just trying to reassess what "went wrong" so they know what tactic to try the next time. It looks like those trying to oppose us, those supporting gay "marriage", will be coming at us from a different angle next time, so we must also gather our resources and hold our strength. It's not a time to relax. They want us to relax and think that it's over so that we forget and are unprepared so that they have a stronger chance next time.
The war's not over. Far from it. They're just waiting for us to become complacent in the position we're in and the momentum we've picked up lately, with Prop 8, Question 1, and other victories that traditional marriage has had, to dissolve. We have to stay strong and keep educating people on this topic and why we take the position of supporting traditional marriage.
|
Posted Thursday, December 03, 2009 9:40 PM By Rick DeLano
Chuck Anz seems to hope you will believe that gay "couples" don't share in the benefits of their taxes. Apparently, unless you are married, you don't receive any benefits from taxation. I am sure that the sane will notice that we all drive over roads, enjoy power and gas, water and police and fire protection. But Chuck Anz implies that if you and your girlfriend or boyfriend aren't getting the same benefits society reserves to married couples, then you aren't getting a square deal. This is worse than mere dishonesty- it is a form of self-hypnosis. Chuck, we do not extend the benefits of marriage to non-married couples because society does not have the same interest in fostering the relationships of non-married couples that it has in fostering the relationships of married couples. This truth is the nut your PR cannot crack. It is why you have lost 31 straight times at the ballot box, and now you cannot win in State legislatures either. When are you going to figure it out, Chuck? We refuse to allow you to devalue and dilute the benefits lawfully accorded *married couples* by insisting that every other "couple" is entitled to exactly the same rights and privileges. They aren't. We won't.
|
Posted Thursday, December 03, 2009 11:17 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Chuck Anziulewicz: Your declaration "Sooner or later....[!]" can best be understood as a strategem the purpose of which is to demoralize the defenders of the -- necessarily heteronormative -- institution of marriage and at the same time BOOST those who would gender-neutralize the institution of marriage. REPLY: Since the primary purpose of the institution of marriage is procreation (without of course the slightest minimization of marriage's secondary purposes: namely, (1) the couple's mutual affirmation and reciprocal help, and (2) the couple's celebratory communication of sexual pleasure); since the primary purpose of the institution of marriage is procreation, the gender-neutralization of marriage stands as an existential contradiction of marriage as marriage. Whence the futilitarian character of the movement to gender-neutralize marriage, however much the leaders of this movement would like to think otherwise.
|
Posted Thursday, December 03, 2009 11:31 PM By John F. Maguire
As a general matter, whether the word sacrament is used to refer to the Sacrament of Matrimony as one of the Seven Sacraments of the Church or used in its "widest sense" (Fr. August Lehmkuhl) to refer to the sacramentality of marriage as a natural institution authored by God, the word *sacrament* is not properly referential to same-sex unions.
|
Posted Friday, December 04, 2009 4:18 AM By Jon
Good news from Rome, as reported by LifeSiteNews dot Com: "'Transsexuals and homosexuals will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven and it is not me who says this, but Saint Paul,' said Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan, a Mexican and the former head of the Vatican's Council for Pastoral Assistance to Health Care Workers. The cardinal was reiterating the Catholic teaching that states that any sexual activity outside of marriage that is not repented of before death is a mortal sin, and therefore precludes entrance into heaven."
|
Posted Friday, December 04, 2009 10:38 AM By John F. Maguire
My "only focus" is the art of conversation? TTH, where did you get that idea? The art of conversation is a means to an end; but persons -- I mean, persons as such but here, to be sure, I mean persons engaged in dialogue -- are, in their own right, ends-in-themselves. ~ Nor is it true that charity is something that is divorced from the very same civility that informs the art of conversation; to the contrary. Charity is that virtue which informs all other virtues, not least the virtue of civility -- which is also to say, not least the art of civil conversation. This is why Pope Benedict, in his recent Encyclical CARITAS IN VERITATE, has called for "civil" conversation on an Internet that, despite all its splendid facilities, nonetheless occasions spates of sub-civility, that is, when editorial vigilance is lacking.
|
Posted Saturday, December 05, 2009 2:43 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
9:37 AM By Chuck Anziulewicz. how can you deny what has already happened in many places and to many families where so called Gays were given marital rights?
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
|
Posted Saturday, December 05, 2009 2:51 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
MoonChild02, as a person who has been deeply involved in the political processes for many a year, all I can say to you is that YOU HAVE HIT THE NAIL SQUARE ON THE HEAD.
God bless, yours in their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
|
Posted Sunday, December 06, 2009 11:23 PM By The Truth Hurts
John Maguire, So you know the teaching that charity is the virtue that informs all other virtues? Well then, when can we expect you follow through with that charity by starting to inform the ignorant or admonish dissenters? John, What do you think happens to society, let alone fellow Catholics when there is complete silence and a lacking vigilance when it comes to charitably informing the homosexual dissenters? John, Your lack of charity in instructing homosexual dissenters speaks so loudly, that no one can hear the rambling knowledge about charity that you.are posting.
|
Posted Monday, December 07, 2009 8:28 PM By John F. Maguire
TTH: My posts on the question of homosexuality are essentially Pauline. I use St. Paul's terminology ("unseemly" [turpis]) with respect to homosexual conduct and I argue that only heteronormative conjugality is statistically ordinated to the primary purpose of marriage: namely, procreation. If procreation is the primary end of marriage, then the gender-neutralization of marriage ("same-sex marriage") is a contradiction in terms. ~ You write: "So you know the teaching that charity is the virtue that informs all other virtues?" Why the suprise? That's a central teaching of the Church. John Paul II was especially clear on the truth that the virtue of charity informs, in particular, all the virtues operative within married life. I am thinking of Cardinal Woytyla's book _Love and Responsibility_. ~ As regards admonishment: TTH, even one venial sin, if that sin is a serious venal sin and stands unrepented, places the sinner in jeopardy of purgative suffering until the end of the world.
|
Posted Monday, December 07, 2009 9:16 PM By Abeca Christian
aimee you are the one who sounds crazy buddy! Even those who are not religious don't agree with same sex marriage! Redefining marriage is just non-sense!
|
Posted Tuesday, December 08, 2009 10:59 AM By Aaron
Chuck: I share your vision when everyone in the USA is treated equally under the law, as they are in "Catholic" Spain..
|
Posted Wednesday, December 09, 2009 4:55 PM By MarkF
Chuck A., the affects of same-sex marriage will be as follows, 1.) mandating that orphaned kids will be denied living in a family with a mother and a father. Instead many will be forced into unstable homosexual unions that last an average of four years and are notoriously promiscuous and rife with drugs. 2.) Mandating that Catholic charities comply with the above. 3.) Mandating that the Church offer spousal benefits to such "married" couples, as in now being done in the city of Washington, DC. 4.) Forcing homosexual indoctrination on schools kids. This has been done in every single country or state where this has been legalized. In MA parents are not even allowed to have their kids opt out of the indoctrination. 5.) The legalization of polygamy and adult, consensual incest. Once marriage becomes whatever the individual says it is, this is inevitable. 6.) More people will be lured into the homosexual lifestyle, a lifestyle that is correlated with drugs, AIDS, disease, and all sorts of other medical and psychological problems.
|
Posted Friday, December 11, 2009 11:23 PM By Abeca Christian
Aaron equality for unnatural unions, please give me a break! That is a big lie that you and others keep promoting and embracing. How about equality for children who seek to have one mother and one father, not two men or two women. There is no such thing, it is impossible to do without taking the rights of children and others. You are dead wrong and don't make sense by your views. There is not one study that shows that children benefit better with two men as parents or two women. You start there with your views, then what is to stop unions with men and more than one wife, how about men who want to have sex with their pets. Face reality, it is happening! Like I posted in the past, my friend rescued a dog who was repeatedly raped by two men (homosexuals). By your definition of equality for everyone, is such a false statement! Because there is no such thing, in order to have equality for everyone by your definition and views, then we would have to break the natural laws of design for productions and other factors that make for normal and healthy life. Capisci! Comprende!
|
Posted Monday, December 14, 2009 10:07 AM By MarkF
Abeca, you've got it. The truth is that homosexual behavior on the whole is much, much worse than heterosexual. It is not the case of a man loving another man in the same way as a man loves a woman. It seeks to be that. It pretends to offer that. It promises that to the innocent who are tempted into it. I know all this first hand. I've met guys who seemed wonderful on the outside. They had friends, had a job, had a were good to their parents and siblings. But their personal sexual life was a royal mess. The sad part is that no one but another person with SSA will know this. My life got out of control too at some point. But it is what I saw on my travels that really convinced me. So yes, I totally can believe your story about the two guys and the dog. My guess is that they were in their 40's or older. Right?
|
Posted Wednesday, December 23, 2009 11:23 PM By Abeca Christian
Thanks MarkF, I'm glad that you understand these truths in which I just posted. I don't recall my friend mentioning their age, of the men who raped the dog but I'm guessing that you would be right. My friend is an animal lover, she saves and protects them and even offers to shelter them until a home is found for them. The stories she's told me just make me shocked at what people do to animals, sick people that is.
|
© California Catholic Daily 2009. All Rights Reserved.
|