Friday, October 24, 2008

Proposition 8 in California and the presidential affect...

Okay be honest, many think that California is the "liberal land" where anything goes and where all the real lefties reside. It's been as an example, a given that Democrats think Obama will win there. Neither campaign has really worked hard in California. Yet, here in Ohio when we had a same sex marriage amendment on the ballot, it created a larger conservative base vote effort that many believe is what helped George Bush win.

The polls in California have stated this issue is close, but no one seems to have expressed that an increased amount of more conservative anti-gay marriage voters could have an impact on the presidential election.

McCain supports it and Obama does not, which created questions since he had previously stated he does not support same sex marriage but felt states should decide. This is a bit of a flip flop.
Randy Thomasson of the Campaign for Children and Families – which backs the California ballot measure – called Obama a hypocrite.

"He says he believes marriage is for a man and woman, yet he's promising he would undo federal marriage protection and oppose California marriage," Thomasson said.

Thomasson predicted Obama "will lose votes in California due to his pandering to San Francisco extremists."

How many will be the question, will as some predict will Obama win 90 percent in the norther counties? Maybe if California is really different, but if they are anything like Ohio? Conservative issues rally the conservative voter, and liberal issues rally the liberal voter...

What is interesting is that it seems that blacks and hispanics are more against gay marriage, so it's believed that they will still vote for Obama and vote yes on 8:

The Democrat is expected to bring a surge of black and Latino voters to the polls on Election Day. This spells trouble for gay marriage; in some surveys (PDF), minority voters have expressed much greater support for banning same-sex marriage than have whites

The irony of that should be clear...


Alex said...

I see a clear distinction between believing that marriage is "a union between a man and a woman," and endorsing an amendment that would mandate this belief: One is an issue of personal morality, while the second is extrapolating from that belief general legislation that would apply to all. Obama has taken a traditional position of "liberal neutrality": He claims, erroneously I believe, to be "bracketing the controversial moral question." (He, of course, isn't as he implies a response to the underlying question; however, this problem plagues liberal versions of toleration in general.) Obama's position isn't hypocritical, it's consistent with his philosophical leanings.

Lisa Renee said...

It won't surprise you that I disagree with you, if he truly does support states having the right to determine this for themselves as he has stated several times, than as not being a California resident, he should state that he's not going to endorse either position since he has stated that it is up to the residents of that state to decide what they want.

Either you really do stand for what you state or you don't. If he is truly against same sex marriage then if he is going to take a position on this California issue it should be one consistent with his own personal position.

I don't disagree with you on the issue of tolerance, there are some cultural issues that seem to prevent tolerance when it comes to same sex marriages or abortion. Which is something many people don't seem to realize exists in all parties, even the one that is supposed to be more of a "big tent".

Alex said...

That's just not coherent Lisa. Obama is deriving his argument in disagreement over the proposition from his philosophy: engendered from a conception of toleration, he doesn't believe in gay marriage; however, he believes that the state ought to remain "neutral" (which, of course, is tacitly taking a position) and therefore he voices his concern. His statement about this issue being one of "state's rights" is procedural: it's meant to prevent the federal government from taking a position, which explains his disapproval of the "defense of marriage" act. There is no conflict between Obama's philosophy and his opinion about whether or not legislation that takes a position on the matter ought to be constitutionally mandated. It's perfectly logical.

Lisa Renee said...

So, it's incoherent to expect someone who has said a) I don't support same sex marriage but b) it should be up to the states to decide to not take a position that is contradictory?

If he truly believes it's up to the states there is one answer when asked for an endorsement, it's not to state he supports same sex marriage for California if he doesn't personally support it.

That's not taking a position where Californians should decide, that's taking a position that he believes is politically advantageous.