California now a "Battleground State", thanks to the CA Supreme Court

No doubt many of your have already heard about the California Supreme Court decision last week to overturn the will of the voters in declaring marriage as being between a man and a woman to be "unconstitutional". This is despite the fact that California voters have been very open to the opportunities of domestic partnerships, including child adoption, partner benefits and other laws protecting members of the homosexual community. Rather than accept California as the role model state for others looking for the middle ground to satisfy large majorities on this issue, activist groups like Freedom to Marry and others are challenging California with an "All or Nothing" attitude.

Because of this irrational persistence, there is an increasing tide of conservatives and moderates who just may ensure that the latter is the case.

I have been in Washington, DC this past week, and I read this editorial in USA Today this morning that makes this same assertion. (You know there's problems on the far left when conservatives like me start agreeing with media outlets like USA Today.) Here are the opening paragraphs from the editorial:

"Our view on same-sex marriage: California ruling invites backlash against gay rights
Civil unions, the best solution, are jeopardized by court decision.
Last week, when California became the second state after Massachusetts to allow gay marriage, same-sex couples celebrated and began planning June weddings. Good for them. But the unfortunate and unnecessary impact of the California Supreme Court ruling might well have been to set back the cause of gay rights more broadly.

"The judges ruled 4-3 that gays' inability to get married amounts to discrimination under California's constitution, even though the state's domestic partnership laws give them the benefits and responsibilities of marriage.

"In other words, pragmatic political compromise on the intensely controversial issue is not allowed in California. It's all or nothing, and recent political history leaves little doubt about what will follow.

"In the three years after Massachusetts' top court legalized gay marriage in 2004, 23 states rushed to adopt constitutional bans on gay marriage. This presidential election year is likely to bring more of the same.

"In effect, California's high court fixed something that wasn't broken. The state's domestic partnership laws have been a model for other states searching for the needed middle ground that addresses the deep-felt national division over gay marriage."


The full editorial, plus opposing views from both sides of the issue, are located here: http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/05/our-view-on-sam.html#more

My take on the ramifications of this ruling is this: the California Republican Party now has a November issue to motivate ultra-conservatives to turn out (and vote for the full Republican ticket), and for moderates (who accepted the domestic partnership middle-ground) to hold Democratic politicians responsible for risking California's status as the original middle-ground state. In my opinion, the persistence of the ultra-left wing activists in the gay-rights community has made California a potential battleground state for McCain.

Why do I believe this?

First, did you notice how quickly Senator McCain scheduled a trip to Stockton after the ruling? Second, have you heard a press release from either Democratic Presidential campaign since the ruling? Senator McCain has already gone on the record as being a defender of the sanctity of marriage between a man & woman, which is still supported by 56% of voters nationwide, according to the Gallup Poll cited in the USA Today editorial. Finally, the right-wing groups that had been pushing for a constitutional amendment about marriage have been given new life, and are now collecting more signatures at a feverish pace.

In our own assembly district, the issue of homosexual marriage will be a volatile one. With Long Beach being a stand-out city on gay-rights issues and activism, no doubt the ruling has been the topic of many local conversations and speeches. But with the heavy concentration of Catholic/Christian Democrats in both East Long Beach and San Pedro who will not be comfortable sacrificing their religious tenants in favor of a secular movement, the 54th Assembly District is going to have plenty of debates and discussions on this topic. Especially after the constitutional amendment measure is confirmed for the November ballot.

If Republicans claim the established middle-ground on this issue by accepting the premise of domestic partnerships while holding the line and protecting the sanctity of "marriage" as being between a man and a woman, I believe we will see moderate districts, including our own 54th AD, lean heavily toward McCain and our other great Republican candidates.

Let's hope the far-left Democrat candidates running this fall feel the pressure from the gay-rights special interest groups to keep leaning even more left. The irrational insistence to claim the "M" word (marriage) for themselves has re-opened a Pandora's Box that conservatives and moderates can work together to close in the best interests of all voters.

Special Guest Poster: RPV Council Member Tom Long

While I was beginning to gather information to address the horrific ruling by our CA Supreme Court and our need to rally behind the November ballot measure to make same-sex marriages unconstitutional, I received a very welcome surprise posting from none other than RPV City Council Member and former Mayor Tom Long, the primary Democratic troublemaker on the Peninsula.

Those that volunteered at our PV Farmer's Market table last year remember Tom Long always trying to set up his little table right next to ours, always borrowing pens and voter registration forms, and most importantly...trying to make the feeble argument that we should not be there because we were making the RPV City Council race partisan.

I've brought forward both his posting and my reply and would love to get more postings regarding your thoughts about Mr. Long's assertions.

Enjoy!

Tom Long said...

Turning disputes on local issues into a partisan debate is really unfortunate and does nothing to help address the issues. Those who know my history know that I have endorsed a number of Republicans for local office and that I have not acted in a partisan way on the RPV council. The votes on the issues are rarely divided by party registration.

Sadly the Republican Party 54th District Organization and some of the candidates it has supported have made a mockery of the California Constitution's requirement that local elections be non-partisan.
As for the rest of the blogger's comments, people should not judge issues such as these on party affiliation. I encourage you to get the facts. Most of the facts are available (from different perspectives) on my webpage www.palosverdes.com/tomlong and on www.pvpwatch.com

Tom Long
Councilmember, Rancho Palos Verdes
tomlong@palosverdes.com

John S said...

Dear RPV Councilmember Tom Long,

Thank you for finding my blog and reading it!

I'd like to address your two main assertions from your posting, which I published without edits for the mutual benefit of ourselves and my readers.

To start, we know that both you and Doug Stern endorsed Steve Wolowicz last fall in your re-election campaigns because you both knew that:
a) Steve has a very high base of supporters that would not have voted for either you nor Doug if you hadn't endorsed him. You chose a wise tactic of giving voters a complete slate to vote for, and making sure that the strongest candidate on the ballot was a part of it.

b) You and Doug needed a 3rd person to complete your slate or else risk Paul Wright getting more votes than one of you two. If Steve Wolowicz had NOT been on your slate card, Paul Wright would have easily closed the 80-vote gap and beat Doug Stern.

So your strategy worked and I would have done the same; but your claim of endorsing Republicans is purely for survival, and not proof of any claim of being bi-partisan. When you're willing to look at Republicans over Democrats for key non-partisan races, like say judicial races, then you'll get some credibility. As for me, ask judicial candidate Kathleen Blanchard, a Democrat running against two Republicans, if I'm willing to look objectively and endorse the best candidate regardless of party.

Next, you continue to cite a CA constitutional requirement that local elections MUST be non-partisan and alluding to our November 2007 involvement in the RPV elections as somehow being unconstitutional. This is both sad and mistaken, and your constant harassment of our volunteers at the PV Farmer's Market about this will continue to be challenged by both me and the Republican leadership at the county and state level. For over 30 years, your own Democratic party has been significantly MORE active in local elections throughout the state and throughout Los Angeles County than Republicans until just recently. When you're willing to call out your own party for making elections throughout the state partisan, maybe then I'll give you some credibility. Until then, you're simply another Democratic hypocrite that only complains about something when it doesn't serve your own purpose.

I published both your comments and these because I want my readers to get a chance to respond with comments of their own.

Thank you for affirming what I've been telling my supporters throughout Long Beach, San Pedro, Avalon, Signal Hill & the Palos Verdes Peninsula! We are having an effect, and the tide is shifting!

We know it, and we now know that YOU know it!

John S. Stammreich
Chairman - 54th AD Republican Central Committee

SWEET! I live for this stuff! I hope Mr. Long is ready. Just so he is, I will promise to him that we will be again involved in the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council race in November 2009. And for the other cities in the 54th AD, I promise you we will be there as well when Republican candidates call on us.

It'll all start in Signal Hill in February 2009...

John

Judicial Endorsements for June Primary

Fellow conservatives,

In keeping with my commitment to getting out the word on all of the races for June 3rd, I wanted to talk a little about a friend of mine running for Superior Judge. Even better, I'll let her talk to you herself. She sent out a posting for me to use, and I've included most of it below.

Of note, Kathleen Blanchard has joined with superior judge candidates of multiple parties to create a true crime-fighting team of conservative judiciary candidates. Kathleen received the endorsement of the Lincoln Clubs of Los Angeles County, which is a true sign of a conservative candidate. Here is most of her message below, including the team of candidates I am endorsing for June 3rd. (The list includes both judiciary candidates endorsed by the Republican Party of Los Angeles County - Michael O'Gara & Michael Jesic.)

"Hi everyone! As you know, I am running for judge in the June 3rd election (seat 123). I am writing to solicit your help in getting the word out about the election. There are 11 superior court seats on the ballot, and not much else, so I fear that voter turn-out will be extremely low. What that means is that every vote counts A LOT.

I am asking that each of you send a mass e-mail to everyone you know in Los Angeles County, asking them to VOTE on June 3rd, and to vote for the best caandidate in each of the judicial races.

...(T)ell them about me (a career prosecutor, working in the Hardcore Gang Division, prosecuting gang-related homicides, endorsed by virtually every police officer organization in LA County, the LA Times, Antonovich, Knabe, Cooley, Baca, & more than 30 Superior Court Judges) and/or about my opponents (both of whom were rated "not qualified" by the Los Angeles County Bar Association), or you can simply refer them to my website at www.blanchard4judge.com where they can learn everything they need to know about my race.

In addition to my own race, I have some suggestions about whom to vote for in the other seats. These aren't just friends of mine; they are great prosecutors who have dedicated their careers to public service. Each of them would make an excellent judge. But, again, you don't have to believe me. Each has a campaign website where you can go to see their qualifications for yourself:

seat 69 Serena Murrillo www.murilloforjudge.com
seat 72 Hilleri Merritt www.merrittforjudge.com
seat 82 Thomas Rubinson www.tomrubinson4judge.com/
seat 94 Michael O'Gara ogara4judge.com
seat 95 Lance Winters www.wintersforjudge.com
seat 119 Jared Moses www.mosesforjudge.com
Seat 123 Kathleen Blanchard www.blanchard4judge.com
seat 154 Michael Jesic www.jesicforjudge.com

If you would please pass this information along to everyone you know, wherever they live in L.A. County, and ask them to do the same, I would really appreciate it. I'm trying to make it as easy as possible, so that people can just print out the list & take it with them to the polls. Thank you so much for all of your help! Please let me know if you have any questions."

I plan to compile all of my endorsements into one easy handout that I will send out, and will also try to set it up on this site to download it. This way, you'll have what you need for the polls.