[Oe List ...] enter the Terminator

Sun May 18 09:24:13 EDT 2008

Marshall,

Thank you for sharing the article and your own thoughts about the political
repercussions of the California Supreme Court's ruling. I see gay marriage
and all that it represents a vital civil rights issue for our times.
Schwarzenegger's positioning of his argument in this article struck me as
mapping a path that other moderate social conservatives might potentially be
able to follow.  People who are entrenched in opposition to gay marriage
need some kind of acceptable "agree to disagree" way forward.  It will take
a long time, I imagine, for many to get beyond the fear-based anti-gay
worldview.  But I am encouraged by young people, who are far more likely
than my own generation to think about their gay brothers and sisters as just
part of the normal mix of folks.  Old fears die hard, but this too shall
pass.  God bless the California Supreme Court for helping us to keep moving
in the right direction.

Marsha Hahn

  _____  

From: oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net [mailto:oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net] On Behalf
Of W. J.
Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 1:16 AM
To: oe at wedgeblade.net
Subject: [Oe List ...] enter the Terminator

Potentially the most interesting political development in California may be
Gov. Schwarzenegger's opposition to the constitutional amendment ballot
initiative. I'm no great fan of the Guv, but if he puts his fundraising
where his mouth is, we'll see a moderate Republican using his personal
prestige and raising lots of $$ to defeat a right-wing Republican political
juggernaut, and thus potentially adversely affecting the California vote for
John McBush.

Pinch me--I must be dreaming.

But read
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/16/BASD10NVAI.DTL&
tsp=1>
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/16/BASD10NVAI.DTL&t
sp=1

Marshall

darrell walker <darrell66 at earthlink.net> wrote:

Marshall, et al,

    A further political note on the California Supreme Court decision on gay
marriage.  Six of the seven justices on the Supreme Court are Republicans.
Of the four-justice majority, three were Republicans.  The six Republicans
split evenly on the decision.  Also Governor Schwarzenegger will oppose the
constitutional amendment in the fall.  All of which is to say, in spite of
appearances to the contrary at times, not all California Republicans are the
blithering idiots they appear to be elsewhere.  I say that in defense of the
thirty-five years I spent as a Republican before waking up in the gutter
during the Reagan era and becoming a Democrat.

    Darrell Walker in  Lincoln, CA, outside of Sacramento

----- Original Message ----- 

From: W. J. <mailto:synergi at yahoo.com>  

To: oe at wedgeblade.net ; dialogue at wedgeblade.net 

Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 8:55 PM

Subject: [Dialogue] cultural quake hits California;national backlash
expected

Today, in the midst of a tropical heatwave in northern California, our
state's Supreme Court declared that to deny marriage to any couple is to
brand them as second class citizens. In a month, for the first time ever,
fully ten percent of US citizens will be able to marry whomever they choose.

Starting tomorrow, Californians expect every rich right-wing bigot in the
country to join in the coming political fray by raising multiple millions of
U$D for the right-wing organizations that have put an amendment on the
November ballot to roll back the court decision and enshrine discrimination
in the state constitution.

Bottom line is, it ain't over till it's over. Today's court decision will
provoke a major call to arms by the vast right-wing conspiracy, hopefully
their last gasp before they're buried in a Democratic landslide in November.

The backlash from this decision may have a huge impact on national politics.
The money that will flow to California to support the amendment may shift
the outcome of the presidential election. If the amendment prevails,
California will go to Senator John McBush, and that means that Barack will
be history like Kerry, Gore, and Dukakis. Which may give Hillary another
shot in 2012.

On a more personal note: some of my friends were plaintiffs in this case,
and one of them is a child of an interracial couple whose marriage was made
legal by a decision of the California Supreme Court in 1948.

Finally, I am grateful that for the first time, I will be able to conduct
legal marriage ceremonies for same-gender couples in California as a United
Methodist clergyman. If anyone chooses to bring a complaint to my bishop,
I'll be very happy to participate in a church trial. 

The United Methodist Discipline prohibits clergy from conducting 'ceremonies
of homosexual union,' but it does not prohibit clergy from officiating at
(some) legal marriages permitted by the state. To do so would place the
church in a position of discriminating against a minority of its members
whom the state allows to marry.

Marshall Jones

  _____  

_______________________________________________
Dialogue mailing list
Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net

_______________________________________________
Dialogue mailing list
Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/oe_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20080518/bc038e29/attachment.html 