Editorials
June 12, 2008
Storm
Constitutional ban

DURING past elections, Republican legislators in several states drafted constitutional amendments banning gay marriage - knowing that this emotion-charged issue would mobilize throngs of white evangelical voters, who tend to support GOP candidates. It was a clever ploy: using prejudice against gays to reap Republican votes.

Now a variation of the pattern seems to be repeating in California. The state Supreme Court ruled that homosexuals have a right to marry. "Religious right" conservatives erupted in protest. Petitions from fundamentalist churches forced the state to put the issue on the Nov. 4 ballot, when political races will be decided.

We can't guess how this stormy struggle will turn out. A San Diego Union-Tribune columnist wrote:

"For most Americans younger than 30, same-sex marriage is a nonissue. A new Field Poll found that 51 percent of California's registered voters favor allowing same-sex couples to marry while 42 percent are opposed. But among voters 18 to 29, an overwhelming 68 percent approve, while just 25 percent are opposed. The concept is still unpopular with voters 65 or older - 55 percent against, with 36 percent in favor."

Oldsters usually vote, and youngsters usually don't, which could bode ill for gay matrimony in California. But the battle is politically confusing. Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger opposes the proposed ban. Republican presidential nominee-to-be John McCain previously opposed amending the U.S. Constitution to halt same-sex weddings, but now he says he's "glad" that Californians will go to the polls, "rather than having that decision made by judicial fiat."

We support America's growing tolerance, and think that "straights" shouldn't try to tell gays how they must live. It's a shame that this hot-button topic has been thrust among all the political issues to be decided in the general election.

Advertiser
5 Comments on "Storm"
Post a comment
Report a violation or offensive comment.
[X] Close
to report abuse.
Posted By: C'mon (1:36pm 06-15-2008)
Report Abuse


@conservative:

I probably would be disgusted by that notion if I had grown up in a sterile, prejudiced, closed-minded community. As it is, I grew up in a place that respected others' right to "do what I want!", a common rallying cry for you conservatives. Whence privacy? Whence individual liberties?

The funny thing is, with all these arguments about homosexuals -- "Imagine your brother having sex with another man" -- were the exact same arguments sixty or eighty or one hundred years ago, except replace "another man" with "a black person." Slowly but surely, this prejudice is eroding in the minds of common Americans, and it is my hope that this other, pernicious bias against homosexuals will similarly wane as people grow more familiar with homosexuals and become less threatened by them.

Posted By: conservative (10:44pm 06-14-2008)
Report Abuse


Leave it to the Gazette. They won't print important news when it doesn't go along with their politis. But they'll print something about gays and Republicans.

I heard this on a talk show last week.
Anybody who is "OK" with the gay lifestyle should ask themselves. Picture one of your loved ones. A son or a brother. Having sex with another male.
If you say you would be ok with that. You're either gay yourself or lying through your teeth.

Posted By: Hah! (12:03am 06-14-2008)
Report Abuse


Also, I'm still waiting to hear an argument against gay marriage that is not grounded in religion.

Posted By: Hah! (12:02am 06-14-2008)
Report Abuse


Please -- as if opposing homosexuality on "moral grounds" is progressive. Get with the real world, Just Wondering -- you'll be amazed at life's richness when you eschew your the narrow moral ground on which you stand. Live a little.

It's easy to follow the top stories with home delivery of The Charleston Gazette.

Click here to order home delivery.

Advertiser
Advertiser