Rich Gordon's Wedgie
San Mateo County supervisors are set to vote on a resolution in support of legalizing same sex marriage. Supervisor Rich Gordon, himself a homosexual, introduced the measure and describes the issue as a civil right. It is widely seen as an attempt to curry favor with an extreme wing of the Democrat party who attempt to frame the whole history of marriage as misbegotten.
Previous efforts by officials supported loosened marriage laws such that the current state of marriage is a mess. On this thin reed they claim expertise. Supporters of the San Mateo vote describe the measure as 'same sex' marriage, however they are unable to say on what rational basis others could be excluded. Anyone claiming ongoing 'love' would meet the new low standard. The mind imagines all sorts of novel arrangements. In any event, the measure would be advisory.
Forget the advice of Prop. 22. In the year 2000 Californian's adopted the Defense of Marriage act which states that only marriages between a man and a women are valid. The propostion passed by a 23% margin and was supported by over 61% of the voters.
Following a tough fought San Francisco election in which Gavin Newsom barely won election, Newsom attempted to rally support by enacting a policy of issuing marriage licenses--the idea having come to his attention by way of court decisions in Massachusetts. Many Democrats felt it hurt their party's chances in the presidential election of 2004, but insisted that it was President Bush who drove a wedge between the electorate with his stand against same sex marriage.
Although California's Supreme Court later disallowed homosexual marriage, activists continue to drag the issue before courts in an effort to deny the will of the voters. Newsom, like fellow politicians everywhere, is unable to enact meaningful legislation, and instead chooses to promote unpopular cultural issues. Thus supervisor Rich Gordon follows in the footsteps of the dim-bulb San Francisco mayor. As a representative of the people, Gordon seems less interested in representing anyone but his own special needs. He yearns to give voters a wedgie.
Previous efforts by officials supported loosened marriage laws such that the current state of marriage is a mess. On this thin reed they claim expertise. Supporters of the San Mateo vote describe the measure as 'same sex' marriage, however they are unable to say on what rational basis others could be excluded. Anyone claiming ongoing 'love' would meet the new low standard. The mind imagines all sorts of novel arrangements. In any event, the measure would be advisory.
Forget the advice of Prop. 22. In the year 2000 Californian's adopted the Defense of Marriage act which states that only marriages between a man and a women are valid. The propostion passed by a 23% margin and was supported by over 61% of the voters.
Following a tough fought San Francisco election in which Gavin Newsom barely won election, Newsom attempted to rally support by enacting a policy of issuing marriage licenses--the idea having come to his attention by way of court decisions in Massachusetts. Many Democrats felt it hurt their party's chances in the presidential election of 2004, but insisted that it was President Bush who drove a wedge between the electorate with his stand against same sex marriage.
Although California's Supreme Court later disallowed homosexual marriage, activists continue to drag the issue before courts in an effort to deny the will of the voters. Newsom, like fellow politicians everywhere, is unable to enact meaningful legislation, and instead chooses to promote unpopular cultural issues. Thus supervisor Rich Gordon follows in the footsteps of the dim-bulb San Francisco mayor. As a representative of the people, Gordon seems less interested in representing anyone but his own special needs. He yearns to give voters a wedgie.
posted by Robert Holmgren at 4/11/2005
1 Comments:
Good observations. Single-issue politics always drives a wedge into the heart of the electorate…Unfortunately, our local politics are driven by a series of never-ending, single issue stances devoid of core values or rational context…Why are we surprised that our public solutions and compromises always seem mediocre and irrational to the majority
Post a Comment
<< Home