Peace and Freedom Party seeks California same-sex marriage referendum in 2010

Stewart Alexander, the 2008 Socialist Party USA vice presidential nominee and an activist in California’s Peace and Freedom Party, writes at Bay Area Indymedia that the “leadership within the Peace and Freedom Party wants a measure to support same-sex marriage on the ballot in 2010.” He writes, “There is a strategic and political risk in waiting until 2012 to put same-sex marriage on the ballot. Presently, there is tremendous public support that favors protecting the rights of same-sex couples and that support is likely to swell by November 2010; however, as the public is faced with a mountain of issues on the national level, expanding the occupation in Afghanistan, a growing national deficit, the elimination of public services, immigration, and an opportunistic two party system, waiting until 2012 could be the poor timing that will set-back this important human rights issue.”

16 thoughts on “Peace and Freedom Party seeks California same-sex marriage referendum in 2010

  1. Donald R. Lake

    If there can be a group character assassination by out right liars on a tissue paper thin issue[s] it was the debacle of California Proposition Eight. Straw man issues, and hypothetical [and hypo hysterical] efforts. Just amazing.

  2. Steve

    Why is it that so many places and institutions in California refuse to acknowledge that most Californians are against same-sex marriage? If it goes on the ballot, it’s likely to fail again for the next few years.

  3. Morgan Brykein

    It’s a stretch to say most Californians oppose it. The vote was by a slim margin, voter turnout is always pretty low, and on top of that, droves of people believed lies of the Prop 8 people that they wouldn’t otherwise believe.

    Derp derp the gays are gonna teach our kids to be gay!

  4. Richard Winger

    The most recent poll, less than two weeks ago, shows more California voters favor same-sex marriage than oppose it. However neither group was in the majority because of the third choice, “undecided”, had the “balance of power”.

  5. ATM

    Clearly, a large proportion of Californians oppose gay marriage. Let’s remember that California’s voter turnout was nearly 80% in 2008, meaning that over 40% of all eligible voters voted “no.” Additionally, if the California gubernatorial and/or Senate races become competitive, the Democrats will be working again to boost turn out in the African American and Hispanic communities, who doomed Prop. 8.

    I am not a fan of Prop. 8 and support the disestablishment of marriage as a government institution, but doesn’t the turnout issue pose a potential issue to the moral legitimacy of any repeal in 2010 from a popular sovereignty standpoint? Almost certainly, the vote will again be close, and the turnout will be lower than in 2008. So a smaller group of people may overturn the expressed “will” of a much larger 2008 electorate.

  6. Donald R. Lake

    Stevie Poo: “most Californians are against same-sex marriage?”

    Not on any typical day. But they can be seduced away from logic [like the quite reasonable 1993 Hilary Rodham Clinton Health Care Plan and the SUCCESSFUL scare tactics around the kitchen table] by one in a hundred improbabilities and paper thin ‘what ifs’!

    And, in this same time sequence, folks like Doctor Donald Grundmann are ignoring convicted Kiddie Porn King Wade Sanders [California Lt. Governor’s office ‘abused veterans advocate’ ] while searching high and low for those non existent roving bands of homo sexual recruit agents.

    The Proposition Eight folks could have dealt with real world events and lost or pull out every thing [including the proverbial kitchen sink] from the land of imagination.

  7. Donald R. Lake

    Automatic Teller Machine Machine: Marriage is important, the legal aspects alone: house, hospital, insurance. But as some one with lousey parental role models, and whom had to be talked into his one and only matrimony, I am coming to your POV.

    Leave out right marriage out of the government. Be able to designate your next year’s life partner with or with out formal marriage or with or with out church interference. Of course this is in the broad general regards, children [birth, foster, informal, adopted] change the whole scope!

  8. Michael Seebeck

    If Mr. Alexander wants to have any shot at governor beyond his slim ones now, not to mention build P&F into a national party, then first he needs to get a clue as to what is going on in his own state.

    Had he had such a clue, he would know that are two–count em, two!–initiatives in circulation right now in CA to repeal Prop 8, both by the group “Yes! on Equality” and tied to Courage CA that would do exactly that. See Yes, the initiatives are identical, but the point is that Mr. Alexander not doing his homework doesn’t bode well for him, even if he shed his uber-socialist political philosophy in favor of something workable.

  9. Richard Winger

    Equality California, the state’s largest gay lobbying organization, said on August 12 that it favors putting the matter on the ballot in 2012, not 2010. Chances are that will doom the petitions now circulating for 2010. In the meantime, on August 19 (today), a U.S. District Court is hearing arguments that Prop. 8 violates the U.S. Constitution. Former Reagan/Bush solicitor general Ted Olson is arguing that Prop. 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.

  10. Michael Seebeck

    Richard, EQCA is doing that for exactly two reasons:

    1. They hemmed and hawed and procrastinated and time ran out to get anything put together for 2010, and they still aren’t very organized, so they were forced to wait. This was clearly apparent in their town hall meetings.
    2. They want to be the big fish in this pond and claim all the credit, and their leadership has shown a lack of interest in outside inputs or anything that might take away from them claiming that credit. This too was apparent in their town hall meetings in that they were more interested in trying to get their organizing act together and flatly have refused to receive inputs on actual ballot language, which they so desperately need. They are trying to organize people to support a repeal without actually indicating what the repeal actually is. Rather than support the issue, they are playing political football.

    If anything dooms the 2010 effort, it’s simply the court cases, not EQCA. At their rate it’s easy to see why the anti-Prop-8 fight was so unorganized, and the leadership hasn’t yet figured out how to do better. There are pockets of grassroots that are, but they are limited.

  11. Melty

    she marries her, he marries him, she marries him. . .
    I refer to all of the above with the same word – marriage.
    I too feel that federal government should have nothing to do with marriage.

  12. Donald R. Lake

    Michael Seebeck: I have never been overly impressed with EQCA and consider them part of the [civil rights] problem! They have this Peace and Freedom Party ‘mess up a two vehicle parade’ mentality! Reading about them and their structure usually makes my mouth open!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *