Thursday, May 15, 2008


I'm going to regard this as a major positive, and try not to think how it might impact the Presidential election, as the Massachusetts ruling did in 2004.

Perhaps the most unwittingly humorous part of the article:

"Groups opposing same-sex marriage also reacted strongly to the ruling.

"The California Supreme Court has engaged in the worst kind of judicial activism today, abandoning its role as an objective interpreter of the law and instead legislating from the bench," said Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues for the group Concerned Women for America, in a written statement."

If the Women of America are so fucking concerned, why can't they find a female policy director? Oh, wait a minute - I have a phone call...

...I've just been offered the post of Token Jew at the Ancient Order of the Hibernians.



bran said...

Republicans are gonna try to make it an issue again and make it seem like were all communist, homosexual pornographers.. Hell I think of us that way sometimes and I live here!

The trick will be whether McCain is taken seriously or not...

Dave Kopperman said...

Specifically, Rove was able to use the 2004 MA ruling as a way to bring out the Christian conservative vote - by getting proposed Civil Union statutes on the ballot in something like eleven states.

I don't think the same effort would work now (at least not as effectively) because a) McCain for the evangelicals is nowhere near as good a match as W. was, b) would they actually put a similar proposal out again?, and c) I think even those that were brought out in this way to protect 'family values' - a term noticeably lacking in this current cycle - might not be as fully on board with the rest of the GOP platform.

We'll see. Dave's massive uninformed opinion self-poling (ouch) sez: a non-issue.


bran said...

Yeah.. I agree. I don't think that dog'll hunt anymore.. but like you, I don't know which end is up anymore...

Dave Kopperman said...

Yeah, 'baited breath' doesn't even begin to cover my approach to this election.

All of that having been said, I do believe a McCain presidency will be better for the country than the Bush administration was. So even if the Democrats lose it, 2008-2012 are looking up. Ish.


Ansley said...

Wont be good if he keeps those tax cuts for the rich and continues to bleed the working middle class dry..

better than bush yeah, but a pile of dogshit in the street is better..

Dave Kopperman said...

I think one benefit of McCain over Bush is that McCain admits he knows little about economics, whereas Bush feels that his business education is sound.

I also wonder: how do you make anything permanent? Even if McCain keeps them for the next four years, the minute a Democratic President and Congress get in, the 'permanent' tax cuts are history.