Proposition 8 take a break..we can reach our destination..but we're still a ways away

[PaloAltoCougar]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

SU is right. It's a push poll.

Now if you want to argue that it is a relatively benign push poll, then that's on thing, but it IS a form of a push poll.

Instead of seeking to truly find public opinion, it seeks to influence public opinion, and actually change public opinion. Therefore it is a push poll.

It's a single question, worded rather benignly (anyone with a pulse could author a more effective push poll question than this), and the interrogator identifies his/her bias at the outset--again, not the stuff of the typically devious political push poll. But yes, I'll concede that it's a kind of push poll, in the sense that a spitwad is a surface-to-air missile.

I just thought it was funny that it makes SU's "blood boil." That struck me as a tad excessive. But overreaction seems to be the coin of the realm in these parts, which is what makes these parts so entertaining.

And BTW TripletNeverPostWithoutMyThesaurusDaddy, I wasn't copying you; it was a tribute to that guy who got an Oscar for that touching, true story about raising a kid in a concentration camp, with all the attendant mirth and horseplay--Roberto Benignly, what an actor.

[ute4ever]

PAC, don't you think you're being obtuse?

[SeattleUte]

A few substantive points about this push poll. There are many-layered ironies.

To the extent the pitch embedded within the poll is "benign," it's only because it's the best available argument against Proposition 8. It's a measure of how lame the secular, empirical case against gay marriage is that they resort to what many here see as a benign argument in their push poll. They aren't out to do the gay movement any favors or handicap the anti-Proposition 8 side.

In any event, I don't think benign is an accurate characterization of the argument embedded in the "poll." The argument, as stated, though misleading (as I'll explain), has some appeal: the concept is that the people have already spoken, the California Supreme Court is an autocratic enemy of democracy, and now we need to re-do what we did in 2000 to reinstate the people's will through a Constitutional amendment. This is a superficially appealing argument, and really the only reasoned one available to the pro-Proposition 8 side.

Here's why it's misleading, not unlike why the GWB/Karl Rove Shouth Carolina push poll about McCain was misleading. First, passage of a statute by referendum is a completely different kettle of fish from amending the Constitution. The function of provisions such as that interpreted by the California Supreme Court that are analogous to the Bill of Rights is to protect disfavored minority groups against the tyranny of the majority. It think it's obscene to amend the Bill of Rights or analogous state laws to limit individual liberty. I think it's fair to say that most states grant more liberties than the federal Constitution (of course they couldn't grant less). That's certainly been the case in every state I've lived after Utah.

Regardless, as a general proposition, the populace ought to act with great caution in amending the Constitution. Prohibition was a hard lesson. If memory serves me, this essentially conservative point was used against passage of the feminist Equal Rights Amendment (which many states incorporated into their Constitutions in any event).

Moreover, the notion that voters felt a certain way about gay rights eight years ago isn't necessarily that persuasive. Civil rights is all about changing old laws to grant liberties to disfavored minorities that were previously denied. The history of our country is nothing if not about this process. Our enlightenment has only grown since 1776, and our changing laws reflect that growth. Brown v. Board of Education was an affront to the rule of stare decisis as it expressly repudiated and overturned Plessy v. Ferguson.

I said the other day that I couldn't argue with the LDS Church just saying, "this is what we believe, we'll have to agree to disagree." I'd still have the view that belief that marriage must be only between man and wife is wrong, but I'd have nothing to argue with. Beyond this, I think efforts to legislate morality as Proposition 8 does are egregious, especially when they discriminat against minority groups that are such not by choice, and I think that efforts to do it unethically through misleading push polls are really offensive. Sorry, my blood is boiling. This is an important issue and event in American history.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

A few substantive points about this push poll. There are many-layered ironies.

To the extent the pitch embedded within the poll is "benign," it's only because it's the best available argument against Proposition 8. It's a measure of how lame the secular, empirical case against gay marriage is that they resort to what many here see as a benign argument in their push poll. They aren't out to do the gay movement any favors or handicap the anti-Proposition 8 side.

In any event, I don't think benign is an accurate characterization of the argument embedded in the "poll." The argument, as stated, though misleading (as I'll explain), has some appeal: the concept is that the people have already spoken, the California Supreme Court is an autocratic enemy of democracy, and now we need to re-do what we did in 2000 to reinstate the people's will through a Constitutional amendment. This is a superficially appealing argument, and really the only reasoned one available to the pro-Proposition 8 side.

Here's why it's misleading, not unlike why the GWB/Karl Rove Shouth Carolina push poll about McCain was misleading. First, passage of a statute by referendum is a completely different kettle of fish from amending the Constitution. The function of provisions such as that interpreted by the California Supreme Court that are analogous to the Bill of Rights is to protect disfavored minority groups against the tyranny of the majority. It think it's obscene to amend the Bill of Rights or analogous state laws to limit individual liberty. I think it's fair to say that most states grant more liberties than the federal Constitution (of course they couldn't grant less). That's certainly been the case in every state I've lived after Utah.

Regardless, as a general proposition, the populace ought to act with great caution in amending the Constitution. Prohibition was a hard lesson. If memory serves me, this essentially conservative point was used against passage of the feminist Equal Rights Amendment (which many states incorporated into their Constitutions in any event).

Moreover, the notion that voters felt a certain way about gay rights eight years ago isn't necessarily that persuasive. Civil rights is all about changing old laws to grant liberties to disfavored minorities that were previously denied. The history of our country is nothing if not about this process. Our enlightenment has only grown since 1776, and our changing laws reflect that growth. Brown v. Board of Education was an affront to the rule of stare decisis as it expressly repudiated and overturned Plessy v. Ferguson.

I said the other day that I couldn't argue with the LDS Church just saying, "this is what we believe, we'll have to agree to disagree." I'd still have the view that belief that marriage must be only between man and wife is wrong, but I'd have nothing to argue with. Beyond this, I think efforts to legislate morality as Proposition 8 does are egregious, especially when they discriminat against minority groups that are such not by choice, and I think that efforts to do it unethically through misleading push polls are really offensive. Sorry, my blood is boiling. This is an important issue and event in American history.

Yes, we must take caution in amending the California constitution, which has been amended over 500 times since its original ratification.

Do you really mean to tell us that you're hanging your argument on the sacrosanctity and immutability of a document that has been changed, on average, more than four times a year since originally ratified? Do you really mean to tell us that it makes your blood boil that proponents of Proposition 8 make false analogies between state referendums and state constitutional amendments, when you are making equally false analogies between state constitutional amendments and national constitutional amendments? Why don't you just admit you don't have a clue when it comes to the nature of the state constitution of California and move along?

Come on, you can do better than this.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

From Mr. "oh this is a soft sell, maybe this is something I can do" principled guy.

Be nice.

Let me know when a similar measure pops up in Texas. Until then, some of us over here actually have to stand up for our beliefs.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by All-American

Yes, we must take caution in amending the California constitution, which has been amended over 500 times since its original ratification.

Do you really mean to tell us that you're hanging your argument on the sacrosanctity and immutability of a document that has been changed, on average, more than four times a year since originally ratified? Do you really mean to tell us that it makes your blood boil that proponents of Proposition 8 make false analogies between state referendums and state constitutional amendments, when you are making equally false analogies between state constitutional amendments and national constitutional amendments? Why don't you just admit you don't have a clue when it comes to the nature of the state constitution of California and move along?

Come on, you can do better than this.

No. I think gays should be able to marry because it's morally correct.

I'm merely making the point here that, paradoxically, the argument in the fake poll is the most potent one available, but not necessarily "benign." Still, it is misleading, because the two situations are not the same. California has many thousands of statutes.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Be nice.

Let me know when a similar measure pops up in Texas. Until then, some of us over here actually have to stand up for our beliefs.

It already came up a long time ago in Texas. About 8 years ago.

We were basically told to support it over the pulpit. Write letters to officials.

There wasn't a big push by the church in terms of asking for marching, polling, calling, etc. Because they probably had little doubt that it wouldn't pass. It was an amendment banning gay marriage.

I voted against the amendment.

It's really pretty simple.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

From Mr. "oh this is a soft sell, maybe this is something I can do" principled guy.

I love how brave all of you non-Californians are when it comes to prop 8. Please, all of you, continue to regale us with tales of how you would rage against the machine.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

I love how brave all of you non-Californians are when it comes to prop 8. Please, all of you, continue to regale us with tales of how you would rage against the machine.

I won't criticize you guys, as I would do the best I could to be unavailable. Conflict in these matters does not benefit me, and I'm all for self-absorption.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

I love how brave all of you non-Californians are when it comes to prop 8. Please, all of you, continue to regale us with tales of how you would rage against the machine.

Oh, I'm pretty sure that if I was against Prop 8, I wouldn't say "oh, this is not pushing Prop 8 so hard, so maybe I will do it."

Is this so much of a stretch you can't imagine me following through?