Floyd wrote on Oct 11, 2008 4:03 AM:Now that it has been determined that Gov. Palin has violated ethics laws in Alaska, she should be much more appealing to Democrats who tend to vote such people into office. This makes her a truly bipartisan candidate.

Stuff happens wrote on Oct 11, 2008 4:58 AM:As the prospect and reality of a President Obama draws near Republicans are sure to blame the loss, of course through no fault of their own, on the economy. History, to be sure, will record it was the tipping point turning a squeaker into a landslide.
After eight years of Bush the Democrats had an edge, but, all things being equal, would we have elected an African-American? Or a woman if Hillary would’ve voted against the Iraq war for political purposes instead of for the war for political purposes? Could McCain have won in a straight up fight against either? We’ll never know. But consider this:
Would Bush have won in 2000 without Monica Lewinsky?
Would Clinton have won in 1992 without “It’s the economy, stupid,” and/or Ross Perot?
Would Reagan have won without the Iranian hostage crisis?
Would Carter have won without Watergate?
Would Nixon have won without Vietnam?
And so on.
Challengers cannot control the events that lead to their elections, they just take advantage of them. The incumbent Party always is to blame for the things that lead to their worst nightmare succeeding them.
And so it goes in 2008.

Yes On 8 wrote on Oct 11, 2008 6:37 AM:Protect moral conscience from intolerant charges of bigotry, the next step.

Karl wrote on Oct 11, 2008 7:05 AM:I went shopping for a street legal golf cart yesterday and came away very disapointed. I found out that by California law, street legal golf carts are only allowed in 35 MPH zones or less. Heck, I can hardly get out of my neighborhood so what's the point? If I buy a SLGC I still cannot drive the 3 blocks to Vons or visit my parents that live 2 miles away.

I was told that Palm Desert recently passed an ordinance to allow street legal golf carts in 45 MPH zones. I plan on lobbying Escondido's City Council to raise the limit for these golf carts to 45 MPH. Please lob a phone call/email/letter to Escondido's City council and help me and many others make use of petrol free transportation.

If I can get this ordinance passed, you will see me humming around Escondido and possibly Restaurant Row in San Marcos in a black cart with yellow flames.

Peace

Rush wrote on Oct 11, 2008 7:05 AM:Just wanted to thank Ralph Anderson for his letter, letting us know AM radio reception in San Marcos is strong as ever.

Tune in again today and I'll feed you some more talking points to regurgitate.

Don't try think for yourself, you're obviously not equiped for it.

Thanks again.

As you sow so shall you reap wrote on Oct 11, 2008 7:21 AM:I always thought John McCain was a decent man. When he allowed his campaign to be hijacked by the scorched Earth elements, the very same people who smeared him in 2000, I began to wonder.
Princess Sarah the Barracuda has been fostering an almost lynch mob mentality at her rallies. Cries of “terrorist”, “traitor” and “kill him”, yes, “kill him”, are heard from the crowds. Certain segments of the Republican Party do not need encouragement in this regard.
The shame and embarrassment on McCain’s face was there for all to see last night when he had to defend Obama against insinuations from his own supporters. And got booed.
The one guy said he was scared, scared mind you, to raise his newborn under an Obama Presidency. The lady actually said that Obama was an Arab. McCain was forced to concede his opponent was not, in fact, an Arab. Unbelievable.
When a candidate plays dirty and wins, he gets to be President and most people forget how he won. If they lose, they get forgotten. In McCain’s case, he’ll have to return to the Senate. Does he go back with any shred of dignity?
It’s his choice now.

To Janet Price wrote on Oct 11, 2008 7:55 AM:You are misinformed. In the (Republican majority) 109th Congress, 2005-2006, bills were introduced in the House and Senate to revamp the oversight of Fannie and Freddie. The House version of the bill was the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005, HR1461 and the Senate version was Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S190. The bills were very similar. HR1461 was introduced in April 5, 2005, subsequently amended, and passed the House on October 26, 2005 by a 331-90 vote, with both Democrats and Republicans voting for it. S190 was introduced in the Senate on Jan 26, 2005, sponsored by Hagel and co-sponsored by Dole and Sununu. McCain was not originally a co-sponsor, and only later tried to sign on after it had already died. S190 was discussed in the Senate Banking Committee on July 28, 2005 with the result, "Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably", which I believe is Congress speak for, "we don't like this, please go rewrite it and we may reconsider", i.e., the bill died in a Republican controlled committee and never came to the floor of the Senate or back to the Senate Banking Committee for reconsideration.

In any case, this bill alone would not have solved anything. Not only would it fail to improve significantly upon the regulatory authority, but it actually would have increased the opportunities for Fannie and Freddie to exploit their subsidies in order to expand into other areas of residential finance.

And FYI: Obama does have the American Flag on the side of his plane. Take a look for yourself, and don't believe every email that fills your inbox.

Ms M wrote on Oct 11, 2008 8:16 AM:Happy Saturday to all - what a beautiful day in San Diego! I thought I'd start the day off on this blog with a little humor. The following excerpt is from an article posted on the net:
.....Now, as he spends his last months in office trying to avert a global economic collapse, Mr. Bush has been telling people privately that it’s a good thing he’s in charge......Oh my - now you folks have a great day!

To Lisa Prazeau wrote on Oct 11, 2008 8:29 AM:Once again another freak-out liberal woman in the letters against Gov. Palin and Senator McCain about sending their son off to war. You must keep your kids under rap. The young men signed on the dotted line to join up. They were not drafted as some of you 60's stuck folks think. You just as usual want to control everybody. AND quit this thing of "unqualified" You need to look up the Constitution about it. Oh and don't go by Biden because he does not even know what article it is under!

Yes On 8 wrote on Oct 11, 2008 8:32 AM:Maintain the traditional definition of marriage: between a man and a woman.

She Said wrote on Oct 11, 2008 8:51 AM:I guess that post election day "Yes on 8" will be posting "Write letters to the U.S. Supreme Court".

Roger wrote on Oct 11, 2008 8:54 AM:John McCain has decided to take the "high road"?

Does this mean he'll be taking the "LYNCH OBAMA" bumper sticker off his limo?

No On 8 wrote on Oct 11, 2008 8:57 AM:Maintain equal protection under the law: marriage is defined as between one adult and another adult.

OBAMACAN wrote on Oct 11, 2008 9:13 AM:Republicans are now the party of hate and anger. When I see the LIES in today's letters from Ralph Anderson (no, Obama will have been at his 24/7/365 Senate job 1,477 days by the time he is sworn in - TEN TIMES what you give him credit for, and 1,477 days more than Clinton, Reagan, either Bush, Carter or Eisenhower served in the Senate) and Janet Price (no, Obama has often worn U.S. flag pins over the years and has freely led the Pledge), and then witnessed the racial ephithets, calls for violence and outright hatred shown by hateful Republican extremists at McCain rallies, I wonder if this is really possible.
Then I read some of the hateful, nasty, vicious blogs in these pages - and, gee golly whiz, I don't even have to specify who I am referring to, everyone knows right away - and have to shake my head in sadness that we even have a fair dose of this nastiness right in our own community.
Sad. Scary.

Debate Facts wrote on Oct 11, 2008 9:25 AM:Lee Davis' letter is correct that there is serious media bias, but has the direction backward.
The "mainstream" media, owned by the corporate Wall Street titans who benefit from conservative corruption and corporate welfare, strongly favor the Republicans and are terrified of real reform.
In "fact checking" the debate, the biggest omissions were in McCain's outright LIES.

McCain LIED about earmarks, failing to note that he selected as his running mate the governor whose state had the highest per-capita earmarks in the entire nation and TWENTY TIMES those of Obama's state. And the issue is not just the earmarks, but the HYPOCRISY. Obama is the real reformer, not McCain, but McCain is making his assault on ALL earmarks (rather than selectively on merit or not) a core issue of his campaign. In contrast, Obama does not seek a blanket ban on ALL earmarks, because some have merit, but actually worked across party lines with ultraconservative Republican Tom Coburn (Oklahoma) to actually pass an earmark reform bill that requires transparency, and that all earmark requests be posted online. A scalpel, not a hatchet (is that too nuanced for conservatives?)

McCain LIED about Obama's record on taxes, as many media reports did confirm, though not the North County Times.

When Obama sought a moment extra to rebut the lies, corporate lackey Brokaw would not allow it, and "moved on" to other issues.

Apollo wrote on Oct 11, 2008 9:32 AM:Re: Yes On 8 (8:32 a.m.)
As has been pointed out here so many times (thank you 3D), "traditional" Bible-based marriage consists of one man with multiple underage prepubescent females of the same ethnic tribe, in an arranged marriage, maintaining "dominion" over these wives in the same way as his herds, flocks and other livestock.
I'm sure this blogger supports the FLDS (Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints) who want to return us to traditional marriage as defined by the Bible and practiced throughout most of history.
The rest of us will vote to PROTECT FAMILIES and DEFEND MARRIAGE: vote NO on 8.

Re: She Said (8:51 a.m.)
Nice effort, but a factual correction: whether Prop 8 passes or fails, it is not subject to review by the U.S. Supreme Court since the case was decided ONLY based on the Calfornia Constitution.
However, IF Prop 8 fails, it changes the state Constitution, which effectively overrules the decision.
If that happens, the California court could still declare it unconstitutional, but that would then have to be based on the equal protection clause in the U.S. Constitution, which would then be subject to review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

He Said wrote on Oct 11, 2008 9:34 AM:After the election it's going to be fun to see the Obamaites continually have to defend why their new president Barrack hasn't been able to get anything done.

NO on Prop. 8 wrote on Oct 11, 2008 9:38 AM:Protect us from returning to discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Protect us from the drivel of religious fanatics.

Keep the right of equal protection under the law alive,

Vote NO on Prop. 8.

tjefferson wrote on Oct 11, 2008 9:41 AM:As old as he is, McCain never learned to be careful when you let the dogs loose. Sometimes they'll come back and bite you. His shameful campaign tactics have caused him to sink so low in the polls he had to repudiate his own message yesterday. "Obama is not an Arab, he is an honorable man." And "you, your wife and child don't need to be afraid if Obama is elected president." His own followers booed him. Nut-wing radio isn't going to like those remarks at all and I can't wait to hear what Rush has to say on Monday. I think McCain is also thinking of the debate on Wednesday when he promised to tell Obama to his face that he is a terrorist by association. I suspect, though, he's actually too much of a coward to actually do it.

She Said wrote on Oct 11, 2008 9:43 AM:Karl @ 7:05: I think Palm Desert has special street legal golf cart lanes which they can set speed limits. A part of their general plan.

Ms M wrote on Oct 11, 2008 9:47 AM:...."The McCain/Palin ticket is the first in American history in which both candidates were found to have violated ethics standards before a national election."...WOW, but we aren't surprised are we? And they are the duo who is going to clean up Washington - PATHETIC. Somewhat par for the party - got enough America?

Alf wrote on Oct 11, 2008 9:50 AM:Well, "She Said" at 8:51AM,
"Yes On 8" and people like that person don't do not understand that the U.S. Supreme Court hears only cases brought before it as the ultimate legal authority from a case of a lower court.
Vote No on Prop. 8.
Regards, Alf.

Ms M wrote on Oct 11, 2008 9:50 AM:He Said
[-] wrote on Oct 11, 2008 9:34 AM:...we shall see won't we. He will have a majority in congress so it will be very interesting - I am so looking forward to having a change in our country.

Alf wrote on Oct 11, 2008 9:56 AM:Um, "Apollo" at 9:32AM,
I think you made a boo-boo.
You said "IF Prop 8 fails, it changes the state Constitution, which effectively overrules the decision.".
I think that you meant to say -
"IF Prop 8 PASSES, it changes the state Constitution, which effectively overrules the decision."
Regards, Alf.

Predictions wrote on Oct 11, 2008 9:59 AM:He Said at 9:34 a.m. echoes the pathetic comments of the letter writer several days ago who talked about a "Told Ya So Club."
Just because Republicans have failed to achieve anything but one domestic and international and financial disaster after another, does not mean that Democrats won't return to our long traditions of peace, prosperity and competence.

Why should we put the slightest stock in doom and gloom predictions of negative, pessimistic Republicans who have not gotten one thing right in the last eight years?

As Poppy said so eloquently several days ago, we have been in the Told Ya So Club for the last eight years and there is no joy in it.

Poppy wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:00 AM:"Floyd
[-] wrote on Oct 11, 2008 4:03 AM:Now that it has been determined that Gov. Palin has violated ethics laws in Alaska, she should be much more appealing to Democrats who tend to vote such people into office."

I call you out as a slanderous liar and a troublemaker, sir. McCain picked Palin for his VP. Lose with it.

Wanda wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:04 AM:I suppose now that John McCain has decided to take the "high road" he won't be showing up for the debate in his Ku Klux Klan outfit after all.

To Yes on 8 wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:05 AM:If you are too selfish to share the use of the word marriage then let's just get rid of the term altogether and everyone use Legal Partnerships. Why should you get your way and your equals do not?

To He Said wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:08 AM:"He Said
[-] wrote on Oct 11, 2008 9:34 AM:After the election it's going to be fun to see the Obamaites continually have to defend why their new president Barrack hasn't been able to get anything done."

You have my sympathy. We watched you defend your President for eight years and you look even more deperate every day. It sucks to be you.

Observer wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:08 AM:To no on 8 who wrote at 8:57

You define marriage as between one adult and another. Can I marry my good looking first cousin? A very slippery slope we're going down

Ron wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:10 AM:It's not just the intentional omissions, Lee Davis.
It's the out-in-out mimicking of the daily talking points from the messiah {small "m"}.

Personally, I have not seen one article about how difficult it was for Old Joe O'Biden to switch gears, flip-flop, 180 degree spin job from "the Presidency does not lend itself to on-the-job training", to now: Most Qualified?
Huh?

Not to mention, the key reason NObama chose O'Biden was for his foreign policy expertise, yet.. NOBiden has been wrong on so many occasions, it is laughable that the press has not gone through NObiden's record.

Many other under-reported NObama's changing positions: sittin down without preconditions, NObama & Biden have said two completely different things about
clean coal, depending on which State they were in.

It is beyond omissions, it is an out-in-out Love Affair with the idea of a Barackous NObamous presidency, the liberal bias will be the hangover America will feel soon after he fails to do what he now says.

Apollo wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:12 AM:Re: Alf (9:56 a.m.)
Argh! Ya got me! Fair and Square! It was indeed a boo-boo by me and your correction is what I intended.

I guess it is just too hard to spit out the words "Prop 8 passes."
Ouch! It hurt just typing it!

And your blog at 9:50 a.m. is also exactly right. The U.S. Supreme Court is only an appellate court; it does not have "original jurisdiction" with certain specified exceptions, in Article III section 2 of the Constitution, such as one state suing another state or matters of international diplomacy in which one party claims diplomatic immunity - obviously none of which apply in this instance.

Karl wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:23 AM:OBAMACAN @ 9:13 AM: is a perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black in regards to "hateful, nasty, vicious blogs in these pages". I hope that both Democrats and Republicans sink each other. They don't have much further to go. When Obama wins he will be the victim of a witch hunt much more vicious than that of Clinton or Bush. Good job OBAMCAN, keep it up.

Karl wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:27 AM:Ms M @ 9:47 AM:

Polititians violating ethics standards? Tell me it isn't so. I thought all polititians were as clean as the driven snow.

She Said wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:28 AM:to Alf @ 9:50: The Supreme Court also does not make their decisions based on letters, emails, etc. But, I wouldn't put it past the Yes on 8'ers to frantically try anything.

She Said wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:32 AM:to He Said @ 9:34.. Are you sure you're not Ron in a shorter verbiage form?

Reardon wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:35 AM:I would like to thank the Liberals on this Blog for their high-class, and liberal attitudes – as demonstrated just today by: “he's actually too much of a coward” and “in his Ku Klux Klan outfit” and “corporate lackey Brokaw” and “"LYNCH OBAMA" bumper sticker off his limo” and lynch mob mentality” and all the while decrying “hateful, nasty, vicious blogs in these pages.”

Amazing hypocricy.

Ms M wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:37 AM:Karl
[-] wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:23 AM:...he may be subjected to a witch hunt but it won't deter him from being a "great" president. He will stay on his course just as he doing in his campaign. After being called a terrorist, accused of being unpatriotic among other things, he still stands above this madness looking and acting so presidential. Oh, by the time the election is over, any witch hunt will be an exercise in futility. If there was ANYTHING, ANYTHING at all, we would not be hearing about Ayers.

To Karl wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:44 AM:"Karl
[-] wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:23 AM:OBAMACAN @ 9:13 AM: is a perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black in regards to "hateful, nasty, vicious blogs in these pages"."

I specifically asked you for an example of Obama/Biden using hateful, nasty, vicious attacks on McCain/Palin and you told me if I didn't know you weren't going to tell me.

McCain and Palin's disgrace is now out there for everyone to see and repudiate, including high powered conservative members of their own party.

Karl, using a blogger on this page is not an example. Chuck trumps anyone here for nastiness in any case.

Try again.

Your Cous wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:47 AM:Observer[-] wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:08 AM: You probably could if you both can pass the blood test required by the state and if state law permits such an arrangement.

Alf wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:51 AM:Well, "Apollo" at 10:12AM,
I understand when you say "Ouch! It hurt just typing it!"
One reason that I oppose religion being interjected into law is that religion does not use logic, reason or rational thought as its basis, religion uses faith and emotion.
Propositions like Prop. 4 and Prop. 8 (and "good-old" Prop. 83) are emotion-based. Props 4 and 83 were "named laws", "Sarah's Law" and "Jessica's Law" respectively.
The strange part is that, while there actually was a "Jessica" for which Prop. 83 was written, there is NO "Sarah" for which Prop. 4 was written, NO "Sarah" involved at all.
I NEVER vote for a "named law" specifically because naming a law is supposed to be an emotional appeal, a "tug at the heart-strings".
When writing and enacting laws emotion SHOULD be "checked at the door"
so that "cool heads can prevail".
Logic, rational thought and reason are the components of a wise law,
emotion is the prime component of an unwise and probably un-Constitutional law.
Regards, Alf.

From the Bear wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:57 AM:ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

* Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.
* Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

* Over the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly from sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments.
* In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.

Poppy wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:58 AM:Karl says, "When Obama wins he will be the victim of a witch hunt much more vicious than that of Clinton or Bush."

And when that happens we will lay the blame on McCain and his handlers, where it belongs, for running a campaign that incites hate without rebuke. That blame will be shared with the viscious right wing talking liars like Limbaugh and Hannity. They will be disgraced and no longer relevant.

The American people will no longer tolerate hate and fear from their political leaders. Obama has a presidential challenge ahead of him but I am confident he was put here exactly at this time because he is capable of rising to this challenge. McCain is clearly NOT.

Ron often asks why, if McCain is so bad, why Obama's lead is not more significant? Consider the fact that a virtually unknown black man has risen in such a momentious and powerful shot to be in sight of leading the world's most powerful nation means Obama had to come from far behind in the beginning and overcome great obstacles to achieve even this much.

As the time grows near and more people see what Obama is made of, his numbers grow to double digit leads.

We, the American People will quell the witchhunts and viscious attacks. We will once again gather together strong and prosperous, as we face a future with a strong new leader with ethics, grace, vision and intelligence.

Read it and weep, you who cling to the old ideologies. Your day is done. We are ready to face the future.

From the Bear wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:59 AM:PROPOSITION 8
This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the
provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.
This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by
adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are
printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
SECTION 1. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage
Protection Act.”
SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution,
to read:
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized
in California.
PROPOSITION 9
This

Karl wrote on Oct 11, 2008 11:01 AM:To Karl @ 10:44 AM:

I was addressing you and no one else. I was not addressing the DNC. Reardon generalizes the same thought at 10:35 AM this morning. Thank you Reardon, I thought I was the only one who sees the hypocrisy here.

From the Bear wrote on Oct 11, 2008 11:02 AM:ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF
PROPOSITION 8 ARGUMENT AGAINST
PROPOSITION 8

Proposition 8 is simple and straightforward. It contains the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000 by over 61% of California voters: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

Because four activist judges in San Francisco wrongly overturned the people’s vote, we need to pass this measure as a constitutional amendment to RESTORE THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE as a man and a woman.

Proposition 8 is about preserving marriage; it’s not an attack on the gay lifestyle. Proposition 8 doesn’t take away any rights or benefits of gay or lesbian domestic partnerships. Under California law, “domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits” as married spouses. (Family Code § 297.5.) There are NO exceptions. Proposition 8 WILL NOT change this.

YES on Proposition 8 does three simple things:

It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and human history has understood marriage to be.

It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people.

It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage.

Proposition 8 protects marriage as an essential institution of society. While death, divorce, or other circumstances may prevent the ideal, the best situation for a child is to be raised by a married mother and father.

The narrow decision of the California Supreme Court isn’t just about “live and let live.” State law may require teachers to instruct children as young as kindergarteners about marriage. (Education Code § 51890.) If the gay marriage ruling is not overturned, TEACHERS COULD BE REQUIRED to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage.

We should not accept a court decision that may result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay. That is an issue for parents to discuss with their children according to their own values and beliefs. It shouldn’t be forced on us against our will.

Some will try to tell you that Proposition 8 takes away legal rights of gay domestic partnerships. That is false. Proposition 8 DOES NOT take away any of those rights and does not interfere with gays living the lifestyle they choose.

However, while gays have the right to their private lives, they do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else.

CALIFORNIANS HAVE NEVER VOTED FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. If gay activists want to legalize gay marriage, they should put it on the ballot. Instead, they have gone behind the backs of voters and convinced four activist judges in San Francisco to redefine marriage for the rest of society. That is the wrong approach.

Voting YES on Proposition 8 RESTORES the definition of marriage that was approved by over 61% of voters. Voting YES overturns the decision of four activist judges. Voting YES protects our children.

Please vote YES on Proposition 8 to RESTORE the meaning of marriage

Karl wrote on Oct 11, 2008 11:05 AM:Poppy @ 10:58 AM:

I certainly hope you are right "We, the American People will quell the witchhunts and viscious attacks". I do however doubt it will happen. This crap has been going on for a long time and is getting worse with each new year.

From the Bear wrote on Oct 11, 2008 11:06 AM:OUR CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION—the law of our land—SHOULD GUARANTEE THE SAME FREEDOMS AND RIGHTS TO EVERYONE—NO ONE group SHOULD be singled out to BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY.

In fact, our nation was founded on the principle that all people should be treated equally. EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW IS THE FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN SOCIETY.

That’s what this election is about—equality, freedom, and fairness, for all.

Marriage is the institution that conveys dignity and respect to the lifetime commitment of any couple. PROPOSITION 8 WOULD DENY LESBIAN AND GAY COUPLES that same DIGNITY AND RESPECT.

That’s why Proposition 8 is wrong for California.

Regardless of how you feel about this issue, the freedom to marry is fundamental to our society, just like the freedoms of religion and speech.

PROPOSITION 8 MANDATES ONE SET OF RULES FOR GAY AND LESBIAN COUPLES AND ANOTHER SET FOR EVERYONE ELSE. That’s just not fair. OUR LAWS SHOULD TREAT EVERYONE EQUALLY.

In fact, the government has no business telling people who can and cannot get married. Just like government has no business telling us what to read, watch on TV, or do in our private lives. We don’t need Prop. 8; WE DON’T NEED MORE GOVERNMENT IN OUR LIVES.

REGARDLESS OF HOW ANYONE FEELS ABOUT MARRIAGE FOR GAY AND LESBIAN COUPLES, PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE SINGLED OUT FOR UNFAIR TREATMENT UNDER THE LAWS OF OUR STATE. Those committed and loving couples who want to accept the responsibility that comes with marriage should be treated like everyone else.

DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS ARE NOT MARRIAGE.

When you’re married and your spouse is sick or hurt, there is no confusion: you get into the ambulance or hospital room with no questions asked. IN EVERYDAY LIFE, AND ESPECIALLY IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS, DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS ARE SIMPLY NOT ENOUGH. Only marriage provides the certainty and the security that people know they can count on in their times of greatest need.

EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW IS A FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE. Prop. 8 separates one group of Californians from another and excludes them from enjoying the same rights as other loving couples.

Forty-six years ago I married my college sweetheart, Julia. We raised three children—two boys and one girl. The boys are married, with children of their own. Our daughter, Liz, a lesbian, can now also be married—if she so chooses.

All we have ever wanted for our daughter is that she be treated with the same dignity and respect as her brothers—with the same freedoms and responsibilities as every other Californian.

My wife and I never treated our children differently, we never loved them any differently, and now the law doesn’t treat them differently, either.

Each of our children now has the same rights as the others, to choose the person to love, commit to, and to marry.

Don’t take away the equality, freedom, and fairness that everyone in California—straight, gay, or lesbian—deserves.

grj wrote on Oct 11, 2008 11:09 AM:So the McCain/Palin rallys stir up hate, fits right up there with god told us to go to war in iraq and all kinds of war mongering mentality that goes on with America trying to save the world. How bout signing up those thousands of gang memebers who currently are destroying a good peaceful environment in our society they are already versed in killing mentality.

Karl wrote on Oct 11, 2008 11:11 AM:Well Ms M @ 10:37 AM, while I do not share your optimism about an Obama presidency I would prefer that you are right and I am wrong on this one.

Since shortly after the war broke out I placed a 30 foot banner across the back of my house facing the golf course that states "God Bless our Troops and our President". My liberal friends have asked if I will remove the "President" part if Obama is elected. My answer of course is "Hell No".

observer wrote on Oct 11, 2008 11:13 AM:To Alf and all who want a no vote on prop 8. Stop all the back and forth about the supreme court. We can all see you have a brain. Gay marriage is just a weird concept all together. I have a grandson who quite frankly shouldnt have to witness two guys kissing in public. More explaining to do. And lets go down this road. If prop 8 is defeated and I take my grandson or grand-daughter to the movies to see a remake of the little mermaid, is it ok for Ariel to have a female love interest? Are you guys getting my point or is this all "AGE APPROPRIATE"?

Bob wrote on Oct 11, 2008 11:15 AM:Regarding Reardon's 10:35 AM post, I would have to guess that some of the liberal posts you've quoted are a response to comedy of the ethically challenged McCain, who's campaign as been 100% negative attack ads, deciding as a last gasp to "take the high road".

Espero wrote on Oct 11, 2008 11:23 AM:Observer[-] wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:08 AM:You can marry anybody and anything if anybody and anything can fill out the marriage license, pass the blood test and pay the fee as provided for and defined by the individual state. It is the individual state that gives the definition of marriage and the qualification for same within its state boundaries. It is interpreted by the individual State Supreme Court. The only time it would be challenged is if the language, purpose and practice of the defined marriage was in some way conflicted with the Federal Constitution.

He Said wrote on Oct 11, 2008 11:24 AM:Poppy @ 10:58: "he was put here exactly at this time because he is capable of rising to this challenge". Exactly who put him here? Sincerely, that is one of the funniest, dreamboat, ridiculous statements I've heard on these blogs ever. Divine intervention? Yeah, that's right!! You'd have a tough time getting that past most libs. I bet it sucks to be a fanatic.

Yo Yo wrote on Oct 11, 2008 11:36 AM:observer[-] wrote on Oct 11, 2008 11:13 AM:No one has to be married in order to kiss or hold hands publicly. Public affection is not age appropriate for very young children to observer. You are entitled to your opinion as it governs yourself and those under your charge. The rest of the public does not care what you think. Yes it is appropriate for Ariel to have a female love interest. Movie makers produce a product that sells. If it sells, such an interest might be in the remake. If it doesn't, then such scenes will not be present. You not only want to censor movies but also life. You need to wake up. Life is for real. It is not a rehearsal. It is real.

Wanda wrote on Oct 11, 2008 11:41 AM:Bob at 11:15 AM is on to something. How can you not laugh when, after 24/7 of "Obama palls around with Bill Ayers", McCain decides to "take the high road"?

Has he mentioned this to the McCain / Palin campaign folks?

Did Charles Keating tell him, "You might not want to go there, John"?

Ron wrote on Oct 11, 2008 11:47 AM:I don't know if "Poppy" @10:58 AM is smoking the poppy, or drank the kool-aid, but Dude... get a grip on yourself.

This entire post is right out of the fantasical ravings, bordering on the lunacy, as only the Cult of Barackous NObamous can produce.

Let me, burst your bubble.
The only thing that will come to Washington D.C. should Nobama become elected, is the Thugocracy, Chicago-style.

Personally, I can not wait. I'll be one of the many in the "I told you so" choir. Yes, we will see the "95% tax cut" vanish, right into the Bill Clinton/Liberal Democrat's of 93 tax plans of down to the $33K a year increases, plus retroactive to the prior year.
Yes, we will need to tighten our belts, for me personally, it will be easier, I'll buy a couple of cups less a week at Starbucks, but the result of that will be more lay-off's from Starbucks who make min. wage.

And you won't be able to lay blame on anyone but NObamous because he will be THE ONE who'll bring it on, himself.
The one thing I do foresee by a Pelosi/Reid/Nobamous reign of terror, is the reduction of freedom of speech.

Since NObamous has said to "his following" to "get in their faces", the cult of NObamous will attempt to shutdown all venues they perceive as
hate and fear, as directed by the most far Left political leaders.

NObamous simply is NOT up to the
presidential challenge ahead of him.
But he'll have Old Joe NoBiden at his side to be wrong nearly all of the time.

McCain is bad, but NObama would be worse, way worse. Which is why NObamous can not close the deal. Which is why the Liberals are coming ut in full force, beating down on their own union, blue collar people who they fear will not go the way of the socialist NObama. They will, of course, blame them for NObama's loss, not because they disagree with him on policy, they have turned, and played the race card on white blue-collar worker's, and will blame them should NObama lose.
It's already pre-set.
Which is why you have James Carville, amid other's saying there will be race riots, if the messiah {small "m"} loses.
And from my ear to the ground, I'm hearing the people who were chanting "kill" inside the McCain/Palin crowds were Liberal plants {yes, just as Hillary planted questioners} for the ready-made NObama press to report.

Reardon wrote on Oct 11, 2008 11:50 AM:From today's New York Times (Excerpt): Mr. LaBolt emphasized that Project Vote and Acorn were not as intertwined at that time as they are today, when a significant part of Project Vote’s revenues flow to Acorn and various of its affiliates as payment for services.

But according to Sam Graham-Felsen, who blogs on the Obama campaign’s Web site, Mr. Obama himself linked his 1992 work to Acorn in a meeting with Acorn’s leaders in November.

“Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drives in Illinois, Acorn was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work,” Mr. Obama said, according to a post Mr. Graham-Felsen made in February.
(UNQUOTE)

Alf wrote on Oct 11, 2008 11:51 AM:Well, "observer" at 11:13AM,
go back a few decades and your post could have just as easily have been a letter to the editor against interracial marriage. Imagine having your grandchild being exposed to a black man kissing a white woman or a white Minnie Mouse having a black love interest.
I am not in favor of two people performing tongue examinations of the other's tonsils in public no matter which gender combination they are.
Does that mean that it should be illegal?
NO!
You have a right to say your selfish and discriminatory words and I have a right to disagree with you.
Regards, Alf.

Oh Please wrote on Oct 11, 2008 11:52 AM:Military must stop railroading our soldiers Well, Reg George you recommend that a ten million dollar bounty be placed on Ben Ladin's head and the job turned over to Blackwater. The bounty is already 25 million on Ben Ladin's head. Blackwater is too busy picking up easy money in Iraq.

observer wrote on Oct 11, 2008 11:59 AM:to yo yo

I woke up years ago and see things quite clearly. This social experiment is going to be a disaster.

Roger wrote on Oct 11, 2008 11:59 AM:Well Reardon (at 10:35 AM) some of us find it humorous that the "NEW AND IMPROVED" John McCain now wants to take the "HIGH ROAD" after his entire campaign has been vapid attempts at character assassination of Obama.

His bumper sticker actually reads "LYNCH THAT ONE" :)

Alf wrote on Oct 11, 2008 12:02 PM:Well, "Yo Yo" at 11:36AM,
I live my life as if it will cease when my body dies.
Having smashed 3 vertebrae is quite real enough for me.
This ain't a rehearsal, not for me.
That's part of what makes Alf who he is.
Regards, Alf.

observer wrote on Oct 11, 2008 12:17 PM:to Alf.

You distorted what I said. Im not talking about going back decades. Come on, give me a flipping break. Were talking about today. Dont rationalize this to make it work for your way of thinking

madscipiper wrote on Oct 11, 2008 12:17 PM:Because it is marriage, damn it!
Calling it a civil union, or being willing to allow the gays to pay for a lawyer to draw up contracts to protect their families is as 'civil' as asking us to sit at the back of the bus, or drink from that fountain over there. Sure, the seats are comfy and the water is wet, yet it diminishes me and mine as less than fully human.

Civil unions is a clear message that we are not worthy---it's marriage lite, without full protection or respect for our commitment to each other, leaving us and our children vulnerable to the vagaries of popular opinion.

Of course I understand why people fight it, because it weakens the arsenal of bigotry---if we call it marriage, it 'legitimizes' homosexuality. Give the blessings of government sanctioned marriage to 'the gays' and our children will grow up thinking it's, gasp, "normal". How ever will we be able to teach them 'the gays' are demons when they are registering for gifts at the china store? The most threatening thing about gay marriage is that it makes us less threatening.

Reardon wrote on Oct 11, 2008 12:17 PM:To From The Bear: I have asked this before, and no one wishes to tackle it with specific answers – perhaps you will:

You state: “In fact, our nation was founded on the principle that all people should be treated equally. EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW IS THE FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN SOCIETY.

That’s what this election is about—equality, freedom, and fairness, for all.”

Does your definition ("All") include polygamy? Marriage” of blood relatives?”

“ALL” is a VERY inclusive term.

If “All” does not REALLY mean ALL, who gets to set the terms of society? The people or the Courts?

Apollo wrote on Oct 11, 2008 12:24 PM:Re: Observer (10:08 a.m.)
For your info, in most states, it is perfectly legal for "Kissin' cousins" to marry.
And I don't know why the conservatives can't get it through those stubborn heads that the Supreme Court decided the case based on the CONSTITUTIONAL prohibition of GENDER discrimination. There is no analogous Constitutional equivalent based on consanguinity (proximity of "blood" relationships).

Re: Karl (11:05 a.m.)
Kind of dangerous, isn't it, making references to "witch hunts" after that video circulating of pastor Muthee (who had actually persecuted women in Africa for being "witches" - talk about your literal "witch hunt") laying on of hands to Sarah Palin to cast out "all manner of WITCHCRAFT."

And about politicians being "clean as the driven snow," have you ever seen snow that has been driven in?

Ron wrote on Oct 11, 2008 12:27 PM:>>>Read it and weep, you who cling to the old ideologies. Your day is done. We are ready to face the future.>>>

Surely, only someone who has smoked the poppy, or drank the NObama kool-aid could come up with a statement like this?
Eh.. "Poppy" @10:58 AM?

The Thugocracy that WILL come to Washington should Barackous NObamous be elected, will astound many.
Given his personal predilection of collecting unto himself so many radical, and questionability criminal charactors that surround him, it is any wonder why those who claim to see so clearly, are so fooled.
The protection racketeering by the MSM that surrounding the NObamaman now, will slowly give way as Nobamous, if elected, will begin to throw them under the bus, as he has done to all those who disappoint him. This is the pattern of the messiah {small "m"}.
Just as the press supposedly lost all judgement and objectivity during the lead up to the Iraq invasion, the hangover after the election of NObama, will be worse. The installing of sliding scale socialists inside the buearocracy of the Central government will be massive, preventing any future administration from dismantling it. This was the genius of FDR, and his Raw Deal. Once installed, as Ronald Reagan once said: "The next best thing to enternal life, is a government program."

In my own opinion, this economic downturn, which I predicted would come as a result of borrowing to fund entitlement programs for decades, is probably arrived just in time.
It will limit some of the damage, but it certainly will not stop them from trying to install more programs and systems that will last for generations, just as we have seen the New Deal diasters coming home to roost.
It's a time of choosing folks,
Do you want a government so entrenched into your everyday lives, or is it time to throw off the socialist tendencies and encroachments that have been at the heart of our failing economic system?
Your already poorer as a result of liberal government interventionism.
How much more blood do you really want them to suck from yur life, and livihood?

Yo Yo wrote on Oct 11, 2008 12:29 PM:observer[-] wrote on Oct 11, 2008 12:17 PM: Well, my friend. How do you feel about a black man kissing a white women in public today? Should it be against the law? What is your opinion about biracial marriage today? No. you will not get a flippin break.

Surfer wrote on Oct 11, 2008 12:31 PM:observer[-] wrote on Oct 11, 2008 12:17 PM: That is what you are doing,Dude. Your rationalizing to hour way of thinking? See Ya!

observer wrote on Oct 11, 2008 12:48 PM:to yo yo

I have NO problem with blacks, whites or whoever. I have absolutly No problem with a biracial marriage. Stick to the topic

Mutiny wrote on Oct 11, 2008 12:53 PM:Time to jump off the sinking ship and declare mutiny. The SSS McCain is sinking...lies, dishonesty and stupidity are taking that ship to the bottom of the ocean. Palin is Guilty. McCain has no clue (neither does Palin). Stop yer Republiscums vicious, unfounded attacks. Barack Obama is a true Christian and deserves to be in the White House.

I Am wrote on Oct 11, 2008 12:54 PM:I am proud to be an American.
What makes me sad is that our national reputation both here and abroad has been destroyed by our lame duck president and the actions of the Bush/Cheney administration, of which McCain has supported more often than he has opposed.
What makes me sad is that our country told manufactured lies about WMDs, in order to knowingly invade a country that had nothing to do with the attacks on our men, women, and chidren in our homeland. What makes me sadder is that our focus is STILL on that country, rather than rightfully turning our attention to the perpetrators of the heinous crimes against our people.
I am proud to be an American.
Day in and day out I wake up, tend to the needs of my family, work dutifully at my job, try to give back to my community, all the while I wonder where my government is for me. Oh! That’s right… since I am not in the upper echelons of the “have’s” and “have mores” I simply don’t exist in their eyes. I am simply collateral damage in this class warfare whereby somehow the fruits of our deregulated economy are supposed to trickle down to me.
Oh wait. Due to deregulation, heavily supported by John McCain,