Politics by Occam

In the latest news on the gay marriage front in California, Bill Lockyer, former 25-year state legislator, California's outgoing attorney general, and incoming treasurer, kicked off his 2010 campaign for governor by performing a required act of pandering, requesting that the California Supreme Court review the ruling of the appellate court in October upholding the state's gay marriage ban.

Normally, this wouldn't raise eyebrows -- except that Lockyer is asking a court to review (and hopefully overturn) a decision which he won. He's apparently intelligent enough to realize that appealing the decision would make no sense whatsoever, even assuming that he was able to do it; however, it should be obvious that he's hoping that the California Supreme Court will make up for his failure to sabotage the case in the lower courts.

And of course, you knew that this was coming; Assemblyman Mark Leno, no doubt with the support of We Only Support Democrats, Even Homophobes Equality California, once again began the process of trying to force gay marriage through the California Legislature.

Both of these, in my opinion, are a waste of time.

The fifty-ton elephant in the room that both of these individuals are trying to ignore is Proposition 22, aka the California Defense of Marriage Act, which is elegant in its simplicity:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Thus, the answer to this issue is equally elegant and simple: repeal Proposition 22.

However, the reason neither Lockyer or Leno would even breathe that possibility is because it would require a statewide referendum -- and they know they don't have the votes.

In a referendum election, people would be casting their ballots based on how they felt about gay marriage, not on party affiliation, gerrymandered districts, or how much they liked the candidate; because of that, even in the Golden State, a repeal of Prop 22 likely would not pass. It's the same reason that gay leftists and their purchased allies are frantically using any means possible to prevent the electorate of Massachusetts from voting directly on whether or not they wish to allow gay marriage; if an election is focused solely on that, it will lose.

Thus, they blunder onward. Lockyer has failed (and likely will continue to fail) in getting a court to declare Proposition 22 unconstitutional. Leno is trying to get around it by making the preposterous claim that it was only meant to ban gay marriages contracted outside California -- or, in other words, that 61% of California's voters only cared if gays were getting married OUTSIDE California, and not inside. Even if Leno and enough of the Legislature buys it, Governor Schwarzenegger obviously doesn't.

I will throw down the gauntlet right now; the first person to come along, gay or straight, with a viable statewide push and campaign to repeal Proposition 22 will have my wholehearted personal, public, and financial support. However, not a penny or endorsement will be gotten out of me by the Lenos, Lockyers, and EQCAs who are attempting everything but.