Without commenting pro or con on the merits of the California Supreme Court's recent decision (there is another thread here on that subject here: 

 http://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/forums/thread/2518132.aspx ),

my question for this thread is simply whether this decision might ultimately put the state of California "in play" for the November election?  I'll have to read a bit more over the weeks ahead, but it seems at least plausible.

The petition to put a state constitutional amendment, which would nullify the court's decision, on the November ballot in California is already at the secretary of state's office, with over DOUBLE the number of signatures needed. (Only the rawest example of pure tyranny could at this point prevent the amendment from being on the ballot).  The verbiage, BTW, is idential to the proposition passed in 2000 by over 60% of Califormia voters, allowing for civil unions, but defining marriage as, and limiting it to, one man and one woman only.

It would seem to me that this issue on the ballot might tend to bring out some of the state's conservative voters, particularly Evangelicals and conservative Catholics.  The provision may also particularly appeal to much of California's large Hispanic population, which trends conservative on cultural and social issues, and many of whom might be inclined to support McCain in any case.

So, could California actually be turned from a solid Blue state to a tossup - or even into the Red column - in the 2008 Presidential election, for the first time in two decades? 

IMO, the odds look encouraging.  At the very least, Barack Obama is likely to have to spend quite a bit of time and resources in California that he might otherwise been able to deploy elsewhere.  (Not to mention how interesting it will be to see how Obama answers the inevitable questions he will receive repeatedly on the campaign trail and in debates this fall concerning this issue.  Now THAT should be fascinating ;-)

It is still early in the game, but from where I stand, the more I think about this, the better it looks.

MWL

The Obama-radical gay agenda is just too easy to make. Yeah, CA is in play, thanks to overzealous Leftists.

Their agenda is the gift that keeps on giving.

 I do doubt, however, that Obama has to spend as much money on CA as he gets in CA. He's still going to net several million from the LA-LA crowd.

Let's see what kind of machinations the Obama propaganda machine goes through to distance yet embrace the gay agenda. That alone should have more entertainment value than all of the Wright/Obama machinations.

Good points, Ted.

Although I remain optimistic, the weakened state of the economy (part genuine, part contrived by the media) will play a much bigger issue this year.  I am not sure that social issues will resonate as much as they often have in the past.  They certainly did not need to, and absent this court decision, almost certainly would not have played much of a role this fall.

But we really do have to hand it to the left.  All they had to do is wait.  With President Obama in the White House, and a solid Democratic majority in both houses of congress, the liberal totalitarians in the judicial community, scattered around the country, could have then really taken the goves off and pushed a wide range of issues on the leftist social/cultural agenda.  They could have just rammed 'em down the public's throat; enough elected officials, up to and including the president, would be like Governor Terminator is today and say something like, "Well, of course I am personally opposed to this or that (or personally support this or that) ... but well, you know, the judges have made their decision and we will just have to comply, there is nothing else we can do ..." 

In the old con games this is what was known as "cooling the mark".  It happens when someone who was in on the con all along remains behind, still "befriending" the guy who was taken, and sympathizes and expresses outrage along with him (perhaps even claiming loss himself), while convincing him that it is pointless to try to do anything about it.  The mark reluctantly accepts what appears to be the inevitable, and the con is completed.

But the point of any good con is: timing is everything!  The left just couldn't wait until after the election.  Perhaps they have become so arrogant, so confident of victory at long last, that they believe continued caution, or continuing to bother with misleading the public as to their intentions, is no longer even necessary. 

This may turn out to be an error in judgement on their part.  If so, it will not be the first time.  We shall see.

MWL 

"But we really do have to hand it to the left.  All they had to do is wait."

Exactly who in the vast left wing conspiracy is in charge of scheduling the left agenda anyway?  I agree that they should of waited. But, I'm skeptical if there is actually a "they" out there who can control the docket at the CA Supreme court to satisfy the wishes of the DNC.

  Do you remember the summer of 2004 when they were performing  gay marriages in San Francisco and it was all over the media?  I remember wondering why they couldn't have waited until after the election.  It didn't make sense.  But DanielTX has a point.

This time it's a court decision, not the mayor of S.F.'s decision.

Perhaps my choice of words was erroneous - there is not necessarily a "they".  If there was, they would probably have delayed this ruling 

I usually don't resurrect a thread off page one.  But there was a pertinent article that just came out today worth adding.  In part,

Social conservatives have sought to find a silver-bullet issue for four years. Barack Obama, you can bet, hopes that gay marriage won’t be one this November.

Full article here: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTIwYzk1ZjUxNWUyZjEyYWM3YmRmNTU2OTZkYTNiNjE=

This article mentions the other states in which the "definition of marriage" issue may help McCain - they include New Mexico, Iowa, and even New Jersey.

MWL

MWL

I think you are right that this issue will help McCain. That's ok. McCain seems like he will be a good pres. I like the moderate, centrist republicans. In fact, I'd like to see them take over the GOP!

If only every election boiled down to a choice between a liberal and a centrist - I'm good either way.