FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blog

This supposed “DEAL” is NOT going to happen.

Reporting from Sacramento — State lawmakers began moving toward a deal this week to close California’s deficit with the help of steeper car fees that would cost many drivers hundreds of dollars annually, according to people involved in budget talks.

Under the plan, GOP lawmakers — most of whom have signed anti-tax pledges — would vote to triple the vehicle license fee that owners pay when they register their cars every year in exchange for a ballot measure that would impose rigid limits on future state spending. Motorists’ annual license fees would rise from 0.65% of the value of their vehicles to 2%. For a car or truck valued at $25,000, the increase would be $336.

Flap has heard from a California Republican Legislator who blasts this deal as a “liberal/L.A. Times rumor.”

Californians Against Hate have launched yet another boycott against a California business whose owners donated to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign.

A San Diego nonprofit known for organizing protests against Proposition 8 supporters is calling for a boycott against a San Diego-based storage company.

Californians Against Hate has launched a statewide “virtual boycott” of A-1 Self Storage, owned by Terry Caster, who gave nearly $700,000 to support the gay-marriage ban that prevailed at the polls Nov. 4.

Fred Karger, head of Californians Against Hate, said the boycott is virtual because it will be promoted through blogs and social and business networking sites. His group organized a boycott against the downtown Manchester Grand Hyatt, owned by Proposition 8 supporter Doug Manchester, and a phone campaign against A-1 Self Storage.

More harassment and intimidation from the homosexual community as they prepare for a repeat election to overturn the gay marriage ban voted into law on November 4th.

It is likely that California Proposition 8 will not be overturned on state constituional grounds and gay marriage supporters wish to discourage donors to the 2010 effort to reinstitute gay marriage.

What better way then to publicly shame and financially hurt the businesses?

Polling is unclear whether Proposition 8 protests are effective in helping their cause. These types of boycotts also risk a voter backlash and portray gay marriage supporters as “sore loser” bullies.

Stay tuned…..

Previous:

Does California Supreme Court Justice Joyce Kennard’s Vote Yesterday a Good Sign for Proposition 8?

Poll: 3 of 5 in California Say Gay Marriages Before Proposition 8 Should Remain Legal?

• Gay marriage backers explain why they lost Proposition 8
  There's been a lot of outrage from the No on Proposition 8 camp since California voters approved a ban on gay marriage. But until now, there has been less soul searching about what went wrong. But Terry Leftgoff, founder of the Gay and Lesbian Business Assn. of Santa Barbara, has a thoughtful piece on WeHo News looking at how the opposition to Proposition 8 fell short. It did, he says, on several levels: A mixed message, failing to respond to attacks from Yes on 8 forces, little black and Latino outreach.
  +++++++
  Duh
  The Yes on 8 campaign had one of the best campaigns Flap has ever seen.
  (tags: gaymarriage)
• Antiwar groups fear Barack Obama may create hawkish Cabinet - Los Angeles Times
  Antiwar groups and other liberal activists are increasingly concerned at signs that Barack Obama's national security team will be dominated by appointees who favored the Iraq invasion and hold hawkish views on other important foreign policy issues.

  The activists are uneasy not only about signs that both Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates could be in the Obama Cabinet, but at reports suggesting that several other short-list candidates for top security posts backed the decision to go to war.
  +++++++
  Obama moved to the center to win the election against McCain and if he wants to win re-election he will have to continue in that direction. Obama is no fool.

  (tags: barack_obama)
• Associated Press to cut 10 pct jobs in '09: sources
  The Associated Press plans to cut up to 10 percent of its workforce in 2009, according to sources at the news service, as it copes with tough financial times and ailing member newspapers.

  The AP has one of the world's largest news-gathering teams, employing about 3,000 journalists, and a total of about 4,100 people worldwide. The cuts could amount to about 400 employees.

  AP Chief Executive Tom Curley delivered the news as part of a "town hall" meeting with employees.

  "All areas and ways of doing business are being reviewed," said an AP statement provided to Reuters. "The AP, which recently instituted a strategic hiring freeze, may need to reduce staff over the next year. If so, it hopes to achieve much of the reduction through attrition."

  The job cuts come as the AP restructures its operations in the United States in a bid to provide what it said would be deeper, more relevant coverage for its member newspapers.
  ++++++++
  AP with citizen journalism is becoming less of a source

  (tags: associatedpress media mediabias)
• Should Barack Obama Go To Georgia? - The Fix
  Even as President-elect Barack Obama continues to rapidly fill out his White House staff and Cabinet picks, the buzz around whether he will spend some of his prized political capital on behalf of former state Rep. Jim Martin (D) in Georgia continues to grow.

  Martin is taking on Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R) in a Dec. 2 runoff occasioned by the fact that the GOP incumbent was unable to win 50 plus one percent of the vote on Nov. 4.

  Martin clearly benefited from Obama's presence at the top of the ticket — particularly in the black community — and Democrats eyeing a 60-seat filibuster proof majority believe an Obama appearance may be the only way Martin can come close to re-creating the sort of base turnout he needs to beat Chambliss next month.
  +++++++++
  It may be a risk of political capital that Obama does not wish to make.

  (tags: barack_obama Saxbe_Chambliss Jim_Martin)
• Arizona's New Republican Governor… Jan Brewer? Thanks, President-Elect Obama
  The Democrats have lost their best candidate in Arizona. Napolitano was a canny politician who knew how to outflank the GOP. I think going to Washington and taking up Homeland security will not be a boon to her future political career. Several Republicans were lining up to run for governor in 2010. With Jan Brewer as an incumbent, they may modify their plans.

  The top of the Arizona GOP ticket in 2010 (Brewer and McCain) should help down ticket.

  In the meantime, I just glad we are getting her out of the state. Who said that the Obama Presidency would be all bad?
  ++++++++++
  Anything that helps the GOP at this point.

• Dear Prop. 8 Supporters - You May Think You Won, but Really You’re Losers
  How NOT to win hearts and minds about gay marriage
  (tags: gaymarriage)
• Napolitan for Homeland Security
  The interesting political question is why she'd take this job. She's been considering running for McCain's seat in 2010 or Kyl's in 2012 — I can't see how she could go to Washington and start running for Senate in less than two years, so maybe she has 2012 in mind instead. But even so, as DHS secretary, she is now going to be answerable for every illegal alien crossing the border and every snafu at ICE or USCIS — like the revelations from Houston that immigration authorities allowed back into the community violent criminals who admitted they were illegal aliens.
  ++++++
  I thinks she viewed her prospects better in the Obama Administration rather than Arizona agaisnt entrenched GOP Senators - plain and simple.
  (tags: Janet_Napolitano barack_obama)
• eHarmony forced to offer same-sex dating services
  So, this is “progress?” eHarmony, a Christian-targeted dating website, gets sued by a gay man demanding that the business match him up with a same-sex partner. The New Jersey Attorney General intervenes on behalf of the gay plaintiff and forces eHarmony to change its entire business model. To be clear: The company never refused to do business with anyone. Their great “sin” was not providing a specialized service that litigious gay people demanded they provide. This case is akin to a meat-eater suing a vegetarian restaurant for not offering him a ribeye or a female patient suing a vasectomy doctor for not providing her hysterectomy services. Sadly, eHarmony has settled . I wish they hadn’t, but I understand the decision given the chilling antics of the anti-Prop. 8 mob. The company agreed not only to offer same-sex dating services on a new site, but also to offer six-month subscriptions for free to 10,000 gay users.
  +++++++
  Alot of whining going on in the homosexual community.
  (tags: gay)
• Log Cabin Republicans On Its Last Leg?
  As Dan reported a few days ago, Log Cabin Republican President Patrick Sammon has announced he is leaving his post at the national gay Republican organization after two years.

  It seems there is more going on behind the scenes as well. One of my very reliable LCR Board insiders tells me a shocking fact: “Log Cabin is over $150,000 in debt.”

  And nearly the only source of income to Log Cabin lately is from none other than the Gay Left’s version of George Soros: the infamous Tim Gill. We have tracked Gill’s ties to Soros and Log Cabin extensively over the years here at GayPatriot.

  (tags: GOP Gay)
• California State budget deficit around $30 billion over next 19 months
  The Legislative Analyst's Office will release a new report today analyzing the woeful state of California's finances. It will flesh out last week's estimate that the state faces a $27.8 billion deficit over the next 19 months.

  But a new report from Beacon Economics predicts things will look even glummer in the future:

  * Labor markets are showing increased signs of stress.
  * There is little sign of a recovery in housing, and foreclosure rates are growing worse by the day.
  * Consumer markets have fallen off a cliff.
  * Corporate profits are taking a serious beating.

  The report commissioned by California Forward, the nonpartisan government reform group, describes itself as "decidedly more pessimistic" than the LAO or Schwarzenegger administration projections, largely due to lower projections for corporate taxes.

  The report also predicts the first year-over-year decline in statewide property taxes "since the Great Depression," according to Fred Silva
  +++++
  Calif meltdown

  (tags: california arnoldschwarzenegger)

Sarah Palin has a cute time pardoning a tom turkey for Thanksgiving but later is interviewed while Turkeys are slaughtered in the background. Of course, MSNBC makes the snide comments.

NBC News could have had a laugh with this but have turned it into something gross because they love the ‘cuda sooo much. Catch Shuster’s condescending tone/remarks around 6:15.

California Supreme Court Justices, from top left, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, Carlos R. Moreno, Joyce L. Kennard, Marvin Baxter and from lower left, Ming Chin, Chief Justice Ronald M. George and Carol Corrigan

In yesterday’s post about the California Supreme Court accepting California’s Proposition 8 that restored the traditional definition of marriage (one man and one woman) to the California Constitution for review, Flap briefly mentioned the fact that Justice Kennard did NOT sign the order.

From the order:

Justice Kennard would deny these petitions without prejudice to the filing in this court of an appropriate action to determine Proposition 8’s effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before Proposition 8’s adoption.

Justice Kennard, in fact, voted against reviewing the constitutionality of Proposition 8.

Why?

While both sides cheered the court’s decision to take up the cases, Kennard’s lone vote to deny review could spell trouble for opponents of Prop. 8.

Kennard is the court’s longest-serving justice, having been appointed in 1989, and has been one of its foremost supporters of same-sex couples’ rights. Without her vote, the May 15 ruling would have gone the other way. But she wrote Wednesday that she would favor hearing arguments only about whether Prop. 8 would invalidate the pre-election marriages, an issue that would arise only if the initiative were upheld.

“It’s always hard to read tea leaves, but I think Justice Kennard is saying that she thinks the constitutionality of Prop. 8 is so clear that it doesn’t warrant review,” said Stephen Barnett, a retired UC Berkeley law professor and longtime observer of the court.

For those seeking to overturn Prop. 8, “I would not think it would be encouraging,” said Dennis Maio, a San Francisco lawyer and former staff attorney at the court.

Flap thinks the court ultimately will support California’s voters and uphold the constitutionality of Proposition 8. Flap predicts a 6-1 vote with Justice Moreno dissenting.

Justice Kennard has sent a message to her fellow Justices yesterday that she plans to uphold Prop. 8.

Or did she?

Stay tuned……

---

Technorati Tags: Joyce Kennard, California Supreme Court, California Proposition 8

The Survey USA poll of 500 Californians conducted November 19, 2008:

The Question: What should happen to gay couples who were legally married in California before the law changed? Should their marriage remain legal? Should their marriage be immediately annulled? Or, do you not know enough to say?

• 59% Remain Legal
• 34% Immediately Annulled
• 6% Do Not Know Enough
• 1% Not Sure

However, look at the cross-tabs of the poll and particularly the sample (which is small) of minority voters (majority of African-American and Latino voters opposed Proposition 8 whereas in the California election approved the measure) - Question 3 and page 2 of the Pdf.

This poll with an error margin of +/- 4.5% may be an outlier.

An earlier poll, however, conducted in San Diego on November 14, 2008 leads to similar results:

• 56%     Remain Legal
• 37%     Immediately Annulled
• 6%     Do Not Know Enough
• 1%     Not Sure

Regardless, the California Supreme Court will likely decide the issue sometime early next year since the disposition of these marriages should Proposition 8 be found constituional is at issue: “If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?”

What are the options before the court?

UCLA Law School Professor Eugene Volokh outlines:

1. One option is that they may remain valid, whether because the initiative is construed as not applying to existing marriages, or because the courts conclude such an interpretation is constitutionally mandated by the Contracts Clause (”No state shall … pass any … Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts ….”).
2. Another is that pre-initiative same-sex marriages will become domestic partnerships, which under California statutes give most of the rights of marriage.
3. A third option is that same-sex marriages will be eliminated altogether, and that married couples will remain domestic partners only if they had entered both into a marriage and into a domestic partnership.
4. Finally, it’s possible that the legislature will step in, specifically providing that any invalidated same-sex marriage will become a domestic partnership.

Flap bets 3 or 4 of the above should Propositon 8 be ruled consitutional - which I think it will. The new California Legislature is set to meet the first week of December and watch to see if such legisation is introduced.

Of course, the anti-proposition 8 folks could circulate an initiative, but it would leave the same sex married couples hanging until June 2010. Flap’s guess is that they would wait a ruling by the California Supreme Court due sometime late Spring or early summer next year before any such action.

Stay tuned…..