Comments on: California 2010? Dream on.

By: Mark Barton

Mark Barton — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:44:21 +0000

CO: “Your comment takes the floor out from under the SSMers who complain about disenfranchisement and marginalization. It takes the floor out of the California Supreme Courtâ€™s basis for constructing a new suspect classification as prelude to enabling the localized merger of SSM with marriage in that state.”

I don’t follow.

By: Chairm

Chairm — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 14:18:29 +0000

Your comment takes the floor out from under the SSMers who complain about disenfranchisement and marginalization. It takes the floor out of the California Supreme Court’s basis for constructing a new suspect classification as prelude to enabling the localized merger of SSM with marriage in that state.

By: Mark Barton

Mark Barton — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 08:59:34 +0000

Fitz: “This seems like rather crude math: Doing the numbers from the original ballot initiative toward the Prop 8 numbers is not exactly a sophisticated approach on public opinion trends.”

Certainly it’s crude math, but I don’t see that anything a lot more sophisticated is required. There’s probably a floor of support for anti-SSM initiatives around 30% (cf. Bush voters) and the decline will undoubtedly decelerate as it approaches that, but we only need 50%.

By: Fitz

Fitz — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:35:41 +0000

Mark Writes “itâ€™s just that support for the ban is collapsing at about 2.25% per year, so if not 2010 then soon.”

This seems like rather crude math: Doing the numbers from the original ballot initiative toward the Prop 8 numbers is not exactly a sophisticated approach on public opinion trends.

By: Mark Barton

Mark Barton — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 17:07:11 +0000

Sure, all these factors are probably good for 10%, and I don’t think anybody is blind to that, it’s just that support for the ban is collapsing at about 2.25% per year, so if not 2010 then soon.