When judges make decisions that favor gay civil rights, rightwingers label them “activist judges,” and howl, “Let the people decide.”
Yet more evidence — as if any were needed — that the rightwing position on gay marriage is based on bigotry, politics and fundraising, not principals or “moral” values.
But last year, when the California legislature — a.k.a. “the people” — passed bills that would have legalized gay marriage — twice — the right wing cheered when GOP Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the laws both times.

Now, in the wake of the California Supreme Court’s ruling earlier this month legalizing gay marriage, the right will have trouble making their name-calling stick, because three of the four “activist judges” who voted in favor of extending civil rights to gays were Republicans:

Voting for:

Chief Justice Ronald George, 68, a moderate Republican appointed by Gov. Pete Wilson in 1991. He wrote the 4-3 opinion striking down the state ban on same-sex marriage, which he said violates the “fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship.”

Justice Joyce Kennard, 67, a Republican appointed by Gov. George Deukmejian in 1989. She is considered a moderate and joined the majority opinion.

Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, 72, a Republican appointed by Wilson in 1994. She is considered a moderate and was part of the majority in the ruling.

Justice Carlos Moreno, 59, the court’s only Democratic appointee, named to the bench by Gov. Gray Davis in 2001. He is considered a moderate and voted with the majority.

Dissenting:

Justice Marvin Baxter, 68, a Republican appointed by Deukmejian in 1990. He is considered a conservative and wrote a dissenting opinion that accused the court of substituting “its own social policy views for those expressed by the people.”

Justice Ming Chin, 65, a Republican appointed by Wilson in 1996. He is considered a conservative and joined Baxter’s dissenting opinion.

Dissented with caveat:

Justice Carol Corrigan, 59, a moderate Republican appointed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005. Her separate dissent said that the court should not invalidate the ban but that “Californians should allow our gay and lesbian neighbors to call their unions marriages.”

This is yet more evidence — as if any were needed — that the rightwing position on gay marriage is based on bigotry, politics and fundraising, not principals or “moral” values.

Measure to Overturn Ruling Likely for November Ballot

National conservative political operatives, working through a anti-gay group with offices in Sacramento, are attempting to put an initiative on the November ballot that would overturn the ruling by amending the state constitution to prohibit gay marriage. If it passes, it would be the first amendment to the state constitution that that restricts the civil rights of any California citizens. Even people who do not necessarily favor gay civil rights view codifying hate into state law this way as both un-Californian and un-American.
The stealth purpose of the initiative is to increase voter turn-out for John McCain, but it could backfire by depressing votes among California’s moderate swing voters.
While passage of the amendment is likely it is by no means certain. One indicator of weak support is the fact that the anti-gay operatives could not depend on grass-roots petition gatherers, and so had had to pay over $1 million to workers to collect signatures. The paid workers were successful, and the 1 million-plus signatures they gathered are currently being verified by election boards across the state. If 650,000 signatures are valid, which is likely, the measure will qualify for the ballot.

The stealth purpose of the initiative is to increase voter turn-out for John McCain in November. There are several flaws in this plan, however. For one thing, McCain has opposed a similar amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (Of course, he could flip-flop on this issue the way he has on everything from taxes to torture.) Secondly, there simply aren’t enough hardcore homo-hating Christian nationalists in California to deliver the state to the GOP. The only way McCain (or any candidate) can take California is to win the votes of a majority of the state’s burgeoning moderate independents — a group whose opposition to gay marriage has softened over the past few years.

Schwarzenegger is much more closely aligned with independents than the rightwing of his own party, and he has announced that he will campaign against the amendment. If McCain flipflops and comes out in support of the amendment, it would make it awkward (though by no means impossible) for the popular governor to campaign for him here.

While just a few years ago passage of the initiative would have been sure thing, the ploy could well backfire this year and, in the final analysis, depress votes for McCain among the state’s moderate swing voters.