Lying Gutless Governator to Veto Same Sex Marriage Bill

it's hard to support a cause like this that gets constant setbacks and has so much opposition among the people that you meet everyday. I really feel for those directly affected by this. Both my best friends are gay, and it's just unthinkable to me that so many people in this country would think they were "sinful" Rolling Eyes

and want to keep them from having the same rights every one else has.

0 Replies

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/07/D8CFPOB00.html

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced Wednesday he will veto a bill that would have made California the first state to legalize same-sex marriage through its elected lawmakers.

Schwarzenegger said the legislation, given final approval Tuesday by lawmakers, would conflict with the intent of voters when they approved an initiative five years ago. Proposition 22 was placed on the ballot to prevent California from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries.

"We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote," the governor's press secretary, Margita Thompson, said in a statement. "Out of respect for the will of the people, the governor will veto (the bill)."

Proposition 22 stated that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The bill to be vetoed by Schwarzenegger would have defined marriage as a civil contract between "two persons."

The PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN. 62% voted againt it. The Legislature CAN NOT OVER-RIDE the voice of the PEOPLE.

0 Replies

What a girleee mahn!

<<with apologies to those of the girly persuasion>>

0 Replies

Hmmm. Sickening and disappointing as this is, I think it mirrors a number of other situations in which it took several attempts for a human rights issue to have victory over the forces of atavistic bigotry and blind prejudice. Not to mention christian bigotry.

We forget, for instance, how long and full of setbacks were the fights for universal white male suffrage, then women's suffrage and for civil rights and so on.

This too shall pass.

Sigh.

0 Replies

Quote:

The PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN. 62% voted againt it. The Legislature CAN NOT OVER-RIDE the voice of the PEOPLE.

That was 5 years ago. This is today. Lots of things can change in 5 years, and the duly elected representatives of the people have passed legislation in a legal manner. There is no over-riding of the voice of the people.

Arnold of course has the right to veto; but it will end his career as gov. of California.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

Arnold of course has the right to veto; but it will end his career as gov. of California.

I get the sinking feeling he has bigger things in mind. We all know what happened to the last mediocre actor who became governor of California.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
The PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN. 62% voted againt it. The Legislature CAN NOT OVER-RIDE the voice of the PEOPLE.

That was 5 years ago. This is today. Lots of things can change in 5 years, and the duly elected representatives of the people have passed legislation in a legal manner. There is no over-riding of the voice of the people.

Arnold of course has the right to veto; but it will end his career as gov. of California.

Cycloptichorn

So 5 years have passed. Is the legislature afraid to bring it back to the ballott to see if "things" have really changed? Maybe the legislature is pandering again to special interests.

There have been polls that do not support your theory that "things changed". But polls are not a precise measuring device. Only the vote of the people can decide this.

0 Replies

Sure. It can, and will.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

You got it backwars woiyo.

It is Arnooould who is pandering to special interests.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

I get the sinking feeling he has bigger things in mind. We all know what happened to the last mediocre actor who became governor of California.

I seriously doubt that even the wacko conservatives would succeed at amending the constitution simply on behalf of the Governator.

0 Replies

He doesn't have a choice. His support among those who would approve of him signing the bill (dems and independents) is already non-existent. Polls have him losing to both of the prospective Dem challengers and that's not a good thing.

No, the only group of voters he has left is the Taliban in California, the closet homosexuals, the bigoted, the Religious nuts. He has to start pandering to the only base he has left, even though it directly contradicts his earlier statements on what he would do with such a bill if it was passed.

Check it out for yourself; the guy is toast.

http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/RLS2170.pdf

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

He doesn't have a choice. His support among those who would approve of him signing the bill (dems and independents) is already non-existent. Polls have him losing to both of the prospective Dem challengers and that's not a good thing.

No, the only group of voters he has left is the Taliban in California, the closet homosexuals, the bigoted, the Religious nuts. He has to start pandering to the only base he has left, even though it directly contradicts his earlier statements on what he would do with such a bill if it was passed.

Check it out for yourself; the guy is toast.

http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/RLS2170.pdf

Cycloptichorn

62% of the voting public in California are now religious nuts, bigots and now terrorists supports? It never seems to amazing me how those you disagree with are always in line for name-calling.

0 Replies

Shocking.

Now what were those rather numerous white southerners who similarly opposed civil rights for negroes? Not bigots, obviously because there were so many of them.

The voice of sweet reason, I suppose.

Or those who opposed suffrage for women?

Or for anyone who wasn't white?

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Shocking.

Now what were those rather numerous white southerners who similarly opposed civil rights for negroes? Not bigots, obviously because there were so many of them.

The voice of sweet reason, I suppose.

Or those who opposed suffrage for women?

Or for anyone who wasn't white?

Big difference between being black and being gay.

You can't chose to be black but you can chose to enter into a gay relationship. Besides the other difference is gay people can marry.

0 Replies

California is going to hand Arnolds ass to him on a platter.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

dlowan wrote:
Shocking.

Now what were those rather numerous white southerners who similarly opposed civil rights for negroes? Not bigots, obviously because there were so many of them.

The voice of sweet reason, I suppose.

Or those who opposed suffrage for women?

Or for anyone who wasn't white?

Big difference between being black and being gay.

You can't chose to be black but you can chose to enter into a gay relationship. Besides the other difference is gay people can marry.

Ho hum.

So limited rights for gay people?

You know I find the "you can choose" stuff one of the most disgusting because it rests so blithely upon what is shaping uo to be bad science but also because of the breathless bigotry it contains.

"You can choose to be something I do not like, therefore I my bigotry is ok."

Who gives a good goddamn whether bigots like gayness, or not?

I don't like the beliefs of those who are bigoted against gay people. I do not think that gives me the right to discriminate against them.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Baldimo wrote:
dlowan wrote:
Shocking.

Now what were those rather numerous white southerners who similarly opposed civil rights for negroes? Not bigots, obviously because there were so many of them.

The voice of sweet reason, I suppose.

Or those who opposed suffrage for women?

Or for anyone who wasn't white?

Big difference between being black and being gay.

You can't chose to be black but you can chose to enter into a gay relationship. Besides the other difference is gay people can marry.

Ho hum.

So limited rights for gay people?

You know I find the "you can choose" stuff one of the most disgusting because it rests so blithely upon what is shaping uo to be bad science but also because of the breathless bigotry it contains.

"You can choose to be something I do not like, therefore I my bigotry is ok."

Who gives a good goddamn whether bigots like gayness, or not?

I don't like the beliefs of those who are bigoted against gay people. I do not think that gives me the right to discriminate against them.

sounds an awful lot like "gee, they can't help it if they're black."

are they supposed to apologize for their skin color, or what ?

re; the whole being gay and gay marriage thing...

what's wrong with it ? whay are some folks so set against it ?

0 Replies

I really dont care if gays can marry or not.

But,it seems to me that an issue like this should be put to a vote,and let the voters decide.
An issue that can have as big an impact as this should be voted on,because the people should be able to decide.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

I really dont care if gays can marry or not.

But,it seems to me that an issue like this should be put to a vote,and let the voters decide.
An issue that can have as big an impact as this should be voted on,because the people should be able to decide.

evenin' mystery. i get ya.

just for the sake of discussion though, i'm wondering why it's even an issue in 2005. it's not like we all woke up this morning and, poof!, suddenly there's gay folks.

in other words, what is the rational that it's anyone else's business if they get married ?

when the wife and i got married, people cheered. well, most everybody. a couple fainted in disbelief... :wink:

0 Replies

Lying Gutless Governator to Veto Same Sex Marriage Bill

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know