Lying Gutless Governator to Veto Same Sex Marriage Bill

Baldimo wrote:

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.

Let me get this straight. Are you saying that a gay person can chose to enter into a meaningful relationship as opposed to staying celibate and alone?

Are you also suggesting that a gay person can marry a straight person just for the thrill of being married to someone?

And because he can choose to be alone or marry someone he doesn't love there isn't any bigotry by denying him the right to marry someone he loves?

Unbelievable!! Please tell me I got both of those wrong!

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.

I don't understand why the impact would be so great. The only impact I see is that gay couples would have the same legal standing as straight couples. What's the big deal? How can it harm anyone?

0 Replies

Oh, J_B,

Just look at what is happening in Massachussetts.

Since gays started marrying heterosexual marriages are falling apart, boys don't like girls, society is in shambles, people are turning to canibalism and natural disasters are striking at an amazing rate.

How can you say gay marriage doesn't harm anyone.

Ask any person in a heterosexual marriage here. That gays are marrying make it impossible for us to contine any kind of meaningful marriage.

And just think of the children!

0 Replies

oh, I see

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

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.

My God. how uninformed can you get? Prop 22 passed in 2000. Ages ago in this movements time. Please, if you do not know what you are talking about, stay out of our politics. California's population is 35 million. Only about 6 million voted for Prop 22 which doesn't have a frigging thing to do with permitting same sex marriages between Californians.

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.

In other words you want to change our form of government when it suits your whim?

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.

As Big an impact as this? On what? Your male insecurity?

0 Replies

Chrissee wrote:

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.

As Big an impact as this? On what? Your male insecurity?

No,it doesn't affect me at all,one way or another.

BUT,lets take another example.
The abortion debate has divided this country into 2 camps,those that are pro-abortion and those that are against it.
Now,the courts ruled that abortion was a "right",and the people were not allowed to vote on it.
That has caused years of debate,argumentsand sometimes violence.
If the people had been allowed to vote on it,I don't think it would have affected the country that way.

Gay marriage is having the same polarizing effect on the country.
The debate is more and more being handled by the courts and the people are not being given any say in the matter.
In this case,the state legislature has decided,without asking the people or allowing the people to choose for themselves.

My own personal opinion is that people should be allowed to marry whomever they want,irirregardlessf sex.
I ddon'tcare what you do in your bedroom,or who you do it with,as long as you aaren'tabusing kids.

Now,knowing full well how the Ca prop system works,I do think it should be voted on by the voters of Ca.
Now,before you get silly with your response,I know how it works because I am a southern Ca native.
I was born in Oceanside Ca and lived there till I was 30.

My "insecurity" as you call it doesn't matter at all.
I am trying to look at it logically.

Quote:

In other words you want to change our form of government when it suits your whim?

I'm sorry,how is allowing the people a voice,via the ballot box,trying to change our form of govt?

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Oh, J_B,

Just look at what is happening in Massachussetts.

Since gays started marrying heterosexual marriages are falling apart, boys don't like girls, society is in shambles, people are turning to canibalism and natural disasters are striking at an amazing rate.

How can you say gay marriage doesn't harm anyone.

Ask any person in a heterosexual marriage here. That gays are marrying make it impossible for us to contine any kind of meaningful marriage.

And just think of the children!

Is it true what i've been told . . . that cats and dogs are openly living together ? ! ? ! ?

0 Replies

finally..... I get to f*ck a swan.....

0 Replies

Quote:

No,it doesn't affect me at all,one way or another.

This completely destroys your argument that this is such a vital issue that we have to take the exrtaordinary step of not only having the legislature approve and then having to conduct a special vote to approve it.

0 Replies

Quote:

I'm sorry,how is allowing the people a voice,via the ballot box,trying to change our form of govt?

Did you sleep through your Civics classes. We live in a representative democracy, not a plebiscite.

0 Replies

a so. cal greeting to the tribes of the north, chrisee. Cool

before you unload on mystery, you may want to take into consideration, that while he has a different opinion on how gay marriage becomes formalized, he doesn't seem to be against it. or gays. unlike a lot of other folks.

ya could give the guy a little credit.

you know the thing's gonna be step by step.

0 Replies

Chrissee wrote:

Quote:
I'm sorry,how is allowing the people a voice,via the ballot box,trying to change our form of govt?

Did you sleep through your Civics classes. We live in a representative democracy, not a plebiscite.

Actually,its a representative republic.
This country has never been a democracy.

Quote:

This completely destroys your argument that this is such a vital issue that we have to take the exrtaordinary step of not only having the legislature approve and then having to conduct a special vote to approve it.

Actually,no it doesnt.
What I mean is that any issue as divisive as this or abortion MUST be voted on by the people.
We cannot allow anybody else to make the decisions without us having a voice.
Look at the abortion issue.
By allowing the USSC to decide that it was ok,that has divided the country,and led to occassional violence.
If the voters of each state had been allowed to decide,that would have avoided the violence and the divide we now have.

If the voters of each state are allowed to decide if they want to allow gay marriage,then they should be able to.
Granted,it might lead to 50 different laws,but the people will have spoken,and each state will have the laws it wants.

How difficult is that to understand?

0 Replies

mm, you just love to hoist yourself on your own petard.

Quote:

Actually,its a representative republic.
This country has never been a democracy.

In your pathetic attempt to parse words, you confirm that the every bill that might upset a few ignorant bigots should require a plebiscite. If the people voted on Brown vs. the Board of Education, we might STILL have totally segregated schools. You really need to get yourself enrolled in a remedial civics class.

Quote:

If the voters of each state are allowed to decide if they want to allow gay marriage,then they should be able to.
Granted,it might lead to 50 different laws,but the people will have spoken,and each state will have the laws it wants.

In our form of government, the people "vote" through their elected representives, if the people don't like the way they vote, they vote them out.

Why is that so hard for you to understand. I suggest you find a way to deal with your fears and insecurities and leave the rest of us alone.

0 Replies

This arguing over civics is foolish.

The fact is that Arnold had the right and the ability, as prescribed by US and California law due to his elected position, to make gay marriage legal.

Arnold could have done it. He chose not to.

The argument about "voters are allowed to decide" is a smokescreen. The decision was his responsibility.

That's the facts. Now for an obligatory opinon...

Arnold is a coward.

0 Replies

ahnoldt's not a coward, just self interested. Laughing

he's still holding out hope for that hatch bill that would let us import our president the way that the old monarchies brought in kings. this is one case where homegrown is always better.

i happen to agree with chrissee, if in a less aggressive way, about the laws. we do elect people to make those laws.

anyone who's ever hung out with a regular crowd of people knows that even "fun by committee" is a real pain in the butt. now multiply that by a couple of hundred million...there's no way that a law, passed or unpassed, is going to please everyone. someone's always gonna be pissed.

in this case, i really believe that the number of people who are terribly upset by the legitimizing of gay marriage is going to be much smaller than of those who accept it.

most likely the same group of people who still harp about legal abortion.

it's all about religion. frankly, i've about had enough of their whining on a lot of fronts.

0 Replies

A good many people believed in 2000 (and some still believe) that approving gay marriages means having it accepted in their church. Attitudes have changed significantly in the last five years and a half.

Ahnold could have made his legacy with a simple signature. Instead of being known forever as a man who put his personal politics aside and did the right thing, he will be forever known as the bigot who became the first Governor to veto a same-sex marriage. He will be etched in history alongside of George Wallace, Orville Faubis, Lester Maddox and other famous bigots in our nation's annals.

0 Replies

so the words, state's rights, aren't worth the air used to say them if those rights are still manipulated by a national agenda.

0 Replies

Chrissee wrote:

Baldimo wrote:
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.

My God. how uninformed can you get? Prop 22 passed in 2000. Ages ago in this movements time. Please, if you do not know what you are talking about, stay out of our politics. California's population is 35 million. Only about 6 million voted for Prop 22 which doesn't have a frigging thing to do with permitting same sex marriages between Californians.

I don't know about you but I voted in that election and for Prop 22. It was a major election item. Do you have any proof that the election would go different now then then? It has only been 5 years and several states since then have already voted on the issue and it has passed with the same overwhelming support. I think another vote would yield the same results.

0 Replies

Lying Gutless Governator to Veto Same Sex Marriage Bill

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know