Lying Gutless Governator to Veto Same Sex Marriage Bill

I would add comments here but Chrissee has previously asked me to ignore her.

0 Replies

(or at the very least avoid all Chrissee posts)

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

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.

I would not at all be surpirised that a man who says he is a lesbian trapped in man's body but OTOH professes to be 100% straight would continue to have issues with gay rights. Attitudes have changed enormously in five years outside of states with high numbers of evangelical Christians. That is a fact.

0 Replies

1) Prop 22 voters were NOT asked whether or not they would support same-sex marriage between Californians 2) the vote was held in the Stone Age of the same-sex marriage movement and Californians are trending toward approval
3)Schwarzenegger's approval ratings are in the 30s
4)The people have spoken through their elected reps. This iis not a government by plebiscite.

0 Replies

Conservatives Lash Out At Arnold Over Gay Marriage

Quote:

0 Replies

Chrissee:

Quote:

I would not at all be surpirised that a man who says he is a lesbian trapped in man's body but OTOH professes to be 100% straight would continue to have issues with gay rights. Attitudes have changed enormously in five years outside of states with high numbers of evangelical Christians. That is a fact.

Do you have any information to back up your claim that attitudes have chained across CA? Or do you state your own opinion on the issue and those in SF?

Quote:

Prop 22 voters were NOT asked whether or not they would support same-sex marriage between Californians

Your right they weren't they were asked if only marriage should be between a man and a woman. I guess that cancels any chance of marriage between Adam and Steve or Eve and Christine. Same question in a different way.

Quote:

the vote was held in the Stone Age of the same-sex marriage movement and Californians are trending toward approval

Were you living in CA during that time frame? I was, and it wasn't the stone age of the Gay Agenda movement. There was a large push by the Gay groups to defeat the measure and it didn't happen. The same has happened all over the country and the results have been the same there as they were in CA. Defeat of the Gay Activist Agenda.

Quote:

Schwarzenegger's approval ratings are in the 30s

This matters not the man is upholding what the people of California voted for and what the Gay interests groups thought they could over turn with their paid for politicians. It failed again. Put it to a vote across the state of CA and lets see what happens.

Quote:

The people have spoken through their elected reps. This iis not a government by plebiscite.

The people spoke 5 years ago and the vote should stand. In times of lacking State budgets is this really a matter of utmost importance. You have an agenda and what to see it passed.

0 Replies

Well, I don't have an agenda and would also like to see it pass. I also don't live in CA but I still don't see the harm. Who would it hurt?

0 Replies

Time marching forward
Time marches forward. Progress by inches, but progress nevertheless.

See Mass. Gay Nups Change Rejected:

Quote:

The Massachusetts Legislature on Wednesday rejected a proposed constitutional amendment that sought to ban gay marriage but legalize civil unions, a year after the state performed the nation's first government-sanctioned same-sex weddings.

It was the second time the Legislature had confronted the measure, which was intended to be put before voters on a statewide ballot in 2006. Under state law, lawmakers were required to approve it in two consecutive sessions before it could move forward.

After less than two hours of debate Wednesday, a joint session of the House and Senate voted 157-39 against the measure.

It was a striking departure from a year earlier, when hundreds of protesters converged on Beacon Hill (search) and sharply divided legislators spent long hours debating the issue. In that session, in March 2004, lawmakers voted 105-92 in favor of the amendment.

This year, the crowds were tamer and some legislators who had initially supported the proposed change to the state constitution said they no longer felt right about denying the right of marriage to thousands of same-sex couples.

"Gay marriage has begun, and life has not changed for the citizens of the commonwealth, with the exception of those who can now marry," said state Sen. Brian Lees (search), a Republican who had been a co-sponsor of the amendment. "This amendment which was an appropriate measure or compromise a year ago, is no longer, I feel, a compromise today."

What a difference a year makes! More than 6,100 same-sex couples have married. People who were once against granting these couples the right to marry have changed their minds--they no longer feel it is appropriate to deny them the same right to marry that everyone else enjoys. Massachusetts is showing the rest of America that progress in the area of civil rights for all people ain't so bad after all.

Life will not change for the worse if gays are allowed to marry their same-sex partners. Simply, more adults and children (and society as a whole) will benefit from stable, legally-recognized family relationships.

0 Replies

Re: Time marching forward

Debra_Law wrote:

Time marches forward. Progress by inches, but progress nevertheless.

See Mass. Gay Nups Change Rejected:

Quote:
The Massachusetts Legislature on Wednesday rejected a proposed constitutional amendment that sought to ban gay marriage but legalize civil unions, a year after the state performed the nation's first government-sanctioned same-sex weddings.

It was the second time the Legislature had confronted the measure, which was intended to be put before voters on a statewide ballot in 2006. Under state law, lawmakers were required to approve it in two consecutive sessions before it could move forward.

After less than two hours of debate Wednesday, a joint session of the House and Senate voted 157-39 against the measure.

It was a striking departure from a year earlier, when hundreds of protesters converged on Beacon Hill (search) and sharply divided legislators spent long hours debating the issue. In that session, in March 2004, lawmakers voted 105-92 in favor of the amendment.

This year, the crowds were tamer and some legislators who had initially supported the proposed change to the state constitution said they no longer felt right about denying the right of marriage to thousands of same-sex couples.

"Gay marriage has begun, and life has not changed for the citizens of the commonwealth, with the exception of those who can now marry," said state Sen. Brian Lees (search), a Republican who had been a co-sponsor of the amendment. "This amendment which was an appropriate measure or compromise a year ago, is no longer, I feel, a compromise today."

What a difference a year makes! More than 6,100 same-sex couples have married. People who were once against granting these couples the right to marry have changed their minds--they no longer feel it is appropriate to deny them the same right to marry that everyone else enjoys. Massachusetts is showing the rest of America that progress in the area of civil rights for all people ain't so bad after all.

Life will not change for the worse if gays are allowed to marry their same-sex partners. Simply, more adults and children (and society as a whole) will benefit from stable, legally-recognized family relationships.

You know this because the people voted on it? I didn't know it was put to a public vote. As far as the rest of the US is concerned a court made law and the people were denied the right to vote on something.

0 Replies

Re: Time marching forward

Baldimo wrote:

You know this because the people voted on it? I didn't know it was put to a public vote. As far as the rest of the US is concerned a court made law and the people were denied the right to vote on something.

Baldimo, I know this was directed at Debra but I'd like to respond.

I agree CA is a unique state in that many issues are sent to referendum via the Proposition route. Maybe the rest of us have become complacent over the last 200 plus years by living in a democracy defined as elected representation passing laws and the courts reviewing them, but to my understanding, that's the way it works in a constitutional demoncracy. If you don't like the way your Representative represent you, you vote them out of office.

Have there been times over the years when I'd wished some burning issue or another was put to a popular vote? Sure, just as there have been times when I've voted against an incumbant because I felt their voting pattern didn't appropriately represent my position on an issue.

Does the fact that 62% of the popular vote in CA indidcated a majority of voting CAs were opposed to recognising same-sex marriages performed in another state five years ago have anything to do with how the people of CA feel about same-sex marriages performed in their own state today? I doubt it. The CA legislature has passed a bill, representing it's constituents, that allows same-sex marriage ceremonies within the state of CA. I applaud them, just as I applaud the legislators of Massachusettes for not rescinding the rights of same-sex couples from having the same legal standing as heterosexual couples in that state.

Baldimo, I've asked you twice, now three times, who can it possibly hurt?

0 Replies

Re: Time marching forward

Baldimo wrote:

You know this because the people voted on it? I didn't know it was put to a public vote. As far as the rest of the US is concerned a court made law and the people were denied the right to vote on something.

Our government is not a pure democracy. The majority does not rule. We are a government of laws, not of men.

The Massachusetts state court did not "make" law. The court based its decision on the existing supreme law of the state--the due process and equal protection clauses of the state constitution. The people do not have the right to approve unconstitutional laws. Their elected representatives in the legislature do not have the right to pass unconstitutional laws. The people do not have the power to trump their state constitution nor the United States Constitution no matter how many times they cast their ballots to do so.

0 Replies

One would think that one who spends so much time on a political forum would at least have a rudimentary knowledge of civics, wouldn't one?

0 Replies

As far as plebiscites go, I sure wish we had a Federal Presidential Recall provision right now. Then again, as much as I would want to vote on emotional issues, I realize that the Founding Fathers were a little wiser than me by not making that possible.

0 Replies

along with jb, i'd also like an answer from baldi on who would be hurt by allowing gay marriages?

and more directly, baldi, how would it hurt you personally?

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

along with jb, i'd also like an answer from baldi on who would be hurt by allowing gay marriages?

and more directly, baldi, how would it hurt you personally?

It wouldn't hurt anyone per say but the children and the moral fiber of this country would suffer. We would be granting special privileges to a certain group of people such as we have already granted special protection to the same group of people. Is the murder of a straight person any different then the murder of a gay person? I have always thought murder was murder?

0 Replies

"Think of the children." Imagine the next generation of children not thinking it unusual to see a gay couple at school events cheering on their child. Or, imagine the next generation of children having gay friends, straight friends, and bi-friends with no one thinking a thing of it. In my own lifetime I've witnessed parents worrying about their children sitting in the same restaurant as a black person. I've witnessed parents removing their children from public schools because they were being contaminated by racial integration. Look how far we've come in just one generation. Imagine how far we can come in the mindset towards gays in the next generation. Laws were required and integration was forced before real changes were seen with regards to race. Laws will be required and equality under the laws enforced before we will see real changes with regards to sexual preference.

Of course murder is murder - how is that a special protection? Are you saying that because they can't be murdered under the law, they have equal standing as a married couple? What special privileges would same-sex marriage allow that are already in place? I know of no provisions of any law on the books, or under consideration, that gives gay couples special privileges or protections not afforded to straight married couples. I don't understand your point.

We are left then with moral fiber. I think that's what this really comes down to and I'll take that point back to the pre-civil rights movement of the '60s. Interracial marriage was considered immoral, and in many places illegal, through the late 1980s and beyond. The calling cry was, "Think of the children." Brave couples married out of love, had children, raised them in a loving home, helped them face the prejudices of the world around them. Those children are now adults, marrying out of love, having children and raising them in a society that is much more tolerant than it was a few short decades ago. Moral fiber, in this case, is a reflection of fear. Fear of change, fear of the unusual, and fear of opening up one's brain to the concept that prejudice is never acceptable.

I do think of the children. I hope the generation of children growing up today will see laws enacted giving same-sex couples the right to marry. I hope they are more tolerant towards gays than the generations before them. And I hope they tackle any other bastions of prejudice they witness when they are adults as they think of their children.

0 Replies

Quote:

It wouldn't hurt anyone per say but the children and the moral fiber of this country would suffer.

Just like you all said at the time--The moral fiber of this country went down the drain when we gave women the vote.

It's too late now.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
along with jb, i'd also like an answer from baldi on who would be hurt by allowing gay marriages?

and more directly, baldi, how would it hurt you personally?

It wouldn't hurt anyone per say but the children and the moral fiber of this country would suffer. We would be granting special privileges to a certain group of people such as we have already granted special protection to the same group of people. Is the murder of a straight person any different then the murder of a gay person? I have always thought murder was murder?

jb covered a lot of my thoughts, and pretty well, to boot.

so really, baldi, the only harm that can come from accepting gay marriage is that some people are just offended by it, right ? i don't see where children will suffer, unless encouraged to "suffer" or be offended by their parent's example.

it's worth noting that most studies seem to conclude that, generally, pedophiles tend to be heterosexual. if that's one of your worries for the kids, it's more likely that good ol' bob across the street is the one to keep an eye on.

i get the feeling that people who are so bothered by the idea of gay marriage really think that if they are able to prevent it's legalization, all of those gay folks are gonna give it all up, get with the program and turn straight.

i.e., no gay marriage means no gay sex. and that's really what's bothering the anti's here.

but don't hold your breath on that one. our homosexual relatives, friends and coworkers have been around forever, even without recognized marriage.

since you mention special protection, you might want to consider how many gays get whacked simply because they are gay. not cool.

anyway, should probably get used to the idea of gay marriage. it's gonna happen.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

It wouldn't hurt anyone per say but the children and the moral fiber of this country would suffer. We would be granting special privileges to a certain group of people such as we have already granted special protection to the same group of people. Is the murder of a straight person any different then the murder of a gay person? I have always thought murder was murder?

That's a compelling argument. In your view, would it solve the problem of social privileges if the state abolished marriage licenses altogether? As a single, I personally find it outrageous how the government privileges the group of married people just because they're married. At our, the single taxpayers', expense!

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Baldimo wrote:
It wouldn't hurt anyone per say but the children and the moral fiber of this country would suffer. We would be granting special privileges to a certain group of people such as we have already granted special protection to the same group of people. Is the murder of a straight person any different then the murder of a gay person? I have always thought murder was murder?

That's a compelling argument. In your view, would it solve the problem of social privileges if the state abolished marriage licenses altogether? As a single, I personally find it outrageous how the government privileges the group of married people just because they're married. At our, the single taxpayers', expense!

and for having children, thomas. :wink:

0 Replies

Lying Gutless Governator to Veto Same Sex Marriage Bill

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know