Article

2005-09-08 Home Front: Culture Wars

Schwarzenegger Vows Gay Marriage Bill Veto

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Frank G 2005-09-08 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11128 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Actually the solid center in California opposes this Bill. Arnie can safely vetot it. If he was pandering to the extreme right he would suggest killing all gays.

Californians support equal rioghts for all. Same sex marriage is not a civil right in this state by voter enacted state law.

Posted by Sock Puppet OÂ´ Doom 2005-09-08 00:54|| 2005-09-08 00:54|| Front Page Top

#2 Pretty simple>

The people spoke and passed a law via the ballot initiative - by an overwhelming

THe legilsationtried to override the people with a flwed bill.

The Governator did the right thing: vetoing the bill.

If they want a bill passed, and signed, word it so it doesnt violate the state constitutional law as enacted by the ballot initiative.

Semantics matter.

Posted by OldSpook 2005-09-08 05:45|| 2005-09-08 05:45|| Front Page Top

#3 hasta la vista girly men. no you can't marry in Caleefornia. I veto it.

Posted by Gubernator 2005-09-08 07:30|| 2005-09-08 07:30|| Front Page Top

#4 Its all about $$$. Someone wants the special treatment that another group receives. After no-fault divorces the whole concept changed but the state subsidies and perks remained. Time to adjust that by limiting any differences in treatment to be based solely on raising children. Once you take the monetary incentive out of the formula, a lot of the pressure for 'same sex' marriage will disappear and the fight for adoptions by gays increase. Follow the money.

Posted by Flack Elmegum1744 2005-09-08 09:49|| 2005-09-08 09:49|| Front Page Top

#5 FE - Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but do you mean that the only people who could get married are the ones who could possibly have children? I don't want that to be the criteria for allowing marriage between two people.

Posted by Desert Blondie 2005-09-08 10:10|| http://azjetsetchick.blogspot.com]">[http://azjetsetchick.blogspot.com] 2005-09-08 10:10|| Front Page Top

#6 "He got elected with record numbers of lesbian and gay voters who had not previously voted for a Republican, and he sold us out."

Guess whos not getting invited to next years parade.

Posted by DepotGuy 2005-09-08 10:28|| 2005-09-08 10:28|| Front Page Top

#7 No, I'm not talking about possible reproduction. I'm talking after the fact. The government bennies [tax deductions, expenses, etc] should be focused upon the children, not based upon contracts between adults. What adults agree upon is their problem and in no way should obligate a third party [the state as the representative of the people] for anything, with the state only being involved in resolution of in breach of contract [in writing or implied] as a disinterested third party. The children, who being unable by definition to take care of themselves, are the interest of the state in any such unions. If you remove the governmental monetary rewards for marriage and move it to children, I suspect a lot of the activist movement for acquiring the cultural annotation of 'marriage' will disappear.

Posted by Flack Elmegum1744 2005-09-08 10:50|| 2005-09-08 10:50|| Front Page Top

#8 See Eugene Volokh on the subject. "California Legislature About To Violate the California Constitution?"

Posted by James">James 2005-09-08 12:08|| http://idontknowbut.blogspot.com]">[http://idontknowbut.blogspot.com] 2005-09-08 12:08|| Front Page Top

#9 The CA legislature is so out of touch with the people. It is unbelievable. They don't care about fixing any of the problems that have led to the HUGE debt. Instead the say "F*U...here's another gay marriage bill and another illegal alien drivers license bill. How do you like me now???" Keep your fingers crossed the redistricting proposition passess in November. Right now every district in the State is a "safe" district for the incumbent. Even some Republicans are against the proposition. They rather have a "safe" district and be in the minority than have to compete and be accountable to the voters.

Posted by intrinsicpilot 2005-09-08 13:41|| 2005-09-08 13:41|| Front Page Top

#10 This was a deliberate set-up. A number of Democrat Hispanic legislators somehow were 'convinced' to vote for it. The objective by the opposition is to throw legislation at the governor that he'll be forced to veto.

Posted by Pappy 2005-09-08 16:31|| 2005-09-08 16:31|| Front Page Top

#11 forced to veto? Arnold's asking to be thrown in that briar patch

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-09-08 16:53|| 2005-09-08 16:53|| Front Page Top

#12 If that redistricting admendment passes it will end a lot of these LLL political careers and good ridden to them.

Posted by Cyber Sarge">Cyber Sarge 2005-09-08 19:01|| 2005-09-08 19:01|| Front Page Top

23:52 Curly Howard
23:51 Chris W.
23:14 Moe Howard
23:09 Frank G
22:56 muck4doo
22:55 JosephMendiola
22:55 DMFD
22:54 muck4doo
22:46 3dc
22:41 Frank G
22:40 Frank G
22:39 Al-Aska Paul
22:37 Frank G
22:29 Al-Aska Paul
22:22 mmurray821
22:21 Phil Fraering
22:19 Frank G
22:18 Phil Fraering
22:17 Frank G
22:16 Frank G
22:14 Ptah
22:13 Al-Aska Paul
22:08 Mrs. Davis
22:06 JosephMendiola