Turn Off Ads?
Page 1 of 27 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 396

Thread: Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    376

    Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill

    SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said on Wednesday he will veto a bill to allow gay marriage in the state and said the issue should be decided by the courts or by voters directly but not by the Democrat-controlled legislature.

    A veto had been widely expected after California's Assembly on Tuesday endorsed gay marriage, the first time a state legislature had taken such a step. California's Senate passed the bill last week.

    Schwarzenegger's press secretary, Margita Thompson, said the governor "believes that gay couples are entitled to full protection under the law and should not be discriminated against based upon their relationship."

    But since California voters approved a ballot measure five years ago defining marriage as between a man and a woman, the question of gay marriage should be put to voters again in a referendum or decided by courts, she said.

    "We cannot have a system where the people vote and the legislature derails that vote," Thompson said.

    Gay marriage is under review in California courts following San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's decision in 2004 to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples -- a move that set off a national debate.

    California's Supreme Court has invalidated the San Francisco licenses, but left the wider issue of whether the ban on gay marriage is constitutional to lower courts.

    Democrats admit the gay marriage bill was largely a symbolic gesture and had said they did not expect support from Schwarzenegger, a moderate Republican grappling with declining voter support.

    "It certainly seems like he wants the courts to make the decision for him, but we truly feel like we did the right thing," said Richard Stapler, an aide to Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez.

    RATINGS SLUMP

    Republican media consultant Wayne Johnson said it was inconceivable Schwarzenegger would have signed the bill because his approval ratings have slumped, leaving him with only Republican support. "The people who are his strongest supporters are among the least likely to support this bill," said Johnson.

    Schwarzenegger faces an uphill struggle to convince voters to back ballot measures in an unpopular special November election he has called.

    A Field Poll released on Wednesday found 56 percent of California voters are not inclined to support Schwarzenegger if he seeks re-election.

    But voters hold the state legislature in even lower regard, one analyst said, allowing Schwarzenegger the opportunity to cast his veto of the gay marriage bill as a defense of existing state law.

    "He can wrap himself in the rule of law and say, 'The people have spoken,"' said Tony Quinn, co-editor of the California Target Book, which tracks state political races. "This is probably one issue in which Schwarzenegger is probably a winner at a time when he has very few issues going his way."
    So much for Arnold being a liberal eh? Considering his political career will come to an end when his term is up, he could have done something remarkable but instead chose to be a girly man and wuss out.

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #2
    Member Red Heeler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Cookeville, TN
    Posts
    1,658

    Re: Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill

    "We cannot have a system where the people vote and the legislature derails that vote," Thompson said.
    Eh, isn't the legislature supposed to represent the people?

  4. #3
    RZ Chamber of Commerce Unassisted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    13,440

    Re: Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill

    "Democrats admit the gay marriage bill was largely a symbolic gesture..."

    Symbolic, like the symbolic gay marriage ban ballot initiatives trotted out in battleground states last fall. Might as well call it what it is then... a wedge issue that will figure into statewide campaigning there next year - only this time, it may be hammered into place by both sides.
    /r/reds

  5. #4
    Man Pills
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    24,914

    Re: Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill

    When I'm governor of Pennsylvania, I'm gettin' rid of ALL marriages. Fair is fair, beeyatch.

  6. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,195

    Re: Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill

    [QUOTE=Michael Allred]So much for Arnold being a liberal eh? Considering his political career will come to an end when his term is up, he could have done something remarkable but instead chose to be a girly man and wuss out.[/QUOTE???????????? what exactly would be so remarkable about it?!?!?!?!?

  7. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    The Bush Leagues
    Posts
    9,082

    Re: Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill

    The recall was a way for the GOP establishment to circumvent their right-wing base and get a more moderate candidate at the top and stop the GOP's bleeding in the Golden State. Unfortunately, Arnie's so despised that he's had nothing left to do but turn back toward that very same.
    The widow is gathering nettles for her children's dinner; a perfumed seigneur, delicately lounging in the Oeil de Boeuf, hath an alchemy whereby he will extract the third nettle and call it rent. ~ Carlyle

  8. #7
    1st pick 2022 B.B. draft George Foster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Ky
    Posts
    5,951

    Re: Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Rojo
    The recall was a way for the GOP establishment to circumvent their right-wing base and get a more moderate candidate at the top and stop the GOP's bleeding in the Golden State. Unfortunately, Arnie's so despised that he's had nothing left to do but turn back toward that very same.
    To allow gay marriage under the equal protection clause of the constitution, you then must allow all marriages. This would include multiple marriage partners, me marrying my grandmother if we are both over 18, etc.

    Think about it. This is true. You could not discriminate against anyone who is an adult who wanted to marry under "EQUAL PROTECTION." Is anyone here going to ague that I should be allowed to marry my grandmother? What's the difference? You can't say, "that's sick, or unnatural, you would be discriminating against us. You must take a law to it's logical conclusion, most liberals don't do that. "If it FEELS RIGHT, do it" is not the way to approach things.

    If gay marriage is adopted in the US, There are several thousand people in Utah that are going to file a discrimination lawsuits under the same equal protection clause that the Gays used. Their agument would be sound. Again you can't say, "this is not right or it's not natural." What would be the difference between that opinion and those against gay marriage?

    Can you imagine the health insurance nightmare if your employer had to cover you and both of your spouses? Or how about a divorce, who gets the property and kids divided by 3 or 4? What about child support? It would be crazy.

    You can't say, "Oh this is a stupid agument, your a homophobe." Take the equal protection clause to its logical conclusion in relation to marriage. I'm right. Any and all marriage would have to be legal as well.
    Not this year...maybe a Wild Card

  9. #8
    THAT'S A FACT JACK!! GAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Bellefontaine, Ohio
    Posts
    26,665

    Re: Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill

    In November, those in Maine are going to be voting to repeal gay marriage there. Will be interesting to see how that turns out.
    "panic" only comes from having real expectations

  10. #9
    1st pick 2022 B.B. draft George Foster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Ky
    Posts
    5,951

    Re: Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by GAC
    In November, those in Maine are going to be voting to repeal gay marriage there. Will be interesting to see how that turns out.
    It will turn out like it has in the rest of the country. 65-70% against.
    Not this year...maybe a Wild Card

  11. #10
    Man Pills
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    24,914

    Re: Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by George Foster
    To allow gay marriage under the equal protection clause of the constitution, you then must allow all marriages. This would include multiple marriage partners, me marrying my grandmother if we are both over 18, etc.

    Think about it. This is true. You could not discriminate against anyone who is an adult who wanted to marry under "EQUAL PROTECTION." Is anyone here going to ague that I should be allowed to marry my grandmother? What's the difference? You can't say, "that's sick, or unnatural, you would be discriminating against us. You must take a law to it's logical conclusion, most liberals don't do that. "If it FEELS RIGHT, do it" is not the way to approach things.

    If gay marriage is adopted in the US, There are several thousand people in Utah that are going to file a discrimination lawsuits under the same equal protection clause that the Gays used. Their agument would be sound. Again you can't say, "this is not right or it's not natural." What would be the difference between that opinion and those against gay marriage?

    Can you imagine the health insurance nightmare if your employer had to cover you and both of your spouses? Or how about a divorce, who gets the property and kids divided by 3 or 4? What about child support? It would be crazy.

    You can't say, "Oh this is a stupid agument, your a homophobe." Take the equal protection clause to its logical conclusion in relation to marriage. I'm right. Any and all marriage would have to be legal as well.
    No. If you follow the establishment clause's logic, you don't arrive at the conclusion that gay marriage is on a par with multiple partner marriages. You argue that polygamy is illegal because "it's unnatural" or whatever. You're wrong. The reason polygamy or polyandry is illegal has everything to do with property and beneficiary and inheritance issues.

    And incest? The risk of deleterious genetic effects being passed on to the product of a consummated sibling relationship is excessively high. They would have to prove that one or the other member of the marriage was sterile.

    So to put homosexuality on a plane with incest and polygamy is just wrong. Morally and philosophically and most importantly, legally.

  12. #11
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    42,401

    Re: Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill

    So to put homosexuality on a plane with incest and polygamy is just wrong. Morally and philosophically and most importantly, legally.
    An argument that demeans the natural love of a gay marriage and assigns it an "abnormal" tag by associating it with unnatural acts like unequal marriages (polygamy) and incest only has one real goal in mind.

  13. #12
    Unsolicited Opinions traderumor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Right Down Broadway
    Posts
    18,606

    Re: Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by westofyou
    An argument that demeans the natural love of a gay marriage and assigns it an "abnormal" tag by associating it with unnatural acts like unequal marriages (polygamy) and incest only has one real goal in mind.
    Incest only became "unnatural" as the gene pool moved further away from the first family, Adam and Eve. Homosexual relationships have never been natural as the Creator of all homosexuals has clearly made known:
    (Romans 1:26 KJV) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

    (Romans 1:27 KJV) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
    And yes, I will trot out that argument as many times as you assert that homosexuality is "natural." Truth is truth whether or not one accepts it as such.
    Can't win with 'em

    Can't win without 'em

  14. #13
    Man Pills
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    24,914

    Re: Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by traderumor
    Incest only became "unnatural" as the gene pool moved further away from the first family, Adam and Eve. Homosexual relationships have never been natural as the Creator of all homosexuals has clearly made known:


    And yes, I will trot out that argument as many times as you assert that homosexuality is "natural." Truth is truth whether or not one accepts it as such.
    I'd rather just avoid sloppy nonsense words such "natural" and "unnatural."

  15. #14
    THAT'S A FACT JACK!! GAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Bellefontaine, Ohio
    Posts
    26,665

    Re: Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill

    Ok. Then give evidence of the scientific/genetic link?
    "panic" only comes from having real expectations

  16. #15
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,160

    Re: Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill

    Truth is we don't live in a theocracy.

    Anyway, I can tell you that life continues at its generally happy and prosperous pace here in gay-marriage-friendly Massachusetts. Why it's like they let gay folks get married and everyone just carried on with their lives completely unaffected by it. Go figure.
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25