Proving that he is above the mean and petty comments made by many gay activists and their allies in the state legislature, the good Governor of California has requested a meeting with leaders of the Golden State’s gay community. While Governor Schwarzenegger has not yet committed to attending the meeting next Wednesday, his chief of staff will chair the gathering.
Since the Governor indicated last week that he would veto a gay-marriage bill which passed the state Assembly, gay activists (particularly one very partisan state legislator) have leveled a number of accusations against him. At the same time, the legislature has been playing games with this legislation. Using a procedural maneuver, it has delayed the delivery of the bill to the Governor.
According to Log Cabin, Governor Schwarzenegger has already signed five pieces of pro-gay legislation since taking office in November 2003. With this meeting, this good man proves once again his concern for gay and lesbian citizens of the Golden State. It’s important now that we recognize that politicians can be pro-gay without supporting gay marriage.
Let’s not forget that nine years ago, HRC refused to rescind its endorsement of Bill Clinton when, in the dead of the night, he signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
I am so sick of all these shrill Gay & Lesbian Activists F@&King things up!
Arnold did/will do the right thing in vetoing the “Gay Marriage” legislation!
(And NOT ONE of you wants partner rights/protections more than I DO!)
As far as I can tell he is the most outspoken gay friendly Republican in the nation.
Shove a dick in your mouths and STFU.
Quit being unreasonable spoiled brats and work with the guy!
No, No, No. If you are the first governor to veto marriage equality legislation, you are not gay-friendly.
UMMMMMMMMMMMMM——————
Let me think here a minute!
John Kerry = Opposes Gay Marriage but for Civil Unions.
Bill Clinton = DOMA
OH, I SEE NOW! They are more gay friendly than Arnold!
My mistake!
any real conservative (gay or otherwise) recognises that it is the right of the adult individual to choose who they marry, regardless of color,gender or orientation. Arnold knows better, just as Clinton knew better. He is isn’t signing this bill because he doesn’t think we have the right to marry; he vetoing it because he hopes that by disenfranchising gay and lesbian californians he will be re-elected. Arnold is wrong on this, just as Clinton was wrong on DOMA. Please stop confusing real conservative public policy and the big government/big debt policies of George Bush and his spotlight grabbing followers like Arnold Schwarzenegger. Seperate but equal isn’t equal.
Seperate but equal isn’t equal.
Even if the benefits conferred are precisely identical?
it is the right of the adult individual to choose who they marry, regardless of color,gender or orientation.
What if the adult individual chooses to marry a biological parent or sibling? What if an adult individual chooses to marry more than one other individual? Why are biological relationships or numbers more important than color, gender, or orientation? And, who, exactly is trying to prevent people from marrying based on color anyway?
#4
I’m NOT a mind reader, nor do I suspect that you are!
But I’m thinking Arnold is vetoing this legislation because just 5 years ago 60% of the Californian’s voted on a Ballot Initiative to define Marriage as ONLY a union between a Man and a Woman!
Maybe, (If you live in California as I don’t.) you should start another Ballot drive to rescind that previous initiative. Then if Arnold still veto’s “Gay Marriage” you MIGHT have a point!
JMHO
#4 I believe you can marry anyone you want. As long as it fits the accepted definition of marriage. Domestic partners civil unions, fred, whatever you want to call it, would ideally be as VtK stated, all the benefits (and problems, gods let’s not talk about the problems) of ‘Marriage’ just called something else besides ‘Marriage’ Such an action would also diffuse the ‘slippery slope’ arguement as referenced here http://jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby082905.php3
By going the ‘domestic partner’ route (I still call it fred) we’d be able to address these issues incrimentally, as opposed to the ‘Sodomy in the bedroom = incest’ example above.
Disclaimer (as if I need one): Please don’t waste your time and mine trying to argue that I believe Homosexuality equals, Incest, Pedophelia, Beastiality, Believing Hillary, or other things that are just plain sick and or wrong.