Why I luv my Guv (Ahnuld, that is)
Immediately after President Bush indicated his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment in February 2004, I decided not to make a planned contribution to his campaign and decided as well not to give to the Republcan National Committee or any other GOP outfit. But, as the year progressed and the Democratic (and media) attacks became ever more shrill, especially with the release (and box office success) of Michael Moore‘s festival of deceits in June, I changed my mind and ended up giving money to my party and to various candidates. I thought my side needed resources to defend itself against mean-spirited and dishonest attacks.
My finances being tighter this year, I thought I couldn’t afford to contribute to Governor Schwarzenegger’s “California Recovery Team,” an effort to raise money to support four reform initiatives on this fall’s state ballot. But, it seemed that whenever I worked out at my gym and looked up at the TVs, I saw another commercial from some left-wing interest group attacking not only those proposed reforms but the Governor himself. The commercials were dishonest as well as mean. I wanted to support my governor’s efforts to clean up Sacramento.
When Log Cabin e-mailed me an invite to a fundraiser with that good man (which I will be heading right after I post this), I looked through my finances and found the means to make a donation. I may have to cut back in a few areas, but that seems entirely fitting since one of the propositions on the ballot, Prop. 76, would place a limit on state spending.
His political opponents decry the governor as a movie star who isn’t very bright, using similar terms to those Democrats and their media allies used to attack Ronald Reagan a generation ago, another California governor with an ambitious reform agenda. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s record shows both a man with command of the issues (and problems) facing the Golden State and a real commitment to reform. While George Will, a keen observer of politics observed that our Governor does not completely understand his own political problems, “he does understand a large part of the state’s.”
Indeed, almost since the moment Schwarzeneger was elected, he has worked to fix the state’s problems. Within four months of his inaugural, he put two constitutional amendments on the ballot, one to authorize $15 billion in debt to cover the state’s budget deficit and the other to require a balanced budget. The Governor campaigned for these measures and despite early polls indicating that they would be defeated, both passed overwhelmingly. Not only that. He ordered a performance review of state government and pressed the recalcitrant legislature to make changes in the state’s workmen’s compensation system, a program which was causing many businesses to flee the state.
These aren’t the only accomplishments of this supposedly charismatic doofus. In less than two years in office, he has repealed Governor Davis’ tripling of the state’s car tax, signed two state budgets without increasing taxes and repealed the law which gave driver’s licenses to illegal aliens. And he did all this while facing a state legislature which sees increased spending as the only solution to any problem facing the state (even those of their creation), a legislature which kowtows to a great variety of liberal special interest groups, particularly public employee unions.
Indeed, one reason the Governor’s approval is so low is because the teachers’ unions have taken money from their members in order to pay for a constant barrage of nasty ads attacking the Governor. Despite these ads and negative press — and polls which indicate that most, if not all, of his reform proposals will go down to defeat in November — Arnold Schwarzenegger has stood firm, campaigning for what he believes is best for the Golden State.
While State Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-Castro Street) has called his veto of the same-sex marriage bill as a failure of leadership, the Governor has made clear that he vetoed the bill because he does “not believe the Legislature can reverse an initiative approved by the people of California.” PrismWarden says that Governor did the responsible thing because the legislation is either “unconstitutional or presents . . . constitutional problems.”
Yet, while the Governor vetoed this one bill, BoiFromTroy notes that he signed a number of pro-gay bills into law, including some that yours truly would veto on libertarian grounds:
California’s Governor added sexual orientation and marital status to the Unruh Civil Rights Act (AB 1400), signed legislation prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity in health care plans (AB 1586), granted equal recognition for gay and lesbian couples under Proposition 13 for Property Tax appraisals, and granted pension benefits for gay and lesbian couples who retired before his predecessor finally signed a law recognizing Domestic Partnerships.
In short, despite the angry rhetoric of Democrats in Sacramento, a number of left-wing interest groups and public employee unions, my man Ahnuld has accomplished a good deal in his short term in office — and continues to put forward reforms to fix California’s dysfunctional political system. He has shown a great command of the issues and an understanding of the problems facing our state.
Even if this one-time box office star never made another movie, he could still live extremely well on the income he made from his flicks — as well as that he earned from a variety of business he has developed. At an age when some in the entertainment business consider retirement, Arnold Schwazenegger decided to turn his lifelong interest in politics into action and ran for office.
In his campaign — and now in office, he has been unfairly attacked by groups who would lose power if his reforms were enacted. Their power has maintained a status quo in which state government has wasted taxpayer money, penalized businesses, thwarted economic development and based education policy on serving teachers rather than students.
Arnold Schwarzenegger has shown tremendous energy and initiative as Govenor of the nation’s largest state. To be sure, he has, as George Will noted, made a “raft of rookie mistakes,” par for the course for a novice politician.
Despite these mistakes, like Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger has pressed on, more interested in serving the people who elected him than the special interests who have long dominated state politics. I may have to cut back a little to afford tonight’s fundraiser, but I am proud to support my Govenor and his agenda to reform my adopted home state.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
52 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Good post.
I can barely stand to watch TV due to the withering criticism.
The commercials aren’t even true, especially on the Paycheck Protection Act.
The initiative does not restrict unions from activism, only require permission from members. If they were so secure in their position, why are they lying and spending millions? They know many in their rank and file will opt out given the opportunity.
Comment by SactoDan — September 30, 2005 @ 7:09 pm - September 30, 2005
Imagine what you could do with the money you spend on a gym membership.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 30, 2005 @ 8:02 pm - September 30, 2005
I have some personal grudge against Arnold Schwarzenegger, the man; but as governor, he has my support. I was steamed at Gray Davis and happy to see the door hit him on the way out.
Unlike many Hollywood elites, I think Arnold does have command of the issues.
Comment by wordsmith — September 30, 2005 @ 8:03 pm - September 30, 2005
Great post. You thoroughly went through the reasons to donate or not to donate and showed the struggle that many of us go through. I am conflicted on the gay marriage issue. As someone with libertarian leanings, I think that Government shouldn’t be involved in personal social activities, such as marriage. On the other hand, as a conservative, I am reluctant to change the traditional concept of such an established institution as marriage.
Comment by Gary Aminoff — September 30, 2005 @ 8:41 pm - September 30, 2005
No. 4, you say: “On the other hand, as a conservative, I am reluctant to change the traditional concept of such an established institution as marriage.”
Why? Afraid it’s going to give some rights to people who heretofore have been denied them? That would make sense, coming from a conservative. Or, are you afraid the “traditional concept” will somehow be damaged by gay marriage? If so, how? What evidence do you have, say based only on Massachusetts so far? Current heterosexual divorce rates? etc.
Comment by Queer Patriot — September 30, 2005 @ 9:03 pm - September 30, 2005
GayPatriotWest…conflicted about the insults heaved on him by his own party, yet in the end, coughing up his bucks for those who would keep him down. Partisanship proves to be the stronger urge.
Comment by Queer Patriot — September 30, 2005 @ 9:04 pm - September 30, 2005
I wonder if Darrell Issa would have spent five million of his own dollars on a Davis recall if he knew that Arnold would cowbird the election?
Boy, did Arnold play him for a chump.
I love it when Republicans eat their own.
Comment by chandler in hollywood — September 30, 2005 @ 9:49 pm - September 30, 2005
Excellent examination fo the facts. I have been writing about the difference between the way Arnold has been handeling this election compared to the Democrats. One such post is located here.
Comment by Kevin D. Korenthal — September 30, 2005 @ 9:54 pm - September 30, 2005
#6 – Well QP, at least Dan honestly is a patriot.
Comment by joe — September 30, 2005 @ 11:10 pm - September 30, 2005
QP, if you bothered to read the post, you would see that I support my Governor for a great variety of reasons. To suggest that the Governor would “keep me down” (as you put it) is to ignore the pro-gay bills he signed, at least one of which I oppose on libertarian grounds.
Your comments makes clear that your stronger urge is attacking me rather than considering my ideas — and my endorsements — in context.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 1, 2005 @ 12:08 am - October 1, 2005
GayPatriot “Luvs The Guv”
And he tells the straight story.
On the heels of yesterday’s news announcing Gov. Schwarzenegger’s veto of California’s Gay Marriage Bill, GayPatriot reflects on the governor’s leadership to date and discusses the reasons for …
Trackback by California Conservative — October 1, 2005 @ 12:40 am - October 1, 2005
This last week in my blog surfing, probably both from links from Drudge but I couldn’t say for sure, I noted two articles. One was on a three person legal marriage in the Netherlands. I haven’t seen anything else about it so I don’t know if it is legit or not or if I’m remembering the right European country. And the other was a report from England speculating that not very far in the future there will be more never-married adults than adults who are or have been married. People simply live together.
When gay marriage inevitably happens it may be that you’ll find that the prize in your hands is utterly worthless.
So, Queer Patriot, will the traditional concept of marriage be damaged by gays being married? Not any moreso than the traditional concept of marriage is being damaged right along. Heterosexual couples increasingly forgo marriage as not worth the bother. Can you say that there is not *something* that is damaging marriage? Do you care what that something is? Have you even thought about it?
It’s sort of funny that the two groups who seem most concerned with marriage are religious conservatives and gays. Religious people because they see it being destroyed in front of their eyes, and gays because they’ve never had it. Our secular culture increasingly doesn’t see reason to bother, other than for raising children… and in Europe that seems to be going out the window too.
Yes, yes, many people see gay marriage as either a direct cause of the breakdown or else evidence of it, which I believe is *wrong*, but what you can’t argue in any good faith is that there is no breakdown.
I see my heterosexual friends and neighbors getting divorces for the stupidest reasons and it upsets me that promises mean so little and self-gratification means so much and then see the gay community having a “me too!” fit and I’m not encouraged. Marriage has to be selfless to be worth anything at all.
Who knows, maybe subconsciously I support gay marriage because I believe civil marriage is already dead and the only way to preserve marriage at all is to remove true marriage from the civil realm entirely to preserve it in a religious and spiritual context.
So, QP, have you thought about marriage at all beyond the “me too” part?
Comment by Synova — October 1, 2005 @ 12:43 am - October 1, 2005
And, let us all remember what actions Queer Patriot, Chandler, Mark Leno, and the rest of the gay left donated their millions of dollars to promote and call “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”. Why, even the gay liberal elite had no problems whatsoever giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to a supporter of the FMA.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 1, 2005 @ 1:45 am - October 1, 2005
In No. 12, Synova, in essence…
1—Assays the struggle for gay marriage as ultimately a worthless exercise.
2—And questions the motives of other gay people who support it.
Synova’s was a thoughtful, largely decent-toned post (unlike so many here, including some of my own), so she/he/it deserves a thoughtful, respectful response.
1—Re: gay marriage as a worthless exercise. You seem to think that gay marriage will be an “utterly worthless” “prize” because, by the time it arrives, most heterosexuals will have abandoned the institution. Synova, if they do, then aren’t their governments likely to extend the equivalent of marriage rights to other forms of personal unions, say civil unions? And if people in those unions have the same rights as married heterosexuals, will it matter what they call the institution? In my view, no. As to the cause of the breakdown in heterosexual marriage over the past 30 years, I believe I might agree with you: that it’s because “promises mean so little and self-gratification means so much” – that and the fact that people are not being properly trained for the “real world” of life with another and its requirement of at least some sense of selflessness. I regret that for them (heterosexuals as well as homosexuals of repeated short-duration relationships). But my partner and I are in our fourth decade together, and I’ve well learned the value of having that one person to call on in any moment of need, and the exquisite feeling of knowing you’re at one with a soul/heart you consider premier, above all others you might have encountered in life. But ours is a union that has existed just fine without any official encouragement all that time, and my belief in my life-long union with my love is NOT my reason for being for gay marriage – I’ll get to that.
2—Re: questioning the motives of other gay people who support gay marriage. Synova, when you implied that gay people who want gay marriage want it simply because it’s a thing they don’t have, asking me if I have “thought about marriage at all beyond the ‘me too’ part”, I think you meant to offend me. But since the rest of your post was so thoughtful, I’ll ignore that and go right to your point – that gay people supporting gay marriage are simply out after something they don’t have. Do you really believe all those gay people are so shallow in their beliefs? Surely you don’t. I and every gay friend and gay relative supporting gay marriage do so out of a firm conviction that our laws are discriminating again gay people and denying them the 1,000 or more rights accorded automatically to heterosexual couples – estate rights, property rights, rights to a deceased partner’s Social Security benefits, rights to joint ownership without the need to lawyer up to get them, rights to hospital visitation, rights of decision-making at time of death, etc. Please take my word for it that my sweetie and I have deep personal experience with the unfairness of current law toward gay couples, and I cannot believe that there’s not one gay couple represented here at Gay Patriot who hasn’t experienced the same.
Finally, as you might expect, I disagree with your final thought, which was this: “civil marriage is already dead and the only way to preserve marriage at all is to remove true marriage from the civil realm entirely to preserve it in a religious and spiritual context.” In a nation that still values separation of church and state, I’d argue to the inverse: that the only way to preserve marriage at all is to remove it from the religious realm (except for those who need religious confirmation) and preserve it in a civil context – one in which all couples are treated the same, regardless of their sexuality.
Respectfully…
Comment by Queer Patriot — October 1, 2005 @ 8:11 am - October 1, 2005
14 …
“I’d argue to the inverse: that the only way to preserve marriage at all is to remove it from the religious realm (except for those who need religious confirmation) and preserve it in a civil context – one in which all couples are treated the same, regardless of their sexuality.”
Queer Patriot,
Removing the religious (or spiritual) aspect of marriage turns marriage into nothing more than a contract. I think that is the big problem today … marriage as contract law, not a life-long bond. You mentioned the benefit of the commitment you have made with your partner (btw, I am glad to hear that
. You didn’t need to government for that, did you? Yes, some of the marriage perks probably would be nice, but isn’t that contract issues, not a declaration of love and commitment ?
Comment by Wendy — October 1, 2005 @ 9:02 am - October 1, 2005
#15
Wow Wendy, it’s about registering your children in school, inheritance rights, domicillary rights, getting family insurance, and all those other non romantic things. It’s not a surprise that the chruch did not consider it sacramental for the first millenium.
Comment by chandler in hollywood — October 1, 2005 @ 12:18 pm - October 1, 2005
#14 Funny, I read the comments in #12 as the opposite, that marriage is falling apart faster than the movement for gay marriage -and- the religious right can keep it together and I didn’t read any questioning of motives, especially with the comment
I’m depressed enough, right now, to not know where the institution is going (marriage #2 seems to have been knocked out from under me, go fig) I agree it’s a commitment, and on most levels for me that’s the true benefit.
#16 Registering your children in school? Huh?
Inheritance rights, there’s a wonderful invention called a will, I recommend it to everyone. Family insurance, a lot of places offer domestic partner coverage, work for one or lobby for yours to do it (I was pleased to see that my workplace finally allowed opposite sex copules to have DP coverage.
Also I know of one group who kept POA on each other, to handle hospital visits and medical decisions.
Comment by The_Livewire — October 1, 2005 @ 4:42 pm - October 1, 2005
Wendy, No. 15 – thank you. But, rights are not “perks” – e.g., how is automatically benefiting (as do heterosexuals) from your partner’s Social Security a “perk”? It’s a right given to some, but not to others in America. Or, the right to command medical care (without a POA, as heterosexuals can) when your partner can’t? Or other estate rights? Or any of those other 1,000+ rights accruing automatically to heterosexual couples? It’s true that a small number of those rights can be accomplished by gay people through legal agreements, but why should we have to go to the trouble and expense even for those fraction of the 1,000+ rights, when heterosexuals automatically get those rights as a matter of law?
No. 17, the “questioning of motives” that you question came here in No. 12: “So, QP, have you thought about marriage at all beyond the “me too” part?” – referring to her/his/its belief that gays are after marriage rights for the most shallow of reasons – “me tooism”. As to the rest of your post: SS benefits are not distributed because someone wills it to someone else (govt. policy limits it to legal spouse and, in some cases, children). And you make other rights sound very easy to get using work-arounds. I refer you to the comments above – why should gay couples have to lawyer up, spend time, and money to get the rights that are automatically accorded to heterosexual couples?
Comment by Queer Patriot — October 1, 2005 @ 5:22 pm - October 1, 2005
Why on earth does one have to defend gay marriage rights on a website supposedly populated by gay men and women? I repeat a question from earlier: is there not even one other gay couple represented here who has experienced first-hand the inequity of our marriage laws?
Comment by Queer Patriot — October 1, 2005 @ 5:36 pm - October 1, 2005
Well, QP, it doesn’t even seem that most advocates of gay marriage do a good job of defending “gay marriage rights.” They just saw we should have “marriage equality” because we should, because we should, because it’s right. Only had a handful (e.g., Jonathan Rauch) actually make serious arguments for gay marriage.
And since gay marriage represents changing an ancient institution, people should make solid arguments if they want to alter it.
Indeed, until someone at HRC or somewhere decided that gay marriage should be the issue of the gay community, gay people actually did debate the merits of marriage. When Jonathan Rauch spoke in LA, he noted how some gay activists even told him that if gay marriage came with the conditions attached to traditional marriage, then it wouldn’t be right for gay people.
And then there are some of us who question whether it’s right to extend an institution based on the union of two individuals of different genders to a union of two individuals of the same gender. It strikes me as odd that someone who is as bothered as you are that gay people have opinions different from your own would spend so much time on a web-site where such people put forward such opinions on a regular basis.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 1, 2005 @ 7:18 pm - October 1, 2005
I’m beginning to believe this is a shill of a blog. I truly hope not but mainstream, it ain’t. De-Lay ain’t no longer the catch of the night.
Comment by monty — October 1, 2005 @ 7:23 pm - October 1, 2005
GPW says:
And since gay marriage represents changing an ancient institution, people should make solid arguments if they want to alter it.
——————————————
Are you, indeed, sure you’re gay? Have you read the history of marriage and are you not just acting a role?? Marriage,as we know it, is no more “ancient” than the 1800′s. You just amazed me with your silliness. I expected better from you. I see some fundamental ideology seeping into this discussion.
I’d go farther, but now….I can see the time would be wasted. I expected better from you, honestly.
Comment by monty — October 1, 2005 @ 7:39 pm - October 1, 2005
Me amaze you with my silliness? You amaze me with your prejudices against my ideas (and knowledge). C’mon now, Monty, marriage has been around for millennia. And monogamy has been part of marriage for at least three thousand years.
You may see ideology seeping in, but I’m just offering facts and observations from my study of history, anthropology, ritual and religion. So, to answer your question, yes, I have studied the history of marriage.
Go look to any culture’s marriage rituals (especially prior to the 1800s) and you will find them to be institutions bringing together two individuals of different groups, different genders.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 1, 2005 @ 8:12 pm - October 1, 2005
#17
Believe it or not, when gay parents register their children in school that have to produce birth certificates. Because I live in the rarefied enclaves of So. Cal and because I volunteer for The Gay and Lesbian Center’s Family Services Division, I know dozens of gay couples that have adopted children. Yes, we register children. Your rather naive HUH reveals that you really do not understand the scope that marriage has on gay FAMILIES.
Comment by chandler in hollywood — October 1, 2005 @ 8:19 pm - October 1, 2005
“And monogamy has been part of marriage for at least three thousand years.”
Sorry, but that is a stupid lie and you know it. GEESH. How do you fight a stupid lie? How does one say enough times: That’s just stupid!! When do people start to think for themselves.
Please, for the sake of honesty…rephrase that remark. OK?
Comment by monty — October 1, 2005 @ 8:53 pm - October 1, 2005
Any way you want to, will do.
Comment by monty — October 1, 2005 @ 9:10 pm - October 1, 2005
Wow, what a treasure trove of views in GayPatriotWest’s No. 20. Responses are necessary:
1) What’s wrong with “we should have marriage equality because we should, because it’s right?” Isn’t this America, where all are created equal?
2) Changing an “ancient institution”: you think it was always engagement announcements, followed by a ceremony, between only two white heterosexuals? Study the history of it and watch it change from an institution organized primarily for nobility, to one of polygamy, arranged marriages/dowrys, same-race-marriages-only, etc. That “ancient institution” is constantly undergoing change. Why not one more?
3) No one at HRC decided that gay marriage should be an issue for me. I decided that, and only after realizing how discriminating U.S. laws are toward heterosexuals. I take it you don’t have a partner and are not concerned with mutual ownership of property, tax-free inheritance rights, Social Security benefits, and some 1,000+ other “rights” accorded to heterosexual couples but NOT to homosexual couples. If you were (partnered), you’d never be so cavalier toward the issue as you demonstrate in No. 20.
4) Your final paragraph, where you “question whether it’s right to extend an institution based on the union of two individuals of different genders to a union of two individuals of the same gender” tells me quite clearly that you view homosexual couplings as inferior to heterosexual couplings. I don’t. Therein lies the essential difference. Little surprise then that we’re finding so-called gay people on this website who are actually starting to reveal that they really don’t care much for other gay people. I’m starting to see what some other people here mean when they say Gay Patriots are self-hating. And I’m starting to wonder, as did Monty above, whether this website is anything other than “a shill” site for the GOP.
Comment by Queer Patriot — October 1, 2005 @ 9:53 pm - October 1, 2005
Here we go with the “I want gay marriage yesterday” stuff again. If you don’t find people here who agree with your demand, then go post on Andrew Sullivan. Oh, sorry, I forgot, Andrew doesn’t let people post comments.
Comment by PatC — October 1, 2005 @ 10:25 pm - October 1, 2005
# 12, Synova, great comments! I have enough divorced step parents to fill a small school bus (you know the little ones for the dysfunctional kids). I have been married for 16 years, 2 kids, and hope to stay that way, I am not wanting to repeat history in my family.
Comment by SactoDan — October 1, 2005 @ 10:31 pm - October 1, 2005
Monty, in #25, it’s not a lie at all, if you believe, as I do, that the Ten Commandments are at least three thousand years old.
As to QP’s #27, let’s see, to (1), I may one day come around to supporting gay marriage, but I will never support “marriage equality.” I don’t like that expression. This is America where we are all created equal, but this is also the world where men and women are different.
(2) If you’d read my posts on marriage, you would know that I oppose constitutional amendments defining marriage because I believe the institution should be allowed to evolve.
(3) And yes, I am concerned about some of the issues you address in this point, it’s why I favor domestic partnership benefits, something those who read my posts would know.
(4) I never said that homosexual couplings are inferior to heterosexual couplings. Once again you don’t understand my arguments and misrepresent my ideas.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 1, 2005 @ 10:42 pm - October 1, 2005
What if there’s a difference between an essential change and a non-essential change? Is there any chance that, with all its non-essential changes, what we call marriage is essentially between a man and a woman? And if the gender is not essential, then what is?
What would be a core definition of marriage once gender was made non-essential? Because it seems that from some of the arguments above –leaving aside the tiresome, godawful tiresome bs about who’s self-loathing or shilling or otherwise not a good orthodox homo– once you have change in an institution, there’s never a good reason to stop changing it. So maybe there can be no core definition and marriage would mean…whatever.
Comment by EssEm — October 1, 2005 @ 10:55 pm - October 1, 2005
Gay marriage is a hot topic that keeps getting hotter.
The majority of Americans don’t agree with gay marriage but we have rogue judges that seems to override the people’s desire.
Gay marriage like all minority rights will come when America is ready for it.
Having rogue judges overriding the votes of the citizens does nothing but bring out even more radical religious groups.
Its amazing how we want the courts to override citizens votes to give us the right to marry but we whined when the Supreme Court did the same thing and put Bush in office. We can’t have it both ways.
Comment by Andrew — October 1, 2005 @ 10:59 pm - October 1, 2005
QP,
If I wasn’t clear, I apologise …
I was never speaking against extending the contract benefits to all couples, regardless of their gender(s). I was railing against making marriage just a contract (or ‘notorized dating’ as I heard it once, source forgotten).
I would love to see marriage for all if marriage actually ment something more than sharing a photo album and matching rings.
Comment by Wendy — October 2, 2005 @ 12:29 am - October 2, 2005
Furthermore, Queer Patriot, why not answer the question of why you and other gay leftists support the banning of gay marriage and stripping rights from gays by state and Federal constitutional amendment — especially when you berate others for supposedly doing the same?
Actually, I think the shills here are Monty and Queer Patriot….notice how they can’t even say that it was wrong and antigay for Democrats to support doing so?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2005 @ 2:43 am - October 2, 2005
You almost convinced me. I’d still vote for McClintock though, hands down, no question about it. (-:
Comment by rightwingprof — October 2, 2005 @ 8:13 am - October 2, 2005
Thirty, in No. 34, you say yet again say that I (QP) “support the banning of gay marriage and stripping rights from gays”. After all I’ve written on the subject here, how stupid can you be? Very stupid AND hypocritical, apparently, considering that you, Thirty, even today persist in your support of GOP politicians who have tried to enshrine anti-gay bigotry into the U.S. Constitution and who regularly vote as a majority against gay marriage and civil unions in every legislature where it has come up for a vote.
See Thirty, one good paste deserves another, complete with quote tweaks.
Comment by Queer Patriot — October 2, 2005 @ 10:00 am - October 2, 2005
Thirty, in No. 34, you say yet again say that I (QP) “support the banning of gay marriage and stripping rights from gays”. After all I’ve written on the subject here, how stupid can you be? Very stupid AND hypocritical, apparently, considering that you, Thirty, even today persist in your support of GOP politicians who have tried to enshrine anti-gay bigotry into the U.S. Constitution and who regularly vote as a majority against gay marriage and civil unions in every legislature where it has come up for a vote.
Actually, I call Republican politicians whose actions qualify as such out as antigay bigots. You call the identical actions of Democrats “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
The only thing you have demonstrated in your writings, Queer Patriot, is that you prefer being a second-class citizen forever barred from equality if Democrats do it. All of your rhetoric and care for your partner goes out the window if doing so would embarass your Democratic masters like John Kerry and Inez Tenenbaum.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2005 @ 11:33 am - October 2, 2005
If the Governator can get the re-districting initiative passed it will be the most important and best contribution any Governor of CA has made in the last 50 years.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — October 2, 2005 @ 12:44 pm - October 2, 2005
Thirty, in No.37, posts the following…
HE QUOTED QP: “Thirty, in No. 34, you say yet again say that I (QP) “support the banning of gay marriage and stripping rights from gays”. After all I’ve written on the subject here, how stupid can you be? Very stupid AND hypocritical, apparently, considering that you, Thirty, even today persist in your support of GOP politicians who have tried to enshrine anti-gay bigotry into the U.S. Constitution and who regularly vote as a majority against gay marriage and civil unions in every legislature where it has come up for a vote.”
AND THEN THIRTY RESPONDED: “Actually, I call Republican politicians whose actions qualify as such out as antigay bigots. You call the identical actions of Democrats “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.”
QP: How could I have? No Democratic President ever tried to enshrine anti-gay bigotry into the U.S. Constitution.
Like the fella in another thread just wrote about you — you’ve gotten yourself twisted up into a partisan pretzel here this morning with your flailings. Take a break, go get yourself some coffee.
Comment by Queer Patriot — October 2, 2005 @ 1:12 pm - October 2, 2005
LOL…..I do know a Democratic President who enshrined antigay bigotry into Federal law, and I know a Democratic Presidential candidate who supported enshrining antigay bigotry into state constitutions because of his religious beliefs and traditional views of marriage.
In short, in your view, had Bush only supported Federal law or state constitutional amendments banning gay rights, he wouldn’t be an antigay bigot.
I simply call a spade a spade, regardless of level.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2005 @ 1:32 pm - October 2, 2005
24,
My huh, comes from I don’t have kids, so I’ve never encountered that. I’ll check with my friend here, see if she had to do those kind of hoops.
Who’s birth certificate? The kids? And why is this so cataclysmic?
May I take your lack of couterarguement as agreement on the issue of wills and POA?
27: I can marry any (well almost any) woman I want. You can marry any (opposite sex) partner you want. If you change that to allow same sex partners, you change the definition of marriage. If all you want (which is what I infer from the tone of your posts, correct me if I’m wrong) is the ‘benies’ then what’s the issue with it being called something different, say, ‘fred’.
Comment by The_Livewire — October 2, 2005 @ 3:06 pm - October 2, 2005
No. 40, I don’t care what you call it, so long as you keep using it to dig your own rhetorical grave.
Comment by Queer Patriot — October 2, 2005 @ 5:24 pm - October 2, 2005
No. 41, you got it — it’s the 1,049 “benies” (I prefer “rights”). I have no problem whatsoever with “fred” as a name for it, assuming that “fred” gives me and my partner the same 1,049 Federal rights accorded to you — automatically — as a heterosexual. If you’ll read the GAO report on marriage rights in Federal law at…
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf
…I think you might be rather surprised at how substantial those rights are. As just one example of 1,049: when you die, your Social Security earnings go automatically to your wife (assuming you have one); when I die, MY Social Security earnings ALSO go to YOU/YOUR WIFE and other SS recipients — but not to my life-long partner. For that and 1,048 other Federal reasons, I’d welcome the granting of equal rights under any name.
Comment by Queer Patriot — October 2, 2005 @ 5:37 pm - October 2, 2005
Amazing….before Queer Patriot was screaming about on several different occasions how nothing less than marriage would be sufficient.
Perhaps he was finally embarrassed enough to realize that the candidates he supported on the Democratic side refuse to grant gays full equality; therefore, he had to tone down his rhetoric.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2005 @ 8:13 pm - October 2, 2005
Thirty, you’ve never read me arguing that the word “marriage” was necessary, only that the rights incumbent in it are. In your blindness brought on by over-the-top partisanship, you failed to see that your links in No. 44 above don’t even support your contention. Or, perhaps you just made the links, hoping no one would read them, and your point would be taken. Seeing as how you’re often a deceitful little SOB, I’m guessing it’s the latter.
Comment by Queer Patriot — October 3, 2005 @ 7:39 am - October 3, 2005
LOL…. first link:
Why? Afraid it’s going to give some rights to people who heretofore have been denied them? That would make sense, coming from a conservative. Or, are you afraid the “traditional concept” will somehow be damaged by gay marriage?
And the second link, which is even better:
In No. 10, V The K, in his enthusiasm for covering for anti-gay-marriage Republicans, dismisses the need for marriage equality with this extraordinary comment: “The marriage argument is much more about SYMBOLISM than substance; sticking it to the “Religious Right,” shocking the normals. Both sides play up the issue to rile the base, but at the end of the day, it’s REALLY ABOUT A WORD and A HANDFUL OF LEGAL CONVENIENCES.”
A “word” and “a handful of legal conveniences…” Amazing. Now, there’s a presumably gay man (and, from his past comments, one in a partnership with children) who doesn’t even know (or perhaps doesn’t want to know) that there are 1,049 Federal laws related to marriage that have been identified by the Government Accountability Office at…
Actually, what I find hilarious is how your views flip-flop. V the K is much closer to you than he is to me, but your hate blinds you to the obvious. When he starts talking about rewording, you scream for marriage. When I start pointing out that you have no problem with banning gay marriage and depriving gays of marriage rights by state constitutional amendment and based on traditional views and religion as long as Democrats do it, you suddenly start babbling that civil unions are good enough.
Of course, you’d rather eat your own entrails than admit you agree with either me or V the K, so…..
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 3, 2005 @ 10:33 am - October 3, 2005
Can’t you stop commenting long enough to even read? Vlad The…was denigrating gay marriage as being about a “word” and “a handful of legal conveniences”. Not something anyone else would think I agree with.
And, sweetie, don’t talk to me about “flip flopping” — you’re the avowed bi-sexual.
Comment by Queer Patriot — October 3, 2005 @ 10:34 pm - October 3, 2005
QP,
At the risk of getting into an argument that I probably should not … what do you have against ND30′s bi-identity ? It appears that if he is bi, then he has moved beyond using physiological gender as a ‘ love / not love ‘ criteria ? Upon that frame of reference, you may percieve it as “flip flopping”, but upon his, it appears not.
You also note that he ‘chooses to be gay’ … Then hypotheticaly consider everyone makes choices. He chooses to follow his instincts and his heart. You state he doesn’t have to make a choice. You also choose to follow your heart. You can choose not to, if you wish. I can go through life in the ‘appropriate’ gender based upon my birth certificate, or I can choose to become who I feel I should have been for the start. Based upon this hypothesis, it appears we a just making choices, nothing more.
I do not believe ND30 and yourself feel you are just exercising choices. I know for myself the only choice I have is I want to alive instead of mearly breathing. I propose this idea: we cannot choose who we are, but only if we are going allow ourselves to live our lives, or let others set the rules.
ND30,
I am not looking to get into your disagreements with QP, but I thought this aspect was important to bring up. If I am out of line, I apologize.
Comment by Wendy — October 4, 2005 @ 12:36 am - October 4, 2005
It has become a long story Wendy and I have to get on with some work, but I’ll come back to this in the next day or so and do a more complete answer to your thoughtful post. In the meantime, suffice it to say that I was being facetious about Thirty’s Blithe Choice.
Comment by Queer Patriot — October 4, 2005 @ 8:18 am - October 4, 2005
Additionally, Wendy, I am at this point closely strapped to Mr. Thirty and in need of his up-close on Harriet Miers; thus, no need to rile him any further on this issue — which we’ll come back to certainly.
Comment by Queer Patriot — October 4, 2005 @ 8:20 am - October 4, 2005
[...] Why I luv my Guv (Ahnuld, that is) by GayPatriot Excerpt: [D]espite the angry rhetoric of Democrats in Sacramento, a number of left-wing interest groups and public employee unions, my man Ahnuld has accomplished a good deal in his short term in office. [...]
Pingback by California Conservative » “Carnival of Arnold” — Inaugural Edition — November 6, 2005 @ 8:00 pm - November 6, 2005
Hey, if you haven’t heard of the “12dailypro vs Stormpay” fiasco yet, check out my post, “Kick My Ball Stormpay, Please?” on my blog. You’ll get a “kick out of it. lol
Comment by 12dailypro — February 19, 2006 @ 12:56 pm - February 19, 2006