I just returned from a fundraiser for the Guv I luv, the chief executive of the Golden State, Arnold Schwarzenegger. It was a great event, not only because I got to see my friend Craig, but also because I got to meet other supporters of the Governor who were as diverse as the state itself. I ran into an acquaintance who was native to Switzerland — and his stunning wife, native to Canada. I chatted with a very friendly Armenian man (who showed me a picture of his adorable daughter–as cute as my nieces!) and an aspiring actor from Slovakia.
I saw men in yarmulkes, African-American couples, an Asian man with hair past his shoulders as well as assorted Hollywood types. In short, it was an American gathering. And it seemed that the most American person there was the star of the show, Ahnuld himself. One could feel that good man enter the room. He has an energy and an optimism that just radiates from his presence. That presence reminds me a little of another great governor of the Golden State — Ronald Reagan.
When Governor Schwarzenegger spoke, it struck me how quintessentially American is this Austrian native. He was optimistic and forward-looking. He talked about his accomplishments and how he plans to build on them in the next term to improve our state. He wants to see cranes everywhere repairing our state’s crumbling infrastructure. And wants to hold taxes down to keep business booming, creating jobs.
The only time he talked about his opponent was to poke fun at him for wanting to return to the failed practices of the Governator’s predecessor. And he wondered at his ads focusing on President Bush and the Iraq war. “Talk about California,” he said. And while he belittled Angelides’ policies and campaign tactics, just like Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger never attacked his opponent personally.
Governor Schwarzenegger’s energy, his optimism, his good humor, even his smile showed him to be a true American, a man grateful for the opportunities this great nation has given him and optimistic about its future — and that of its people. In that way, he was so like so many of us in that room, those of us born here and those who came here to pursue the American dream.
Though born in Austria, Arnold Schwarzenegger embodies the best of the United States of America. It’s why I’m proud to have made a large contribution to his reelection campaign and encourage you to do the same.
Hail the Austrian artist who vetoed the same sex marriage bill that was the result of democratic processes!
As his press secretary stated “The people voted and the issue is now before the courts. The Governor believes the matter should be determined not by legislative action – which would be unconstitutional – but by court decision or another vote of the people of our state.”
Gay Republicans should be for the legislative solution except when their party’s leaders are against it.
Please educate yourself on the matter, Sydney Talon.
To what the governor was referring is the fact that the same-sex marriage bill runs smack dab into the very clear prohibition in Proposition 22:
Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California..
Which the appeals court upheld today.
That is because Proposition 22 is far more representative, in terms of how it was enacted, than any Assembly bill.
And it makes neatly clear, with 61% enactment, that Californians do not want gay marriage.
Now, if you and your fellow puppets would begin a campaign to repeal Prop 22, you would have my support.
But if you continue to use gay marriage as a political football, refusing to bring it up during election years and passing laws only to attack the governor — made blatantly obvious when the same puppet Dems like Leno who supported John Kerry’s statewide bans on gay marriage do it — you’ll have no support from anyone.
I needed no educaton, but thank you for elaborating on the Austrian’s stance (hail!) and confirming my point. I shall leave it to residents of California to amend their own Constitution. Please feel free to request the others in your closet sign the repeal you wish to circulate.
NDT, the wiki article you linked to says Prop. 22 refered to out of state marriages. LOL
I remember the Governor saying he vetoed AB 849 because it violated, not the law itself, but the “spirit” of prop. 22.
Still, while his veto was disappointing, the Governor has been fairly helpful, signing numerous bills that will expand the protections for homosexuals in California.
Perhaps in his second term, knowing that he can’t run for higher office, he will change his mind and sign such a bill.
On the east coast, hopefully Elliot Spitzer’s (and Mrs. Clinton’s) coattails will be wide enough in New York State next month that the Democrats can gain the 4 seats nessecary to win control of the state senate there, thereby allowing (soon to be) Governor-elect Spitzer to champion a bill legalizing gay marriage through the legislature, as he has advocated for.
That would be good.
Actually, Chase, what that is is revisionist history, as pushed by Democratic puppets like Mark Leno who argued that Proposition 22 was only meant to apply to marriages contracted outside California, and not those done within the state itself.
That’s why I consider Leno a fraud and a charlatan; if, as he claims, the voters support gay marriage, then he can raise a reversal to Proposition 22. But the simple fact of the matter is that he won’t — because he knows he’ll lose.
Sydney, sorry but it does sound like you need an education because you’re missing the main points in many of threads and trying to spin much, yet do little. Of course, if that’s your game… play on sister… but quit smearing fellow gays here with that lame “closet” tag. You’re the only one looking like a red-assed buffoon if you think others here see NDXXX as a closeted gay.
Otherwise, you might want to note that NDXXX has it right, again. A majority of voters in state after bloody state want the definition of marriage to remain as 1 man, 1 woman. What you and the balance of the GayLeftBorg don’t want to do is pursue the more politically available option of same sex unions… because for people like you, getting gay marriage approved is all about confrontational, in-ur-face politics from the radical activist GayLeft –who learned it all from their brothers and sisters on the picket lines in front of factories (now closed), in protest rallies at S African embassies (a nation in chaos), in the organic-now mobs fighting the WorldBank (and looting high tech toys when possible) and in all those efforts to sell out the troops and BlameAmericaFirst (redux VietNam anyone).
I wish more of your buddies-in-political-crime would allow each state to make the decision about same sex unions and back off this no win effort to force acceptance of gay marriage down the throats of mainstream America. We don’t need validation from mainstream America, we just need the special privileges and statutory accommodations that will allow to operate gay households.
So, a little education does appear to be in order for you, despite your protest. You can thank NDXXX for providing it when your sensibility returns to normal level.
Chase writes: “Perhaps in his second term, knowing that he can’t run for higher office, he will change his mind and sign such a bill.”
btw, the Governor can run for higher office –he can kick one of the failed Democrat Senators from California into early political retirement. Frankly, he could replace both incumbents and California would still come out ahead.
Let’s face it…compared to Arnold, the rest of them are just GIRLY MEN!
There, I said it. Deal with it.
Regards,
Peter H.
#7 If Mr. Thirty is not in the closet, I whole-heartedly apologize for the insult.
It is curious your argument that he is right is based on a number of voters voting against gay rights. I am a southerner, and as you know our society was (or is) based on the majority being oppressive and wrong for centuries. People of conscience in such societies think long and hard about what our values should be. To me, “All men are created equal, endowed bt he creator with certain inalienable rights….” really means all, equal, and inalienable. The state must treat all equally, not because of laws, but because it is the right of every human being.
I applauding Vermont and the other states civil unions. All progress is progress, but any deviation from the full rights endowed by marriage is still discrimination and it is still anti-American. I also beleive it is a false hope maintained by those who, for whatever reason, feel the need to ally with the coalition that includes anti-gay bigots. Those people are not going support a civil union if no one says same sex marriage ever again, and it sells short what America stands for to be complicit in taking a back seat.
yeah. um, arnold is a nazi sympathizer. he forgave billions in debt than enron owed california after then energy scams.
way to be a sellout. I can’t wait until you are arrested for being gay by your anti-gay republican friedns.
Sydney, where you stand on an issue determines whether or not you see the South as having had a tradition of “centuries” of oppression by the majority. There were long periods in Southern history where the majority of people in the deep South were slaves. The War of Northern Aggression was fought largely to impose their majority view on the Southern minority. Thos Jefferson, Geo Washington, Messrs Monroe and Madison as well as Jackson used slave labor to great effect. The DoI is a wonderful document but the Founders knew what they meant when they wrote it. Today, those words have a far different meaning –particularly coming from the Left.
I, too, believe that all men are created equal. I don’t think some are more equal and deserve special privileges and rights NOT accorded all in society. You can apply that to gay marriage; I can apply that to civil unions and repealing affirmative action. Where one stand on issues determines much.
BTW, before you proceed to quote the DoI in defense of your position to pursue equal “rights” remember that the Founders listed the inalienable rights as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They didn’t say you had a right to be equal –that is condition provided by the Creator (note the capital C as in God).
Of course, you’ll run into problems with the PC police over at the GayLeftBorg if you start using a capital C.
Sorry, just to finish responding… on your point about Vermont and civil unions. The political situation in that state during the debate over approving civil unions is exactly what I was pointing to… to this day, Vermont is still deeply divided over the issue. After the proposal passed, there was a strong effort to TakeBack the state by natives who viewed the Mass-a-Gays as having coldcocked true Grn Mtn voters. The effort failed mostly due to the perception that Grn Mtn state judges were liberal and would not tolerate majority oppression of minority rights. I helped fight for civil unions in the Grn Mtn state and have now watched my friends and neighbors there remain bitterly divided.
For them, it’s still perceived as an occasion when “outsiders” remade the state. It isn’t rational, but it’s real.
America has a long tradition of discrimination. It’s a reality of the public arena, the marketplace, the globe. We need to argue in favor of civil unions because it will help contribute to the stabilization of society and protect family interests –not because it ends “discrimination”.
#12 “…the Founders listed the inalienable rights as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They didn’t say you had a right to be equal –that is condition provided by the Creator”
Precisely. The Founders do not confer anything; they do not even live up to the ideals they expoused when the nation was founded. It has fallen to successive generations to work toward that goal. Equality is everyone’s birthright. I am not sure why you feel we are opponents on that score.
Since this morning’s post I visited the bank, picked up new license plates, had the oil changed, renewed my drivers license (ugh), and had lunch at a restaurant. In all those interactions both parties were expected to treat the other the same without regard to religion, gender, age, political affiliation, race, veteran status, disability, employment, education, national origin, or marital status. In modern areas, we can count sexual orientation among those. Of those where the other party representated the state, that blindness to personal characteristics is also expected of the state itself. Why then is it considered acceptable that the state treat one differently, not based on any personal characteristic, but on one of those factors in a spouse, namely gender?
NorthDallasThirty (#2), are you saying that it’s not ok to overrule the will of the majority when the majority is dead wrong? That 61% majority was objectively wrong, just like the majorities in many states who opposed school integration prior to Brown, and it’s a good thing for their opinion to be overruled in each case.
I don’t come here that much, but a while back, I invited anyone here to tell me why I, as a gay anti-statist, should vote Republican. I have well-formed opinions on this, but I also have an open mind. Email me at kdogg36@gmail.com if you have any responses. In particular, I want to know in what respects I can expect government to be smaller and less intrusive if Republicans keep control of Congress, and why I should believe them at this point. It will not be helpful to just say that Democrats are worse; what I need is to be convinced that programs will be cut, the budget will beslashed to pre-1994 levels, government will become less intrusive, cabinet departments will be abolished, and education will be de-federalized.