The California state constitution explicitly states that the Legislature may NOT enact legislation in conflict with a voter proposition unless said proposition allows for the legislature to do so — and Proposition 22 did not.

The California Legislature had no power to act. Their actions were a clear violation of the state constitution, and Arnold acted appropriately.

Ah, there we go.

You are aware that the California legislature passed a gay marriage bill not once, but twice? And that Arnold vetoed the bills

First, I believe there were 5 pro-gay bills that year and Ahnuld signed 4 of them, vetoing only the gay marriage one.

Second, as I understand it, he was morally (if not legally) required to veto it. The legislature was wrong to pass a bill overriding the relatively recent vote of the People on the matter.

Third, CA Democrats passed the bill KNOWING that Ahnuld would veto it. Several Democratic legislators – Latino, I believe – opposed gay marriage, and were set to defeat the bill, then switched their votes only after they got firm assurances of Ahnuld’s veto. In other words: they didn’t want gay marriage to pass, they just wanted something to help with the Democratic Party’s fundraising among gays. Looks like you fell for it hook, line and sinker, TP.

But somehow I doubt that was the point of your screed. And that reminds me of an old saying; the only peoples’ opinions you have to care about are the people that you care about.

There are plenty of people here about whose I do care, and those people know me. You’re not one of them.

Their insults hurt me more than they do you because they often compromise solid points they make backing up my points or taking on my critics.

It’s between him and Allison.

Oh, and this relates to this thread because. . .uh. . .I hope he gets married in Vermont.

But so much for that.

Indeed, viewing my comment above within the larger frame of this blog’s seeming rules of ‘etiquette,’ my comment appears right in line with the traditional ethos here.

And all this despite your recent calls for diplomacy from the gay-sex conservative posters.

Please quit it with the insults. And those goes for my supporters as well. Don’t compromise your points with innuendo or insult.

To the point: even your online moniker is a lie. You are neither “North Dallas” nor “Thirty.” Indeed, you currently hail from the “gay sex” mecca of San Francisco and God knows you are a good five years older than your moniker indicates.

Ever the hypocrite, you are what shall now be known as a “gay-sex conservative:” not in a committed relationship yourself with one of the same sex but most certainly interested in deriding those who are in such relationships.

And yet being a gay-sex conservative, you still indulge when possible in treats of the flesh and occasional hook-ups (airport restrooms do the trick in a pinch).

Unable to openly, proudly, and monogamously commit to a gay relationship? Cringe at the sight of other gay couples in public?

Chat room much? Craigslist much? Anonymous sex much? Sit at home depressed much?

If so: *you* are a gay-sex conservative.

And since gay-sex conservatives are known hypocrites, even online monikers must display that quality. Therefore, you (in an attempt to gain red-state cred) claim “North Texas” merely because it is your native region.

But like all gay-sex conservatives, you were forced to *head* to a locale with hook-up opportunities in abundance.

North Dallas Thirty meet San Fran.

San Fran meet a gay-sex conservative.

Well, that was kind of positive.

Which part is the insult — gay, sex, or liberal?

After all, aren’t you in favor of all three? Why does having that stated publicly bother you so much?