Ahnold has now become the "Girlie Man"

What a loser and once again it was GOP political dirty tricks that delivered an incompetant to Californians ... they won't forget and California will end this joke soon enough.

Can't wait for the religious nuts who post here to connect Katrina to sin in New Orleans and thus say Arnold is actually preventing an earthquake.

Too bad Mr. Schwarzenegger could not find the courage to sign the bill into law.

Given the heat you libs are giving him, it looks like he was showing courage by vetoing the bill.

Danni: Banging on your bible again. I thought you hated it when people bring religion into subjects unrelated, and yet you do it more than anyone. Hypocrit.

Gay marriages? You've got to be kidding! People today have no sense of shame. I guess this is what happens in a free society where everyone feels they can do as they please.

Times is now a "Girlie Magazine"

LOL

1056a Visitor....You act like you are surprised about this whole "gay marriage" thing. Is this the first you are hearing about it?

Arnold was elected GZ. Arnold was following the will of the people that elected him GZ. You are a scmuck GZ.

Danni you are by far the biggest loon on this site. You make jackass, rightnut, and buffalobob look good.

California:
Hasta la vista, baby
Arnold:
I'll be back

Not smart. Arnold can kick their ass.

Arnold represents the people, not a radical small subsection of the population pushing for an agenda.

Arnold is being attacked also by the unions in California. Teachers, Firemen and Policemen are viemently against him. If he ran for re-election today he would be soundly defeated. Everything he has touched has turned to mud. He only won because he said he'd repeal the car registration fee, which he did. He has done nothing since.

Gay marriage will happen. The people were against inter-racial marriage. It was deemed unconstitutional. Gay marriage will not go away no matter how tightly conservatives close their eyes and wish.

How about this for an idea. Let's just put the whole Gay Marriage idea to a vote. Don't have it on an election day... have it only like June 3rd. Let all the people of America come out to vote in on it, and let the chips fall where they may. If the American people say its okay, then it is okay, if they say no, then Gays can't marry.

Is this really a bad idea?

Like I said Rob, if inter-racial marriages were put to a vote, it would be illeagal. Civil rights cannot be voted on. The courts have to force it through.

Rob,

Is this really a bad idea?

I think it is. Our system of Government is a Representative Republic, NOT a true (mob rules) Democracy.

This is an issue that is going to continue to percolate. My prediction is that gays will ultimately acquire 'Civil unions' which will give gay couples the same 'legal status' as married couples. It just won't be called a 'marriage'.

The courts have to force it through.

Posted by KingFish at 2005-09-09 11:29 AM | Reply

Interesting.
Gay marriage and interracial marriage are not the same issues.
I am continually amazed that people manage to compare civil rights with the gay agenda. It is a slap in the face to the civil rights movement.
When gays are hosed down in the streets, attacked by police dogs, made to ride in the back of the bus, use different waterfountains, banned from restaraunts, lynched, etc get back to me.

The courts have to force it through.

Interesting statement. Let's think about that for a moment. The only way that statement flies is if the right for a homosexual couple to legally marry is firmly grounded in the Constitution. If not, then it is nothing more than that hot-topic known as judicial activism.

The current minority party (Democrats) seem to think that their ideals are SO important that they should be able to legislate however they see fit. If they can't win elections - legislate their agenda through the courts. This is a trend that started about 30-40 years ago. Judges have become increasingly broad in their Constitutional interpretations. This is EXACTLY why judicial nominees are becoming increasingly difficult to pass. It's as if social issues aren't even decided through the Legislative process any more. And despite my swipe at the Dem's, this really is a bi-partisan issue.

This is my question to the group:
Shouldn't we all desire judges who are strict Constitutionalists? If not, why?

"How about this for an idea. Let's just put the whole Gay Marriage idea to a vote."

Rob, it was already put to a vote. Many times. Every state that has proposed a 'definition of marriage' aamendment has passed it with overwhelming support.

Golly, who could have imagined that a Republican governor would be under assault by the American Pravda? Plus unions representing people paid from taxes?

What has this world come to?

This is what is killing the Democrats. Since the 68 riots in Chicago they've been trumpeting fringe issues.

The gay-lesbian faction has gone from promoting tolerance to endorsement. My own cousin tells me that all children are born bi-sexual but are programmed to be heterosexual. This is propaganda that ignores basic reproductive biology.

Fact, children are asexual in that they have no concept of sex, but they do intuitively understand love, and naively express affection without discrimination.

I hear arguments about barnyard animals, bulls mounting steers. Steers of course are castrated so they gain weight for market. Nothing natural about that. But, put two bulls in the same pasture and they will fight. Especially if there's some cows in the audience.

The agenda includes broadening the definition of homosexual contact, and diluting the definition of the word "gay" so that it becomes a commmon taunt. I worked with a group of 20-somethings who would say, "That's gay" "You're gay" as a joke. Normalizing the word so it has no meaning.

Then there's the parades. Do they merely march as a political statement? No. It's not enough to say, I'm here, I vote, there are blatant acts of sexual contact, costumes that border on or cross into public indecency, and it seem the more outre the better.

Acceptance is not enough. They want to promote their lifestyle, encourage our youth to give it a try.

There are churches that will perform the ceremony, legal methods of affecting a social contract or "partnership", but that is not enough. They will force the marriage issue to gain a license that in 50% of all cases proves to be worthless.

But it's the political issues that pose the greatest threat. As long as the Democrats support gay marriage, third term abortions, and other fringe issues, people will continue to vote Republican even if it is against their primary interests.

Wingnut + Schwarzenazi = Girly Man.

Ozark,

As bad as the current Republican party is (and it is bad) I can't stand the Dem's. They've moved away from their mission of representing the common man. They now represent 'Fringe Left' causes (and yes, The Repubs also represent 'Fringe Right' causes). The entitlement state, backassward concepts like affirmative action, weak on National defense, PC to a fault, every form of legislation imaginable to encourage big-bucks litigation, etc. - I find these planks of the Dem. platform to be even more dangerous (and we're talking dangerous, folks) than the shit that the Republican party is shoveling.

Who cares .. although America will be the last country on earth along with the Arab countries who we all know are trapped in the middle ages to recognize gay marriage, at the end of the day it WILL come to pass. Maybe not this year or next but eventually. Much of America will evenyually recognize it and those regions where the majority still desires to live in the middle ages - ie the Southern and some Western states, will have that right. Scream, yell, whine, express your personal views but in the end history is against you and its only a matter of time. All people have the right to be with whoever they want to be with and they also have the same rights as those who choose to be with people of the opposite sex. Those who disagree are doing so on a religious basis and that's just fine however it has NO PLACE in this country. Having someone with some magic book and a funny hat dictating law is fine for Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan, but last time I looked this was America ... enjoy the continued backwardness and ignorance but in the end you WILL lose this argument and of that I have no doubts.

I expect at some point states that are progressive like NY will recognize gay marriage .. and the people will support it with little resistance aside from the usual suspects.

Dangerous Jeff ? ... how many dead because of Republican ineptitude ? How many ? Iraq and Katrina dead and wounded under Republican watch .;.. give me Democrats any day


Yeah its Clinton's fault right ?

What republican taught the chinese how to build US Nuclear weapons? Oh wait, North Korea now has nukes... who is to blame?

Guess that's a good type of out-sourcing to you GZ, eh?

"at the end of the day it WILL come to pass. Maybe not this year or next but eventually. Much of America will evenyually recognize it and those regions where the majority still desires to live in the middle ages - ie the Southern and some Western states, will have that right. Scream, yell, whine, express your personal views but in the end history is against you and its only a matter of time. All people have the right to be with whoever they want to be with and they also have the same rights as those who choose to be with people of the opposite sex. Those who disagree are doing so on a religious basis and that's just fine however it has NO PLACE in this country. Having someone with some magic book and a funny hat dictating law is fine for Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan, but last time I looked this was America ... enjoy the continued backwardness and ignorance but in the end you WILL lose this argument and of that I have no doubts."

Spoken like a true fascist.


"I expect at some point states that are progressive like NY will recognize gay marriage .. and the people will support it with little resistance aside from the usual suspects."

Who? like the vast majority of people in this country? There's an easy answer to your problem... if you're among people who do not support your way of life or thinking... head on out to somewhere that does.

Easy GZ,

I was expressing my opinion, that's all. I find the 'entitlement mentality' and the 'welfare state' to be pretty fucking dangerous to the long-term survival and prosperity of this country.

Dangerous? Indeed!

Friend,

The platform of both parties is little more than a PR release. It's how they vote, and what they promote.

I'm all for a third party that supports a moderate electorate. Instead we have two parties that support the extremes. That is what is dividing this nation.

And as Niccolo Machiavelli wrote:

"A Divided House is Easier to Rule."

My concern is who is doing the ruling. It sure isn't the average American.

"The platform of both parties is little more than a PR release."

Agreed. But it was JeffJ who specifically pointed to "planks of the Dem. platform." And that was what I was calling him on.

A Friend

"It's how they vote, and what they promote."

Exactly. Like the "support our troops" Republicans voting against additional armour for our troops:

On April 21, 2005, the US. Senate voted on a $223 million funding amendment to buy more armoured HumVees for troops in Iraq. The vote was 61-39 in favor. Of the 39 opposed, 38 WERE REPUBLICANS!!

Allard (R-CO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thomas (R-WY)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

We've been trying to get rid of Chris "Bottled in" Bond R-MO for years. But he brings home the bacon and people keep voting for him.

I find these planks of the Dem. platform to be even more dangerous (and we're talking dangerous, folks) than the shit that the Republican party is shoveling.

What a joke. 8 billion missing in iraq, No WMD, deficits, debt, katrina failures 4 years after 9-11....

I don't even like the democrats, but no way are they more dangerous or stupid than the republicans. Not even close.

A friend,


If you're looking for a 'Gotcha' you got it. Yes, 'Democrat Platform' has proven to be an inaccurate claim.


However, what I was speaking to was the causes that Democrats/leftists Champion. I stand by my assertion in that regard. But YES, "Democrat Platform" was certainly a poor choice of words.

Alex,

Allow me to clarify: I was speaking to the basic ideals that Democrats/leftists cling to and support. I was not speaking to the current leadership (which IS weak), nor was I talking about specific fuckups.

I was speaking more to political ideology.

My apologies to you and A Friend for not being more clear in my message.

Fair enough, Jeffj, and thanks for answering.

You do realize, of course, that the way you said it is sort of like referencing these planks of the Rep. platform: the corporate entitlement state, backassward concepts like every man, woman and child are on their own, no matter what, strong on National defense but screw veterans by cutting their health care, increasing their deductibles, etc., PC to the religious right even while demeaning Dems for their PC stands, every form of legislation imaginable to discourage and even punish any citizen from exercising their rights in a court of law, including the right to compensation (as awarded by fellow citizens) for wrongs, etc.

Or like saying those are the causes that Republicans/conservatives champion?

Thanks again for answering.

A Friend

"My apologies to you and A Friend"

And JeffJ, no apologies necessary. All that is expected is good give and take and civility (some of those basic ideals that this Democrat/leftist clings to).

A Friend

This is an issue that is going to continue to percolate. My prediction is that gays will ultimately acquire 'Civil unions' which will give gay couples the same 'legal status' as married couples. It just won't be called a 'marriage'.

Posted by JeffJ at 2005-09-09 11:40 AM
Probably the most reasonable outcome we can hope for.

All people have the right to be with whoever they want to be with and they also have the same rights as those who choose to be with people of the opposite sex. Those who disagree are doing so on a religious basis and that's just fine

Posted by GZLIVES

Sorry GZ, I oppose it and not on religeous grounds. I do agree that ALL people have the right to be with who they want, regardless of what others think. However, what is wrong with calling it a civil union, or a partnership? Why do words need to be re-defined.

If you have it your way and Marriage becomes re-defined to include gays, then we need to come up with another word for Straight and Married. You know a man and woman.

Currently I would send my child over to a household with children if the house had a "Married couple" living there. But if it were two men with an adopted boy, then I would not let my son go over there. We put labels on things so we know what is inside. Married With Children (not the show) implies legitamite male-female couple that probably can be trusted, not two gays who want to seduce your child.

A Friend,

For clarity's sake:

As bad as the current Republican party is (and it is bad) - From my 1216 post, which is the one that you responded to.


Look, I tend toward Conservative values (although I am somewhat liberal socially - in favor of gay marriage and pro choice). I vote for the party that more closely represents those values. This doesn't mean I have an affinity for said party. I don't. They are just a 'less worse' option than the opposition based upon my own personal values.

Your criticisms of the Republican party above are all very valid. Let me emphasize again: I view the Republican party as the 'least worst' option.

A friend,

Believe it or not, I feel more connected with moderate liberals than I do far-right Conservatives. I think most (60-80%) of the people in this country reside reasonably close to center. We have the same goals - just different ideas as to the best plan for achieving our objectives. It's a shame that both parties have been hijacked by their radical extremes. I really wish we had a viable 3rd party that represented the mainstream of America.

Marty,

Why would a gay couple want to seduce your child any more than a hetero couple?

If you sent your daughter to stay at a household with a 'stay-at-home' dad, wouldn't the likelihood of that dad trying to seduce your daughter be just as high as the likelihood of a 'Gay Dad' trying to seduce your son?

jeffj
yes but does that mean i should feel bad for not lettin my youngun's go to either place//fuck no
jasman

"What republican taught the chinese how to build US Nuclear weapons? Oh wait, North Korea now has nukes... who is to blame?

Guess that's a good type of out-sourcing to you GZ, eh?"

Kinda like Chimp when he attacked the wrong country (Iran)? How about some proof here buddy boy?

Look, I tend toward Conservative values (although I am somewhat liberal socially - in favor of gay marriage and pro choice). I vote for the party that more closely represents those values. This doesn't mean I have an affinity for said party. I don't. They are just a 'less worse' option than the opposition based upon my own personal values.

Your criticisms of the Republican party above are all very valid. Let me emphasize again: I view the Republican party as the 'least worst' option.

Posted by JeffJ at 2005-09-09 03:09 PM | Reply


Stop making sense! Your right on the finge issues.

When I took a journalism class in college I was always getting red marks slashed across my stories because my professor said I was being too subjective and journalism should be objective. I would LOVE to go back and shove all these newspaper reports in his face and say SEE...my stories were written correctly!!!

Do you actually have to prove that you're gay to get married too?

And don't married people get some kind of tax breaks in some states?

So, wouldn't corrupt business men and women start using the gay marriage concept to take fiscal advantage of the government? Or, couldn't this be used to make,essentially, a two person "corporation" that could pass untaxed gifts back and forth between them?

Back on topic, while I support gay marriage, this bill by the legislature is not the way to accomplish this. If the NY Times editorial board had taken the time to read the papers here in California, they would have realized that the Governator is vetoing the law because it conflicts with Proposition 22, which was an initiative which amended the California Constitution to state that marriage is to only be between a man and a woman...part of the Governor's oath is to uphold the State Constitution, and he doesn't have much choice. As the NY Times editorial noted, that initiative was "overwhelmingly" approved by California voters, and can only be overturned by the Supreme Court or another initiative, not a measure passed by the legislature.

Do you hide behind your curtains and peer out at the world? Is it any of your fucking business what others do in private? Are you some sort of bigoted asshole who's only joy in monitoring the deeds of others to see if they meet your standards? (I'm betting on the last one of course.) Since you have a sense of shame, why don't you use it? Be ashamed of your stupidity, narrow-mindedness. And then start worrying about your privacy. It'll be only a short step to the government controlling access to birth control, mixed race marriages and only sanctioning religious marriages. (FYI, the first two are part of history)

Can't wait for the religious nuts who post here to connect Katrina to sin in New Orleans and thus say Arnold is actually preventing an earthquake.

Posted by danni at 2005-09-09 10:29 AM | Reply

NO Danni--you would be the only Nut to bring up the stupid stuff you posted.

We voted on the Proposition 22 at 61%--I guess the Times is looking for no power to come from the people at all.

Let's put all the power into the hands of the corrupt--right? Only into the hands of corrupt legislators and girlie men...

The legislature did this and it will back fire big time. They did this to point at the elected Governor saying he should have passed this Bill 849.

Little do they realize that Arnold has just taken all of his initiatives to be voted on in November in the Pass column.

BTW, the inter-racial law HAD to be overturned because it was against a RACE. Duh! Gays do not fit into any category of Race. They are ORIENTED to a sexual preference.

Murphy

Let's be clear on this: Whether I choose to marry a woman, a man, a cocker spaniel or the Mormon Tabernacle Choice is no more subject to a popular vote than whether I choose to carry a pregnancy to term, have my appendix removed or take my blood pressure meds. Matters that do not affect YOU are not subject to YOUR veto or endorsement. Herm

"Let's be clear on this: Whether I choose to marry a woman, a man, a cocker spaniel or the Mormon Tabernacle Choice is no more subject to a popular vote than whether I choose to carry a pregnancy to term, have my appendix removed or take my blood pressure meds. Matters that do not affect YOU are not subject to YOUR veto or endorsement."

Thank you. Clear, concise and intelligent. Very, very impressive.

A Friend

"They are ORIENTED to a sexual preference."

Which naturally begs the question, Murphy: Exactly when were you ORIENTED heterosexual?

And can/could it be undone?

No?

Mmmmm...

A Friend

Rob, 22 states put it to a referendum in the last election and most voted against it.