- ‹ previous
- 2216 of 2798
- next ›
Arnold on Marriage
ARNOLD ON MARRIAGE....The latest from the Governator:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Sunday expressed hope that the California Supreme Court would overturn Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that outlawed same-sex marriage...."It's unfortunate, obviously, but it's not the end," Schwarzenegger said in an interview Sunday on CNN. "I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area."
Have I mentioned recently just how disgusted I am with Schwarzenegger? Yes? Well, I still am. In addition to single-handedly causing at least half or more of our budget crisis, he also twice vetoed bills that would have legalized gay marriage in California. And now I have to listen to his crocodile tears over the subject? Spare me.
How is that recall coming along?
And the Republicans accuse the Democrats of flip-flopping? This is worse -- it's being against it while being for it.
But remember, the State Supreme Court held that prior to their decision authorizing same sex marriage, propostion 22 banned same sex marriage. That was precisely the governors position.
Kev-Give me a Break! There is another side to the Gay Issue and separate but equal does not compute as an arguement for Gay Rights to marriage. It literally means that homosexual Relationships are heterosexual relationships and that does not compute-You are either one or the other and I am not gay bashing, I am stating a fact! What is wrong with a "Civil Union" with all the legal aspects of a Marriage Contract-their own ceremonies, etc. No fuss, no bother! and NO OBJECTIONS!
If you're waiting for a major politician to come out foursquare in favor of gay marriage, you've still got a wait ahead of you. They still think it's too hot a potato.
A small-to-medium-sized majority of the electorate are in favor of it (at least in most large jurisdictions), but most of those are wishy-washy or uncomfortable with the issue, and the minority who are opposed take it literally as a religious commandment.
It's the classic special-interest problem; a majority who doesn't benefit much from one action versus a minority who (believe they) benefit a great deal from the opposite action.
Look how hard the abortion fight has been, and how long, and it STILL ain't over.
Plus, Arnie's a Republican.
I wouldn't hold my breath.
Ahnold got elected by using all of the "cut the hidden fat and earmarks and never raise taxes" crap McCain tried to use.
The the high priced number-cruncher he hired couldn't find any hidden fat. And since the entire California budget is available at their website and can be gone over item by item by anyone who wants to look at it, the 6 figured salary for this person was a complete waste of money.
Now he wants to raise the sales tax to 10%. So here's a question to all the half-wits who thought it would be cool to vote for him. How much fun is having the Terminator as governor now? He's never found any way to cut back, he's just borrowed money to cover expenses and is letting the next person who comes along worry about it when the bill comes due.
Obviously, in California it's time that we started the process of replacing the word "marriage" with a term like "civil union" in all the state and county law books.
It's time for "marriage" to take its place alongside "baptism" and "bar mitzvah" as a strictly religious ceremony.
he also twice vetoed bills that would have legalized gay marriage in California
But would that have made a difference? Wouldn't we assume that the Prop 8 people would have just gone to work setting up the exact same initiative to overturn the law (by changing the constitution) that they did to overturn the court ruling?
Or do I misunderstand the process?
I couldn't agree more, Joshua Norton. That is the crux of this whole thing - that in defining civil unions for gays, we ought to be altering our language for ALL couples to the more legal and less culturally and religiously nuanced term of "civil union" from the extremely contentious "marriage".
Here in Washington State, there is no gay marriage. However, we have registered domestic partners. When people register as domestic partners, they have pretty much all the same rights as married couples. People of the same sex who are over 18, and people of the opposite sex over 62, can register. There was not a big opposition to allowing registered domestic partners, and it passed easily.
"they have pretty much all the same rights as married couples".
California has the same thing, but it's the "pretty much" that causes the problems. Unless domestic partner rights are specifically spelled out in the law, they don't have the same rights as married couples by default.
So if the bigots want to make "marriage" exclusive, the word itself has to be done away with and relegated to a place where that exclusivity can be enforced - such as a church ceremony with no legal rights attached to it.
I typed "pretty much" because I'm not an expert on it, and it was heavily modified in summer 2008. It was first enacted summer 2007 and didn't really do much. But in 2008, some 190 laws were changed to include the words "registered domestic partner" in laws that previously stated married couples. From what I've reviewed, it is a very extensive change.
What is wrong with a "Civil Union" with all the legal aspects of a Marriage Contract-their own ceremonies, etc
I consider this a fair question, if wrong. What's wrong with it is exactly the same thing that was wrong with riding in the back of the bus. After all, you still got there, didn't you?
It's hilarious that right-wingers now call themselves "Independent". I see it all over the net---commenters with right-wing opinions having handles like "Mr. Independent" or "A True Independent". I guess they aren't so comfortable identifying as conservatives anymore.
I'm not opposed to getting the state out of the "marriage" business and making all unions into civil unions, but that's a really big job. And it still leaves some wiggle room in quasi-public institutions, it seems to me.
For example, I wouldn't support a blanket law that said that whenever a private body's rules of governance said "marriage" it should be construed as "civil union", because that would likely force churches to perform marriages of same-sex couples. And I'm not interested in doing that. I am interested in having them cover spouses of employees with health insurance though.
I agree that if the legislature had passed this, we would probably be in much the same place. That's California's governance for you, a simple majority of voters can amend the constitution.
Furthermore, I want an electoral victory. I think that's the strongest possible victory. I look forward to the day when I can be proud of California, of the voters of California, for refusing to discriminate against homosexuals. It's just not that far away, and it gets closer every day.
Seems there's a lot of people calling for the government to get out of the "marriage" business and just have civil unions. Why don't we hear about this as a solution in the mainstream?
Dr Jay -
There is absolutely no danger in calling gay unions marriage that would lead to churches being forced to perform anybody's marriage. Churches are able to (and do) refuse to perform marriages all the time. Nothing about gay marriage changes that. This is only a right wing scare tactic and lie.
Specifically eliminate the word 'marriage' for Catholics, Mormons and homosexuals in California. Californians should discriminate against Catholics and Mormons the same way they discriminate against homosexuals.
In 1997, Congress's research arm, the General Accounting Office did a study at the direction of Congress, in which they identified "1,049 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status or in which marital status is a factor".
In 2004, the GAO published an updated version of the study which showed that the number had grown to 1138.
Now, federal law is different than individual state laws. But it sure seems likely that if there are 1138 federal laws "in which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status or in which marital status is a factor", there are most likely some at the state level as well.
So for all of you saying that a Civil Union has "all the legal aspects of a Marriage Contract", well... BULLSHIT!
http://www.buddybuddy.com/mar-g03.html
Ahnold can still beat you in arm-wrestling Kevin. I for one am proud to have a governor who looks like a wall of bloodless ground beef!
My problem with Arnie isn't the vetos. He certainly had an argument that the legislature couldn't simply overturn the voter initiative without the Supreme Court's involvement. My problem with Arnie is that he was ostensibly opposed to Prop 8 but didn't lift a finger to actually oppose it. Not a single speech, not a single op-ed, not a single appearance with No on 8 people, not a single ad. I really think he had nothing to lose and a lot to gain in standing behind his own position.
Explain the difference to children who are, in fact, stigmatized by having parents who CANNOT get married. How does calling the committed relationship between two same-sex adults dilute the word "marriage"?
Mr. Independent asks
"What is wrong with a "Civil Union" with all the legal aspects of a Marriage "
Fine. The solution to this is that
(1) the word Marriage is stripped from EVERY CA legal statute, and replaced with the words Civil Union.
(2) Marriage becomes a term like baptism, of relevance to the church and no-one else.
(3) One minor addendum is added to the constitution stating that, for the purposes of the rest of the world, a CA civil union is equal to a marriage.
OK.. are you willing to agree to all three of these statements? Are the various churches that oppose gay marriage? If you are not, then STFU because you are lying, pure and simple.
Websters Dictionary-marriage,n.-The state of being married;wedlock, the act of marrying or the ceremony entered into by a man and a women so as to live together as husband and wife. Glad to hear that no one wants to redefine marriage-What are we arguing about?
One minor addendum is added to the constitution stating that, for the purposes of the rest of the world, a CA civil union is equal to a marriage.
Works for me.
Mr Independent says "What are we arguing about?"
Oh don't be a fscking retard.
We are arguing about such matters as
- preferential treatment for married couples for tax filing purposes OR
- the fact that spouses can speak for each other in case of medical emergency OR
- spouses inherit/assume a wide variety of benefits from their partners, specified by law, eg social security survivor benefits, or exemption from gift and estate taxes
all of which has nothing to do with your retreat to Websters, the standard ploy of the 4th rate debater.
Like it or not, marriage is a term that has both longstanding legal & religious meanings, & always have had since the origins of the concept. The only way same sex couples will have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples is to use the term "Marriage" for both. Nobody can be forced to marry any couple; ministers refuse to perform certain marriages between heterosexuals all the time for their own reasons. Changing the legal definition to include any couple will not change that.
There is no reason this should even be an issue, especially for the party of "small government." I'm not in favor of gay marriage. I'm not against it, either. Since I don't plan on having one (I lack the major qualification), it's really none of my business.
Polls show that 70-whatever percent of Americans disapprove of same-sex marriage. Fine, then don't have one.
The "gays" ought to find a new word, and call it "garriage" or "larriage" or "narriage" or "zarriage"or something. Then we can all sit back and laugh as the biblicists and the sexually-insecure folks start to argue that you can't use a word THAT RHYMES.
"Larried, with Children"
First, Schwarzenegger was not elected over Gray Davis on the basis of his policies or his promises. Californians aren't from Alaska or West Virginia or Texas. They elected him because it was time that California had an advocate for high tech leading edge businesses (as in West coast is the best coast, get it ?). Secondly, gay marriage is a dead issue in America. I'm for unions between gays which convey full equal rights, and I don't particularly care what it's called. But if gays are so stupid that they will deny themselves equal rights over a dispute over wording, then they deserve what they get - or don't, in my view.
You make no mention of the
You make no mention of the tangled web of tribal loyalties. Nothing is that simple in Afghanistan. What crops? What infrastructure? It sounds like you are tearing a page out of the Special Operations Unconventional Warfare Manual which they have been practicing all over the world since 1952. Nothing new to that approach.
http://www.patekphilippewatches.us/Ebel/
Ferrari watches
Franck Muller watches
Glashutte watches
Graham watches
Hermes watches
Hublot watches
IWC watches
Jaquet droz watches
Lady Watch watches
Longines watches
Louis Vuitton watches
Maurice Lacroix watches
Montblanc watches
movado watches
omega watches
oris watches
Panerai watches
Patek Philippe watches
Piaget watches
Rado watches
Rolex Day Date watches
Patek Philippe watches
Piaget watches
Rado watches
Tag Heuer watches
Tudor watches
U-boat watches
Vacheron Constantin watches
Rolex watches
Rolex Air-King watches
Rolex Datejust II watches
Rolex Datejust watches
Rolex Submariner watches
Yachtmaster watches
Rolex Day-Date II watches
Rolex Daytona watches
Rolex Explorer watches
Rolex GMT watches
Rolex Sea-Dweller watches
Rolex Day Date watches
Rolex Masterpiece watches
Rolex Milgauss watches
Longines watch for sale
replica omega
omega replica
oris watches
oris watch for sale
replica oris
oris replica
Panerai watches
Panerai watch for sale
replica Panerai
Panerai replica
Patek Philippe watches
Patek Philippe watch for sale
replica Patek Philippe
Patek Philippe replica
Piaget watches
Piaget watch for sale
replica Piaget
Piaget replica
Rado watches
Rado watch for sale
replica Rado
Rado replica
Tag Heuer watches
Tag Heuer watch for sale
replica Tag Heuer
Tag Heuer replica
Tudor watches
Tudor watch for sale
replica Tudor
Tudor replica
U-boat watches
U-boat watch for sale
replica U-boat
U-boat replica
Vacheron Constantin watches
Vacheron Constantin watch for sale
replica Vacheron Constantin
Vacheron Constantin replica
Rolex watches
Rolex watch for sale
replica Rolex
Rolex replica
Rolex Air-King watches
Rolex Air-King watch for sale
replica Rolex Air-King
Rolex Air-King replica
Rolex Datejust II watches
Rolex Datejust II watch for sale
replica Rolex Datejust II
Rolex Datejust II replica
Rolex Datejust watches
Rolex Datejust watch for sale
replica Rolex Datejust
xxx replica
Rolex Submariner watches
Rolex Submariner watch for sale
replica Rolex Submariner
Rolex Submariner replica
Yachtmaster watches
Yachtmaster watch for sale
replica Yachtmaster
Yachtmaster replica
Rolex Day-Date II watches
Rolex Day-Date II watch for sale
replica Rolex Day-Date II
Rolex Day-Date II replica
Rolex Daytona watches
Rolex Daytona watch for sale
replica Rolex Daytona
Rolex Daytona replica
Rolex Explorer watches
Rolex Explorer watch for sale
replica Rolex Explorer
Rolex Explorer replica
Rolex GMT replica
Maurice Lacroix watches
Ferrari watches
Ferrari watch for sale
replica Ferrari
Ferrari replica
Franck Muller watches
Franck Muller watch for sale
replica Franck Muller
Franck Muller replica
Glashutte watches
Glashutte watch for sale
replica Glashutte
Glashutte (watches) replica
Graham watches
Graham watch for sale
replica Graham
Graham (watches) replica
Hermes watches
Hermes watch for sale
replica Hermes
Hermes replica
Hublot watches
Hublot watch for sale
replica Hublot
Hublot (watches) replica
IWC watches
IWC watch for sale
replica IWC
IWC replica
Jaquet droz watches
Jaquet droz watch for sale
replica Jaquet droz
Jaquet droz replica
Lady Watch watches
Lady Watch for sale
replica Lady Watch
Lady (watches) replica
Louis Vuitton watches
Louis Vuitton watch for sale
replica Louis Vuitton
Louis Vuitton replica
Yachtmaster replica
Panerai replica
Patek Philippe replica
Piaget replica
Rado replica
Tag Heuer replica
Tudor replica
U-boat replica
Vacheron Constantin replica
Rolex replica
Rolex Air-King replica
Rolex Datejust II replica
Rolex Submariner replica
Yachtmaster replica
replica Tudor replica
replica Tudor
replica U-boat
replica Vacheron Constantin
replica Rolex
replica Rolex Air-King
replica Rolex Datejust II
replica Rolex Datejust
replica Rolex Submariner