Schwarzenegger: City on 'dangerous path' re: gay marriages in San Francisco

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

And with that, Ahnuld loses half his friends in Hollywood... whether that mattered or not, who's to say.

― donut bitch (donut), Saturday, 21 February 2004 17:22 (twenty-two years ago)

W.W.G.D.D.?

― donut bitch (donut), Saturday, 21 February 2004 17:24 (twenty-two years ago)

more from AP

― donut bitch (donut), Saturday, 21 February 2004 17:40 (twenty-two years ago)

what a dipshit

― s1ocki (slutsky), Saturday, 21 February 2004 17:41 (twenty-two years ago)

That's pretty rich coming from a man who was pregnant.

― Sym (shmuel), Saturday, 21 February 2004 19:54 (twenty-two years ago)

hahaha

― stevem (blueski), Saturday, 21 February 2004 19:55 (twenty-two years ago)

Hey, that baby went through the needle hole not through the cornhole, dude.

― dean! (deangulberry), Saturday, 21 February 2004 19:56 (twenty-two years ago)

If God had meant for men to bear children, he would have given them ovaries.

― Sym (shmuel), Saturday, 21 February 2004 19:57 (twenty-two years ago)

truer and more relevant words ne'er were spoken

― amateur!st (amateurist), Saturday, 21 February 2004 19:59 (twenty-two years ago)

s1utsky can you email me?

― amateur!st (amateurist), Saturday, 21 February 2004 19:59 (twenty-two years ago)

He said this yesterday and like I muttered then, his tack seems to be to argue a strictly legal point of view as opposed to saying, "Gays don't deserve the right to marry." It could be coded, Anthony and others have made the forceful argument that that's all it is. Regardless, it's still a pretty poor defense on the legal tack precisely because the discrimination argument is starting to pick up steam.

To me this is more telling:

About 25 anti-gay-marriage protesters later blocked the door of the county clerk's office, lying down in front of the line and singing religious songs. Gays and lesbians responded by belting out "The Star-Spangled Banner" until sheriff's deputies escorted the protesters out. No arrests were made.

A week plus's work of this and it's still continuing and the anti-marriage protestors can only pull together 25 people in a major metropolis and beyond. I don't care if this is SF or not, that's NOT an overwhelming sign of support for that stance.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 21 February 2004 20:00 (twenty-two years ago)

i dont know about arnold's stance

on the one hand this is a pretty good example of legal activism and that's an old american tradition that he needn't have to denounce

on the other perhaps his framing this issue as he does is an attempt to make a token concession to his right wing voting base without really doing anything extreme in opposition

― amateur!st (amateurist), Saturday, 21 February 2004 20:02 (twenty-two years ago)

That's fairly overwhelming for SF as far as anti-gay sentiments go, imo. They were probably all bussed in from Fresno anyhow.

― dean! (deangulberry), Saturday, 21 February 2004 20:04 (twenty-two years ago)

We should dump tea into the Sacramento River.

― dean! (deangulberry), Saturday, 21 February 2004 20:04 (twenty-two years ago)

We should tea bag the Sacramento River.

― dean! (deangulberry), Saturday, 21 February 2004 20:04 (twenty-two years ago)

We should dip our balls in Sacramento.

― dean! (deangulberry), Saturday, 21 February 2004 20:05 (twenty-two years ago)

from what I understand the anti-gay protestors were bused in from Philadelphia

― Gear! (Gear!), Saturday, 21 February 2004 20:15 (twenty-two years ago)

the distance they go to hold things back eh?

― stevem (blueski), Saturday, 21 February 2004 20:18 (twenty-two years ago)

I love how flustered the right wingers get when people say, "You know... there were once other laws that were purposefully broken, those that separated whites and blacks in this country."

― Aaron W (Aaron W), Saturday, 21 February 2004 20:25 (twenty-two years ago)

but those same 'right wingers' participate in legal activism and disobediance w/r/t abortion issues

i think almost everyone is hypocritical when it comes to this kind of stuff

― amateur!st (amateurist), Saturday, 21 February 2004 20:28 (twenty-two years ago)

True.... Just an amusing exchange I saw on CNN last week.

― Aaron W (Aaron W), Saturday, 21 February 2004 20:33 (twenty-two years ago)

I think it's a good thing he focuses on the legal issue. It is kind of important whether or not the mayor of San Francisco upholds and abides by state law. If some mayor banned the teaching of evolution and violated state curriculum laws, it would be a big deal, even if what he was doing was popular.

― Stuart (Stuart), Saturday, 21 February 2004 20:45 (twenty-two years ago)

My two cents on the whole "I agree with them but should they break the law or not" argument is that they should, because if you are in the minority in some way in this (and many other) society, no one will hand you rights just because you deserve them. Most civil rights battles were won by people acting "unreasonable". I recall reading something by Martin Luther King stating that one of the blocks towards black's progress was not just the KKK and the John Birch society, but moderate whites who would say things like, "your cause is all well and good, but don't be extremist, act civilly (i.e. you're making us uncomfortable, stop rocking the boat)".

― Sengai, Saturday, 21 February 2004 21:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Just to be clear: I'm not criticizing or questioning the couples who got licenses. I'm saying that having mayors of major cities breaking state law is a legitimate concern for the Governor of California.

― Stuart (Stuart), Saturday, 21 February 2004 21:16 (twenty-two years ago)

Elected officials should usually be expected to make changes or apply pressure for change on the behalf of their constituents from within the legal framework for doing so. Sure, there are exceptions, and "I was just following orders" isn't always an excuse for not acting, but I think Arnold's concern is justified on the legal level alone, regardless of his views on this issue in particular.

― Stuart (Stuart), Saturday, 21 February 2004 21:23 (twenty-two years ago)

but those same 'right wingers' participate in legal activism and disobediance w/r/t abortion issues

which is what makes all this even more infuriating.

― oops (Oops), Saturday, 21 February 2004 22:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Elected officials should usually be expected to make changes or apply pressure for change on the behalf of their constituents from within the legal framework for doing so.

....and, what exactly is the mayor doing that's outside the framework?

― donut bitch (donut), Saturday, 21 February 2004 23:56 (twenty-two years ago)

The mayor believes that CA Prop 22, the "marriage = man + woman only" proposition, is a violation of the constitution. Challenging that would be within the framework, wouldn't it?

― donut bitch (donut), Saturday, 21 February 2004 23:57 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh i don't know. I'm just referring to what Arnold said about he rule of law, and the media reports that have characterized the the mayors actions as "defying state law." IANAL and if that's not the case, rock on.

― Stuart (Stuart), Sunday, 22 February 2004 00:27 (twenty-two years ago)

Haha, well if the media has been saying that (and apparently, Bill O' Reilly has used "MIA" in this context), then that is indeed ridiculous. Arnold hasn't been doing much of anything besides mumbling here and there, figuratively speaking. See the Ahnuld's first 100 days thread for more.

― donut bitch (donut), Sunday, 22 February 2004 00:48 (twenty-two years ago)

one year passes...

A year and a half later, still no go...

Arnold Schwarzenegger announced Wednesday he will veto a bill that would have made California the first state to legalize same-sex marriage through its elected lawmakers.

Schwarzenegger said the legislation, given final approval Tuesday by lawmakers, would conflict with the intent of voters when they approved an initiative five years ago. Proposition 22 was placed on the ballot to prevent California from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries.

"We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote," the governor's press secretary, Margita Thompson, said in a statement. "Out of respect for the will of the people, the governor will veto (the bill)...."

― kingfish superman ice cream (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 8 September 2005 03:16 (twenty years ago)

Hey, he wants to face the reelection problem on even worse ground, let him.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 8 September 2005 03:30 (twenty years ago)

I think I'd rather have the gay marriage, though.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Thursday, 8 September 2005 03:30 (twenty years ago)

Does Arnie understand the concept of representative democracy?

― polyphonic (polyphonic), Thursday, 8 September 2005 04:40 (twenty years ago)

i'm a psychic and i predicted this would happen. my lesbian friend didn't even know what was going on, i was like oh california legislature approved homo marriage but schwarzenegger will surely veto, and she's like omgwtf. "out of respect for the will of the people"? what people?

― caitlin oh no (caitxa1), Thursday, 8 September 2005 13:04 (twenty years ago)

the people who voted against it five years ago who have since DIED OF OLD AGE maybe...

― Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Thursday, 8 September 2005 13:05 (twenty years ago)

i'm sick of this crap.

― caitlin oh no (caitxa1), Thursday, 8 September 2005 13:07 (twenty years ago)

Wow, and I thought I couldn't despise him any more than I already did.

― M. White (Miguelito), Thursday, 8 September 2005 14:42 (twenty years ago)

Ha: he has to oppose gay marriage. But he can't yet actually say that he opposes gay marriage itself. So he has to blame his opposition on someone else, or some flimsy "matter of principle" side-issue. Which at least half-worked with San Francisco ("no, no, it's just an issue of cities flaunting legislative direction, we can have that"), and now just looks stupid, the poor guy: follow his current logic, and it's like he's seriously advancing the proposition that a referendum issue must always supercede any legislative action that follows it. Which he couldn't possibly seriously stand by.

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 8 September 2005 14:49 (twenty years ago)

I think Schwarzie's political career is just about on it's last legs anyway.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 8 September 2005 14:54 (twenty years ago)

Seriously, can we just physically split the country in two already? I mean, it really is time.

― when something smacks of something (dave225.3), Thursday, 8 September 2005 14:55 (twenty years ago)

I'm looking forward to the complete implosion of the Governeggor's political "career", which has been a completely insulting farce from the beginning. And we already had a clear precedent for how his career would go from Minnesota. That anybody expected Arnie to turn out differently is rather strange.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 8 September 2005 15:37 (twenty years ago)

Alex in SF OTM. His statewide approval ratings just hit rock bottom.

― gygax! (gygax!), Thursday, 8 September 2005 15:40 (twenty years ago)

b-b-b-but he's one of the "rising stars" of the Republican Party!

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 8 September 2005 15:43 (twenty years ago)

(in other words, a total joke)

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 8 September 2005 15:43 (twenty years ago)

Seriously, can we just physically split the country in two already? I mean, it really is time

again, check the county-by-county map from november. it ain't that simple.

i wish that more media types would emphasize this, but we live in an age of ultra-simplistic narratives, so we can't have that...

― kingfish superman ice cream (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 8 September 2005 15:44 (twenty years ago)

Seriously, can we just physically split the country in two already? I mean, it really is time

Ha, you'd better start with California better you take on the rest of the country.

― Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Thursday, 8 September 2005 16:24 (twenty years ago)

Mid-to-large cities would have to become city-state countries like Luxembourg, etc. if people who wanted to honestly split and honor the best compromise for all involved, as far as political sides go. Customs would be a pain though.

― donut Get Behind Me Carbon Dioxide (donut), Thursday, 8 September 2005 16:28 (twenty years ago)

Dude, I totally want to live in New Luxembourg! Sign me up!

― The Ghost of Black Elegance (Dan Perry), Thursday, 8 September 2005 17:06 (twenty years ago)

Capital city: Danburg.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 8 September 2005 17:09 (twenty years ago)

"All citizens caught saying 'But I really like "Push!"' are to be hanged."

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 8 September 2005 17:09 (twenty years ago)

Nah, they'll just be sentenced to listen to an endless loop of "The Snakepit", "Lost", "Give Me It", "Splintered In Her Head", "Like Cockatoos", "Bananafishbones", "Screw", "Cut", "Doubt" and "Lament" for 60 days.

― The Ghost of Black Elegance (Dan Perry), Thursday, 8 September 2005 17:13 (twenty years ago)

OH THE PAIN.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 8 September 2005 17:14 (twenty years ago)

At the end, people will be all "'Push'? What's that?"

― The Ghost of Black Elegance (Dan Perry), Thursday, 8 September 2005 17:16 (twenty years ago)

Andrew Sullivan gave this issue a thorough frisking today:

"Arnold vetoed: predictable, if truly depressing. He's as good as it gets in today's fundamentalist GOP, and he punted. I'm taking a huge amount of flak from the gay blogosphere for ever backing Arnold - and that's what you get if you ever try and support a Republican in today's context. Schwarzenegger's argument is that Proposition 22 already settled the question. No, it didn't. When Proposition 22 was passed, there were no marriage rights for gay couples in California: they were already banned. Prop 22 was not about legalizing marriage rights for gay couples in California. The point and origin of Prop 22 was to prevent marriages in other states being automatically recognized by California. In the official arguments for and against the Proposition, the proponents argued:

When people ask, "Why is this necessary?" I say that even though California law already says only a man and a woman may marry, it also recognizes marriages from other states. However, judges in some of those states want to define marriage differently than we do. If they succeed, California may have to recognize new kinds of marriages, even though most people believe marriage should be between a man and a woman.
In the same document, they even underlined this point in capital letters:

THE TRUTH IS, UNLESS WE PASS PROPOSITION 22, LEGAL LOOPHOLES COULD FORCE CALIFORNIA TO RECOGNIZE "SAME-SEX MARRIAGES" PERFORMED IN OTHER STATES. That's why 30 other states and the federal government have passed laws to close these loopholes. California deserves the same choice.

The debate at the time centered entirely around that question. You can see that from the actual legal code that added Prop 22. Section 300 defines civil marriage. Section 308 defines recognition of out-of-state marriages. Proposition 22 was inserted at Section 308.5. The issue of whether California itself should pass a proposed equal marriage law was not on the ballot - and the ballot was five years ago. Arnold cannot get off the hook on this one. He took a stand against civil rights; and history will record that."

― Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Thursday, 8 September 2005 19:08 (twenty years ago)

http://www.spitfirelist.com/arnold.jpg

― amon (eman), Thursday, 15 September 2005 01:25 (twenty years ago)

an engagement ring
doesnt mean a thing
by a man consumed by brass and money

― JD from CDepot, Thursday, 15 September 2005 01:28 (twenty years ago)

looks like his crotch is seig heilin'

― amon (eman), Thursday, 15 September 2005 01:39 (twenty years ago)

two weeks pass...

and that's that.

Schwarzenegger Vetoes Gay Marriage Bill
By STEVE LAWRENCE, Associated Press Writer
Fri Sep 30,12:52 AM ET

SACRAMENTO, Calif, - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger followed through Thursday on his promise to veto a bill to legalize same-sex marriage, leaving the issue up to voters or judges who will likely face the volatile issue in the next year.

"This bill simply adds confusion to a constitutional issue," the Republican governor said in a veto message...

― kingfish superman ice cream (kingfish 2.0), Friday, 30 September 2005 14:53 (twenty years ago)

why is he wasting his and our time and money running for re-election again?

― kyle (akmonday), Friday, 30 September 2005 14:55 (twenty years ago)

"This bill simply adds confusion to a constitutional issue" the Republican governor said in a veto message, tilting his head forward and arching his eyebrow before adding: "Sexual confusion."

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Friday, 30 September 2005 16:37 (twenty years ago)

i dont know about arnold's stance

It looks like this, and it's pretty faggy:

ihttp://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/big/2004olympia_pics_c19.jpg

― PappaWheelie B.C., Friday, 30 September 2005 17:00 (twenty years ago)

"I haff seven wyi-ffs! One for evehry day of zeh week!"

http://www.film.ru/img/shots/arnold_schwarzenegger--around_the_world_in_80_days.jpg

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Saturday, 1 October 2005 00:04 (twenty years ago)

What's funny about Arnold's stance on homosexuality is that I don't think he really even opposes it himself. What else is odd is that Arnold doesn't so much attack homosexuals as he does attack weak and effeminate ones, which ironically fits in with a lot of stuff that went on in Germany before and during WWII. The modern day homosexual movement began in Germany in 1865 and even back then you had a lot of tension between overtly masculine gay men and "faggy" gay men. I don't think Arnold's a homosexual but it is interesting that his aversion is notoriously with "girly men" and that he comes from a subculture so "macho" as bodybuilding.

― Cunga (Cunga), Saturday, 1 October 2005 01:54 (twenty years ago)

The modern day homosexual movement began in Germany in 1865

Uh, what do you mean by this?? (not that I disagree, I just have no idea what happened in Germany in 1865)

― Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Saturday, 1 October 2005 05:26 (twenty years ago)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Heinrich_Ulrichs

The word "homosexual", as that article reports, dates from 1869, and was a German invention. (And "heterosexual" from a few years later.)

― Casuistry (Chris P), Saturday, 1 October 2005 05:32 (twenty years ago)

So it this similar to Metallica's sue-Napster move as far as Ahnuld's PR goes?

― donut hallivallerieburtonelli omg lol (donut), Saturday, 1 October 2005 10:13 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.