You can purchase an autographed copy of Anything But Straight by sending a $35 check or money order to:
-------------------------
Wayne Besen
PO Box 25491
Brooklyn, NY 11202
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed 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.
Schwarzenegger's actions are an absolute disgrace and have stained his legacy. He had his chance to make history, and instead he chose to stand in the way of the future. The GLBT community should spare no expense in making sure he is defeated when he runs for reelection.
17 Comments:
Shwartzaneyger is a lying sack of dog shit. May his campaign go down! We should be rioting in the streets and going ape shit. Come'on queers. Get off the Internet and start breaking windows.
I've added him, along with Mel Gibson, to my list of actors that will never make another dime off this Queer. His movies are forever verboten in my casa.
"Breaking windows" is a horrible idea. We aren't like the animals in New Orleans. We are gay men, and we know there is a better way. The process will work as long as we keep fighting. Not with bricks, but with our brains!
posted by Anonymous, at
9/30/2005 7:35 AM
Heil Arnold is shortly up for reelection.
He is hugely unpopular in California and I believe vetoing this essential piece of legislation is just the final nail in his coffin.
Great as it would have been to have another state where gay marriage is legal, I think under the California constitution the legislature can't repeal a proposition passed by the people, and unfortunately the people did pass one of those "one man and one woman only" laws, so I think his argument that it would have to be decided by the courts or the people was legally correct, wasn't it?
posted by Anonymous, at
9/30/2005 9:33 AM
The Governor proved his loyalty to the oath of office by following the law and, more importantly, the will of the people. If the rule of law is distasteful, you don't belong in the United States.
posted by Anonymous, at
9/30/2005 10:13 AM
Anonymous, whoever you are, if a push to remove your rights to marry as a heterosexual or as an "ex-gay" were on the ballot, you'd be spitting blood. Its about civil rights. Yes, gays pay higher taxes as single people for allowing people like you to marry to get tax breaks at our expense. We're good enough to fight your dirty wars and die for your country, but not good enough to receive the same basic civil rights that you enjoy and take for granted. How on earth can we call ourselves a democracy if our government blatantly denies an entire group of people the same rights that you have, some 20-30 million of us. Its nothing but discrimination and institutionalized homophobia at its worst and a violation of human rights. The hypocrisy and bigotry is breathtaking.
Anonymous, No matter which way the laws and amendments were posited: If a legislation did it against gays without public vote, it was okay. So NO it wasn't always a demand that the people be included. If a court did it against gay people, there was no protest for lack of legislative or popular vote activity and the judge wasn't labled an 'activist'. If the people had voted IN FAVOR of gay people in 2000, rest assured those against marriage freedom for gay people would have done EXACTLY what gay people are doing now.
The anti gay want it EVERY WAY they can get anon. So this 'the people have decided and that's that' is bullshit. As a perpetual minority, the law was unfair to gays and lesbians to begin with for several reasons and un Constitutional in these two basic ways. 1. This is a minority that wants to engage in ALREADY legal activity for ALL Americans except gay people. So the minority cannot tyrannize that minority unless they can PROVE that their marriages are compromised by gay participation in it. The only way that happens is if you insist gay people marry HETEROSEXUALS.
2. Since marriage and parental obligation failures occur without the government's intervention. It's illegal to force couples and parents FROM protecting and securing their loved ones through marriage. In other words, our country makes no law KEEPING free and contributing citizens from doing the RIGHT thing. Even if they are criminals on death row, marginally moral and incapable of freely walking the streets.
posted by Regan, at
9/30/2005 11:05 AM
Anonymous, No matter which way the laws and amendments were posited: If a legislation did it against gays without public vote, it was okay. So NO it wasn't always a demand that the people be included. If a court did it against gay people, there was no protest for lack of legislative or popular vote activity and the judge wasn't labled an 'activist'. If the people had voted IN FAVOR of gay people in 2000, rest assured those against marriage freedom for gay people would have done EXACTLY what gay people are doing now.
The anti gay want it EVERY WAY they can get anon. So this 'the people have decided and that's that' is bullshit. As a perpetual minority, the law was unfair to gays and lesbians to begin with for several reasons and un Constitutional in these two basic ways. 1. This is a minority that wants to engage in ALREADY legal activity for ALL Americans except gay people. So the minority cannot tyrannize that minority unless they can PROVE that their marriages are compromised by gay participation in it. The only way that happens is if you insist gay people marry HETEROSEXUALS.
2. Since marriage and parental obligation failures occur without the government's intervention. It's illegal to force couples and parents FROM protecting and securing their loved ones through marriage. In other words, our country makes no law (until now with homosexuals) KEEPING free and contributing citizens from doing the RIGHT thing. NO ONE, even if they are criminals on death row, marginally moral and incapable of freely walking the streets.
posted by Regan, at
9/30/2005 11:06 AM
Just so there's no confusion, I was the first anonymous and not the second. I'd love to see gay marriage in every state in the Union, recognized federally, and sweeping throughout the globe.
However, from what I've read it looks like Schwarzenegger's legal reasoning is correct. Under the California constitution, the legislature does not have the authority to pass laws which override validly passed referendums. Would that t'were were otherwise. The guy may not be as much on our side as we'd like, but in this particular circumstance it looks like he really didn't have a choice. Either the court has to rule the referendum violates the state constitution or there has to be another referendum. Unless what I read is wrong, which who knows.
They have to get rid of referendi that give one group of citizens the right to vote whether another group gets the same rights or not. This should be forbidden always and everywhere. It stinks to high heaven of being totally unconstitutional. Can you imagine if whites were given the right to vote on whether jim crow laws should be kept or not. Rosa would still be chained to the back of the bus. Arnold Schitzeneater's father was a member of the nazi party, so of course he joined the republican party and his bro in Germany was elected pope! Gary (NJ)
posted by Anonymous, at
9/30/2005 1:59 PM
They probably should change the referendum laws, and yes, the human rights of minority groups should never be put up for a vote. Unfortunately, Arnold can't rewrite the California constitution single-handedly. And if he could, it might be kinda scary (Every Tuesday afternoon all citizens will fall out to PUMP UP!!!) As governor, he doesn't have the authority to decide the constitutionality of the earlier referendum. That has to be done by the courts, as he himself pointed out.
The absolute most he could have done was become another Gavin Newsom and authorize marriages that would later have all been annulled by court order. He's no saint, but obeying the law he swore to uphold doesn't make him a Nazi.
Obeying the law?! Well, it looks like illegal aliens from whoever knows where can take advantage of employers and all manner of government BREAKING our laws. Even to our peril, as if 9/11 didn't happen.
But everybody in leadership like AS, gets all 'we got to uphold the law' when it gets to where gay folks fit in. Gay citizens, get affronted... folks whose intentions of which we have no idea...get a pass. It's like would be terrorists have a better chance of accomplishing their agenda...AGAIN, before gay folks get married countrywide.
posted by Regan, at
9/30/2005 7:21 PM
No matter if it were a republican or democratic governor in California, no career politician is going to give the nod to same-sex marriage. They don't want to lose their mainstream hetero base. Their careers are more important to them, not principles or decency. We have 50 states each with their own goverments and laws acting as independent countries. Therein lies one of the problems and we can't change it anytime soon. Until that happens, we're not going to see same-sex marriage at the national (federal) level. They don't want to touch it because its instant political suicide. Their careers are far more important than our basic civil rights.
i coming from Singapore,To a person 團體制服here. I was an excellent credit咖啡 staff.Many well-known in the credit 徵信社company to work, and excellent credit 徵信performance. I love this job;I work brought endless fun.I hope that the formal減肥I appreciated the boss .I hope to continue to work in the credit徵信. I work seriously,Peaceful coexistence with colleagues.The company has no particular request, 徵信社I can only hope that the wisdom I 燈光音響play.
posted by Anonymous, at
5/18/2008 9:54 PM
