Posted on 02/16/2007 3:51:16 AM PST by Princip. Conservative
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, attending a California YMCA Youth and Government conference on Thursday, said he won't sign a bill to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry in California if the measure is passed by the Legislature.
Asked by a high school student if he would sign a gay marriage bill, the governor said: "No. I wouldn't sign it because the people of California have voted on that issue."
He was referring to the passage of Proposition 22 in 2000 to limit marriage to a man and a woman.
Last year, the Republican governor cited the same initiative in vetoing a gay marriage bill by Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco. Leno has introduced a similar bill this year, Assembly Bill 43.
Schwarzenegger said Thursday that if another gay marriage measure goes on the California ballot in the future, "the people can make the decision."
"They should make the decision," he said. "But it should not be me or the Legislature."
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
This is a major reason I voted for Arnold Schwarzenegger in November 2006.
"They should make the decision," he said. "But it should not be me or the Legislature."
Sounds like he's sticking to his guns on this one.
Arnold has already signed multiple bills giving perverts what amounts to de facto marriage privileges. Form over substance.
"Arnold has already signed multiple bills giving perverts what amounts to de facto marriage privileges. Form over substance."
Half truth. He's also vetoed gay marriage before (there is a difference) and he's also vetoed numerous other pro-gay bills, including a trio of bills embodying a low-level attempt by liberals to homosexualize California textbooks.
• SB 565 by Senator Carole Migden (D-San Francisco) - Property tax reappraisal exclusion: domestic partners.
Prior to this bill, there was no domestic partner exclusion that equates to the interspousal exclusion. This bill establishes an exclusion from reassessment for transfers of real property between registered domestic partners. The author indicated that the bill is intended "to guarantee equality for all Californians, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, and to further the state's interests in protecting Californians from the potentially severe economic and social consequences of abandonment, separation, the death of a partner, and other life crises."
• SB 973 by Senator Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica) - Public employees' retirement: domestic partners.
Bill amends the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), the State Teachers Retirement System (STRS), and the County Employees Retirement Act of 1937 to entitle retired members to elect to change optional retirement allowances to provide for their domestic partners.
• AB 228 by Assemblymember Paul Koretz (D-West Hollywood) - Transplantation services: human immunodeficiency virus.
Prohibits health care service plans (health plans) and health insurers from denying coverage for organ or tissue transplantation services on the basis that an enrollee, subscriber, insured, or policyholder is infected with HIV.
• AB 1142 by Assemblymember Marvyn Dymally (D-Compton) - HIV/AIDS: African-Americans: statewide initiative.
This bill establishes the Statewide African-American Initiative to address the disproportionate impact of HIV/AIDS on the health of African-Americans by coordinating prevention and service networks around the state in an effort to increase the capacity of core service providers.
• AB 1586 by Assemblymember Paul Koretz (D-West Hollywood) - Insurers: health care service plans: discrimination.
This bill adds additional language to existing anti-discrimination provisions under the Health and Safety Code and the Insurance Code to clarify that state law prohibits insurance companies and health care service plans from discriminating on the basis of gender in the creation or maintenance of service contracts or the provision of benefits or coverage. Defines the term "sex," in existing law that prohibits health care service plans (health plans) and insurers from specified discriminatory acts, to have the same meaning as "gender," as defined under the Penal Code, as specified.
• AB 1400 by Assemblymember John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) - Unruh Civil Rights Act: marital status and sexual orientation
The Unruh Civil Rights Act (Act) provides that all persons, regardless of their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges and services in all business establishments of every kind. This bill clarifies that marital status and sexual orientation are among the characteristics that are protected against discrimination by business establishments under the Act. This bill also imports into the Act definitions of the terms "disability," "religion," "sex," and "sexual orientation" from the Fair Employment and Housing Act, and includes, in enumerating the above characteristics, the perception of those characteristics and association with a person who has or is perceived to have those characteristics as being within the protected categories. These definitions will be integrated into other related provisions of the Act.
STNew Law Grants Registered Domestic Partners Same Filing Status as Married Couples
CA - Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) recently signed SB 1827, a bill that allows registered domestic partners to file their state tax returns using either "married filing jointly" or "married filing separate" status. The new law, which effectively gives registered domestic partners (RDPs are not necessarily of the same sex) tax treatment equal to that of married couples, will go into effect for TY 07. The CA Franchise Tax Board is assembling a group of tax practitioners, the State Bar Association, and domestic partner groups in order to discuss potential tax planning issues that may arise, such as how to compute adjusted gross income for state purposes, and capital gains and loss rules. Also at issue is the complication of households having filing statuses on their state tax returns that differ from the statuses on their federal returns.
I know that he signed this legislation. I fully disagree with his decision to sign it, but I'd rather get half the vetoes than all the signatures (i.e., if we had Angelides). Like I said, he's vetoed gay marriage and 3 (not just one) very pernicious sexual indoctrination bills.
But I guess you'd be happier with a Governor Angelides?
Again, and still, we are presented with the choice by RINOs and those who support them: Would you rather be shot in the head or gut-shot and left to bleed out. They do not present an alternative just a change in speed.
I guess you're promoting Arnold's pro-homosexual agenda.
"Again, and still, we are presented with the choice by RINOs and those who support them: Would you rather be shot in the head or gut-shot and left to bleed out. They do not present an alternative just a change in speed."
I would rather slow down the process of degradation in California than see it totally unchecked. Arnold may be a conservative half-breed in many ways, but he does have the courage to veto some real garbage legislation. We've tried running some 100% conservatives like Tom McClintock for lieutenant-governor or other recent GOP nominees for governor and they all lost. Would I rather a Governor McClintock than a Governor Schwarzenegger? Absolutely. But I'm aware of what we're up against in California.
You also need to bear in mind that the man faces what is probably the most liberal legislature in the country constantly passing bills that are psychotically liberal. I wish things were better in California but this is the way it is.
"I guess you're promoting Arnold's pro-homosexual agenda."
No, I'm not. But the same accusation could be levelled at you for trying so hard to undermine the good things that Arnold has done. I'd rather have half a pie than no pie at all. For Texas, Alabama or even Florida, Arnold would be an unacceptable Republican governor, but for California he seems to be the only kind of Republican that can win statewide. I really thought McClintock could pull it off, but even he couldn't.
Yeah, well, sure, the perverts get "registered domestic partner" status and the right to identify themselves as "married" on taxes, property transfers, etc.
But Arnold hasn't yet actually used the word "marriage" on their registered domestic partnerships.
He's only given them 99% of their agenda.
"He's only given them 99% of their agenda."
He hasn't given them anywhere near 99% of their agenda. Please read my earlier posts. He's a flawed governor, for sure, but he could be worse. Much worse.
Yes, you are. Your agenda is screamingly obvious.
"Yes, you are. Your agenda is screamingly obvious."
LOL. You're a laugh riot if you think I'm pro-gay. Please don't be such a self-flagellating conservative. In other words, please don't cut your nose off to spite your face.
Schwarzenegger: "I am proud California is a leader in recognizing and respecting domestic partnerships and the equal rights of domestic partners... I support current domestic partnership rights and will continue to vigorously defend and enforce these rights and as such will not support any rollback."
I see. You're not pro-gay. You're just pro-pro-gay.
The Schwarzenegger EraAs of the end of the 2005-2006 legislative session, Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had approved several amendments designed to clarify the rights and responsibilities of domestic partners.
S.B. 565 clearly states that registered domestic partners are entitled to the same protections from tax reassessment of their property or businesses as spouses have under California law.
S.B. 973 specifies that domestic partners of state workers are entitled to retroactive pension benefits, even if the worker entered retirement before the enactment of A.B. 205.
S.B. 1827 allows domestic partners to file joint state tax returns.
A.B. 2051 raises the fee for registering domestic partnerships to $33 ($48 for expedited service). The increase will fund programs aimed at reducing domestic violence among same-sex couples.
A.B. 2208 penalizes insurance providers that continue to discriminate against domestic partners in violation of A.B. 205.
"Schwarzenegger said Thursday that if another gay marriage measure goes on the California ballot in the future, "the people can make the decision."
"They should make the decision," he said. "But it should not be me or the Legislature.""
While I strongly oppose domestic partner benefits and would vote against them if given the opportunity, there is still a difference between them and marriage.
"Fatc (sic) don't support your agenda."
I have no agenda except to slow down the trend of liberalism in California as much as possible. I wish we could have a Jesse Helms as California governor but it seems that Californians couldn't hack that.
What's your agenda?
My response to this back and forth is simple. I would have preferred that the terminator had said, I was elected Governor. I have veto power over legislation I do not approve of. I will veto this because I cannot support it because of deeply held moral convictions I adhere to, and the voters, as they wish, can veto me should I ever run for this office again.
He is a politician. A statesman not, or a man of principles. Better than Angelides? Of course. Phil would be the steep slippery slope, Arnold is the gentle descent.
Both arrive at the same destination, one is merely intent on arriving sooner than the other.
In name only. Kinda like RINOs.
"I see. You're not pro-gay. You're just pro-pro-gay."
Well, using that line of faulty deducement, that would make you like a member of the HRC because you have implied that you would rather have a Phil Angelides than Arnold Schwarzenegger. After all, you were the one who said that you'd rather be shot in the head than be shot and allowed to bleed slowly. Angelides would bring the quick death you desire.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.