Senator Sues Davis, Others To Block Domestic-Partner Law

NBC San Diego ^ | Sept. 22, 2003 | AP

[FairOpinion]

In response to Gov. Gray Davis' signing of the bill, state Sen. Pete Knight, R-Palmdale, filed a lawsuit in Sacramento County Superior Court to stop the implementation of the new law providing most marriage rights to domestic partners.

Knight cited Proposition 22, the ballot initiative voters approved in 2000 confirming that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in the state of California," as the basis for the lawsuit.

The lawsuit argues the bill violates the state constitution because of Proposition 22, which Knight wrote. It names Davis, Secretary of State Kevin Shelley and two other state agencies as defendants.

At an Oct. 15 hearing, Knight's attorneys will ask the court to stop the implementation of the law until the case can be presented in court, said Robert Tyler, a lawyer for the conservative-oriented Alliance Defense Fund.

On Friday, Davis signed the bill, which Goldberg said was meant to fall short of a complete endorsement of gay marriage. But the law does expand the right of gay couples in areas ranging from health coverage to property ownership and funeral arrangements. It gives both partners in a relationship equal status as parents if they have or adopt a child, and allows them to seek child support and alimony.

[FairOpinion]

Well, let's see.

McClintock is busy telling everyone how opposed he is to domestic parnerthips, but didn't fight it in the legislature, didn't even bother to vote no, to register his "principled" opposition, which of course was equivalent to voting yes. Now another senator is filing a lawsuit to stop it.

Doesn't it bother anyone that McClintock doesn't follow up his rhetoric with action?

[FairOpinion]

ping

[holyscroller]

Somebody should sue him to stop him from giving driver's licenses to illegals.

[holyscroller]

Somebody should sue him to stop him from giving driver's licenses to illegals.

[Kevin Curry]

You finagled a way to bash McClintock for this too, huh? You're funny.

Then there's Schwarzeclinton's mealy-mouthed double-squeak, "Domestic partnership is not marriage. It is spelled completely different."

Riiiiight.

[FairOpinion]

I wouldn't have said a word, if McClintock and his supporters wouldn't be running around and making a big deal of it.

I was merely pointing out that McC is long on rhetoric, short on action and accomplishement.

So if he doesn't do anything about it, how is he different from Arnold?

Arnold is at least honest about it.

[The Old Hoosier]

"Randy Thomasson, executive director of the nonprofit, nonpartisan Campaign for California Families, routinely visits government buildings across the state to promote his message that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

"Friday he was at Palm Desert City Hall, the 11th stop on a 13-city "Who Can You Trust Tour" where Thomasson announces which candidates have signed a pledge to protect marriage rights for straight couples.

"Our organization has mailed all the candidates the Marriage Protection Pledge," Thomasson said to a small group of reporters. Only one major candidate - Republican Tom McClintock - has signed.

"McClintock can be trusted to protect marriage for a man and a woman," Thomasson said.

[The Old Hoosier]

He at least signed the pledge, even if he wasn't there for the vote (actually, his name ísn't in the "absent or not voting" category either, which is odd). At least he's publicly put himself on the record against it, which takes a lot more political courage than the terminator will ever have.

[FairOpinion]

As I said, so McClintock signe "the pledge" but isn't lifting a little finger to do anything about it.

Sounds like propaganda to me.

He had several chances to do something, but he didn't.

That makes him a hypocrite.

[FairOpinion]

As I said, so McClintock signe "the pledge" but isn't lifting a little finger to do anything about it.

Sounds like propaganda to me.

He had several chances to do something, but he didn't.

That makes him a hypocrite.

[FairOpinion]

As I said, so McClintock signe "the pledge" but isn't lifting a little finger to do anything about it.

Sounds like propaganda to me.

He had several chances to do something, but he didn't.

That makes him a hypocrite.

[DoctorZIn]

Join Us…Your One Thread To All The California Recall News Threads!

Want on our daily or major news ping lists? Freepmail DoctorZin

[The Old Hoosier]

Well, I thought I had a good argument, but since you posted it three times...

LOL! Sorry.

I don't like the fact that someone doesn't show up for a vote, but when the vote is 23-14, it's not like it's that big a deal. I don't know what the story is behind it, but I agree that it means something--I would be interested in hearing it.

The more important thing though, obviously, is political courage--the willingness to speak up when your view is not politically correct or popular. Arnold--who also hasn't had to vote on anything--has not shown courage on any issue I can discern, economic or social.

[river rat]

Davis, and most democrats...would recognize marriage between two jackhammers if it would get them elected....

Democrats have become the lowest form of life on the planet..
They must soon go extinct...

Semper Fi

[Amerigomag]

actually, his name ísn't in the "absent or not voting" category either, which is odd).

You noticed.

Could be some sort of "good old boy" privilege among senators when circumstances warrant.

Does anyone know?

[tophat9000]

O give us a break if McClintock did the lawsuit you be slamming him for a futile act .... Where at Arnold would sign the bill in the first place

[Hoverbug]

FO and I already went round and round on this here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/986641/posts?page=92#92

He knows that Tom's vote wouldn't have made a bit of difference. He evened claimed that Tom gave tacit approval to the bill.

He's a spinner pure and simple, and even when caught, doesn't have the honesty to answer a simple yes or no to a simple question put to him. You'll also notice this isn't the first time he's posted his spin on this.

See if you can get him to answer the simple question: "Would a yes vote on the bill have made a difference in its passage" so you can at least expose the way he spins.

Hb

[Carry_Okie]

McClintock is busy telling everyone how opposed he is to domestic parnerthips, but didn't fight it in the legislature, didn't even bother to vote no, to register his "principled" opposition, which of course was equivalent to voting yes. Now another senator is filing a lawsuit to stop it.

You need to change your screen name.

[FairOpinion]

"He knows that Tom's vote wouldn't have made a bit of difference. "

==

And the McClintock voters' votes won't elect him and won't make a bit of difference to him. So why do you all insist on voting for him, especially when in this election, your symbolic votes may well result in a Democrat being elected?

[FairOpinion]

"You need to change your screen name. "

===

I don't think so.

I started out by intending to hold my nose and vote for Arnold, because I did know from the beginning the Tom McClintock doesn't have a chance. But I was going to vote for Arnold with a heavy heart, wishing that I could vote for the good conservative McClintock.

But as time went on, I found out that Arnold had a lot more to offer as a leader of CA, as I thought, he has good conservative fiscal approach, and is a real leader, in other words, I underestimated him originally.

At the same time, McClintock was showing himself to be blinded by ambition, someone, who is cheerfully willing to sell his own party down the river, teams up with the enemy, these are not exactly traits that I admire.

Character counts.

I fairly assessed both candidates along the way -- the more I found out about Arnold the better he looked and the more I found out about Tom, the worst he looked.

It is too bad that others aren't willing to do a fair assessment and are too blinded by personal loyalty, so see the forest for the trees.

[RGSpincich]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/987461/posts
Issa says vote NO on Recall. IF...

[FairOpinion]

Too bad that Republicans don't have the attitude: "Failure is not an option".

I hope Issa's comment doesn't meant that he is privvy to some internal polls, which show Arnold can't beat Bustamante without some voters from the McC camp.

I hate to give Davis the satisfaction of defeating the recall, this will be a major blow to the CA GOP.

I am still hoping and expecting and Arnold win.

I don't think I can bring myself to vote No on the recall.

Wouldn't you feel really bad, if Arnold pulls it off, but it's all for naught, because Davis wins the recall?

[Common Tator]

Wouldn't you feel really bad, if Arnold pulls it off,but it's all for naught, because Davis wins the recall?

No one could have worked harder in Davis' behalf than you, FairOpinion.

If Davis does pull it off, you should get a lot of credit. No one could have done more to make sure Arnie gets no support from conservative voters than you. You have done a great job in that respect.

Did Davis promise you a state job if he beat the recall? You sure post like he has.

[RGSpincich]

I think Arnold can win a three way contest.

I won't vote NO, either.

Little known fact: If the recall fails, the taxpayers reimburse Davis for ALL of his campaign expenses.

[sruleoflaw]

You are so nasty in your hatred of Tom McClintock that you repeatedly go over the line. Show a trace of honesty. What was the vote on AB 205 -- and would McClintock's vote have made a bit of difference?

A legislator can't be the leader on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE. McClintock shows leadership on the state budget and state finances, on the car tax, and in seeking to overturn drivers licenses for illegal aliens through a referendum.

By the way, why is the petty Arnold opposing the referendum to overturn DLs for illegals? He says he won't support it.
You are reaching the point of ridiculous.

[FairOpinion]

Cut it out, you Bustamnte-worker.

Almost none of us said a single thing againt McClintock, except the simple fact that he couldn't win, because of the CA demographics, until the convention, while all the McClintockites were bashing Arnold up on side and down the other for weeks.

At that point with various information coming out, it became clear that McClintock wasn't in the race to win, but to ensure a Bustamante win, then we finally started to point that out.

Those who want what's best for CA and the Republican party will vote for Arnold, those who don't, obviously, nothing can convince them, or they do want Bustmante to win.

[FairOpinion]

"would McClintock's vote have made a bit of difference?"

===

So why don't you apply the same rationale to this election, instead of the mantra of "voting for your conscience", even it it hands the election over to our mutual enemy, the Democrats?

[RGSpincich]

You are reaching the point of ridiculous.

Where was McClintock August 28, 2003, when he didn't show up for the vote? Urgent business out of town? No. He was in town at the Hyatt Regency soliciting donations from the tribes. The other 14 Senators showed up to vote NO. Couldn't even break away for an hour to vote his "principles"? You hold his record out as evidence that he is all you say he is. Attacking his record is fair game.