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?