Skip to comments.
McClintock to Talk About SF Homosexual "Marriages" on Savage and O'Reilly
N/A
| 2-18-04
| N/A
Posted on 02/18/2004 3:14:41 PM PST by go_tom
California State Senator Tom McClintock will be on with Michael Savage at 5:30PM PST and then on the O'Reilly Factor to discuss the marriage licenses being issued in SF.
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: homosexual; homosexualagenda; marriage; mcclintock; newsom; oreilly; sanfrancisco; savage; sf; stunt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160, 161-178 next last
To: davidosborne
BTTT!!!!
141
posted on
02/19/2004 10:44:02 AM PST
by
E.G.C.
To: kellynla
Thanks for the heads-up. Looks like McClintock is the only elected official in Sacramento Actually there are still about a half dozen or so: McClintock, Oller, Hollingsworth, Mountjoy, LaSuer lead the list.
142
posted on
02/19/2004 10:50:12 AM PST
by
ElkGroveDan
(Fighting for Freedom and Having Fun)
To: chachacha
What a bunch of RINO's "The kneepad type".All of you brown nosing right wing log cabin sympathizers.
Not only nasty but chock-full of idiotic assumptions. I'm firmly against gay marriage, BTW, but of course you'll just continue spouting what suits your agenda here. It's funny how anyone questioning how much power Arnold has to confront the mayor is suddenly turned into a "GAY SYMPATHIZER" by people who voted otherwise. And here I thought it was the "left" that twisted facts to suit an agenda.
143
posted on
02/19/2004 11:00:25 AM PST
by
Tamzee
(PhilDragoo says... Senator Kerry for Information Minister!)
To: ElkGroveDan
"Actually there are still about a half dozen or so: McClintock, Oller, Hollingsworth, Mountjoy, LaSuer lead the list."
Well I hope you are right, Dan. Although I haven't seen and/or heard much "leadership" from conservatives in Sacramento other than McClintock. These people need to be on the six o'clock news nightly, exposing the waste, fraud, abuse and illegalities of what is going on in our state. Semper Fi, Kelly
144
posted on
02/19/2004 11:08:36 AM PST
by
kellynla
(U.S.M.C. "C" 1/5 1st Mar Div. Viet Nam 69&70 Semper Fi VOTE "NO" ON PROPOSITIONS 55-58)
To: davidosborne
Me neither! Because they don't accept US and our ways. They are the ultimate in hypocrisy--preaching so-called tolerance, then putting anyone different from them on a hate list.
To: Devil_Anse
I can't help wondering about the effect this will have on their ability to adopt children? Somehow I keep getting the feeling that this is one of their main objectives.
146
posted on
02/19/2004 11:21:13 AM PST
by
tertiary01
(Learn from history or it will be repeated until you do.)
To: Tamsey
It's funny how anyone questioning how much power Arnold has to confront the mayor is suddenly turned into a "GAY SYMPATHIZER The Gov. is the lead Law Enforcement official in his State. The Law is being broken and what has he done about it.
Nothing. I never said you were supporting Gay Marriages but, what I did say is supporting this Gov's lack of response is, sending the wrong message to the rest of the world and Country.
AND THAT YOU ARE DOING.
To: tertiary01
Yes, that seems to be their latest fad, lol.
Okay, suppose they do want to adopt. People shouldn't assume, however, that b/c they might raise children, that that means they are going to increase the number of homosexuals in society. I mean, look at it this way: think of the homosexuals you've known. How many of them were raised by a homosexual couple? Most of the ones I know delight in ridiculing the marriages of their parents, and from their stories, it is very clear that their parents were heterosexuals.
And then they get to the part about their parents' reactions to the news that they, the offspring, were homosexual. Invariably, they have a tale of how their parents were in denial about it, or how their parents took a deep breath and gamely forced themselves to "accept their child as he/she is". Or something along those lines.
So, IOW, all those heterosexual couples had at least one homosexual child each, and yet for the life of them, they couldn't get said child to BE a heterosexual. (I firmly believe that many of those parents tried to get their child to be heterosexual, though.) SO, what makes anyone think that a child who wants to be heterosexual will listen even if his/her parents are preaching the joys of homosexuality to him/her every day?
Children are stubborn little critters. When they get to their teens, invariably they go through a stage in which they rebel against anything their parents have preached. In the end, the child forges his/her own identity, and it's never exactly the same as the parent's. I don't believe that being raised by a "same-sex couple" will increase the chances of a person's being a homosexual. While gender orientation is not purely a product of one's genes, still, each person draws the line and insists on deciding some things for HIMSELF!
To: kellynla
Well Hollingsworth and Oller are is doing the same talk show circuit that McClintock is. On the gay marriage thing in SF, as Tom pointed out on Savage last night, it's the one area where the legislature doesn't have a lot of say right now.
149
posted on
02/19/2004 11:43:45 AM PST
by
ElkGroveDan
(Fighting for Freedom and Having Fun)
To: Devil_Anse
|
|
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
GAAS:69:04 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 02/17/2004
Statement by Gov. Schwarzenegger on Same-Sex Marriage
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger released the following statement today: "I support all of California's existing laws that provide domestic partnership benefits and protections. However, Californians spoke on the issue of same-sex marriage when they overwhelmingly approved California's law that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. I support that law and encourage San Francisco officials to obey that law. The courts should act quickly to resolve this matter."
|
|
|
|
|
Back to Top of Page
|
Please click here to return to the previous page.
|
|
|
|
150
posted on
02/19/2004 11:46:59 AM PST
by
davidosborne
(www.davidosborne.net)
To: JennieOsborne; /\XABN584; 10mm; 3D-JOY; 5Madman; <1/1,000,000th%; 11B3; 1Peter2:16; ...
I just spoke with someone from Gov. Office... they told me that in CA the Gov. does not have the authority to remove an elected official that was "voted in by the people of San Francisco" I was told that the ONLY course to remove would be the impeachment process... any CA lawyers out there want to comment?
151
posted on
02/19/2004 11:49:37 AM PST
by
davidosborne
(www.davidosborne.net)
To: Devil_Anse
I really feel it is more insidious than your explanation, as I feel that many gays are looking for an uncontaminated supply, so to speak. But it helps to explains why the Baby Boomer generation is so different from THEIR parents. The Beat generation is also their parents,the WWII generation, and they loved to dabble in socialism. I think the BBoomers took on the more extreme behaviors, as a way of rebelling. And that the current younger generation is taking on conservatism as a way of rebelling against the BBoomers.
152
posted on
02/19/2004 11:54:40 AM PST
by
tertiary01
(Learn from history or it will be repeated until you do.)
To: davidosborne
Contact the Mayor
Mayor Gavin Newsom
City Hall, Room 200
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 554-6141
TDD: (415) 252-3107
Fax: (415) 554-6160
Email:
gavin.newsom@sfgov.org Press Office: (415) 554-6131
153
posted on
02/19/2004 11:56:11 AM PST
by
davidosborne
(www.davidosborne.net)
To: All
Mayor Gavin Newsom >> News & Releases |
|
SF to continue issuing marriage licenses
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: URGENT Tuesday, February 17, 2004 Contact: Mayor’s Press Office 415-554-6131
SAN FRANCSICO TO CONTINUE ISSUING MARRIAGE LICENSES
Following consultation with San Francisco’s City Attorney Dennis Herrera, Mayor Gavin Newsom announced today that the city would continue issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples. The decision came after two courts declined to stop the city’s actions.
“The issue here is simple: the state’s Constitution does not permit discrimination at all, anywhere. We are in full compliance with our state’s equal protection clause prohibiting discrimination in any form. While some may believe that separate and unequal institutions are acceptable, we will oppose intolerance and discrimination every step of the way. San Francisco is a city of tolerance and mutual respect and we will accept nothing less than full civil rights for all our residents,” said Newsom.
# # # |
|
|
|
|
154
posted on
02/19/2004 12:01:26 PM PST
by
davidosborne
(www.davidosborne.net)
To: tertiary01
Yes, and I think the examples you gave serve to remind us, also, that a person is more than just a product of his/her parents. I mean, there's no doubt that the family is important, but if there weren't other factors at work, none of us would care what the children are being taught at school, or by TV, for example.
They can adopt all these "unwanted" children, oh yeah. But I just think that the law of unintended consequences may make an appearance in all that! Same for their insistence on "getting married". I think they're just going out of their way to outrage the rest of us, but w/o thinking ahead to the long-term consequences--for them--of the changes they might wreak.
Furthermore, on the subject of their adopting, I wonder how people who can't even stay with the same sex partner for more than, say, a month, or perhaps a few years, expect to stick around long enough to raise a child for 18 years? I see more than the usual chance of abandonment in the future of those children who are adopted by fad-following homosexuals. And an abandoned child can grow up to be VERY resentful. I guess what I'm saying is, if someone adopts a child and then doesn't do a very good job of taking care of the child, that person will create his/her own punishment for his/her failure. (Of course, this also goes for one's biological children.)
To: davidosborne
BTTT!!!!!
156
posted on
02/19/2004 12:44:04 PM PST
by
E.G.C.
To: PeoplesRep_of_LA
Hey, Red... you're back under your old persona? Or should I say "older"? You're twisting statements and throwing out strawmen here. Please show me one post where I "hate" (your word put in red) McClintock? I was actually happy to hear he was going on O'Reilly as I thought he could pull together more support from the public against the Mayor. I have very little problem with McClintock, he's just being a politician. My only problem is with McClintock supporters on this site who continuously throw out poisonous comments toward freepers who supported the "rightward most viable candidate" to quote WF Buckley.
Aside from how unbelievably nasty supposed "conservatives" can be, that garbage makes the site looks as rabid and brainless as DU. And yes, your strawmen were silly which is why you used them. Read your last paragraph again... it suits you and your pals to a "T". Using big problems that California is facing to say "I told you so" regarding recall candidates. Some folks here seem almost excited when another problem gets in Arnold's way. That's just so.... "Democrat".
157
posted on
02/19/2004 2:57:52 PM PST
by
Tamzee
(PhilDragoo says... Senator Kerry for Information Minister!)
To: Tamsey
You're twisting statements and throwing out strawmen here. Please show me one post where I "hate" (your word put in red) McClintock?I just included you in quotes from your partner. I didn't mean to imply that you hate McClintock, (hint, your friend does.) I can say that you hate McClintock's FR supporters, and I'll prove it with your own next paragragh.
Aside from how unbelievably nasty supposed "conservatives" can be, that garbage makes the site looks as rabid and brainless as DU.
OK, I know you adore saying that you are a victim of nastiness, and I have no doubts that people have been nasty to you, but you have a REAL problem seeing how nasty YOU can be, but what part of that sentence doesn't scream to you "nasty"? I honestly have no idea how you think anything I said justifies your attacks on me, I didn't say one word to you that was nasty, (just that your claims of holding your breath for someone to show you the ugliness of your side where unjust, ironically enough) Its pretty obvious that your side is every bit as ugly as the "conservatives" (I would be too if I was compelled to defend people rather than policy) I don't blame you.
But that aside, my point is and was that this is wrong and needs to stop. You won, we lost, McClintock is just a lowly State Senator, daring to speak on Savage and OReilly, the Gov is not threatened by another recall, so him promoting Conservative ideas needs to be championed by EVERY Conservative on FR. Yet the very mention of his name predictably rehashes into some childish refighting of the recall. I know, you don't think you started it, but it needs to stop.
Oddly enough, to answer your conspiracy as to who I really am, I agree, it is precisely the behavior you are talking about that pushed me away from FR. Because talking about people rather than policy is just not compelling.
158
posted on
02/19/2004 3:26:24 PM PST
by
PeoplesRep_of_LA
(Treason doth never prosper, for if it does, none dare call it treason)
To: PeoplesRep_of_LA
The same old "Peops" :-)
One teeny fact blows your impressive but unfounded rant out of the water... it IS the old McClintock supporters that keep it going. One perfect example right in your own post is your criticizing me for the remark about holding my breath. If you actually took a second to check your facts you would notice someone made that remark to ME first... someone I had never posted to before and had never talked to or about. I replied in KIND and you use it as an example of me being nasty?
And I don't hate McClintock supporters. That would be ridiculous since most of them are terrific folks with fantastic values and are a joy to work with on this side of the political fence. It's just a small handful of "conservatives" here that don't see anything wrong with that type of childish, poisonous and counterproductive behavior. I call them "conservatives" because I take their claimed political leanings with a grain of salt when I see them do things to intentionally divide the right. If you choose to find that behavior acceptable, more power to ya.
You have yourself a nice day now, jd.
159
posted on
02/19/2004 4:25:14 PM PST
by
Tamzee
(PhilDragoo says... Senator Kerry for Information Minister!)
To: davidosborne; tertiary01; little jeremiah; Jackie-O; scripter
Hey, I've been pondering this stuff and I want to run a few things by you.
I see now that Daley of Chicago is in effect encouraging persons in his city to engage in the same burlesque of marriage that is occurring in San Francisco. No doubt other liberals will start this stuff in their own little bailiwicks.
So I got thinking of how I am opposed to the proposed constitutional amendment. Said amendment would define marriage as ONLY the union of one man and one woman. All well and good, BUT... Why was I opposed to it? B/C I am extremely leery of anything that increases the powers of already-overbearing federal government.
So I tried to talk myself into supporting the marriage amendment. After all, I thought, it will state definitively the thing that you want: that marriage stay as it always has been, the tried-and-true, true-to-nature, way.
But you know what? I believe that the marriage amendment might just bring ALL the law pertaining the family--INCLUDING DIVORCE AND CUSTODY LAW--into the FEDERAL sphere. And, ahem, we've already seen what bringing the law of child support into the federal sphere has done! It's all a one-size-fits-all thing; child support is determined by a centralized chart which has been adopted by each state. And we all know the many injustices to which that has led. It wouldn't be so bad if persons couldn't be JAILED INDEFINITELY for contempt of court, as a means of enforcing these federal child support mandates--but in fact, they CAN be so jailed.
We currently have an ever-growing body of federal criminal law. Once upon a time, criminal law was mostly a state matter... no more! And take a look at the Draconian techniques of federal criminal prosecutions, and don't forget to look at FORFEITURE of property under federal criminal statutes.
Do we really want to have divorce law, and custody law, etc., be the province of federal courts, instead of individual state courts? B/C that, IMO, is what will happen. And we will also have to forget about state laws dealing with age of majority, emancipation, etc. All will eventually be federalized--IOW, FAMILY LAW will be federal, not state.
So then I was thinking, WHO is really driving this sudden circus in which they are "marrying" same-sex pairs? Why now? A normal person need only watch a little of the coverage of this, and see these people gleefully flouting not only the laws of man, but the law of nature, to be sickened and annoyed by it, as are many posters here. It's a rabble-rousing device. It's a way of getting the blood of average people riled up. WHY?
IMO, the answer to that "why" is, b/c SOMEONE wants that amendment passed. B/C someone is looking ahead, is licking their chops over the new expansion of the federal government into the area of family law. I say "someone", but of course I mean groups of people. Groups of people who want to increase the already too-great power of the federal government. They know that the sight of these homosexuals making a mockery of marriage is going to push the rest of us into doing something hasty like passing the marriage amendment.
This technique, IMO, was used in the civil rights movement. It's no secret that the big shows put on in the southern states--such as Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door--were done in complete collusion with persons in Washington. (Some say, with the president himself.) People got into a huge sweat over that stuff--"Oh, the injustice!" And as a result, they were only too happy to let the feds pass a bunch of one-size-fits-all "civil rights" laws. And we've seen what that has led to... Example: affirmative action.
Did these laws really help blacks more than they hurt the population as a whole? Who knows? I am not in favor of making anyone be a second-class citizen, but it seems to me that the repeal of state laws that did that to blacks would have helped solve the problem more than the passage of sweeping federal laws which took state matters out of state hands. Yes--repealing certain laws would have been a better solution than adding more and bigger laws.
While the same techniques used in the civil rights era may be in use here, I emphatically do NOT compare homosexuals to members of minority races. We all know that homosexuality is a behavior, we know that a black person can't hide the color of his skin in order to gain fair treatment, whereas a homosexual can hide his status anytime he wants to. Furthermore, such a comparison is an insult to all members of minority races. There are many other reasons why the comparison btw homosexuals and racial minorities is a completely false paradigm--too numerous to go into in this already long post.
Proposed solution: let 'em do their so-called "marriage" thing. If it doesn't measure up to practicality and the laws of nature--and I don't see how it can--it will end up being a whole lot of nothing.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160, 161-178 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson