Posted on 07/07/2006 3:29:03 PM PDT by MikeA
SAN FRANCISCO - Democratic gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides said Friday that if he unseats Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in November he would sign a bill legalizing gay marriage in California.
Angelides talked about the issue the day after New York's high court upheld that state's one-man, one-woman marriage laws and as a California appeals court prepared to consider whether a trial judge erred in declaring the state's marriage laws unconstitutional.
"I would sign the marriage equality bill because I believe if we can get behind people to build a lasting relationship, that is a good thing," Angelides said at a news conference where Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., urged voters to support him.
The California Legislature last year became the first lawmaking body in the nation to legalize gay marriage. Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill, saying it was up to voters or the courts, not lawmakers, to settle the matter.
The measure's sponsor, Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, plans to reintroduce it in December after the election.
Clinton, who does not support gay marriage, refused to answer questions about Thursday's court ruling in her home state, but made a brief pitch on Angelides' behalf.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
You omitted to mention that Arnold VETOED the homosexual marriage bill that the Legislature passed.
I knew you'd be thru..;-)
He said he would abide by the courts decision, once he is re-lected he is bound by no one to do so again.
Besides, he signed a pile of domestic partner legislation shortly thereafter.. or doesn't that count?
Omission is in the eye of the beholder, eh?
There's hope, but it may take a major fiscal or seismic event to finally snap the voters out of the embrace of cradle to grave socialism and push for reforms that restore some sanity to the financial affairs of state.
Politicians need to be held responsible for overall welfare of the state and not just its "needy" residents.
For example, the public school system receives almost half the budget,, yet to look at the product and those involved in delivering " a well rounded education" , it should make one wonder how much longer we can afford the rate of return on investment or why we currently tolerate it to continue.
The battles fought so far only reflect the degree at which some are so eager to hanging onto their place at the feeding trough thru any means available.
Unfortunately, it means a lot of good money is getting thrown in after bad in this case without any additional controls being adequately enforced.
Because California has such a large population, you're talking a lot of dollars split many ways.
Too bad vouchers wouldn't allow folks to go where they would , that would provide additional competition and hopefully get the public schools to be more competitive and hopefully put out a better product.
I didn't mention unions up to this point and the role they play thruout this mess, it goes without saying, imo.
(The Palestinian terrorist regime is the crisis and Israel's fist is the answer.)
Not as of 10 days ago.
Resistance to the initiative has come from other surprising quarters. Some conservative groups have said they want to stop at protecting owner-occupied residences. Others, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, have remained curiously silent about the abuses of eminent domain. Perhaps the governor is concerned that the initiative might obstruct his big development plans for the state. ... [source]
Thanks! Just curious.
Thank Goodness Tom is behind it 110%.
September 2005 - Governor's Veto Message
http://www.governor.ca.gov/govsite/pdf/vetoes_2005/AB_849_veto.pdf
To the Members of the California State Assembly:
I am returning Assembly Bill 849 without my signature because I do not believe the Legislature can reverse an initiative approved by the people of California.
I am proud California is a leader in recognizing and respecting domestic partnerships and the equal rights of domestic partners. I believe that lesbian and gay couples are entitled to full protection under the law and should not be discriminated against based upon their relationships. I support current domestic partnership rights and will continue to vigorously defend and enforce these rights and as such will not support any rollback.
California Family Code Section 308.5 was enacted by an initiative statute passed by the voters as Proposition 22 in 2000. Article II, section 10 of the California Constitution prohibits the Legislature from amending this initiative statute without a vote of the people. This bill does not provide for such a vote.
The ultimate issue regarding the constitutionality of section 308.5 and its prohibition against same-sex marriage is currently before the Court of Appeal in San Francisco and will likely be decided by the Supreme Court.
This bill simply adds confusion to a constitutional issue. If the ban of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, this bill is not necessary. If the ban is constitutional, this bill is ineffective.
Sincerely,
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Ah, but will he veto all the other GLBT bills, too, or just that one? Or will they be shuffled through quietly like all the pro-GLBT legislation that was lost last year below the headlines of the gay marriage veto?
Do you like this one, too?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1658257/posts
Schwarzenegger Supports Crime Victims' Bill of Rights
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said in Oakland today that he supports state legislation that would give crime victims new rights.
Accompanied by local police chiefs and several high profile crime victims, Schwarzenegger also said he has appointed Susan Fisher of Sacramento to the newly-created position of Crime Victim Advocate and that he is expediting a program to use global positioning systems to track dangerous criminals.
He said he supports "The Crime Victims Bill of Rights," a comprehensive legislative proposal authored by Assemblywoman Nicole Parra, D-Hanford, to help crime victims overcome the hardships caused by criminal acts.
One thing you can be sure of:
Angelides says he would sign gay marriage bill
Every picture I've seen of him looks like he's getting a rectal probe and isn't sure whether or not he dislikes it.
I haven't seen or heard much of him but he reminds me of Gray Davis - no personality, no zip, same old party dogma, and willing to do whatever it takes to get elected.
Perhaps because it had already been mentioned? See Post #17.
And he'll see a Referendum...lickety-split!
I always have wondered what color sheets Angelides sleeps on..... I doesn't strike me as a very macho person.
actually what I have been seeing on the net places him in the Grey Davis party hack category.
He will bend over frontwards for any price.
I think he jumped on the homsoexual bandwaggon because he needs money and he thinks the perverts of hollyweird will give him money over this ONE issue.
The unions want him and have paid for him.
The local greek groups are now buzzing in CF. (made a few calls between posts) This has really killed him in the community. He will get luke warm support at best. (no church community hall receptions, no PanCretan association endorsements unless it is some kook old man chapter in nowheresvill CF) If he is still a Greek Orthodox he is just plain dead against his own faith. As an accademic question, I wonder if he could be excumunicated for this political bonehead manuver.
So my fellow FR members, if you see angeledes with greek environ remember he had to scrape the around to get the support. Single men and women do not want to be seen anywhere near Angeledes.
I know one choice greek word to describe him and it starts with P and ends with -tis.
Observation: SCTV seperated at birth?
I'm sorry, but I believe it was you that told me not to bash until I had the facts and I did! You see Mike, you said and I quote "California Marriage Protection Act was overturned before Arnold was governor, so I'm not sure how you lay that one at his feet." You stated that as a fact. Yet a dumb caveman like me was able to use a little device called "Google" to prove that you don't know what your talking about! A dumb caveman like me able to researched, amazing!
I would just love to pointlessly argue your "facts" as you make them up, but maybe perhaps its you that should do a little more research, instead of thinking you know what your talking about after sleeping one night at a Holiday Inn! Oh and later, ask me how much money you can save by switching to Gieco!
May we at least agree Angeledes is a dweeb and should not be governor?
I think we can also agree this will hurt him in the polls by telling as many people as possible about his advocating allowing marriage for homosexuals.
Summarizing Angelides:
ANGELIDES:
Angelides calls himself a champion of "progressive values." As state treasurer, he has pushed public pension funds to dump tobacco stocks, invest in urban renewal projects and pressure corporations into cleaning up the environment. A close ally of labor, he also supports abortion rights, gay marriage, gun control and driver's licenses for illegal immigrants.
If he makes it into a general-election race, his call for increasing taxes could pose problems; Schwarzenegger has been steadfast in opposing higher taxes.
http://www.calcoast.org/news/cpr0060122.html
>> ...he sent the attorney general after the city of San Fran for allowing gay marriage...
He "directed" him to pursue a judicial resolution. Of course, the Governor has no authority over the AG. Tiny problem.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1082820/posts
Mr Schwarzenegger is said to have sent a letter to Attorney General Bill Lockyer saying San Francisco's actions "are directly contrary to state law and present an imminent risk to civil order".
"I hereby direct you to take immediate steps to obtain a definite judicial resolution of this controversy," Mr Schwarzenegger reportedly said.
But a spokeswoman for Mr Lockyer said the city's actions pose no risk to public safety and said Mr Schwarzenegger had no authority over the attorney general, who was independently elected.
"The governor cannot direct the attorney general. He can direct the highway patrol. He can direct 'Terminator 4'. But he can't tell the attorney general what to do," she said.
So because the AG ignored the governor that Schwarzenegger's fault?? The fact is, the governor did have the power to so direct Lockyer, but Lockyer who was not appointed by Arnold, but rather is an elected office in California, is a hard line Democratic pol. That Lockyer refused to heed the governor, and made utterly unsustainable arguments claiming he couldn't be ordered by the governor to take action, neither establishes the truth of such claims nor any weakness on the part of the governor. The AG is an officer of the state govt. He is not a force unto himself answerable to no one.
The main point of the argument was never the date at which the marriage amendment was overturned. So I got a date wrong not pertinent to the overall discussion. You on the other hand got facts completly wrong that were central to the discussion we were having, i.e. what Schwarzenegger has done to oppose gay marriage. You claim he did nothing to stop it in San Fran. I proved you were wrong. You claim the legislature passed a marriage law and left out the VERY pertinent fact, which I doubt you knew, that Arnold vetoed it. I got a minor point that was never central to anything we were discussing wrong. Geez, looks like I still win by that scoreboard! And by the way, I found all those things by doing a simple Google search there oh Google Master!
The date is not relevent to the fact Arnold does not control what a judge decides. And further, you can in no way show he appointed that judge. So my point, wrong date not withstanding, still stands. You CANNOT lay a court ruling at Arnold's feet. On the other hand, can YOU claim your points still stand that I have knocked down entirely?? Nope, not in the least.
So anyway, keep trying to divert attention from the fact I publically bested you by obsessively focusing on a date. You have not been able to refute me on any substantive point or on anything I showed that proved you didn't know what you were talking about.
Again I say, "Try doing a little research next time."
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.