Posted on 01/16/2007 11:44:44 AM PST by calcowgirl
SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Log Cabin Republicans at the state capitol are putting pressure on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to sign a gay marriage bill this year, NBC11's Mike Luery reported.
"When it comes to marriage, we believe in the fundamental fairness of the American people. There has never been a major civil rights movement that has failed in the United States," said statewide director of the Log Cabin Republicans, James Vaughn.
The Log Cabin Republicans said they see marriage equality as a civil rights issue, Luery reported. They equate it to the racial equality movement promoted by Abraham Lincoln, the log cabin president.
Political analyst Steve Swatt said a gay marriage bill in California is an uphill fight.
"Certainly Gov. Schwarzenegger is a moderate, or seems to be, in the true sense of the word," Swatt said. "Yet if he does sign this, he certainly would lose a great deal of his Republican base in California."
The California Legislative Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Caucus at the capitol are all Democrats, Luery reported.
"Log cabin is working on that," Vaughn said. "One of my goals this year is to start building a farm team of Republicans who can run credible campaigns."
Log Cabin Republicans are meeting with the Schwarzenegger administration, seeking appointments to state boards and commissions as part of their grassroots campaign.
Although the governor is unlikely to sign a gay marriage bill in 2007, the Log Cabin Republicans are not giving up, Luery reported. They said they are committed to broadening the reach of California's Republican party.
California's marriage equality bill, similar to a measure vetoed by Schwarzenegger in 2005, was written by Assemblyman Mark Leno of San Francisco.
WHAT !!! ???
They already dominate the executive suite. Susan Kennedy, David Zingale, etc.
Oh, wait... those are homosexual Democrats, not Republicans. So this will be a big improvement, right? /s
Let's see. Gays can marry people of the opposite sex just like heterosexuals, am I correct? This means they have the same rights as heteros. All this is just a smoke screen and BS. Down with so called "gay" marriage, it is a farce.
I have no doubt that Schwartz will sign off on this.
Revolting. If the "homo" agenda becomes a serious force within the GOP, expect the party to implode and a new specifically pro-family/pro-traditional values party to emerge.
"The Log Cabin Republicans said they see marriage equality as a civil rights issue..'
While the majority see it as a perverse corruption of marriage itself....sorta like a black mass cersus a real mass.
Which is why anti gay marriage ammendemnts pass by usual margins of 3:1.
"The Log Cabin Republicans said they see marriage equality as a civil rights issue..'
While the majority see it as a perverse corruption of marriage itself....sorta like a black mass versus a real mass.
Which is why anti gay marriage ammendemnts pass by usual margins of 3:1.
[sorry for the typo]
The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection ActBILL NUMBER: AB 43 INTRODUCED BY Assembly Members Leno, Laird, and Lieber (Principal coauthors: Senators Kehoe, Kuehl, Migden, and Perata) (Coauthors: Assembly Members Alarcon, Berg, Brownley, Coto, De Leon, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Hancock, Hayashi, Huffman, Jones, Levine, Ma, Mullin, Portantino, Ruskin, Saldana, and Soto) (Coauthors: Senators Alquist, Calderon, Cedillo, Lowenthal, Oropeza, Romero, Steinberg, Torlakson, Wiggins, and Yee)
Doesn't California already have something similar to civil unions? Pushing for marriage is going to backfire on these idiots.
Go ahead Arnie, touch that third rail.....
Yep. We have "domestic partnerships" that over the past couple of years have been expanded to grant literally all of the rights of marriage a State is allowed to provide, e.g. pensions, taxes, etc. (See these posts for laws passed in 2005 and 2006)
What they apparently want now are federal benefits, as included in the text of the proposed law linked in my prior post:
(g) California's discriminatory exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage harms same-sex couples and their families by denying those couples and their families specific legal rights and responsibilities under state law and by depriving members of those couples and their families of a legal basis to challenge federal laws that deny access to the many important federal benefits and obligations provided only to spouses (Smelt v. County of Orange (9th Cir. 2006) 447 F.3d 673, 684-685). Those federal benefits include the right to file joint federal income tax returns, the right to sponsor a partner for immigration to the United States, the right to social security survivor's benefits, the right to family and medical leave, and many other substantial benefits and obligations.
I can't find "Gay" on the Census.
When will the Mud Hut Republicans stand up?
excuse my east coast ignorance, but is there an official san franscisco chapter of the log cabin republicans?
The true goal of the Log Cabins.
It seems those elected to office do not understand the outcomes of voters who took the effort to go vote and show what their intentions were on amendments. Although the gay marriage amendments are defeated, those who sit in the seats of our state houses seem to bend over when they have pressure put on them by gay lobby crack pots who also just cannot figure out why they are not given their "rights". Sorry, go home! It gags us when Rosie talks about the media attention her wife is getting!!!
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.