CA: Gays praise vote on legal-rights bill

Mercury News ^ | 6/8/03 | Paul Rogers

[NormsRevenge]

Gay couples around the Bay Area and California are cheering a vote in the state Assembly last week to provide same-sex partners with nearly every legal right that married couples have.

If approved by the state Senate and signed by Gov. Gray Davis later this year, the measure, sponsored by Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg, D-Los Angeles, and supported by many Bay Area Democrats, would put California at the forefront of gay rights in the United States, just behind Vermont, which has legalized a form of gay marriage known as ``civil unions.''

[NormsRevenge]

This needed a Barf Alert in the title, HUH?! Ping

[Lancey Howard]

LOL, flee.
Get outta that place!

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

"When all have "rights" no one has rights."-A great historian 1888

[bribriagain]

Now that Homosexuals are about to be granted special rights by virtue of their sexual proclivities, now may the time to develop a "You to Can Become a Homo" kit. This kit would allow heterosexuals to cash in on this new androwing market opportunity. When you buy the kit, you'll receive the following merchandise:

* 2 Jim Neibors cassetts

an autographed picture of Barbara Streisand

* other fashion items <So what else should go in this kit?

[GrandMoM]

Proposition 22, stating that marriage is defined as a relationship only between a man and a woman. Voters approved that measure overwhelmingly in 2000.

....shows how much our votes mean her in California!

[TheCrusader]

By this summer they will vote in Massachusetts for the same thing, the right of homosexual perverts to marry each other. They seek to legitmize their debauchery of nature and whitewash their filth. But they will always be known for what they are. Abraham Lincoln once asked his cabinet members how many legs a dog would have if we started calling a dog's tail a leg? "Five", was the unanimous reply. Lincoln smiled and said: "No, a dog would still have four legs, no matter what we decided to name his tail". A pervert is still a pervert, even with a marriage certificate or piece of legislature that would say otherwise.

[longtermmemmory]

so now they accomplish the exact same thing by calling a duck a cat. This does not pass the duck test. Poop by any other name is still poop. Hopefully some california citizens group will sue on the basis of prop. 22.

[NormsRevenge]

So true.. The bozos don't like the verdict of the people so they ignore and pass a law of their own. How about dem apples?

A reminder, Davi$ and the courts didn;t like Prop 187 either when it passed , so they just threw it out and continue to this day to pay massive amounts of money for benefits for illegals, all the time, wringing their hands that illegal immigration is a federal issue and there is nothing they can do about it..

[longtermmemmory]

In mass the goal is to remove children from the marital union.

[jde1953]

"Proposition 22, stating that marriage is defined as a relationship only between a man and a woman. Voters approved that measure overwhelmingly in 2000.

....shows how much our votes mean her in California! "

Yes, and the bill under consideration does not, in any way, violate Proposition 22, as no marriage, nor change in marriage laws, is stated anywhere therein.

If you recall, during the prop 22 debate, its opponents said things like, "Oh, you want to be make medical decisions for a partner? That's fine; it's a compassionate thing to allow. But it's not marriage, AND YOU CAN'T CALL IT MARRIAGE."

"Oh, you want to be able to leave your estate to your partner? That's fine with us, but it's not marriage, AND YOU CAN'T CALL IT MARRIAGE."

"If you want rights, you must accept responsibilities. We haven't seen any sign of that - AND YOU STILL CAN'T CALL IT MARRIAGE."

So here is this bill, enacting all the things that opponents of prop 22 said were decent and fair and compassionate. It also requires responsibilities such as child support, alimony, etc, AND IT DOESN'T CALL IT MARRIAGE. It fulfills the requirements set by the opponents of Proposition 22.

I guess there's just no pleasing some people.

[GrandMoM]

A reminder, Davi$ and the courts didn;t like Prop 187 either when it passed , so they just threw it out and continue to this day to pay massive amounts of money for benefits for illegals, all the time, wringing their hands that illegal immigration is a federal issue and there is nothing they can do about it......this was going to be my next post, it was really a slap in the voters face.

....Do you know, in this little town of 25 to30 thousand people, we have a mobile hospital or doctor's office that travels to migrant camps and low income neighborhoods that is payed for by Medic-aid!

...which of course is paid by the tax payers!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

This needed a Barf Alert in the title, HUH?! Ping

It had the word

GAYS

in the title, that should be enough!

calgov2002:

calgov2002: for old calgov2002 articles. 

calgov2002: for new calgov2002 articles. 

Other Bump Lists at: Free Republic Bump List Register

[NormsRevenge]

LOL.. Good Point!

[Eustace]

I guess seeings how most people are "married" in incorporated/State churches marriage has become a "civil" union and has been dragged down to the level of sodomites.

Hail Caesar , let the good times roll..........

[NormsRevenge]

Yup,, Caligulafornicata^TM rocks!

[Trace21230]

"Max Mueller, 63, a scientist at Lockheed Martin in Sunnyvale who has been in a relationship for 22 years with Norman Costa"

But wait, according to all the religious fundamentalists on FR, all gay people engage in promiscuous sex and promulgate diseases. How could it be that TWO gay people have been monogamous for 22 years? /s

If only heterosexual couples would follow the example of these two, then perhaps a few less children would grow up in broken homes.

I was also pleased to see that Bruce McPherson (R-Santa Cruz) is considering supporting this measure. I worked for his campaign long ago when I was stationed at the Presidio of Monterey. A class act.

Yes I am against "gay marriage." It's a religious institution that does not lend itself to members of the same sex. But there is no good reason monogamous gay couples shouldn't be treated the same way under the tax code and the law.

Trace

[Jhoffa_]

Now that Homosexuals are about to be granted special rights by virtue of their sexual proclivities..

Exactly.

I can't wait for: "You know, I can understand if people don't like me screwing minors, sheep and the inlaws, but that's my right.."

[Jhoffa_]

...

[The Iguana]

...yet all the evidence is that such relationships are very much the exception.