He's lying. He just brought this up in January.
Here's the proof.
http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/1479183p-1556011c.html
From the Sacramento Bee 1/15/02
Conservatives hail shelving of civil-unions bill
But the measure's author vows he won't let the issue disappear.
By Ed Fletcher -- Bee Capitol Bureau
Published 5:30 a.m. PST Thursday, January 17, 2002
Conservative religious groups are hailing an early victory in what promises to be a multiyear fight over legislation allowing Vermont-style civil unions in California.
---snip---
Benjamin Lopez, legislative analyst for the Traditional Values Coalition, said he was not surprised that the bill was pulled given the fact that an election looms.
----snip---
Lopez said civil unions are gay marriages by another name.
"It's a matter of semantics to use another name and get all the benefits of marriage," Lopez said. "The people have spoken and said no to them."
To: Ernest_at_the_beach; erizona; khepera; formerlib; saundra duffy
*ping*
To: grlfrnd
It looks like Grayout Davis is desperate for votes.
3 posted on
03/22/2002 5:44:39 PM PST by
Frohickey
To: grlfrnd
I guess the fact that we voted against this means nothing to Davis.
To: grlfrnd
Davis is gone this fall and he knows it. He is just poisoning the wells before he goes.
To: grlfrnd
I don't live in Kali so maybe someone who does can raise my IQ on this. Didn't you guyz vote on some referendum or something that outlawed faggot marriages? If you did, what the he11 is Grayout talking about? Seems to me the people have spoken and that should be the end of it.
12 posted on
03/22/2002 7:11:51 PM PST by
upchuck
To: grlfrnd
Hopefully his staff will publish a report one week before the 2002 elections.
To: grlfrnd
Hopefully his staff will publish a report one week before the 2002 elections.
To: grlfrnd
More arrogant socialist insanity from the People's Republic of California.
To: grlfrnd
If California, I mean Commiefornicate, does not recognize Common Law (man and woman joined in partnership but do not apply to the state for Marriage Liscense) HOW can civil union (blind sex individuals joined in partenship) be acceptable, not to mention the people voted against the recognition of man and man or woman and woman as a state of union to be recognised. Yeicky!
To: grlfrnd; elk grove dan; gophack; the angry clam; on the right side; right on the left coast...
Assuredly, this has something to do with the timing of the dog-mauling suit. Davis is hoping for the sympathy vote,-- gay rights vs. aryian brotherhood. Choose your poison.
I can hear Davis say -- "look, it was a war-zone-- I convicted that dog and its aryian brothers-- I fought discrimination."
To: grlfrnd
Can anyone explain to me how doing this will help Davis get votes? The people who gay marriage would matter to will vote for him anyway, after all he's a Democrat. It's just preaching to the choir.
To: grlfrnd
Davis and his staff are in the process of selecting people to serve on the 12- to 15- member panel that could meet as early as next summer. Davis became aware of the importance of this issue and instructed his staff to begin working on it after consulting with Miss Cleo, who he relies on to divine important issues that will help him to get re-elected for another term as Governor in California.
57 posted on
03/23/2002 4:23:25 AM PST by
slimer
To: grlfrnd
I am establishing a task force to review what Vermont has done to find out if any of those measures are applicable to California, Davis told the BAR in an interview last week. "This is a relatively new concept. Vermont is the only place which adopted it." Prop. 22 was specific designed to prevent a Vermont-style law from passing and/or for California to be required to recognize other state same-sex marriages.
Obviously, Davis doesn't care about the voters and what we passed by nearly 62%.
58 posted on
03/23/2002 5:21:49 AM PST by
Gophack
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson