McClintock to Talk About SF Homosexual "Marriages" on Savage and O'Reilly

N/A | 2-18-04 | N/A

[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.

[syriacus]

Another repercussion---gays will be mad at Barney Frank who voted against repealing the marriage penalty tax in 2000

[hedgetrimmer]

Certainly our state Attorney General can file charges.

[claudiustg]

---A mayor consciously breaking the law, printing fake documents and recording them with the city is very bad for the Republic. ---

Yes, especially when the will of the people was just heard in a direct vote. Will the judges once again put aside the directly expressed will of the people while their leaders look on and do nothing?

This is tyranny! We must resist this!

[Scenic Sounds]

If this goes too far without a halt, we will have thousands of "married couples" suddenly stripped of their bogus validation. There will be interviews of the distraught couples, extended coverage of general mayhem, likely suicides, and interviews of mean spirited conservatives, heartless about the suffering...

Well, if the lawyers can't take care of this mess quickly, then I will join with you and others to demand that either the President or the Governor, or both, declare martial law in the City and County of San Francisco and send troops to restore law and order!!!

In the meantime, let's give the lawyers a chance. ;-)

[claudiustg]

No, he and everyone else are waiting for the courts to scoop this up as an equal protection issue.

[Carry_Okie]

In the meantime, let's give the lawyers a chance. ;-)

They've already had one; and blew it. ;-)

[Scenic Sounds]

They've already had one; and blew it. ;-)

I know, I know. I feel just awful about it all! Those lawyers can be so painfully slow at times.

But, you know, we're so lucky to be living right now and able to witness this exciting struggle - a huge clash of cultural currents. Immensely important historical events are unfolding right before our eyes! Let's enjoy every minute of it!!

I can assure you that the outcome of this particular little squabble in San Francisco is a foregone conclusion. But this is but a minor skirmish. We must save our strength for the bigger battles that are yet to come!! ;-)

[nickcarraway]

ping

[Carry_Okie]

We shall unleash the Nihilists and Atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effects of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will be from that moment without compass, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view, a manifestation which will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time.

Illustrious Albert Pike 33°
Letter 15 August 1871
Addressed to Grand Master Guiseppie Mazzini 33°
Archives British Museum
London, England

[nickcarraway]

What is a governor for then? Governors (or presidents) sent in people to stop illegal segragation. Why shouldn't they do the same here?

[Tempest]

I'm sure that if the courts decide that the mayor is in violation (which he is) of state law. He will either have to desist or be thrown in jail if he hasn't already been by the time the case is decided.

Although I'm sure this csae will find it's way to the supreme court.

Which reminds me. Vote for Bush. Because we need to keep the SCOTUS out of the hands of John Kerry and his liberal cronies. If this issue doesn't clarify that for you I'm sure there will be other things coming down the pipe.

[Tempest]

Errrrr.... OK. . . .

Yeah I see your point?.?

[ampat]

After watching Tom on O'Reilly, I was dissapointed he wasn't more firm. He seemed to evade the yes or no answer that Bill asked him: If you were governor, would you have arrested the mayor.

[ampat]

My thoughts exactly. If we allow majority rule (mob rule), and do away with our representative form of govt., the laws would change so fast, no one would know for sure what the laws are.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Personally... I would advise the Guvanator to immediately remove the mayor from office pending criminal investigation."

It would be intersting to find out if the Governor has the power to do that.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Well, I'm not claiming that I would have been able to do anything any different.

Claiming that you would handle a situation better than your political opponent did, is just plain cheap politics.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Isn't McClintock still in government?

Does he not represent the people of California?

What's he doing at the Federal level to stop this?

Or is he just talking?

The job of talking about how things should be done already belongs to Rush, Michael Savage, etc.

[chachacha]

Open you ears. Ahnold has supported gay issues before he ran and I don't see this zebra changing stripes. But, that's all ok he's a fiscal conservative.

What a bunch of RINO's "The kneepad type".

All of you brown nosing right wing log cabin sympathizers.

[Young Rhino]

What is a governor for then? Governors (or presidents) sent in people to stop illegal segragation. Why shouldn't they do the same here?

We have reached a point where any attempt to interfere with activist judiciary is portrayed by the media as a threat to the republic. No executive or legislative branch, state and federal, will do it.

Neither Congress or the state legislatures even have the cojones to impeach and remove these judges, and that is the proper course of action. At best, the executive's role is enforcement through the judicial system through active participation in litigation by the respective attorney general on behalf of the State.

This battle started with Marbury v. Madison back in 1803. The Supremes stated that "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." The judiciary has usually won every conflict between the branches of government.