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.

[skeeter]

What will the media say about Art Torres and his cavalier dismissal of the will of the people?

Torres had plenty of practice ignoring the will of the people. He did the same thing in 94 with prop 187 which won by a similar margin, calling it the 'last gasp of whites in CA'.

The press said - nothing. Hell, they applauded.

[freekitty]

I heard him and he was wonderful. It's too bad people have to elect people for every reason; but the right reason. It's not just in California. It's everywhere. It just seems like very few are qualified anymore. They just have name recognition. The country is in a mess and we have elected officials who have nothing to offer.

[Devil_Anse]

On this subject, I believe we should do one of two things:

1. We should ignore this silly phenomenon, since someone's calling what these people are doing "marriage" doesn't MAKE it marriage. Or:

2. We should treat these couples as MARRIED in every sense possible. That means we should now regard them as having community property, as well as each partner's separate property (since CA is a community property state); we should demand that they be faithful to one another, since that is a legitimate aspect of marriage; we should demand that if they decide next week that they don't want to be a couple after all, they must PAY for a legal DIVORCE.

And if this little phenomenon comes to any state which recognizes common law marriage, then we should acknowledge that there are going to be certain same-sex couples who are going to become common law spouses. Heh-heh, that common law marriage stuff can kind of sneak up on them... some of these same-sex couples keep calling themselves "married"... one of the requisites for a common law marriage is "they held themselves out to the community as being married." And guess what? In some jurisdictions, if a couple is common law married, then if they want to split up, they have to get a DIVORCE. Let's see them pay for a divorce if (like many homosexuals) they find they want to move on to someone new.

[Dead Corpse]

I was dissapointed he wasn't more firm.

Firm? He at first tried to get long winded about his answer, but Bill cut him off and asked him point blank. Tom came back with, "Would I have him arrested? Absolutely." He then pontificated for a bit afterwards.

More firm? Would it have helped if he had given a Howie Dean type yelp?

[Scenic Sounds]

"It's so secret we can't talk about it." - President George W. Bush, Meet the Press, February 8, 2004.

;-)

[Piquaboy]

I am sick of all the talking. I want someone to do something about it and breaking the laws of the state.

[Balding_Eagle]

Mac said that if the AG wouldn't take action, that the governor should

The question put to him, twice, was If you were the governor what would you do? Why he chose not to answer that question, and answer one that wasn't asked is puzzling to me.

[calcowgirl]

"Gentleman, your crow is served."

Classic quote. I HAVE to remember that one!

[GOP_1900AD]

It was quite a while ago ... what I remember is all the Lefties at the time trying to make out Reagan to be a fascist based on his correct words ... a precursor, to be sure, of all those "Fascist Gun in the West" T-shirts I saw a few years later attending UCSB and living Isla Vista! Many of the perps still lived there at the time - apparently they were on the 10 year plan! ;)

[Coleus]

listen on the net
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/655430/posts

[Aquinasfan]

O'Reilly is strangely for this crap. Is he a closet demoRAT??

He's just confused about a lot of things. At least he's figured out that gangsta rap is bad.

[Nowhere Man]

Heh, I think "The Terminator's" batteries went dry and his vacuum tubes went dark. B-P

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Nowhere Man]

It was good to hear Tom McClintock speak decisively on Savage's show. So far nobody else has spoken so decisively - not Schwartzy, not the President. Something is wrong when our leaders can't take control of an upstart Mayor.

Second most thing that really bothers me about this (the first is the idea of homosexual marriages itself) is the lack of leadership from our side. "The Terminator" had his batteries pulled or maybe his mainspring wound down and he is almost silent and President Bush seems somewhat quiet. I mean they were so hot to trot to shut down Judge Roy Moore in Alabama. Whether you agree or disagree with the good judge, you got to admit they took action pretty dang fast.

[davidosborne]

I never heard him come out and say that he would "put him in jail"... what I DID hear him say was that he would have the AG "take care of it".. which IMHO is passing the buck to someone who does not have the authority to really fix the problem... the quick fix is to IMMEDIATELY remove him from office.. then have the AG look into the case.... this mayor continues to outwardly defy the rule of law... as the Gov. sits back and does NOTHING !!!

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

McClintock has no spine, he's just preaching to his choir.

Wow, chill out hyper-partisan. War's over. Incedentally that meltdown disproves the whole "Arnold supporters aren't vicious anymore like Tom supporters are" talking point. (You can finally exhale now Tamsey.)

it's very clear after watching O'Reilly tonight that he wouldn't be doing anything differently than what Arnold is currently doing.

OK.

McClintock sees the world through black and white glasses and so do many of his followers.

Hmmm, speaking of not having your facts Tempest, make those two sentiments jive. If the only thing he has is words and no power, and he's saying things that sound just like the Gov, how is he seeing things through black and white glasses? He hasn't attacked the Gov, sounds like him supposedly, yet the mention of his name makes you go non-linear. (The metaphores you've mixes here Ringo are "rose colored glasses" for optimism and "seeing the world in black and white" for closemindedness, FYI.) I honestly don't understand you guys hatred of this lowly State Senator's name, and I never did. Its one of the main reasons I defended Tom at the time, and still do when I see this. Its derrogatory comments like "preaching to his choir" that you people must understand consistently set off alarm bells for Conservatives. Exactly what is his choir and how is that different from what his detractors believe? I say conservatives because language like that obviously makes us wonder if you are that.

More importantly, Tom lost, Arnold won, what are you afraid of if the guy remains popular anyways? Is it pride because you supported him? The "I told you so's"? Those are silly reasons to take sides on given the enormous problems that face CA, and Tom is just another voice putting forth OUR ideas in this troubling time, right?

[davidosborne]

NO NO...This is what they want.... they want US to PUBLICLY endorse and accept their immoral relationship....

I for one can not accept this....

[nickcarraway]

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.

Ever hear of Roy Moore?

By the way, Gavin Newsom is the mayor of San Francisco, which is not considered a judgeship. For once it's not the judges doing it.

[nickcarraway]

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. I>

Did you notice the Supreme Court never bothered to reverse Dred Scott? They don't always get there way. At one time, thoughk, they did seem like the most responsible branch.

[davidosborne]

Judicial RESTRAINT is a basic principle that is not being applied by many judges out there..... Judges are OBLIGATED by their oath to render decisions based on the LAW enacted by the LEGISLATIVE branch.... too often this process is corrupted by judges who think its their job to tell that the laws they pass are "illegal"... or to use the more correct term "unconstitutional".. which then puts the responsibility back on US the people to force a constitutional ammendment to clarify it... thus settling the dispute betwee the judicial and legislative branches of government... why is it that WE THE PEOPLE are too scared to assert OUR authority OVER our Governnment?

David C. Osborne - Autobiography