Posted on 09/12/2008 5:45:16 PM PDT by SmithL
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who we reported earlier today had been silent on the hot-button gay marriage measure, today announced her opposition to the ban on same-sex unions.
Here's her statement, in full:
"Proposition 8 would eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. I oppose it as a matter of equality and fairness.
"The right to marry is fundamental. . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
She opposes it? Who’da thunk?
Big surprise, not. What else would you expect from a democrat?
Here in CA domestic partnerships are already recognized in California family law - they have all the rights and privileges of “married” couples. All Prop 8 says is “marriage is between a man and a woman.” If it fails, Prop 8 would change the definition of marriage and would be a disaster for the families of California.
God help us to pass Prop 8. Amen.
Heaven forbid...anything normal for Kalifornia....keep those queer votes coming in DiFi -— anything to anyone for power. The Dim Motto.
Why’d she just say “Present”? Gets her off the hook like someone else in her party ... wonder who that was ... ponder ponder ponder ....
why... why... why .... that makes several female legislators happy enough to munch on a carpet.
I’m stuned! Who woulda thought? I would more likely expect Palin to endorse obama than for this to happen.
Can she be this naive? It's like she really doesn't know what the "gay lifestyle" is like.
She’s planning on running for governor to replace Arnold so she has to start remaking her nest on the home front.
Some years ago, some states would not issue marriage licenses to mixed-race couples. In Europe they wouldn't issue a marriage license if you weren't the same religion. It goes on.
The point is, marriage is a privilege, and not a right.
The point is, marriage is a privilege, and not a right.
"Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in.", is what she wanted to tell all gun-owners.
I doubt she is bothered as much by the proposition as she is by the fact she, and tyrants like her (Bloomberg, NYC), can't impose their will- that the people even have a choice in the matter.
The purpose of having senators was to have powerful representation for your state at the federal level to thwart federal abuses. What we have today is powerful representation for 'constituentcies' and none for the 'state'. And how's that working?
Huge teacher's union, prison union, illegal aliens, liberal socialists, a budget out of control, a drop-out rate second-to-none, gangs and criminals that the prisons haven't enough room to house. To this mix, Diane feels we should add gerbil-stuffers throwing rice at each other? California would have been a much better place had these two fat-cow senators never been elected. I'm from California and I approve of this message, too.
Amen to that Saundra. My prayers join yours.
When I married the first time, in 1958, we had to have blood tests in New York State. When I married the second time, in 1986, no blood tests needed. Do they still need them in CA?
I don’t know about now, but when I got in married in California 25 years ago, they did.
I think they used to do it because of venereal disease back then, but maybe it was for a lot of other reasons.
1. STDs, of course.
2. Other inheritable diseases, like sickle-cell anemia, rubella, etc.
3. Rh factor. Certain blood types would, upon conception, create an Rh-negative child -- which was automatic death for the child. Nowadays, the test for Rh factor isn't done until pregnancy, because the condition is correctable.
With the reduced stigma against STDs -- and the lower incidence of syphilis, which was the primary STD tested for -- many (but not all) states no longer require blood tests to issue a marriage license.
Thanks for your response. I appreciate it.
I just went to her website and all that showed up was code.
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.