Petitions ARE Available NOW!!!
Click the badge below FoR more info
Posted on 10/01/2005 9:53:58 PM PDT by calcowgirl
Ping! This article is loaded with various subjects.
The governor said public attitudes about same-sex marriage might well have changed in the five years since Proposition 22 was approved with 61 percent of the vote. One public opinion poll recently suggested that Californians were evenly split on the issue.
"If they go back to the people, it could easily be that it will win, that it will pass, that we will have marriage amongst gay couples," Schwarzenegger said.
He did not respond directly when asked what position he would take if an initiative to legalize same-sex marriage were placed on the ballot.
"I personally think that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. But I think a gay couple should have all the rights that a marriage has," he told the Union-Tribune editorial board, which regularly hosts newsmakers to discuss current events and invites reporters and editors from the newsroom.
"Schwarzenegger also caused a stir in April for saying the United States should "close" the border. The Austrian immigrant governor quickly said that this was a misstatement because of language problems and that he meant to say "secure" the border. "
===
So how come people around here aren't giving Arnold credit for his support of the Minutemen and his views on illegal immigration and border security?
He is trying so desperately not to dis-please anyone... And he is failing miserably!!!
Asked how he voted on Proposition 22, Schwarzenegger, who has resisted expressing a personal opinion about same-sex marriage, hesitatedand then said he "probably voted for it."
This is something he actually did.
No matter how he softened it, he still vetoed the same sex marriage bill, and drivers' licenses for illegals.
Can you honestly say if you were facing re-election that you wouldn't soften your statements, while letting your actions speak louder?
Good point.
Did you miss the FACT that Arnold VETOED the homosexual marriage bill? You seem to be so focused on trying to make it sound, as if he were supporting it.
I just posted my post 10, before reading your post.
Sounds like it's "here y'all go again time" --- Arnold detractors will NEVER give him credit.
Ha! Both just stating the obvious.
What is with yours and others obsession here on FR to stifle all dissent and run what oft times appear little more than a cheerleading operation from your own side of the gym?
If we aren't constantly praising your guy like you, you make it out like we are the ones running FR off into the moderate weeds in the ditch, while your guy can rarely do wrong in your eyes.
We're only a few (actually,quite a few it seems) that are trying to critically examine the mess we are in and make both sides of offered reforms and their potential effects available for all to review and decide on their own.
If I want fluff and a back-slapping thread, I'll check one of yours out, they're usually good for a few.
If I want meat, calcowgirl among many others serves up meat and potatos and cold beer, no poms poms.
Arnold detractors will NEVER give him credit.
lol.. That is bullpoop and you know it, shame on you for using such absolute statements like that, he has gotten credit but it's like some here think it has to be part of a mantra that all here have to repeat over and over or they're not with it.
No, I didn't miss it. In fact, I posted an article on it. But I am also watching what else he does. On the same day, he signed 6 other pieces of Pro-GLBT legislation, handing over yet more rights to homosexuals. I am one of those who believes that the people, by passing Proposition 22, opposed not only Marriage in Name, but Marriage in context of the benefits and incentives that society has granted it.
As such, I see Arnold's announcements that he believes homosexuals should have all the rights of married people as something to note.
Arnold is almost begging the GLBT activists to put this back on the ballot. He also has been sitting on a Supreme Court appointment for an inordinately long period of time. He has said he won't make the appointment until after the election--more politics! My guess is that the appointment will be pro-homosexual marriage, carefully masked from public record.
I conclude from your posts that you are like NewzJunkey in supporting Arnold's position that homosexual's should have all the same rights and opportunities of married people?
In all fairness, for a man who doesn't even remember how he voted relative to a very contentious subject, I find the inclusion of the word "probably" in his response substantial enough to question the accuracy of his statement.
Regarding the Veto, that was a good step. But that is not the end of the issue. I am interested as to where we go from here. His comments are not encouraging. See also post above.
"you make it out like we are the ones running FR off into the moderate weeds in the ditch"
====
Well, you all DO keep trying to get Democrats elected in CA and defeat propositions, which would help reform CA...
Even McClintock is giving strong support to Arnold and the propositions, because he recognizes that it's good for California.
But the "dissenting vocal few" is even willing to be viciously against spending cuts, which they were advocating before, just to defeat Arnold's agenda, never mind, that it will also seriously harm California.
He remembers. He didn't lie and say didn't vote for the ban. He softened it, like a politician running for re-election.
Norman, Norman, Norman... there ARE a few here who NEVER give him credit, but you're not one of them.
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.