Davis signs law giving domestic partners most marriage rights (California gay marriage?)

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 9/19/03 | LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer

[MikalM]

Sealing his reputation as one of the nation's most gay-friendly governors, California Gov. Gray Davis signed a domestic partner bill Friday night granting same-sex couples nearly all the same rights and responsibilities as married spouses.

"I am strongly committed to extending human rights and equal rights to everyone. A family is a family not because of gender but because of values, like commitment, trust and love," Davis said before he put pen to paper amid cheers and applause from the standing-room only crowd.

[RGSpincich]

Did McClintock vote against the Domestic Partners Bill when he was given the opportunity to do so on August 28, 2003?
Hint: No.
So much for principle.

[FairOpinion]

"Did McClintock vote against the Domestic Partners Bill when he was given the opportunity to do so on August 28, 2003?
Hint: No.
So much for principle. "

====

I didn't know that. Do the McClintock supporters who are happily bashing Arnold know this? Be sure to post it again, looks like your post was at the end of the thread.

[Carry_Okie]

Vicious spin. His vote on the floor would have accomplished nothing. He wasn't there because he was campaigning to put himself into a position to do something about it. He chose to be as effective as possible.

That's principle. No wonder you don't recognize it.

[RGSpincich]

Only Tom McClintock will stand up for traditional marriage as God intended it to be !!!

Good old Tom stood up for good old Tom the day they voted in the Senate on the Domestic Partners Bill. Not even a token NO vote. He decided to go campaigning for himself that day and he missed the vote.

[DoctorMichael]

If-I-go-down-I'm-taking-the-State-with-me Bump.

[RGSpincich]

Do the McClintock supporters who are happily bashing Arnold know this?

Oh yeah, they know know it. Watch them howl at me about it not mattering if McClintock voted on that bill because he had no chance of winning. Can you believe the hypocrisy?

[RGSpincich]

Fouteen other Senators had the will to stand up and vote against the Davis/Bustamante machine.

[FairOpinion]

Do you know the bill's no. in the Senate? I tried to find it by searching at the CA senate site, but couldn't find it.

I'd like to post it as a separate item, if I can find the link, so they can't avoid facing it.

Here they are bashing Arnold about things he can't do anything about, while the "principled conservative" McC didn't even lift a finger to try to defeat it, and vote on it, "for the principle" at least.

[RGSpincich]

AB 205

It's AB 205. Several of his supporters have called his office to verify that he did miss the vote. They report that he was campaigning that day.

[FairOpinion]

It's AB 205.

==

Thanks. Watch for my thread starter post later today. I'll ping you. I've got to run, but I am definitely going to start a thread with it.

[ElkGroveDan]

This is just another example that we need to get rid of Davis (and Bustamante) NOW. We can't afford 3 or 7 more years of this, as the McC supporters seem to think that we should elect Bustamante, so he can destroy CA, then elect McC.

No. The McClintock supporters don't want to elect him in 3-7 years. We want to elect him now. Besides we haven't heard nary a peep out of Arnold over this abomination...and we're NOT going to either.

[ElkGroveDan]

I fail to see how this bill harms heterosexuals in any way. We can go on living our private lives as we have, and the gay crowd can live theirs without some of the hassles that have attended that condition. In short, a win-win situation.

Well that's going on now anyway. But when the state steps in a sanctions behavior casued by a mental illness then we have a problem. These people are depraved, sick sinners. If we really wanted to help them we'd go back to offering them therapy and helping them end their sickness which we used to do until it became un-PC.

Next thing the State of California will start providing free booze to alcoholics in the name of civil rights.

[per loin]

Depraved, sick sinners? Some folks think so, others don't. But as we are not ruled by the Taleban, such judgements are made on a private rather than on a state level.

[ElkGroveDan]

Depraved, sick sinners? Some folks think so, others don't. But as we are not ruled by the Taleban, such judgements are made on a private rather than on a state level.

So says you, but the state is already in the business of licensing marriages. Should the state then drop ALL marital restrictions and give sanction to marriages based on pedophilia, polygamy, incest and bestiality? Of course not.

6000 years of civilization has built the basic rules for civilized society that have worked quite well for the Western World.

Is the state to now facilitate the lifestyles of EVERYONE with a mental illness or behavioral disease?

There's a lot of evidence that alcoholics are born with that disorder. Are we to encourage them to quit fighing the destructive behavior and instead "celebrate" it?

Should we teach our children that alcoholism is a normal lifestyle? All we need to do is to get the medical professionals to look the other way and purge the literature of any references to alcoholism as destructive or unhealthy. It's already been done once with the other behavioral disorder. A bit of political muscle will surely do the trick.

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

By 2006, will there be much left?

In the way of a tax base, no.

But there will be plenty of Mexicans.

[per loin]

Some of those who drink are going to become alcoholics. So it goes. What you teach your children about that is your own business, not mine. If you wish to teach them that "alcoholism is a normal lifestyle", I'd say you were making a stupid mistake, but in a free country people get to make stupid mistakes. We learned already that prohibition does little but push vast numbers of people into the outlaw class.

[man of Yosemite]

And they think we want him out for partisan reasons, somehow attempting to steal an election. How about, he's just a plain idiot.

[LisaAnne]

California is a community property state..

[ElkGroveDan]

What you teach your children about that is your own business, not mine. If you wish to teach them that "alcoholism is a normal lifestyle", I'd say you were making a stupid mistake, but in a free country people get to make stupid mistakes.

Unfortunately in our country such stupid mistakes have become part of the educational code thanks to the political power that the liberals have bestowed upon the people who suffer from that disorder.

I never suggested a "prohibition" of their perversion. It's not possible. But wouldn't it be a great idea to have public service announcements and warning lables on the tools of their trade as to how dangerous that lifestyle is like we do with alcohol? Unfortunately that group and our society are in severe denial of the dangers of not treating their sickness. If a self-help group ever popped up to encourage a sober lifestyle from thir perversion they would be drummed out of the community as a hate group. The PC nonsense continues.

[per loin]

If individuals or groups wish to inveigh against gays, alcoholics, or any other "lifestyle", that's their decision and their right. PC only works against those too cowardly to speak what they believe.