Schwarzenegger vetoes gay marriage bill

MSNBC ^ | AP

[A CA Guy]

He stood behind the vote of the people in the voting both over the few in the California leglislature. Good for him, great for us.

[jerri]

AB 2208, sponsored by Assemblywoman Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, will compel insurance companies to treat domestic partners the same as married spouses for health, life, auto, renters and homeowners insurance policies. Before, insurers were only required to offer domestic partners coverage equivalent to a dependent.

Does that mean non-gay partners get the same benefits? Or does it just benefit gays?

[Carry_Okie]

I would assume it means anyone under a domestic partners agreement.

[ElkGroveDan]

"...California voters will get the chance to say NO to the Left here next June by enshrining a ban on same sex marriage into the State Constitution. ..."

http://protectmarriage.com/home/default.aspx

[SQUID]

Well, don't get me wrong...I do think there are good people in this world, but sometimes...damn. Just damn.

I live in a major city and after several years of living here I still don't know my neighbors. I try to acknowledge them and people actually make eye contact with me which prompts me to say hello or good morning etc, but nothing back. They were simply observing me like I had two heads. They don't want to know me; they want to see how they can avoid me or what I was wearing.

Strange times. In a city so large it is very possible to feel as if you are in the biggest desert on earth. Maybe it's a city thing.

[DBeers]

My view is that we're all better off supporting partnering up of couples.

I've ranted several times that homosexuals should adopt traditional heterosexual courtship activities and values.

Homosexuals are disordered -homosexual activities depraved -there is no 'traditional' heterosexual activity in regards to homosexuality -such thinking is the thinking of homosexual activists -promoting such is promoting the homosexualization of society.

Your view is not welcome to be debated or argued here either objectively or suureptitiously -kindly cease and desist your homosexual cheerleading from the "sidelines".

What Free Republic is all about:

Statement by the founder of Free Republic

As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.

Free Republic is private property. It is not a government project, nor is it funded by government or taxpayer money. We are not a publicly owned entity nor are we an IRS tax-free non-profit organization. We pay all applicable taxes on our income. We are not connected to or funded by any political party, news agency, or any other entity. We sell no merchandise, product or service, and we offer no subscriptions or paid memberships. We accept no paid advertising or promotions. We are funded solely by donations (non tax deductible gifts) from our readers and participants.

We aggressively defend our God-given and first amendment guaranteed rights to free speech, free press, free religion, and freedom of association, as well as our constitutional right to control the use and content of our own personal private property. Despite the wailing of the liberal trolls and other doom & gloom naysayers, we feel no compelling need to allow them a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum. Free Republic is not a liberal debating society. We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of life.

[beltfed308]

"We are extremely disappointed with the governor's decision," he said. "By denying us marriage equality he has turned a back to our community."

Thats ok I would not turn my back to you either.

[Arizona Carolyn]

And Hollywierd will throw millions and millions of dollars into defeating his re-election next year. He stands in the way of the far-left, move-on-Soros, agenda.

[calcowgirl]

He KNOWS it's gonna be in the courts, he didn't say he liked that, he merely stated the obvious.

What he said:

http://www.governor.ca.gov/govsite/pdf/vetoes_2005/AB_849_veto.pdf

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 849 without my signature because I do not believe the Legislature can reverse an initiative approved by the people of California.

I am proud California is a leader in recognizing and respecting domestic partnerships and the equal rights of domestic partners. I believe that lesbian and gay couples are entitled to full protection under the law and should not be discriminated against based upon their relationships. I support current domestic partnership rights and will continue to vigorously defend and enforce these rights and as such will not support any rollback.

California Family Code Section 308.5 was enacted by an initiative statute passed by the voters as Proposition 22 in 2000. Article II, section 10 of the California Constitution prohibits the Legislature from amending this initiative statute without a vote of the people. This bill does not provide for such a vote.

The ultimate issue regarding the constitutionality of section 308.5 and its prohibition against same-sex marriage is currently before the Court of Appeal in San Francisco and will likely be decided by the Supreme Court.

This bill simply adds confusion to a constitutional issue. If the ban of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, this bill is not necessary. If the ban is constitutional, this bill is ineffective.

Sincerely,
Arnold Schwarzenegger

[calcowgirl]

Yep--anyone registered as being in a domestic partnership, which includes heterosexual seniors (over 62).

http://www.ss.ca.gov/dpregistry/dp_faqs.htm

How do I register a domestic partnership with the State of California?

If you and your partner are of the same sex, or if you and your partner are opposite sexes and one partner is at least 62 years old, then you may be eligible to register a domestic partnership with the Secretary of State. You may register by completing a Declaration of Domestic Partnership, having both partners' signatures notarized, and submitting it with the appropriate fee to the Secretary of State.

(snip)

[Mister Baredog]

Are you a life long resident? I'm a 3/5'er myself, in the Bay Area.

Born in Sacramento in 1946.

Woodside High Class of 64.

Living in LA since 1969.

I did live out of state a couple of times 54-58, and 64-69.

What's a 3/5'er?

BTW our new wonderboy LA mayor can't seem to find enuf money for all his great ideas for us, smells like new taxes to me here locally, sadly.

[Dustbunny]

Schwarzenegger vetoes gay marriage bill

Excellent, finally a Governor that is doing the will of the majority.

[NormsRevenge]

I'm 50 , been in California for almost 30 years... spent a couple years back in Minnesota after a stint in Marines, then settled here since, mostly in the South Bay
Area

[Mister Baredog]

I'm 50 , been in California for almost 30 years...

I enjoyed a trip down your FReeper homepage, thanks, nice one.

[Albion Wilde]

If the ban of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional this bill is not necessary. If the ban is constitutional this bill is ineffective.

He placed the issue on the proper Constitutional footing.

[Albion Wilde]

My view is that we're all better off supporting partnering up of couples.

This is an issue that should not be compromised. Gay marriage and gay civil unions are both bogus. The real intention is a government stamp of approval and protected minority status on homosexual behavior. The next step is about lowering any barriers to children, including the age of sexual consent. Gay agenda groups are outspoken about wanting no age restrictions whatsoever, with all the force of law "behind" complete freedom not only to indoctrinate schoolchildren, but to seduce children of any age.

The Kinsey studies on which they based much of their nonsense have been proven false, but the media ignore that inconvenient fact; what many Americans do not realize is that Kinsey had perverts stimulating toddlers and infants for hours and days at a time to "prove" that they are sexual from birth. Do not buy the gay agenda. It is a trojan horse.

[Old_Mil]

Good job, Governor.

With the way things have been going in the courts, do you think it's more appropriate to call it "judicial terrorism" instead of "judicial activism"?

[freekitty]

He should want to leave it up to the people; not the courts.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

"Ah-nold: bringing the pain to the girly (literally) men."

And he weeshes you a Merry Chreestmas. "If the girly men don't like it, they can SUE me!"

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

The divorce rate of men-'marrying'-men is astoundingly high. Frankly, why not annul? Consummation is absolutely impossible, without the proper plumming.