Skip to comments.BILL SIMON'S GAY AGENDA
Posted on 08/29/2002 12:10:12 AM PDT by Rockitz
Simon Vows to Promote Statewide Gay Pride Day and Award Rights of Marriage to Gays and Other Cohabitants
Sacramento - In a shocking announcement, gubernatorial candidate Bill Simon has committed to support several components of the homosexual agenda. As published today in the San Francisco Chronicle, Simon submitted answers to a questionnaire from the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans of California. In his answers, Simon said that if elected governor, he would proclaim a statewide Gay Pride Day, empower homosexuals in the Republican Party and award additional rights of marriage to "domestic partners" and other unmarried cohabitants. The Republican candidate also said he would not repeal or modify laws signed by Governor Gray Davis to facilitate adoption of children by homosexual couples. Simon spoke about his domestic-partners plan yesterday on KGO Radio in San Francisco.
"This is such a shock," said Randy Thomasson, executive director of Campaign for California Families, a statewide nonprofit, nonpartisan family issues leadership organization. "Why has Bill Simon chosen this path? We already knew Gray Davis' record of undermining marriage and promoting the transsexual, bisexual and homosexual agenda against average families. We never would have believed that Bill Simon would sell out on this key family-values issue. But it's true."
Simon's new-found support for "domestic partnerships" and "adding rights" of marriage for unmarried couples is a contradiction of his Marriage Protection Pledge. Signed with his own hand on February 6, 2002, Simon said he would "refuse to support 'domestic partnerships,' 'civil unions,' or any kind of relationship that compares itself to the sacred bond of marriage between a man and a woman."
"Gray Davis has shown himself to be corrupt on family values, and now Simon has shown himself to be untrustworthy on some of the same vital issues," said Thomasson. "Bill Simon has put pro-family voters in a very difficult position. It's very sad that voters are left with two candidates for governor, both of whom would undermine marriage and promote the gay agenda."
In Simon's questionnaire that he submitted to the Log Cabin Republicans of California, he said as Governor he would:
Declare a statewide Gay Pride Day: "In June 2003 I will sign a proclamation declaring Gay Pride Day."
Support "domestic partnerships" and award more rights of marriage to unmarried cohabitants: "I am supportive of the concept of a domestic partnership law...I believe that any two people who fit the qualifications of the law should be able to have their relationship recognized by the state...I would not support undoing any of the rights that currently are available under the law, but I believe those rights should be extended to others as well. In addition, I would be open about adding rights and responsibilities as would be appropriate and justified...I do believe that human beings enter into relationships with other human beings and that some of those relationships are deserving of recognition...in order to allow two individuals who have established a strong caring relationship to more fully function within that relationship."
Empower homosexual activists within the California Republican Party: "I support the continued recognition and involvement of gay Republicans in state party activities...I would back a state party charter for the Log Cabin (Republicans) of California."
Simon's new-found gay agenda is especially surprising given the history of another statewide Republican candidate who signed a pledge to support the gay agenda four years ago. Nine days before he lost to Barbara Boxer in the 1998 U.S. Senate race, Matt Fong signed a pledge to support much of the agenda of the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans. Fong's campaign consultant, Sal Russo, is also the main consultant for Bill Simon.
Campaign for California Families has tracked how the Governor and individual legislators have voted on the protection of marriage. While Bill Simon has signed the Marriage Protection Pledge -- and broken his pledge -- Governor Gray Davis has refused to pledge to protect marriage. This isn't surprising given Davis' record. Over the last three years, Governor Davis has signed into law major pieces of legislation that undermine marriage. This year, Davis promised gay activists that he would try to bring "civil unions" (Vermont-style homosexual marriage) to California.
In 1999, Davis signed AB 26, which established a statewide "domestic partners" registry and required taxpayers to fund marriage-equivalent benefits for homosexual partners of state employees.
In 2001, Davis signed AB 25, which awarded over a dozen rights of marriage to homosexual "domestic partners."
In 2002, Davis signed two bills, AB 1330 and AB 1684, which awarded additional marriage and family rights to a segment of state employees' "domestic partners." In addition, the Governor has established a special task force to review how to enact a "civil union" law to bring Vermont-style homosexual marriage to California.
CAMPAIGN FOR CALIFORNIA FAMILIES (CCF) is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, nonpartisan grassroots lobbying organization serving families in this state and across America. Sign up today for CCF's free email updates. Your partnership empowers CCF to work to restore family-friendly values to government and society. Please join with us by sending a gift of any size to:
Campaign for California Families Fighting to Restore Family-Friendly Values P.O. Box 782, Sacramento, CA 95812 (916) 443-1410 www.savecalifornia.com
One hundred percent of CCF's resources can be used to boldly influence government on your family's behalf, therefore gifts are not tax deductible.
Oh Sh.t! If this is true, Simon is a buffoon.
Go back to DU, punk.
au contrare! Marriages originated as a covenant between a man and a woman. Renaming something doesn't change it.
What justification do you have for stripping people of their free will to join a contract?
No one has stripped you of the right to contract.
Free will is one of the foundations of all western, republican (small R) freedoms. So I ask a very basic question: why ought we to restrict this very basic and very precious freedom? Is there a justification?
I thought you were talking contracts? How is free will violated?