Getting his conservative street cred
Arnold Schwarzenegger may veto the gay marriage bill. Guess he has to do something to appear all conservative and stuff.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
September 7th, 2005 at 2:49 pm
You don’t say… hrm I wonder if he is going to take a trip to the Katrina affected areas and do some more “collateral damage”
September 7th, 2005 at 5:42 pm
Good God.
It’s this sort of thing that makes me hate the Republican party. Gun control gone wild is the sort of thing that makes me hate the Democratic Party.
Guess i’m screwed.
September 7th, 2005 at 6:58 pm
Schwarzenegger would be a fool to sign this bill. For one thing, doing so would alienate far more Republicans than it would attract Democrats to his side. For another, whatever political gain he did obtain from signing the bill would go up in smoke when the courts easily strike it down as a blatant violation of Prop 22.
September 7th, 2005 at 7:58 pm
I don’t understand why the 50 states haven’t simply passed same-sex union laws that effectively give gay couples all the important things they want, but without bothering the people who want the term “marriage” to apply to only opposite sex relationships.
Sounds like a fair deal to me.
September 7th, 2005 at 8:29 pm
For one thing, doing so would alienate far more Republicans than it would attract Democrats to his side
What are said alienated Republicans going to do? Vote for Cameho? Kick him out in the primary to allow Bill Simon to run again?
September 8th, 2005 at 12:23 am
He said he’s going to veto it:
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/07/D8CFPOB00.html
September 8th, 2005 at 4:15 am
Funny, I thought the GOP was the party that was about less interference from the .gov into people’s daily lives.
Silly me.
The faster the traditional small government/pro-business wing of the party wrests control back from the jeezo-Nazis, the happier I’ll be.
September 8th, 2005 at 10:16 am
Some kind of domestic partnership law would not just help gays, but would be a god send to same elderly people who bond together for mutual economic protection. These people are not homosexual and their relationships are a result of having no immediate family to care for them, so they care for each other. I have known many elderly people in this situation and it is unfortunate that the politics of Jesus is preventing them from a simple and humanitarian solution.
September 8th, 2005 at 11:20 am
Ben:
Yeah, because “seperate but equal” has worked so well for us in the past…
Tam:
No, no, no. The Republicans are about less interference in business (unless, by “intereference,” you mean “propping businesses up with corporate welfare,” in which case that sort of interference is okay). “Daily lives” boil down to “values,” and the .gov has a vested interest in that.
September 8th, 2005 at 7:34 pm
Wasnt the point of his veto in regard to a vote taken statewide a few years ago that outlawed CA from recognizing gay marriages in other states/countries? I’m all about marrying who the hell you want to marry but I dont want my state government to overrule its own citizens referrendums et al.
September 9th, 2005 at 12:33 am
Actually, the point of his veto was in regard to a vote taken statewide a few years ago that outlawed CA from recognizing gay marriages regardless of where they were solemnized. Had he been dumb enough to sign the bill, courts would have struck it down anyway.
September 9th, 2005 at 5:05 pm
So if an abortion ban crosses GWB’s desk, and he knows the courts are going to strike it down, he’s “dumb” to sign it? Even if he does so knowing it will be struck down but wanting to send a message of support for the idea?
September 9th, 2005 at 6:12 pm
No. Signing a blatantly unconstitutional (albeit not for the reason you think) abortion ban would be a violation of GWB’s oath of office, but it would not be dumb, as it would energize, rather than alienate, his base. By contrast, if Arnold had signed the blatantly unconstitutional gay marriage bill, he would have alienated his base, and drawn only token support from Democrats who would never like him much anyway. The fact that the bill had no chance of sticking even if he did sign it only makes matters worse: to the Repubs, it’s not just a bad bill, but an unconstitutional one to boot; to the Dems, it’s a nice token gesture but ultimately futile.
September 11th, 2005 at 10:46 pm
That makes a bit more sense; I took you to mean that signing the bill would be dumb simply because it was unconstitutional and wouldn’t stand up anyway. Which puzzled me, because I could conceive of times when knowingly signing an unconstitutional bill would send a desired message. (I had glossed over your Sept 7th comment and was looking at the one from Sept 9th)