Trifecta–Government Vs. The People

gagged_med

Trifecta–All 3 Branches of Government Vs. The Voice of the People

Internal Rot in California’s Political System Causes Alarm

In a day that is rife with the riotous angst, protests and sometimes violence, supporters of the marriage amendment are being targeted not only by their political opponents, but also by their elected leadership.

At first it seemed that only the State Judiciary had hijacked the will of the people, a mere four “activist judges”, we were told.  But this week has shown us that this is now an effort from all three branches of government.  Where are the systems of checks and balances if every voice is against the people?  The government is supposed to represent the voice of the people.  Why is it that all three branches of California’s government are in open rebellion to the will of the majority of Californians regarding marriage?

On November 4th, Californians voiced their vote on the definition of marriage clearly.  In an election that boasts an incredible voter turnout, a clear majority of the voters reaffirmed their declaration in 2000 that

“only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

schwarzenegger_int_1221

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

As it stands today, all three branches of government have come out against the will of the people as expressed in not only this election, but TWO general elections.

1. Executive— Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is sworn by his oath of office to uphold the rule of law and the constitution in protecting the will of the people,  on Sunday expressed hope that the California Supreme Court would overturn Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that outlawed same-sex marriage. He also predicted that the 18,000 gay and lesbian couples who have already wed would not see their marriages nullified by the initiative.

“It’s unfortunate, obviously, but it’s not the end,” Schwarzenegger said in an interview Sunday on CNN. “I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area.”

2. Legislative–44 State Legislators, elected by the voice of the people, have filed an amicus brief in an effort to overturn the will of the people before the California State Supreme Court.  These elected representatives have also sworn to uphold the law and the will of the people.  These are the names of the 44 State Legislators who signed the brief in open rebellion against 52% of California’s voters:

1. Senate President Pro Tempore Don Perata
2. Senate President Pro Tempore-elect Darrell Steinberg
3. Speaker of the Assembly Karen Bass,
4. Assembly Speaker Emeritus Fabian Nunez
5. Senator Ron Calderon
6. Senator Gilbert Cedillo
7. Senator Ellen Corbett
8. Senator Christine Kehoe
9. Senator Sheila Kuehl
10. Senator Alan S. Lowenthal
11. Senator Carole Migden
12. Senator Alex Padilla
13. Senator Mark Ridley-Thomas
14. Senator Gloria Romero
15. Senator Patricia Wiggins
16. Assemblymember Jim Beall, Jr.
17. Assemblymember Patty Berg
18. Assemblymember Julia Brownley
19. Assemblymember Anna M. Caballero
20. Assemblymember Charles Calderon
21. Assemblymember Joe Coto
22. Assemblymember Kevin de Leon
23. Assemblymember MarkDeSaulnier
24. Assemblymember Mike Eng
25. Assemblymember Noreen Evans
26. Assemblymember Mike Feuer
27. Assemblymember Felipe Fuentes
28. Assemblymember Loni Hancock
29. Assemblymember Mary Hayashi
30. Assemblymember Edward P. Hernandez
31. Assemblymember Jared Huffman
32. Assemblymember Dave Jones
33. Assemblymember Betty Karnette
34. Assemblymember Paul Krekorian
35. Assemblymember John Laird
36. Assemblymember Mark Leno
37. Assemblymember Lloyd E. Levine
38. Assemblymember Sally J. Lieber
39. Assemblymember Fiona Ma
40. Assemblymember Anthony J. Portantino
41. Assemblymember Lori Saldana
42. Assemblymember Jose Solorio
43. Assemblymember Sandre R. Swanson
44. Assemblymember Lois Wolk

3. Judicial–4 activist judges, Ronald George, Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar and Carlos Moreno, overturned the will of the people that marriage was between a man and a woman, voiced in 2000.  Their decision allowed same sex couples to be married.  Now that Proposition 8 has passed, with the same wording as back in 2000, these same judges will hear the case again and have the chance to again determine whether or not the will of the people will be heard.

Gay Marriage

Ted Costa: State high court throwing out Prop. 8 sure to lead to recall effort

November 11, 2008

The California Supreme Court’s surprising announcement that it will quickly review the legality of Proposition 8, banning gay marriage, has prompted growing speculation that the four judges who found a right to gay marriage in the state Constitution in a May ruling will quickly throw Prop. 8 out. If that happens, watch out for a “barn-burner of an election — the biggest thing this state has ever seen,” says recall election guru Ted Costa.

Costa says he’s already been contacted by some of the folks who would seek to recall Ronald George, Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar and Carlos Moreno if Prop. 8 is scrapped. He thinks it’s premature and risky because talk of a recall “would just (bleep) off the judges.”

Costa also doesn’t sound like he’s too thrilled about such a recall, saying it wouldn’t be “healthy.” Citing all the financial turmoil in California, he said, “If someone’s going to do some recalling, that should be the focus.”

But Costa sounds certain such a recall would happen and agreed that it would be no problem at all for gay marriage opponents to quickly gather the signatures of 12 percent of the electorate to force a recall election targeting George, Kennard, Werdegar and Moreno. He said supporters of Prop. 8 such as the Knights of Columbus, the Mormon Church and other traditional religious groups all had “massive” resources to bring to bear.

He doesn’t think the state Supreme Court will overturn Prop. 8. “I gotta believe they’ll uphold the initiative process.” But if the four justices do, Costa says expect an amazing spectacle.

I agree. I think literally hundreds of millions of dollars would be spent on the recall. Gay marriage opponents see Prop. 8 as akin to a last stand preventing a global movement toward acceptance of gay marriage and will go all out. Gay marriage supporters, for their part, will no longer accept incremental progress or “civil unions.”

This rot in the system, this open disregard for the will of the people must be rooted out. Many of these people are serving the people in elected positions of power, granted to them in trust.  When leaders come to power that cannot be trusted, they must be removed.

Call to action:

Tell Gov. Schwarzenegger to Defend Prop 8 Marriage Decision, Urge Him to Fulfill His Oath of Office by Defending the People’s Decision on Marriage

Since Election Day, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) has made statements supporting demonstrations against Proposition 8, and urging California ‘s Supreme Court to block the amendment’s enforcement.

The governor’s post-election behavior has been completely inappropriate for the State’s highest official. He has acted contrary to the rule of law and has helped foment an environment of lawlessness (one protest produced 15 arrests), intimidation, and racism. Condoning street protests and supporting judicial activist scams to overturn a popularly approved state constitutional amendment approaches advocacy of anarchy. Gov. Schwarzenegger is playing a dangerous game, and it needs to stop. Now.

Please express the following concerns when you contact Gov. Schwarzenegger directly:

  • He is required to fulfill his oath of office which demands that he “support and defend” and “bear true faith and allegiance” to the California Constitution – which now defines marriage traditionally.
  • He needs to publicly accept the results of the ballot initiative as the will of the people even as he reminds Proposition 8 opponents that they can seek another outcome in the future by electoral means.
  • The governor needs to publicly recant any suggestion that the California courts manipulate the law to reach his desired political outcome.
  • Finally, Gov. Schwarzenegger condemn the recent assault on the First Amendment rights of California’s churchgoers – most notably Mormons, Catholics, and evangelicals – and use his law enforcement powers to protect parishioners and church facilities from trespassing, disruption, and violence.”

Click here to Contact California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Urge Him to Fulfill His Oath of Office by Defending the People’s Decision on Marriage

Advertisements

36 Comments

  1. Troy said,

    November 14, 2008 at 2:10 am

    Govenor Schwarzenegger,

    It has come to my attention that you as the governor have not been fulfilling what I believe to be the purpose of the executive branch in California recently regarding Proposition 8 that was passed by the voice of the people. Specifically you are not fulfilling your oath of office which demands that you “support and defend” and “bear true faith and allegiance” to the California Constitution – which now defines marriage traditionally. Words like the following from a recent CNN interview do not express allegiance or support for the Constitution that you swore to defend:

    “It’s unfortunate, obviously, but it’s not the end,” he said about the same-sex marriage ban. “I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area.”

    Urging the judicial branch to go against the constitution is the opposite of your sworn duty. If you can not do this, I respectfully ask you to step down from your position so that someone else can.

    As you are no doubt aware, there has been quite a bit of hate shown by those against proposition 8 resulting in numerous hate crimes. Your comment, to these people was, “I learned that you should never, ever give up. . . . They should never give up. They should be on it and on it until they get it done.” This is basically just encouraging those who defy the rule of law in their protests against prop 8. As the executive officer of the state, you need to make a stand to make it clear that you will support and defend the constitution and that there is a democratic process in place that can be used by those in opposition to prop 8 to overturn the recent decision through another vote.

    Stop supporting anarchy and going against the constitution you swore to protect and start doing your job.

  2. beetlebabee said,

    November 14, 2008 at 2:28 am

    Even Elton gets it:

    Elton John: Heterosexual Couples Have Marriage, Same-Sex Couples Have Civil Partnerships

    USA Today published an article yesterday in which Sir Elton John spoke about his position on Proposition 8. John clarified his position on Prop 8 while attending the annual benefit for the Elton John AIDS Foundation. He was accompanied by his longtime partner David Furnish, whom he joined in a civil union in 2005. John was quoted as saying, “We’re not married. Let’s get that right. We have a civil partnership. What is wrong with Proposition 8 is that they went for marriage. Marriage is going to put a lot of people off, the word marriage.”

    John went on to emphasize that civil unions grant same-sex couples the same rights afforded to married heterosexual couples. He stated, “I don’t want to be married. I’m very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership…the word marriage, I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships.”

    http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2008-11-12-elton-john_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

  3. Bronson Page said,

    November 14, 2008 at 12:02 pm

    “Prop 8 was not your typical “amendment” that merely tinkers with the California Constitution. It was a drastic revision that deprives a “suspect class” (gays and lesbians) of a fundamental right under equal protection. And a simple majority vote of the people is not enough to take that right away – especially when the purpose of equal protection is to shield minorities. While other courts have upheld marriage amendments in other states, they have different Constitutions – and court rulings have changed considerably in a short period of time. And unlike many states, California has explicitly found sexual orientation to be a ‘suspect class.'” – SF City Attorney Dennis Herrera

    If Schwarzenegger terminates Prop 8, he IS doing his job. It’s called equality people. Turn the tables and think about it for a miniute.

  4. Bronson Page said,

    November 14, 2008 at 12:02 pm

    P.S. And Elton John is by no means representative of the population, and is no role model.

  5. beetlebabee said,

    November 14, 2008 at 12:37 pm

    I’m not sure it can be called a drastic revision, since it’s only affirming what has always been understood in this state.

  6. beetlebabee said,

    November 14, 2008 at 12:39 pm

    Honestly, for my friends on the other side of this issue, forcing this on the people by the courts didn’t make you any friends the first time, and I cannot imagine the reaction if the same court dares do it again.

    Why is Elton John’s position wrong in your view? It seems quite reasonable to me actually.

  7. mommyspy said,

    November 14, 2008 at 1:45 pm

    Bronson, I have thought about it for a long time. There is more to the equation than just equal rights and hate. It is shallow thinking to portray so many voters as knee jerk homophobes and haters. The consequences of redefining marriage are many and are such that I cannot support it. Those that support traditional marriage do so for well thought out reasons. To simplify the issue as one of hate is simplistic.

  8. Will said,

    November 14, 2008 at 2:07 pm

    Beetle, thank you for blogging about this. I wish I had more to contribute than to say good job, but I’ll say it anyway.

  9. waltzinexile said,

    November 14, 2008 at 3:04 pm

    All Bronson is trying to say is that just because it’s okay with Elton John doesn’t mean the rest of us have to believe that. Elton John is speaking for himself and his partner; he can’t speak for the entire gay population any more than you can speak for all straight people. No one said Elton John was wrong, merely that he is not representative of all gay people. Elton John is within his rights to accept or even embrace your definition of marriage, but he’s not the Pied Piper and those of us who oppose Prop 8 aren’t required to fall in line behind him.
    And mommyspy, when you state that “those that support traditional marriage do so for well thought out reasons” the implication (whether or not intended) is that those of us who support marriage equality just haven’t thought it through.

  10. MommyCatz said,

    November 14, 2008 at 3:59 pm

    Waltz,
    I agree 100% with mommyspy. The anti-prop 8 group loves to wave their flag of intolerance, wanting to believe 52% of California are homo-phobes and haters. This issue has nothing to do with these accusations, and in fact is very involved and includes many factors. If you refuse to address those issues, and constantly resort to the same rhetoric, it does show that you are not thinking it through, but merely reacting and paroting. In reality, anyone looking at current events can see who exactly is hateful. Just look around you.

  11. waltzinexile said,

    November 14, 2008 at 4:49 pm

    MommyCatz, Let me rephrase. I’ll use mommyspy’s logic structure since you appreciated it more than mine.
    I have thought about it for a long time. There is more to the equation than just equal rights and hate. It is shallow thinking to portray so many protesters as knee jerk anti-Christians and haters. The consequences of not redefining marriage are many and are such that I cannot not support it. Those who support marriage equality do so for well thought out reasons. To simplify the issue as one of hate is simplistic.
    Does this help? Can you see my point now?

  12. beetlebabee said,

    November 14, 2008 at 5:00 pm

    Good grief waltz, did you not see the pictures and the signs they were holding at their “protests”? You can hardly retain credibility if you’re going to say that there is any way that people’s actions here are at all equal to those happening out there.

  13. waltzinexile said,

    November 14, 2008 at 5:29 pm

    The pictures and signs that you refer to are not the only pictures and signs that are there is what I’m saying. The media coverage of these protests naturally focuses on the most controversial signage; you’re completely ignoring the existence of many peaceful protesters who are neither anti-religion, nor spouting hate, simply marching for what they believe in.
    And do you really think that I believe for one second that you respected me as “credible” prior to this? While I appreciate not being consigned to the aforementioned “patented “Beetle Spam” filter”, it’s disingenuous to pretend you ever viewed my opposition as “credible.”

  14. MommyCatz said,

    November 14, 2008 at 5:33 pm

    Same goes for you, Waltz. Same to you.

  15. Clay A. Sacramento said,

    November 14, 2008 at 6:11 pm

    The text of my letter to the governor. I will fax AND mail this. The text of the governors press release regarding the AB 849 veto includes the telegraphed statement:

    “The Governor believes the matter should be determined not by legislative action – which would be unconstitutional – but by court decision or another vote of the people of our state.” ( http://gov.ca.gov/press-release/1443/ ) Which is unfortunate because it suggests the later May 16,2008 Supreme court action. From my perspective, the will of the people supersedes the court.

    Honorable Governor,

    We the people have now voted twice to protect the institution of Marriage.

    We live in a democratic republic, which according to Benjamin Franklin, will require elected representatives with high degree of morality, and integrity to succeed. When the will of the people can be overturned by a court or a judge, we lose the very foundation of our democracy.

    The time for validation of a proposition is BEFORE the people vote, not after. Voiding Proposition 8 means voiding the will of the voters of the State of California, of which you are a sworn officer.

    In 2005 you vetoed AB 849 that would essentially overturn Proposition 22, which won by the voice of the people of California. In response to the veto you stated, “We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote. Out of respect for the will of the people, the Governor will veto AB 849.”

    Please honor your word and stop this attempt to void Proposition 8. The people voted twice.

    (Clay A.)

  16. lee said,

    November 14, 2008 at 8:06 pm

    waltz,

    i’d be interested to hear your logic when it regards childrens’ rights to a mom and a dad.

    also your thoughts on “marriage” being inherently discriminating because it is a social privilege.
    so if we open the definition, how can we not say that brothers and sisters could get married? don’t they deserve “equality”

  17. Woman on the Street said,

    November 14, 2008 at 8:43 pm

    This is a letter that I just wrote to the Govenor:

    I am writing to remind the Governor that he was elected to represent the will of the people and the people have spoken TWICE, with proposition 22 and now proposition 8, in voting for marriage as only between a man and a woman. I do not think that it is a public officials job to encourage the supreme court to overturn something as clear cut as prop 8. Proposition 8 not about gay hate, it’s about preserving a tradition that is thousands of years old and is practiced world wide regardless of religion. Please do not alienate my support by taking the no on 8’s side when the will of the people was legally upheld by the voting process. No on 8 supporters have been using ugly scare tactics, vandalism and hate to try and pressure the public who supported prop 8. I am alarmed that you would stand up with these people and condone their actions by calling for the supreme court to overturn the will of the people to appease them. Please remember that you were elected to uphold the law, not to encourage legislative meddling to get the result you want. In 2005 you upheld the will of the people by supporting those who voted in majority to pass prop 22. I really hope you can see that prop 8 was campaigned for on both sides, one side had to lose. And the no on 8 lost. Please don’t support their hail mary efforts. Heterosexuals have marriage. Homosexuals have civil unions. Same rights, different names, because they are different.

    Signed,
    SM

  18. Woman on the Street said,

    November 14, 2008 at 8:47 pm

    How did waltzinexile get back on here… he couldn’t even be honest enough to post as himself. He had to post as several people to “back up” his positions. Very sad indeed.

  19. WaltzInExile said,

    November 14, 2008 at 8:49 pm

    Lee,
    My logic on children’s rights to a mother and father? Setting aside your begging the question (as we have not established that a child does have such a right), I would say that logic is used to draw conclusions from premises, not to state facts. Fact: (not conclusion): every human being has a mother and father.
    Re: marriage being a social privilege, you’re again begging the question. It has not been established that marriage is a privilege.
    Re: opening the question, every state in the union currently prohibits sibling marriage. This is a slippery slope argument that is not germane in the least to the question of two consenting adults of the same sex who are not related to one another seeking marriage rights afforded to mixed sex couples.

  20. WaltzInExile said,

    November 14, 2008 at 8:50 pm

    Woman on the Street,
    I think you’re confusing me with Duane.

  21. Carl said,

    November 15, 2008 at 10:46 am

    Sir Elton John has billions of dollars and does not represent our homosexual community. Civil Unions in Europe are not the same as in the United States, They offer far more equal rights than ours in the States. The institution of marriage has been Redefined many, many times and this time is not an exception. People that are for Prop 8 will still have their religious ceremonies and TRUST me, No homosexual wants to get marry in a church that promotes hate and inequality. All we are looking for is for the right to LEGALLY not Religiously get marry. Millions of people in our nation will protest today to really make the voice of the people be heard. Stop promoting hate, live and let others live. IS that what your religious believe is about? Hate and intolerance?

  22. beetlebabee said,

    November 15, 2008 at 1:03 pm

    He doesn’t represent your community because he has billions of dollars? Or because he’s homosexual? See, the point that so many have made is, Dangit Beetle, you’re not the same as we are! You have no idea what it’s like to have your RIGHTS taken away. Well, here’s someone who is homosexual, proudly so, and he doesn’t feel that way. I actually think he’s ok with it because he’s so self assured he doesn’t need the blessing of the church which is the holy grail of this whole movement right now.

    Without the religious/moral stamp of approval, it’s just a word, and why isn’t one word equal to another?

  23. waltzinexile said,

    November 15, 2008 at 1:08 pm

    Beetlebabee,
    I think I might be starting to understand something here; could you answer some questions for me, just to clarify?
    When you say “the blessing of the church” (see 22) what church do you mean?
    And when you say “the holy grail of this movement right now,” do you mean the Anti-Prop 8 movement?
    Thanks –

  24. beetlebabee said,

    November 15, 2008 at 1:41 pm

    I mean that the things I’m seeing out of the gay community are that the word marriage is important independent of the associated rights. They make a lot of noise about rights, but in California, they have all those rights, so I started thinking more about what the word marriage had that civil unions didn’t. It’s moral acceptance. For many on both sides, that means the church, any church that believes in marriage being between a man and a woman.

    Looking at the boycotts specifically, I saw the Scott Eckern boycott triggered by a thousand dollar donation, then the Marjorie Christoffersen “El Coyote” boycott over a hundred dollar donation and now the Marriott Hotel boycott over a zero dollar donation. He didn’t make a donation at all, yet people are unsatisfied that he is on “their” side unless he renounces his professed faith. Marjorie said, “I can’t give up a lifetime of faith.” and that’s what brought the condemnation, despite her business giving 10k to their causes. Over a hundred dollars, they wanted her to deny her faith. That’s telling.

    The holy grail of the gay movement, as I perceive from current events, is an effort to gain religious acceptance or to torch religion and gain the acceptance of the people by replacement.

  25. debbie said,

    November 15, 2008 at 2:06 pm

    The holy grail of the gay movement, as I perceive from current events, is an effort to gain religious acceptance or to torch religion and gain the acceptance of the people by replacement

    I agree wholeheartedly. There will no end until all regions agree with their chosen lifestyle. I asked a similar question, and have yet to receive any answer. Why do they need any religion to condone what they have chosen.
    And I do not live the argument “born that way”. Our local high, at the end of the year, there were three seniors who decided they were gay and bi.
    The words they used.

  26. waltzinexile said,

    November 15, 2008 at 2:39 pm

    Beetlebabee,
    Thanks for clarifying, it really did help. I agree with your conclusion “that the word marriage is important independent of the associated rights.” However, it is not correct to continue using “the gay community” as the only people who are in opposition to your stance. If the phrase means what I think it means (and feel free to be more specific about this; if we have yet learned anything from this struggle, it is that the meanings of words are important), it doesn’t include me. Yet, I, too, believe it is important to allow same-sex couples who pledge to emotionally, physically, and financially commit to joining their lives together CALL THEIR UNION A MARRIAGE.
    The funny thing is: part of the reason that this one word has become so much of this fight is because the Yes on 8 contingent insisted on narrowly defining the word. (Oh, the irony.) Let’s assume for a second that the California Supreme Court allows Prop 8 to stand. Do you understand how dangerous this precedent is to your intent? You should not want the government in the marriage business at ALL (although I can see how trying to fight to remove the word from thousands upon thousands of legal documents would be fighting a losing battle, and therefore not worth undertaking.) Now, the definition of marriage in the state of California is subject to the whims of the voters (frankly, this does more to undermine the sanctity of marriage than anything anyone has EVER done. Excellent work.) The next proposition will be an amendment to repeal Prop 8 and define marriage in the state of California to include same-sex unions. And if this passes, and the original Yes on 8 contingent rallies and organizes again and puts another proposition on the ballot the time after that, maybe you’ll pass that one again. And so on. Ad nauseum. Lather, rinse, repeat. I don’t know how long the state government will allow that to continue, but my guess is not very long. And they’ll have to step in, because the legal limbo that would result in allowing it to continue is antithetical to the purpose of the republic (stable, ordered government). And when the argument is made that your way deprives people from equal protection under the law, while our way deprives no one of this protection, it will become clear that the only tenable legal/civil definition will have to apply to same-sex unions, too.
    Another irony: thanks to this debate, I’ve had to think this through to its logical conclusion and that has cheered me no end. I’ve been so frustrated lately, but now I realize that I don’t need to be discouraged, I need to be patient. What a relief. I appreciate you allowing me to mentally work through this in your comments section; it’s been an eye-opening experience. I hope you won’t mind if I come back from time to time to fact-check?

  27. beetlebabee said,

    November 15, 2008 at 2:57 pm

    “I hope you won’t mind if I come back from time to time to fact-check?

    Waltz, we’re practically family at this point. You’re always welcome to come back as long as you’re not Duane.

  28. Mr. Incredible said,

    November 15, 2008 at 3:07 pm

    In University of California v Bakke, the SCOTUS says that groups have no Rights, that only persons/individuals do; and, if you lookit the Constitution, THAT’s what it says.

    So, a couple cannot claim Rights. The persons can.

    The law that defines “marriage” as the union of a “man” and a “woman,” therefore, doesn’t discriminate cuz those who cloaim to be homosexual are men and women. Persons. Individuals.

  29. Mr. Incredible said,

    November 15, 2008 at 3:10 pm

    ==The people voted twice.==

    However, the “people” who call themselves “homosexual” are shopping for a judge to overrule the People who voted twice.

  30. Mr. Incredible said,

    November 15, 2008 at 3:12 pm

    ==I, too, believe it is important to allow same-sex couples who pledge to emotionally, physically, and financially commit to joining their lives together CALL THEIR UNION A MARRIAGE.==

    They can go to a lawyer and draw up a contract calling their relationship anything they want. They can do this now.

    However, they cannot expect the State to be dragged into becoming a party to a contract with whose terms it does not agree.

  31. waltzinexile said,

    November 15, 2008 at 3:24 pm

    Beetlebabee,
    For the love of all that’s holy, you’re well aware that I’m NOT Duane. But let’s go ahead and clear this up for others who might be confused. I’m not Duane, in name nor alias. My spouse is not the same sex as I (although I perceive that as nothing more than a fortunate – because it is currently a privileged difference in our country – accident.) I have never posted on this blog under any other screen name/user name than my current one; it never occurred to me to do so, since I’m not trying to drum up support for my viewpoint, merely express it and understand the position of those who think differently.
    That should do it, I think.

  32. beetlebabee said,

    November 15, 2008 at 3:25 pm

    ******** Waltz is Waltz….NOT Duane.********

    :-) Nice to have you back.

  33. waltzinexile said,

    November 15, 2008 at 3:43 pm

    Mr. Incredible,
    You seem to have gotten bogged down a bit and missed my point. Since I’ve left behind my frustration and anger and come to my happy place, I’m feeling quite generous. Let me distill my conclusion for you to make it easier to understand. If the court lets Prop 8 stand, you have left the word you have fought so hard to “protect” at the mercy of the voters. That which is granted by majority vote is then revocable by majority vote. Congratulations. Your insistence on referendum has guaranteed that the anti-prop 8 contingent will win eventually.

  34. Bronson Page said,

    November 15, 2008 at 10:27 pm

    Dude, she is SO not Duane. For one, she looks too hot in a dress to be Duane. No offense, Duane.

  35. Becky said,

    November 19, 2008 at 8:50 pm

    For all of you who continue to mention the 52% who voted yes on 8….” as the will of the voters”, remember you got that percentage by a massive effort ($$$) of disinformation and manipulation. I am refering to your campaign’s claims that gay couples all ready have the same rights as married heterosexuals… which they do not and also that gay marriage will be taught in schools. Which marriage is not taught in school. Lastly, my question goes to all you prop 8 supporters…. If your child turned out to be gay, what would you do? Say, hey you don’t deserve the same rights your parents have? Of course, that would never happen to any of you. People be decent and stop being so damn selfish.

  36. beetlebabee said,

    November 20, 2008 at 2:43 am

    Becky, I understand that this issue has a lot of people hot under the collar, but please understand that this is not a small issue, that there are many facets worthy of honest debate.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: