The Terminator will veto gay marriage bill.

Finally Arnold flexes his muscles.

from JoeUser Forums
Reported today, the governer of California, is listening to the WILL OF THE PEOPLE and will veto the bill allowing gay marriage .

California will not become the first state to be forced to recognize gay marriage from other states or countries either.

Good for you arnold, the will of the people must rule.

At no time should 4% of the people MAKE the other 96% accept anything.

Over six million voted to ban gay marriage five years ago, proposition 22 was overturned by one liberal activist judge, legislating from the bench.

One judge slapped 6 million voters right in the face by calling prop. 22 Unconstitutional.
10,849 views 44 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
The will, or shall we say, the majority, are a bunch of shameless homophobes.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
If a referendum is going to be overcome, it should be by another referendum, or in the most extraordinary cases by the Supreme Court. It's silly to let the officials elected by the people who voted in the referendum somehow negate the will of the people who voted them into office.
Object Desktop - Get all of our enhancement utilities in one suite
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
1 by dabe
Thursday, September 08, 2005


The will, or shall we say, the majority, are a bunch of shameless homophobes.


just try to remember that california is THE MOST LIBERAL forward thinking state in the union.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
#2 by BakerStreet
Thursday, September 08, 2005


a referendum is going to be overcome, it should be by another referendum, or in the most extraordinary cases by the Supreme Court. It's silly to let the officials elected by the people who voted in the referendum somehow negate the will of the people who voted them into office.


if the vote goes to the people it will be defeated once again the people of california do not want gay marriage.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
It is evident that Arnold is not a politician.  He cares about his constituents too much.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
I AM O'NALD!!! I WILL TERMINATE THIS BILL!


I actually think the bill is correct. Goverment should not say who you can be married to. Goverment and marriage should only go as far as reconizing that you want to be with this person ie this person being any sex.

It is such a hot topic as some feel it will further desroy the family unit. Personally, I think other things destroy the family unit (pre-packaged music, tv, radio, advertising, both parents working over 40 hours a week) way more than 2 men or 2 women living together and having a child with them.


Nevertheless, it was put to a vote, and then a judge of course said unconstitutional (because it is) but the reality is that the people voted it down and being force feed the measure seems out of line. I agree with the veto, but I also agree with the judge.

Gay marriage will have to be reconized but this is a issue that can not be forced, pushed or shoved, but it will happen in time.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
How is the bill unconstitutional? While it is certainly unfair and discriminatory towards a minority of the population, we're not dealing with constitutionally guaranteed rights.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
just try to remember that california is THE MOST LIBERAL forward thinking state in the union.


That is not very comforting. They are still a bunch of shameless homophobes. Besides, based on who's standards is CA the most liberal?
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
#5 by Dr. Guy
Thursday, September 08, 2005


It is evident that Arnold is not a politician. He cares about his constituents too much


he gave up a 30 million dollar a year acting job to make 175 thousand a year, which he donates to a charty. he issa good man.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
8 by dabe
Thursday, September 08, 2005


just try to remember that california is THE MOST LIBERAL forward thinking state in the union.


That is not very comforting. They are still a bunch of shameless homophobes. Besides, based on who's standards is CA the most liberal?


dabe with all we have to fight about I will not get into a debate about the obvious. K?
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
#10 by little_whip
Thursday, September 08, 2005


That is not very comforting.


Sucks to be you these days, hmm?


sniper in da woods, run fer yer life. lmao
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
How is the bill unconstitutional? While it is certainly unfair and discriminatory towards a minority of the population, we're not dealing with constitutionally guaranteed rights.


the bill is unconstitutional because it actually does discriminate against a particular segment of society. Per the constitution, all people are guaranteed equal access under the law. This bill denies such equity, and worse yet, based on some religious values, which also takes it to the realm of separation of church and state.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sucks to be you these days, hmm?


WTF is wrong with you?
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Equal protection... not equal access. Equal access doesn't exist for anyone. They are granted equal base rights. Marraige is not a right, inheritance issues are not rights, they are privledges that are not necessary to leading a safe and successful life in the US.

You realize I support gay marraiges, but I'm under no delusion that we're talking about a constitutional right here.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
"the bill is unconstitutional because it actually does discriminate against a particular segment of society. Per the constitution, all people are guaranteed equal access under the law."


The point you are failing to see is that according to the law same-sex unions AREN'T marriage, so denying same-sex unions isn't denying marriage. I can't marry someone of the same sex any more than a gay person can. Gay people can marry people of the opposite sex all they want.

YOU percieve a same-sex union to be the SAME as marriage, but obviously, your values aren't universal. This is more of your "I'm right and my subjective values should be shoved down everyone's throat." You seem to believe that we should have the right to self-govern only when we agree with you. Is that really self-governing?

Don't pretend for a second to appreciate freedom or Democracy. Given the power you wouldn't allow people to make up their own minds, you'd be a little fascist like all your ilk.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

the bill is unconstitutional because it actually does discriminate against a particular segment of society. Per the constitution, all people are guaranteed equal access under the law. This bill denies such equity, and worse yet, based on some religious values, which also takes it to the realm of separation of church and state.

No, it is not.  Any homosexual can marry - a member of the opposite sex just like any one else.

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
No, it is not. Any homosexual can marry - a member of the opposite sex just like any one else


That is so ridiculous. Do you ever listen to yourself.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
14 by dabe
Thursday, September 08, 2005


the bill is unconstitutional because it actually does discriminate against a particular segment of society. Per the constitution, all people are guaranteed equal access under the law. This bill denies such equity, and worse yet, based on some religious values, which also takes it to the realm of separation of church and state.


dabe yer stretching kid.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
16 by Zoomba
Thursday, September 08, 2005


You realize I support gay marraiges, but I'm under no delusion that we're talking about a constitutional right here.


I do not support gay marriage, and for sure there is no constitutionality here.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
#18 by Truth (Anonymous user)
Thursday, September 08, 2005


Fuck those gay bastards anyway!


no fuck you!!! asshole!!
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
#17 by BakerStreet
Thursday, September 08, 2005


Don't pretend for a second to appreciate freedom or Democracy. Given the power you wouldn't allow people to make up their own minds, you'd be a little fascist like all your ilk.


oooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! bombs away... the left cares not about legalities, they just want there way no matter who they shit on.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't understand... if I am gay then I can't marry?

Somehow I do not have the right to marry (well, unless I want to marry someone of the opposite sex)?

I guess I shouldn;t call it marriage, I should call it unions.

Is it ok for unoins to be made?



I know there are people here I respect allot in their writings, but the argument that this is not a constiutional issue is not true. Human right goes by age ,sex, and sexual preference (as wel as others). Your basically saying that the state has a right to ignore a union bewteen same sex couples.


I just don't think that will last for much longer. I agree that A'nold should veto because that is not what the people voted for, but the issue will not go away.


Eventually the state will not call it marriage, it will call them unoins and take away any religist value from it (I don't like it, but I don't see it ending any other way).

Agree? Disagree?
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
civil unions yes. full rights yes,

marraige , no.