 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
SBD
Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 1022
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2005 7:13 am Post subject: Two articles, Same Exact Topic, Different Conclusion?? |
 |
|
The LA Times is getting worse than the New York Times. Compare these two articles about the same exact topic and you will see for your self.
| Quote: | http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cap8sep08,1,3143387.column?coll=la-utilities-politics
GEORGE SKELTON/CAPITOL JOURNAL
Gov.'s Taken Himself Out of the Game on Same-Sex Marriage
George Skelton
Capitol Journal
September 8, 2005
It's Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's turn at bat on same-sex marriage, but he's stepping aside and calling for a pinch-hitter: the judiciary or the electorate.
He doesn't seem to care which.
That's disappointing, because Californians deserve to know where their governor stands on one of the most controversial social issues of our time.
And we really don't know. In fact, we can't be sure that he stands anywhere, except in a place to avoid getting hit by a pitch. He has taken a weak-kneed position.
The politics are too obvious.
If Schwarzenegger had stunned the political world and signed the same-sex marriage bill that the Assembly sent him Tuesday, his Republican base would have gotten cranky and perhaps crumbled at a time when he needed it most. He has called a special election for November that hardly anyone outside his base wants.
That was the conventional prophecy. There was another vision that Democrats had been seeing in their worst nightmares: If Schwarzenegger had signed the bill, it could have resurrected his image as a unique, unpredictable centrist not just another poll-taking, ego-driven pol. The base would have been crusty, but stayed intact, because it also needed him. And he'd lure back Democrats and independents.
We'll never know, because Schwarzenegger announced Wednesday that he'll veto the measure.
A recent poll by the Public Policy Institute of California showed the potential risks and gains for the governor. Likely voters split 46% to 46% over same-sex marriage. But 56% of both Democrats and independents favored it, while 68% of Republicans were opposed.
Schwarzenegger should have signed the bill if he believed in it. But it's not clear what he believes.
The governor has said he opposes same-sex marriage but never has said why, except that the voters once were against it. If they changed their minds, that'd be fine too, he has said.
He has been all over the field.
The background: 61% of voters in 2000 passed an initiative Proposition 22 to recognize only heterosexual marriages. That measure, say sponsors of the current bill, affected just people married out of state. The bill, by Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), would allow same-sex couples to be married inside California.
In a case that resulted from San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's allowing same-sex couples to marry, a Superior Court judge ruled that Prop. 22 is unconstitutional. The ruling is being appealed.
Schwarzenegger's veto announcement, by his press office, said the governor believes there's no more noble cause than civil rights, and "gay couples are entitled to full protection under the law."
But: "The people voted and the issue is now before the courts. 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. We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote."
Either way the court or the people Schwarzenegger is completely dismissing two branches of government: his own and the legislative. He's sloughing off a hot issue and doesn't care who handles it.
"If the people change their minds and want to overrule [Prop. 22], that's fine with me," he told Jay Leno on "The Tonight Show" last year.
Interviewed on "Hardball With Chris Matthews" in March, Schwarzenegger said: "I don't believe in gay marriage." He didn't explain why, except: "The people have voted already."
The governor also told Matthews he favors domestic partnerships, in which California grants same-sex couples many of the protections of marriage. Then he added: "Remember, things change
. As we go on, people will be feeling more comfortable with the idea of domestic partnership and also marriage."
Where's his current comfort level? Does he have a view about the implications of same-sex marriage?
As for the people, they're not always right. In 1964, the California electorate voted to retain racial discrimination in housing after the Legislature had voted to abolish it. Courts later ruled that the discrimination was unconstitutional.
And Schwarzenegger doesn't always listen to the people. They voted to earmark specific tax funds for schools and transportation. But he dipped into those money pots to balance his budgets.
With same-sex marriage, as other issues, Schwarzenegger disregards the republican system of government created by the founders: people's elected representatives exercising power through a legislature.
Yet, he habitually rakes the Legislature for refusing to act. In his same-sex chat with Matthews, Schwarzenegger said: "That's what makes this state interesting. We have different kinds of opinions. And
if the legislators are not willing to solve those problems, I think you should give it to the people and let them make the decision."
In denouncing Mayor Newsom, Schwarzenegger said changing the marriage law is "something that the legislators can do, the people can do or the court can do, but not individual mayors."
OK, the Legislature acted. It sent him a bill.
There are credible reasons to veto it. But he should give a better reason than some vague notion of legislative unconstitutionality.
He could say, as U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein did after last November's election, that "the whole issue has been too much, too fast, too soon and people aren't ready for it."
But he shouldn't be ducking out of the batter's box and calling for a pinch-hitter. That's like striking out.
|
Same story, but different spin that at least tries to tell the truth
| Quote: |
Schwarzenegger says he will veto gay marriage bill
By Steve Lawrence
ASSOCIATED PRESS
6:22 p.m. September 7, 2005
SACRAMENTO Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced Wednesday he will veto a bill that would have made California the first state in the nation to legalize same-sex marriage through legislative action.
Schwarzenegger said the legislation, given final approval Tuesday by lawmakers, would conflict with the intent of voters when they approved Proposition 22. That measure was put on the ballot in 2000 to prevent California from recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.
"We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote," the governor's press secretary, Margita Thompson, said in a statement. "Out of respect for the will of the people, the governor will veto (the bill)."
Proposition 22 stated that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The bill to be vetoed by Schwarzenegger would have defined marriage as a civil contract between "two persons."
Massachusetts' recognition of gay marriages came through a court ruling.
Gay rights advocates reacted harshly, accusing Schwarzenegger of betraying the bipartisan ideals that helped get him elected in the 2003 recall.
"Clearly he's pandering to an extreme right wing, which was not how he got elected," said Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, one of the bill's sponsors. "He got elected with record numbers of lesbian and gay voters who had not previously voted for a Republican, and he sold us out."
Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said she was not surprised by word of Schwarzenegger's pending veto.
"Any girlie man could have vetoed this legislation," she said, referring to a term Schwarzenegger used previously to mock Democratic legislators. "A real man demonstrating real leadership as governor of the most populous state in the nation would have chosen a different course of action."
Despite his promise to veto the bill, Schwarzenegger "believes gay couples are entitled to full protection under the law and should not be discriminated against based upon their relationship."
"He is proud that California provides the most rigorous protections in the nation for domestic partners," the statement said.
The Republican governor had indicated in previous statements that he would veto the bill, saying the debate over same-sex marriage should be decided by voters or the courts.
A state appeals court is weighing an appeal of a San Francisco judge's ruling striking down state laws barring gay marriages. Meanwhile, opponents of same-sex marriages are planning measures on the ballot next year that would place a ban on gay marriages in the state Constitution.
The announcement dampened a celebratory mood among the bill's supporters, who only the night before cheered, hugged and kissed as the state Assembly narrowly sent the bill to the governor's desk.
Assemblyman Paul Koretz, D-West Hollywood, had called bans on gay marriage "the last frontier of bigotry and discrimination."
The bill passed the Legislature through the persistence of its sponsors, Assemblyman Mark Leno, a San Francisco Democrat who is one of six openly gay members of the California Legislature.
His original bill had failed in the Assembly by four votes in June, but he then amended it to another bill in the Senate, which voted to approve it last week. It was that amended bill the Assembly passed by a bare majority on Tuesday. Four Democrats who did not vote on the bill in June provided the winning margin this week.
The vote made the California Legislature the first legislative body in the country to approve of same-sex marriage. As in Massachusetts, civil unions in Vermont were granted through court rulings.
"I'm encouraged that the governor is going to stop the runaway Legislature, and he's going to represent the people," said Karen England of the Capitol Resource Institute, a Sacramento group that lobbied against the bill. "I think Assembly member Leno wanted to rally everyone on his side and he's done exactly the opposite. He's forced his agenda on the rest of us. But in California the votes of the people do matter."
Find this article at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20050907-1822-ca-gaymarriage.html |
SBD |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Snipe
Senior Chief Petty Officer
Joined: 03 Jun 2004
Posts: 574
Location: Peoria, Illinois
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2005 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
I used to like the LA Times crossword puzzle though.
_________________
Tin Can Sailor |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dusty
Admiral
Joined: 27 Aug 2004
Posts: 1264
Location: East Texas
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2005 12:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
George Skelton, what part of "I don't believe in gay marriage." don't you understand? The Gov. has to explain the statement for you to understand he does not believe in gay marriage. Were you born menatally challanged or did you gradually get that way?
The people are the bottom line here and this idiot does not seem to get that either.
That's about the most wishy-washy article I think I've ever read. The guy seems to be repeating the same thing in about 4 different ways trying to get around the point that the people of Ca. voted to not allow gay marriage to be recognized in Ca.
Amazes me these liberals just won't accept what the majority of the people want.
Dusty
_________________
Left and Wrong are the opposite of Right! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MrJapan
PO1
Joined: 27 Sep 2004
Posts: 465
Location: Chiba, Japan
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2005 12:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hmmm... I think I could allow for gays to marry... we are all human, right? I DO NOT agree that they are capable of raising children, adopted or biological since there is no mother/father base.... But, let them have at it... 'Darwin' will prevail... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
