Page 1 of 22 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 216

Thread: What is the CA govenor thinking??

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,337
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)

    What is the CA govenor thinking??

    Saw this on GOP USA, but its also on fox news, where the CA govenor signed into law a new bill removing all references to "Husband and wife" from marriage laws, birth certificates etc.

    What the heck is wrong with this picture??????????


    http://www.lifesitenews.com/pulse/ca...e-laws-on-fami

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...signed-by-gov/

    Least its not as bad as some other places removing 'father and mother' from birth certificates, and replacing them with Progenitor a and Progenitor B.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    124
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    He's probably wondering why the California Legislature wasted their time to create and pass the bill in the first place, but figuring he's going to get less negative press for sgning the stupid thing than for sitting on it or trying to send it back.

    Don't blame the Executive for Legislative decisions.
    Back from the bit bucket. Somebody flushed the buffers on me, though . . ..

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Opt out
    Posts
    2,285
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by garhkal View Post
    What the heck is wrong with this picture??????????
    I give up...what is wrong with changing the language in state documents to have them make sense for now legal same-sex marriage?

  4. #4
    Senior Member LogDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Somewhere, Ca
    Posts
    811
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by garhkal View Post
    Saw this on GOP USA, but its also on fox news, where the CA govenor signed into law a new bill removing all references to "Husband and wife" from marriage laws, birth certificates etc.

    What the heck is wrong with this picture??????????


    http://www.lifesitenews.com/pulse/ca...e-laws-on-fami

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...signed-by-gov/

    Least its not as bad as some other places removing 'father and mother' from birth certificates, and replacing them with Progenitor a and Progenitor B.
    What's wrong with this picture? Why don't you tell us your opinion since you started this thread.

    I have no problem with this and I live in California. With Prop 8 being ruled unconstitutional by the SC the question is how do you identify the individuals on a marriage certificate if the couple is gay? Since marriage in California is no longer limited to just a man and a woman, the terms "husband" and "wife" are only applicable for heterosexual marriages and discriminates against gay marriages. The change only notes who the spouses are and not their gender.

    Also, consider this scenario, a county clerk, who believes only in heterosexual marriage, could cause a gay couple more problems by refusing to list one of the gay couples as being listed as a husband or wife since the gender for a husband is male and female for the wife. If you had another marriage certificate for gays that lists just spouses then that same clerk could cause problems by not ordering the marriage forms that list spouse instead of husband and wife. The clerk could use the bureaucracy to impose their beliefs upon others.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Hell
    Posts
    196
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Oh no! A completely unbiased website called GOP USA says that the left is to blame for all of the bad things in our country.


  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,337
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Measure Man View Post
    I give up...what is wrong with changing the language in state documents to have them make sense for now legal same-sex marriage?
    Then why not ammend it to INCLUDE same sex partner speech, not do away with regular speech (man-wife) for those still doing regular marriages?

    What's wrong with this picture? Why don't you tell us your opinion since you started this thread.
    To me its the rule of the minority, over the majority. Around 2% of the pop are gay, so why is it that the majority have to cater to them? THAT is what i hate about crap like this.
    Also it is telling the populous, it doesn't matter what YOU think or vote.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Stalwart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Annapolis, MD
    Posts
    1,055
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by garhkal View Post
    To me its the rule of the minority, over the majority. Around 2% of the pop are gay, so why is it that the majority have to cater to them?
    Yes and no. I think the majority of people in the U.S. are heterosexual. I don't know if the majority of people in the U.S. really care about the verbiage on a marriage or birth certificate.

    Quote Originally Posted by garhkal View Post
    Also it is telling the populous, it doesn't matter what YOU think or vote.
    I think if the people spoke with their vote they could always vote the governor out of office.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield is between your ears.

  8. #8
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stalwart View Post
    I think if the people spoke with their vote they could always vote the governor out of office.
    It is California. We voted on many laws and resolutions and several of the "big" ones were overturned by the courts.

  9. #9
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by garhkal View Post
    Then why not ammend it to INCLUDE same sex partner speech, not do away with regular speech (man-wife) for those still doing regular marriages?


    Exactly. And, again, I'll repeat a point I've made several times. There wouldn't be an issue like this if government wasn't involved in marriage in the first place. To have anyone determine what is a legal and illegal marriage is the dumbest thing ever. And for people to care if their marriage is "recognized" or not is the second dumbest thing ever.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Stalwart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Annapolis, MD
    Posts
    1,055
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    It is California. We voted on many laws and resolutions and several of the "big" ones were overturned by the courts.
    Laws still have to be Constitutional.

    I won't argue that a court in CA is likely to interpret the law differently than a court in MS or LA.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield is between your ears.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •