Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/7/2005 3:36:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2005 4:00:17 AM EDT by _DR]
Sorry if it's a dupe.

In honor of the new laws passed by the Kalifornia Legislature I propose this as the new California State flag:



You Arfcommers in Kalifornia might want to paint your ARs in rainbow colors so not as the offend the newly-legal ghey couples that might see it.


Read on about the decline of the United States, spearheaded by the great state of Kalifornia (Unless Arnold grows a pair and vetoes it):


Calif. Lawmakers Pass Gay Marriage Bill

By STEVE LAWRENCE
The Associated Press
Wednesday, September 7, 2005; 4:43 AM


SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Gay rights supporters cheered loudly from the gallery as California lawmakers became the first in the country to approve a bill allowing same-sex marriages. But their celebration may be short-lived.

The legislation could be vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has expressed an acceptance of gay marriages but said it's an issue that should be decided by voters or the courts.



Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, left, gets a kiss from state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, after his same-sex marriage measure was passed by the Assembly at the Capitol in Sacramento, Calif., Tuesday, Sept. 6, 2005. The California Legislature became the first legislative body in the U.S. to approve same-sex marriages, as gay-rights advocates overcame two earlier defeats in the Assembly. The 41-35 vote sends the bill to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose office had no comment on the bill when it cleared the state Senate last week. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli) (Rich Pedroncelli - AP)

"He will uphold whatever the court decides," spokeswoman Margita Thompson said Tuesday after the state Assembly approved the same-sex marriage measure, 41-35. The Senate had approved it last week.

A state appellate court is considering appeals of a lower court ruling that overturned California laws banning recognition of gay marriages. And opponents of same-sex marriage are trying to qualify initiatives for the 2006 ballot that would amend the state Constitution to ban gay marriages.

The bill's supporters compared the legislation to earlier civil rights campaigns, including efforts to eradicate slavery and give women the right to vote.

"Do what we know is in our hearts," said the bill's sponsor, San Francisco Democrat Mark Leno. "Make sure all California families will have the same protection under the law."

But opponents repeatedly cited the public's vote five years ago to approve Proposition 22, which prohibits California from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries.

"History will record that you betrayed your constituents and their moral and ethical values," Republican Assemblyman Jay La Suer said.

Leno had sponsored an earlier bill that fell four votes short of passing the Assembly in June. He kept the issue alive by adding the language of the defeated measure to another bill that had already passed the Assembly and was awaiting action in the Senate.

The Senate approved that bill and sent it back to the Assembly for another vote. Four Democrats who didn't vote the last time tipped the scales.

One of them, Assemblyman Tom Umberg, said Tuesday he was concerned about what his three children would think of him if he didn't join those "who sought to take a leadership role in terms of tolerance, equality and fairness."

California already gives same-sex couples many of the rights and duties of marriage if they register with the state as domestic partners.
Massachusetts' highest court ruled in November 2003 that the state constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry. The nation's first state-sanctioned, same-sex weddings began taking place in May 2004.

Vermont began offering civil unions in 2000, after a ruling by the state's Supreme Court. Earlier this year, Connecticut became the first state to approve civil unions without being forced by the courts.

Tuesday's vote showed that gay rights advocates have "turned the corner on the issue of marriage equality for lesbian and gay couples," said Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, a backer of the bill.

"As the debate today shows, love conquers fear, principle conquers politics and equality conquers injustice, and the governor can now secure his legacy as a true leader by signing this bill," he said.

But Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families, a conservative group opposed to the bill, said Schwarzenegger should veto it.

"Schwarzenegger can't afford to sign the gay marriage license bill," he said. "He'll actually become a hero to the majority of Californians when he vetoes it."

Link Posted: 9/7/2005 3:38:26 AM EDT
eh, more pressing concerns in this country
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 3:39:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By _DR:

"History will record that you betrayed your constituents and their moral and ethical values," Republican Assemblyman Jay La Suer said.




that's a pretty stong statement for a politician to say.

i'm impressed!
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 3:40:13 AM EDT
This is going to have a devastating effect on our country.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 3:41:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By twonami:
eh, more pressing concerns in this country



That is very short sighted, sorry.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 3:42:15 AM EDT
This sorry-ass state was officially teh ghey long before this shit passed.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 3:42:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ZitiForBreakfast:

Originally Posted By twonami:
eh, more pressing concerns in this country



That is very short sighted, sorry.


+1 if passed, this will affect the next generation much more so than the present hurricane.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 3:44:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ZitiForBreakfast:

Originally Posted By twonami:
eh, more pressing concerns in this country



That is very short sighted, sorry.


since I don't live in CA and I'm wondering how in hell the country is going to pay for the NOLA mess yes, I guess I am short sighted
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 3:46:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2005 3:51:58 AM EDT by _DR]
It's a slow, insidious erosion of our morale fiber that will have anyone morally opposed to homosexuality labeled as a "bigot" and guilty of "discrimination". AS it makes its way into mainstream society those who oppose it will become outcasts. This is the Agenda, and it is looming large.

Not as exciting as news about Katrina or Baghdad, but far worse implications in the long run.


Link Posted: 9/7/2005 3:47:15 AM EDT
Still awaiting the Terminator to veto. My best guess is that he will do so.

Didn't the Kalifornia voters pass a prop to define marrage in 2004?
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 3:49:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By _DR:
It's a slow, insidious erosion of our morale fiber that will have anyone morally opposed to homosexuality labeled as a "bigot" and guilty of "discrimination". AS it makes its way intp mainstream society those who oppose it will become outcasts. This is the Agenda, and it is looming large.

Not as exciting as news about Katrina or Baghdad, but far worse implications in the long run.





I guess that makes me a bigot. Why, because I hate homosexuality. I do not hate people because they are gay.

Love the sinner, hate the sin. And yes Homosexuality is a sin.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 3:49:54 AM EDT
the real question is wheather or not Arnold is going to veto it.



Link Posted: 9/7/2005 3:51:31 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2005 3:54:00 AM EDT by _DR]

Originally Posted By twonami:

Originally Posted By ZitiForBreakfast:

Originally Posted By twonami:
eh, more pressing concerns in this country



That is very short sighted, sorry.


since I don't live in CA and I'm wondering how in hell the country is going to pay for the NOLA mess yes, I guess I am short sighted



That's already decided by our elected officials. It will be added to the deficit, and our children will pay it off. Our government is like a 15 year old girl in the mall with an american express card.

ON my social security statement I received in the mail yesterday: "By 2041 there may not be sufficient funds to pay more than 85% of your stated benefits".

Bunch of crooks. Pay them Social security taxes your whole freaking life, then they say "sorry, we already spent your money, and oh, by the way, we recommend you retire at 75 now."
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 3:51:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2005 3:55:12 AM EDT by DVDTracker]
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 3:55:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SemperParatusEmt:
And yes Homosexuality is a sin.



You'll get no argument from me on that.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 3:58:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2005 3:59:22 AM EDT by ZitiForBreakfast]

since I don't live in CA


That goes along well with your 1st post. Head in the sand attitude. Would you do the same with an another AWB, say in Florida?

If Arnold doest not veto this, it will be used as case law even in your own State to allow gay people to be 'married' and the further erosion of our Country.

Link Posted: 9/7/2005 4:07:00 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 4:09:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ZitiForBreakfast:
This is going to have a devastating effect on our country.



And whats that?
Dont worry, you wont wake up tomorrow wanting to get screwed in the ass. Its not contagious.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 4:21:21 AM EDT
what if it became the official gay state and all of the others wanted to move there.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 4:28:26 AM EDT
It sucks, but I can't do anything about it and I don't live there. It's also not completely "unexpected" (Ca.) . If all the homos want to congregate there, thats fine. Better that, than in my neighborhood molesting kids. At least we will know where they all are. Let them BF each other and get AIDS till the sun burns out or Ca. falls into the Pacific.. Who cares.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 4:42:04 AM EDT
On the new flag, a sheep and a hammer and sickle would look really good with the rainbow colors.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 5:50:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By _DR:
ON my social security statement I received in the mail yesterday: "By 2041 there may not be sufficient funds to pay more than 85% of your stated benefits".

Bunch of crooks. Pay them Social security taxes your whole freaking life, then they say "sorry, we already spent your money, and oh, by the way, we recommend you retire at 75 now."



Well, consider this:

Your SS deduction is not to pay for YOUR retirement, but that of those already collecting funds.

When first implemented, SS had about 7 people paying for each person on the bench. By the time the baby boomers retire, it will be 2 people for every retiree.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to pay $20K/year in taxes for that 1/2 of a retiree I would have to support. That's why they're figuring that SS will run out of money. There is no "investment", it's strictly a pay-for-those-already-collection fund transfer.

If you want to retire with money, invest your own and never count on the .gov.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 6:00:02 AM EDT
It's already the land of fruits and nuts.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 6:03:21 AM EDT
I thought they all ready were
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 7:06:12 AM EDT
Time to legalize the aliens and vote some conservative legislators into office. Most of the latinos are Catholic and conservative when it comes to the homosexual issue.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 7:10:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 4v50:
Time to legalize the aliens and vote some conservative legislators into office. Most of the latinos are Catholic and conservative when it comes to the homosexual issue.



Well said. We will be shipping all out illegal immigrants to your state.

Link Posted: 9/7/2005 7:15:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SouthHoof:
Still awaiting the Terminator to veto. My best guess is that he will do so.

Didn't the Kalifornia voters pass a prop to define marrage in 2004?



Yes we did and Arnold want's to let the voters decide. Even supporters of ghey marrage are saying the socialist democRats are ramming this through against public opinion.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 7:18:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By jmzd4:
the real question is wheather or not Arnold is going to veto it.



If Governator plays his cards right, he could turn either signing it or vetoing it into a major political win for himself.

If he simply vetos, his re-election campaign will consist largely of "The Legislator is out of tune with the people of kaleeforneeya, so vote for me."

Or he could sign it and say "Let's send this straight to the courts where it belongs." If it goes to the state SC it will go down in flames.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 7:19:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 4v50:
Time to legalize the aliens and vote some conservative legislators into office. Most of the latinos are Catholic and conservative when it comes to the homosexual issue.



There are enough Hispanic voters here to accomplish the required conservative backlash already. Liberals have REPEATEDLY failed to learn that lesson, assuming that anyone with brown skin will automatically see things their way.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 7:20:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SouthHoof:
...Didn't the Kalifornia voters pass a prop to define marrage in 2004?



Proposition 22 was passed by about 65% of the voters in 2000. Liberals keep forgetting that.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 11:32:46 AM EDT

latest word is the "Guvernator " plans to turf the issue to the courts.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 11:39:48 AM EDT
sigh
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 11:54:29 AM EDT
From the political perspective CA is a total lost cause already. If every gay moves there to marry, great! 100% of the homo-democrats all packed into one overcrowed, stinky, disease-ridden s-hole. Sounds about right for their tastes anyway.

"Fairymandering" Yes, that is what I'd call it.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 11:56:26 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 12:01:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By bigscrun:
So is the state flag gonna get changed to 2 male bears now?



2 male bears, with one humping the other from behind.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 12:05:03 PM EDT
Are you guys gonna continue to fight the good fight, or have you decided it's time to move?

Out of curiousity, if things continue spiraling downwards, just what WILL it take for you guys to cut bait?
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 12:32:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ZitiForBreakfast:

Originally Posted By twonami:
eh, more pressing concerns in this country



That is very short sighted, sorry.



+1
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 12:34:27 PM EDT
Wouldn't it be interesting if this turns out to be a good thing. Gay people turn out to be just like everyone else except that they are gay. They marry, they adopt children, they lead lives as productive and contributing members of the community.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 12:36:02 PM EDT

Woman + man=marriage

Same sex marriage is wrong on a number of levels.

Bet the divorce lawyers can hardly wait...for the $$

Gwen
native Californian
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 12:42:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Chaingun:

Originally Posted By SouthHoof:
Still awaiting the Terminator to veto. My best guess is that he will do so.

Didn't the Kalifornia voters pass a prop to define marrage in 2004?



Yes we did and Arnold want's to let the voters decide. Even supporters of ghey marrage are saying the socialist democRats are ramming this through against public opinion.



Poor choice of words. Funny, though.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 12:51:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SubnetMask:
Are you guys gonna continue to fight the good fight, or have you decided it's time to move?



I lost all my firearms in a tragic ocean kayak accident.

Link Posted: 9/7/2005 12:54:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2005 1:00:17 PM EDT by Lockedon]

Originally Posted By _DR:

Originally Posted By SemperParatusEmt:
And yes Homosexuality is a sin.



You'll get no argument from me on that.




and exactly: who gives a fuck??
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 12:57:59 PM EDT
Sinning kicks ass.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 12:59:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
It's already the land of fruits and nuts.



Sounds like they could make a new cereal out of California...it's full of fruits, nuts, and flakes.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 1:10:20 PM EDT


California...
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 1:12:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BluDragon:
This sorry-ass state was officially teh ghey long before this shit passed.



I was thinking the same thing.

BigDozer66
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 1:55:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Shane333:

Sounds like they could make a new cereal out of California...it's full of fruits, nuts, and flakes.





Oh, man, that is SO funny I spat fish taco all over my screen! I never heard anything like that before. You're a real comedian Shane333.

Link Posted: 9/7/2005 2:00:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By California_Kid:

Originally Posted By Shane333:

Sounds like they could make a new cereal out of California...it's full of fruits, nuts, and flakes.





Oh, man, that is SO funny I spat fish taco all over my screen! I never heard anything like that before. You're a real comedian Shane333.




Thanks. I heard it from my dad, who was born and raised in SF. He saw the transition from a family friendly city to what it is now.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 2:12:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BluDragon:
This sorry-ass state was officially teh ghey long before this shit passed.



+1 I'm surprised they don't hand out vibrating butt plugs at the border.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 2:24:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Specop_007:
Dont worry, you wont wake up tomorrow wanting to get screwed in the ass



True but I will bet a lot of money that you along with most men here will wake up tomorrow wanting to screw as many women as possible. I know I would. Why don't I you ask?........because my wife would have a big problem with it. So would my children, my family, my friends, my priest and yes God. Not to mention the state when she and I end up in divorce court to preside over the dissolution or our taxpaying, child producing household.

Homosexual marriage? Ok, why not? While we are at it why not polygamy? Seriously, why the hell not??? While we are still at it, my sister is pretty cute and recently divorced. When polygamy becomes legal should I consider marrying her? Again, why the hell not? We are all consenting adults who love eachother. Who is the state to tell us who we can marry. Right?

This is where the wheels completely come off the pro-homosexual marriage argument. It doesn't matter if it is being made by the most flaming gayboy or by libertarians. If you allow it then you HAVE NO ARGUEMENT against any other manifistation of "marriage" that one can imagine. Simply stated, the destruction of the traditional man + woman marriage contract will destroy this country as we know it.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 2:28:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BluDragon:
This sorry-ass state was officially teh ghey long before this shit passed.



+1,000,000

Who gives a shit about Kalifornia, let it fall in the sea.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top