Blogcritics: Comments on Schwarzenneger to Terminate Gay Marriage

Comment by Cookie Crawford

Wed, 9 Nov 2005 10:56:54 EST

So, I suppose abolitionists in the Old South should have just simmered down and stopped covertly helping slaves to freedom because it was the law that they stay enslaved? Should Rosa Parks really have been arrested because there were obviously UNFAIR rules on the books about where she could sit on a bus? There's a time to take a stand against oppression, regardless of whether you're a judge, a mayor, or an ordinary citizen. What if these "proper channels" you mention never arrive? Does that mean gays and lesbians and other people abused under the law are simply out of luck? The fact that your blog equates gay marriage with unlawfully owned GUNS (things that kill people) indicates how you truly feel about it all.

Comment by Robosexual

Tue, 4 Jan 2005 22:31:36 EST

I am Robosexual. I love Robot. Robots can married human and human can married Robots it's all fun.

Comment by Anthony G

Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:08:54 EST

Yo dogg, what are you going to do now homie, posting under my name is your only comeback.

Comment by Anthony G

Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:05:15 EST

Yeah Josh listen to Eric, I have not posted under antone elses name once. So who is the punk now, I will be on the ground laughing when you get banned. Doggggggggg.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Sun, 29 Feb 2004 12:45:23 EST

I don't really mind people having insular conversations among themselves that has nothing to do with anything that anyone else is talking about. BUT, I do not want to see anyone posting comments under someone else's name - we have your IPs, so we know who REALLY is who. Anyone found to be posting under someone else's name will be banned from the site.

Comment by Anthony g

Sun, 29 Feb 2004 03:42:10 EST

Josh mistakes happen easy, it's alright that you can't spell a 100% every time, but it is not alright saying I did it. This is my last comment on this gay people site. Because I aint gay. You can stay here and talk to yourself if you want. See you at the Eminem site. Homie.

Comment by Anthony g

Sat, 28 Feb 2004 23:25:16 EST

I apologize, Josh.

Comment by Josh

Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:02:10 EST

Well well well, guess what I just found out? Anthony spelled my e-mail address wrong AGAIN on comment #31. What a surprise. This is getting very, very sad, Anthony. The next time you post under my name (which will probably be soon), try to spell it right, okay dogg?

Comment by Josh

Sat, 28 Feb 2004 21:49:55 EST

Yeah, I made a mistake, I admit. Just how YOU made a mistake over at the guitar site when you spelled my e-mail address wrong. So I guess we're both guilty.

Comment by Anthony G

Sat, 28 Feb 2004 21:00:06 EST

Josh, on 34 you accidentally posted my name one more time than you meant. EXPOSED!

Comment by Anthony G

Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:33:44 EST

I HATE HOMOS! Josh if you post under my name one more time you are gay, oh I mean Lesbian. You are calling me gay? You are the one that said you love gay peaple on 31.

Comment by Anthony g

Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:18:06 EST

Jeez, Anthony, don't cry. It's okay. Tell mommy to read you a bedtime story. Heh-heh.

Comment by Anthony g

Sat, 28 Feb 2004 19:52:09 EST

Gay people have rights, too. I myself am gay and I'm so tired of people making fun of me. I can't tell you how many times I went home crying my eyes out because of those big meanies. It's not fair!

Comment by Red

Sat, 28 Feb 2004 19:24:44 EST

Hey are you the same Josh from the guitar site.

Comment by Josh

Fri, 27 Feb 2004 21:55:27 EST

Gays should be able to get married. I love gay people.

Comment by debbie

Mon, 23 Feb 2004 14:55:49 EST

RC, The first thing I want to say is that I don't think that the Mayor is going about it correctly, it should be challenged by a gay couple and put through the State Supreme Court and then to the US Supreme Court if necessary. It is always dangerous to allow a public official to openly defy the law without any corrections taking place. That is why I agreed with the state's Supreme Court in Alabama. I personally didn't see anything wrong with displaying the Ten Commandments but I did see something wrong with a Judge defying the highest Court in his state. You cannot allow that. "THE PEOPLE are finally speaking out here - against a totalitarian mentality. This is NOT about Gavin Newsome. This is about the dictator in the White House. It amazes me how conservatives expect the gay people to sit down and shut up when reprimanded. Sorry, but this is life, not something that requires a "Kindergarten Cop."" The 'people' spoke up about it when they put it to a vote. I can understand if you don't like the ruling, challenge it but don't advocate this type of 'anarchy' it places citizens in a vulnerable position. What if the next time an official decides to disregard is a bit more sinister? The challenge should come from the people not the governments agents.... The 'dictator' (really, this is a bit of overkill) in the White House had nothing to do with how the people in California voted, neither did Arnold, except maybe to go the polls and vote. (Cute reference to Arnold, though) You are correct in saying that Bush doesn't have any standing in California's laws, not unless it is made into a constitutional amendment. Then that would change. I must have missed something this weekend, what did Bush do that should warrant 'arrest and impeachment'? (I was on the road most of the time this weekend and didn't get a chance to watch the news)

Comment by Red

Sat, 21 Feb 2004 23:10:58 EST

Bush obviously should have been honest. Whether he will get away with lying remains to be seen, in November. I don't think he should get away with anything more than anyone else for any reason. So who else isn't perfect? I think we all should own up when we do something wrong. If we don't, we're irresponsible; as Martin Luther said, "sin boldy." If you're going to break the rules, really, take responsibility for it.

Comment by CW Fisher

Sat, 21 Feb 2004 22:02:50 EST

Speaking of LAW BREAKERS... Dubya Dubya Dubya. We got a new judge while nobody was looking (second time). It's not strictly against the "law," just a little bit unconstitutional. Should we talk about that? Should we talk about impeachment for treason, for lying to Congress and the American people about the reasons to invade Iraq? If not now, when? When we kick him out of office? Come on, guys, we got to keep pushing or we'll never see him hanging off the helicopter stone drunk as he leave the White House for good. I want this man in jail. It's going to take some work. My only gripe with gay marriage is the marriage part. Trust me. I'm married. You do not want this. RUN AWAY!!

Comment by Red

Sat, 21 Feb 2004 21:30:51 EST

First of all, thanks for the compliment Shark. But, unfortunately, in today's society, one cannot become president unless one has a personal fortune exceeding $20 million. I don't. Josh, thank you for coming up with the first sensible argument I have heard that's in favor of Newsom. I applaud you. (clap clap) I think that right now, everyone has equal rights in one sense: EVERYONE can marry someone of the opposite gender and NO ONE can marry someone of the same gender. So everyone's equal in that sense. But in the other sense, everyone's not equal: HETEROSEXUALS can marry the people they want to marry whereas HOMOSEXUALS can marry the people they want to. So they're not equal in that sense. So which is it? I already said I have no problem with homosexual marriage. I think it's more important to maintain equal rights among all people. So, to answer your question, I think proposition 22 should go first. However, I think that as long as proposition 22 exists, marriage should be strictly between a man and a woman. Sounds kind of contradictory, but I hope you can kind of understand where I'm coming from. One thing I'd like to say is that I don't mind someone breaking the law, I only mind someone breaking the law and getting away with it. To break the law and not be willing to accept the consequences is cowardly.

Comment by Shark

Sat, 21 Feb 2004 21:29:12 EST

MD: "People can decide for themselves whether they believe I have characterized the individual Shark is such an avid supporter of accurately." hmmmmm. How 'bout: "People can decide for themselves whether I have accurately characterized the individual Shark so avidly supports." And while they're visiting that link, they can check out my other literary critiques of your past work. (BTW: I stop when you do--- in case you haven't noticed)

Comment by Mac Diva

Sat, 21 Feb 2004 21:16:51 EST

People can decide for themselves whether they believe I have characterized the individual Shark is such an avid supporter of accurately. I am always surprised when I hear the 'all laws are equal and should be obeyed without question' response. It surprises me because people don't behave that way on a daily basis at all. Someone already mentioned jaywalking. But, one also sees that people know all laws are not equally significant in many other ways every day. The city statute in question is slated to fall to a ruling by the state supreme court. San Francisco has anticipated that ruling. This is not a crisis. Some might call it bold leadership. I will call it politically expedient leadership.

Comment by Josh Keller

Sat, 21 Feb 2004 21:10:52 EST

Eh, inconsiderate debate is better than reality television. And if there wasn't name calling, stereotyping and gay-bashing, could we really call it american politics? Oh yeah, I'm from Berkeley, too. That'll provide some more ammunition. Another take on the law question (one that Jim mentioned), aside from justified civil disobedience, is that there isn't one law here, but two. Prop 22 does prohibit gay marriage, agreed. But the CA constitution guarantees equal rights for all its citizens. All won't agree, but it's a legitimate legal question whether the two laws conflict, and deciding between conflicting laws is a matter that courts must deal with all the time. Newsom thought that not allowing gay marraiges would violate equal rights, so he allowed them. His actions do force the legal questions to be decided, and the court is the final arbiter, as it should be. If they do contradict, which is more important to keep: the equal rights clause or prop 22?

Comment by Shark

Sat, 21 Feb 2004 20:42:18 EST

Red, you need to take over the Republican Party. I'd vote for ya.

Comment by Shark

Sat, 21 Feb 2004 20:40:46 EST

HERE WE GO AGAIN; GRAB YER SHORTS, FOLKS... MD:...minority group members being denied their voices by majority group members. Absolutely. That was one of the most glaring things about last week's contretempts to me. A *bumbling bigot keeps screaming at a person[me] obviously much better informed than he will ever be to 'Shut up! You have no right to speak!' in the most crude terms and I gather many people saw nothing wrong with that because the person[me] being abused is someone who is 'supposed' to be treated that way. Someone who because of race, gender, class or sexual preference is not supposed to matter... Oh jeez. If the confused newcomer isn't sure whether to get out a hankie or a helmet, I have a hint: THINK KEVLAR. You're welcome. *extra points to MD for elevating her typical name-calling using alliteration!

Comment by Red

Sat, 21 Feb 2004 20:24:58 EST

It seems that you people are ignoring the issue. What mayor Gavin Newsom has done is just as illegal as him issuing tax exemptions with no legal reason. The law must be obeyed. If I openly defied the law and kill someone, I could simply argue that killng them is just "postponing the inevitable." I don't necessarily think that Newsom should be punished, I just don't think he should be allowed to get away with flagrantly defying the law. Just because Canada does something doesn't mean we should do it as well. It also doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. Take each issue separately. Is change always for the better? I personally think gays should have every right to get married. If a proposition were to come up here in Oregon in favor of gay marriage, I would definitely vote for it. I am a Christian and I believe that homosexuality is a sin, but if they don't believe in the same God I do they have no reason not to get married. I'm opposed to anyone getting away with breaking the law, for any reason. I have more to say, but I'd like to hear some responses first, if that's alright. I would enjoy hearing everyone's take.