Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger released the following statement today regarding the state Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage:
“I respect the Court’s decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling. Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”
Mr. Schwarzenegger is creating a cabinet-level office for volunteer management, which his administration says is the first such state cabinet position in the country. He is scheduled to announce the move on Tuesday in Los Angeles.
Under the change, the governor’s commission for volunteerism, California Volunteers, will maintain its staffing and budget. But its executive director will gain expanded duties as a cabinet secretary, playing a role in disaster-related planning and response efforts and coordinating volunteers at disaster sites.
Robin is a long-time lesbian activist. She joined me as a co-founder of StopDrLaura.com, among other ventures.
For Immediate Release Robin Tyler, plaintiff, California same-gender marriage case, robintyler@robintyler.com
A CALL FOR SUSAN KENNEDY, LESBIAN, CHIEF OF STAFF TO GOVERNOR ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, TO RESIGN
GOVERNOR ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER said today, that he will veto the bill legalizing same-gender civil marriage because 61% percent of California voters favored Proposition 22 in March 2000. Ms. Kennedy agreed with the Governor's decision using Prop 22 (which only bars California from recognizing same-sex marriages performed outside California), when he used the same excuse to veto the bill in 2005. He says he will never sign this bill. In 1948, if California voters had been allowed to vote on inter-racial marriage when the California Supreme Court struck down the anti-miscegenation law and found in favor of inter-racial marriage, over 72% of the voters would have voted against it.
Even though I, a plaintiff, am going to the California Supreme Court next year, (and the Governor has said he will "abide" by the CA Supreme Court's decision), I am not only extremely disappointed in the Governor's lack of courage, but am especially disappointed in Susan Kennedy, his chief of staff, whose "same gender wedding" I attended in Hawaii several years ago.
Since I attended Susan's wedding, why is she so against attending mine? Both Arnold and Susan know that it is unconstitutional for the majority to deny a minority equal protection under the law. To hide behind that [Prop 22] as an excuse, is cowardly and unforgivable, for both the Governor and especially for Ms. Kennedy, a lesbian. Rather then backing the Governor's decision with unacceptable excuses, I ask that Ms. Kennedy resign as Chief of Staff. If not, shame on you Susan, to side against your community, and deny civil marriage to your friends.
Let's get this first bit of lunacy out of the way -- Fred Thompson on who should face criminal sanction for an abortion:
"Don't punish women who have abortions," presidential hopeful Fred Thompson says. Punish the doctors who perform them...Authorities "can do whatever they want to with abortion doctors, as far as I'm concerned," the former Tennessee senator said while campaigning in Western Iowa according to the Los Angeles Times. But "if it comes down to giving criminal sanctions to a 19-year-old girl and her mama, I'm against that."
Wait a minute. If it's going to be a crime, why not punish the mother? If we're going to do the whole law and order thing (har-dee-har-har), when it comes to state womb control, doesn't the woman represent the one contracting the hit on the fetus?
As even one Freepersanely noted, the inconsistency makes no sense:
Under Thompson's logic here, it's perfectly legal for a woman to use a coat hanger to perform an abortion on herself but illegal for her to receive medical assistance in doing it. In other words, it's not illegal to kill a child. But it's illegal to help a woman do such. That doesn’t make much sense to me at all. I'm not sure how that’s even a pro-life argument.
And what about the male partner in this equation? What if he agrees with the woman in question that she should have an abortion, perhaps even drives her to the clinic in support of her decision -- is he then an accessory to the crime? Shouldn't he be prosecuted, Fred? Maybe the fantasy candidate of the freeper set agrees with Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. He recently said that women who seek out the abortion are too "impaired" to be responsible for their actions.
The newest occupant of the GOP clown car also made it plainly clear where his thinking lies regarding marriage equality:
Thompson chastised those judges in Iowa, Massachusetts and other states for rulings that opened the way to same-sex marriage, calling for constitutional amendments to curb judges' power to do so.
"What we're seeing here is a totally judicially created problem," he told a crowd in Sioux City, Iowa according to the Times. "You know how many states have affirmatively approved gay marriage? State legislatures? Zero."
He also would like a constitutional amendment called for an amendment to bar judges from allowing marriage equality unless it is approved by a state legislature.
Fred's setting himself up to have egg on his face fairly soon, because California's legislature again approved a marriage equality bill, which first passed in 2005 and was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger. This year the Governator has until October 14th to sign or veto the bill. He has cited in the past that the courts (I guess those "activist judges") should decide what to do about marriage, not the legislature.
Let's get this 
