He’s already gotten a number of "fuck you"s for saying he’d veto the bill, but he gets another one now that he’s actually done it.
Fuck you, Arnie. Fuck you sideways with a chainsaw while you dangle from a rusty meathook. Take your semi-literate inability to understand not only basic fairness and decency, but fucking high school civics, fold it five ways and cram it up your steroid-pumped ass.
People of California, could you do us a favor? Next election, could you vote for someone who has a fucking clue in his head how to govern, and not just vote for the movie star?
IIRC, with the exception of a disasterous stint by Gray Davis, California has had a long run of conservative Republican governors in the last 20 years.
Meaning Arnie will be gone, but you might not like his replacement any better.
I hear Autrians are considered kinda’ like the backwoods hicks of Europe. If so, can I make a [del]white trash[/del] Hillbilly joke?
But really, I knew this would happen, but I still, that didn’t mean that he had to prove me right.
I actually voted for him. I believed it when he put on his happy face, made nice sounding promises and pandered to us for our votes. If he runs again, I will vote to terminate him. Hasta la vista baby.
I’m disgusted about it because he sent it back to the courts. Haven’t we had enough of this nonsense in the courts? This was an opportunity to cement it into law. There would be no cries of judicial activism, it would be done, once and for all. But nooooo, that would make too much sense. Instead we have to have some judges decide it.
Maybe I don’t understand what he’s saying, but it sounds to me like he’s trying to reject responsibility for the decision by claiming that the issue is spelled out in the constitution.
From the article mentioned in the original post:
I take issue with the last sentence. “If the ban is constitutional” would mean to me “if the constitution would allow you to ban gay marriages”, not “if the constitution forbids gay marriages.” It would be very possible that the constitution doesn’t state a preference either way, and that the decision could properly be left up to the state legislators. Just because the constitution allows a state to ban gay marriages doesn’t necessarily mean that the constitution says you must ban gay marriages.
I’m unfamiliar with the way the law process works. Is there a certain amount of time that has to pass now before they can bring this bill up again now that it’s been vetoed? Can’t they just pass the bill again the second Arnie leaves office at the end of his term? Or is it more complicated than that?
It’s complicated, and it’s tied into the initiative system we have here. Maybe someone can explain it to you. I can’t, I still don’t understand it myself.
I didn’t vote for his bitch ass the first time. I’ve always wondered, for those that did: why? I’m not trying to be glib, but what, specifically, in his unspeakably retarded campaign spoke to you and made you pull that particular lever (or, more accurately, push that particular button)? Or was it just that there was basically no serious high-visibility competition? And why does this decision (gay marriage) surprise you at all?
His acting abilities aside, I have long admired Arnold Schwarzenegger for the way he literally made a place in the world for himself with his hard work, focus and dedication. I really thought he would have had enough political sense to at least be gay tolerant in his policies, but it sounds like he has skewed solidly to right wing edges in his public policies. It’s a bit disappointing. I expected more from him.
I never voted for him either, and I’m not surprised by what he’s done.
And he wants to run again, calling it “the sequel.” Well…I doubt very much there’s going to be a Part Two.
