Nevada Governor Pledges to Veto Domestic Partnership Bill (TAKE ACTION)

Nevada Governor Pledges to Veto Domestic Partnership Bill Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons has promised to veto the domestic partnership bill.

[OutVoice]

Oh yeah him, the getting divorced and cheating moral guy. Right as in the KKK is a right-wing Christian organization. Such hypocrites. Glad I don't gamble, so no need for me to go there. Sound slike a good reason for a boycott to me!

[Daniel P from Long Island]

More homophobia from elected officials on display...

:(

[Yobyag]

if the government has no business in our "medicine chest and bedroom" then why is he no crusading to end legal recognition of straight marriage. After all there are plenty of legal ways to recognize their partnerships.

Good thing Prostitution is still legal there though. It would be a tragedy if ugly horny men couldn't pay some bimbo to screw him.

[Disgusted American]

Fine - VETO it....you won't see my tourism dollars in Vages anytime in the near future a-hole!

[Disgusted American]

Fine - VETO it....you won't see my tourism dollars in VEGAS anytime in the near future a-hole!..and I was thinking about headin there too...now he's made up my mind for me....NO THANK U VEGAS!

[JohnInToronto]

The long-term good news for the US is that California is seeing a continued exodus of Democratic voters to states like Nevada, Montana, Arizona, and even Wyoming.

While the power shift in the Senate was partly attributed to disgust with the Republicans, this plays a role too. Additionally, an increase in population in these states will dilute their over representation.

The framers of the Constitution meant well but were not forward thinking when they guaranteed each state two senators and one representative. It results nowadays in a ridiculous amount of power for small jurisdictions. Since the US is no longer a loose confederacy, worrying about the voices of individual states.

So longer term as well, governorships in smaller western states will also shift parties as their populations increase.

The one state that does not seem to be shifting yet is Idaho, but I think that will happen eventually too.

[ltndncr59]

Yobyag wrote:

if the government has no business in our "medicine chest and bedroom" then why is he no crusading to end legal recognition of straight marriage. After all there are plenty of legal ways to recognize their partnerships.
Good thing Prostitution is still legal there though. It would be a tragedy if ugly horny men couldn't pay some bimbo to screw him.

Actually, prostitution isn't legal in the whole state of Nevada. It isn't legal in Las Vegas, ironically.
Governor Gibbons is a pigheaded reprobate who has only served his own interests since he was elected. The senate and the assembly spend all of their time trying to figure out how to get around him. That he got into the Governor's Mansion in the first place only speaks of mindset of Nevadans.
Talk about living on the corner of Murder and Homophobe!

[ltndncr59]

Disgusted American wrote:

Fine - VETO it....you won't see my tourism dollars in VEGAS anytime in the near future a-hole!..and I was thinking about headin there too...now he's made up my mind for me....NO THANK U VEGAS!

That attitude won't hurt the governor any, but it will hurt gay people like me who work in the tourism and hospitality industry.
You might wanna re-think your boycott protocol.

[Daniel P from Long Island]

John in Ottawa wrote:

The long-term good news for the US is that California is seeing a continued exodus of Democratic voters to states like Nevada, Montana, Arizona, and even Wyoming.
While the power shift in the Senate was partly attributed to disgust with the Republicans, this plays a role too. Additionally, an increase in population in these states will dilute their over representation.
The framers of the Constitution meant well but were not forward thinking when they guaranteed each state two senators and one representative. It results nowadays in a ridiculous amount of power for small jurisdictions. Since the US is no longer a loose confederacy, worrying about the voices of individual states.
So longer term as well, governorships in smaller western states will also shift parties as their populations increase.
The one state that does not seem to be shifting yet is Idaho, but I think that will happen eventually too.

The fact that each state gets to senators and at least 1 representative has nothing to do with the framers being "forward thinking". This was part of the Great Compromise to get a constitution written for this country that would get ratified by the states. I think this is a fine arrangement, and since the U.S. Constitution is the OLDEST written national constitution still in effect, it MUST be working pretty darn well.

What don't you like about those constitutioal provisions, and what would you say is a better idea ?

btw, r u in Canada ?

[tomas]

Some of these politicians are, frankly, not too smart.

[JohnInToronto]

Daniel P from Long Island wrote:

<quoted text>
The fact that each state gets to senators and at least 1 representative has nothing to do with the framers being "forward thinking". This was part of the Great Compromise to get a constitution written for this country that would get ratified by the states. I think this is a fine arrangement, and since the U.S. Constitution is the OLDEST written national constitution still in effect, it MUST be working pretty darn well.
What don't you like about those constitutioal provisions, and what would you say is a better idea ?
btw, r u in Canada ?

Of course it was a compromise, as the larger states were slugging it out with the smaller ones. But back then, the states has just been through a loose confederacy and still thought of themselves as independent.

Nowadays, I cannot see what is so special about Wyoming that its people should be grossly over-represented in Congress and the people of California should have less representation, on a per capita basis. The lines of the States, especially in the West, are arbitrary and don't follow cultural or geographical boundaries. To me, they are lines on a map dividing civil jurisdictions.

Yes, I am in Canada - you should recall why from reading previous posts.

[Daniel P from Long Island]

John in Ottawa wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course it was a compromise, as the larger states were slugging it out with the smaller ones. But back then, the states has just been through a loose confederacy and still thought of themselves as independent.
Nowadays, I cannot see what is so special about Wyoming that its people should be grossly over-represented in Congress and the people of California should have less representation, on a per capita basis. The lines of the States, especially in the West, are arbitrary and don't follow cultural or geographical boundaries. To me, they are lines on a map dividing civil jurisdictions.
Yes, I am in Canada - you should recall why from reading previous posts.

Being you're a Canadian, why don't you mind your own business ? You have no problems in Canada you can worry about ?

[ltndncr59]

tomas wrote:

Some of these politicians are, frankly, not too smart.

In the case of Governor Gibbons, "not too smart" is a gross understatement. I think he applied for town idiot of Reno, but was overqualified.

[Yobyag]

ltndncr59 wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, prostitution isn't legal in the whole state of Nevada. It isn't legal in Las Vegas, ironically.
Governor Gibbons is a pigheaded reprobate who has only served his own interests since he was elected. The senate and the assembly spend all of their time trying to figure out how to get around him. That he got into the Governor's Mansion in the first place only speaks of mindset of Nevadans.
Talk about living on the corner of Murder and Homophobe!

Well not to split hairs, but if it is legal in any one place in the state then it is legal in the state. I assume that any county, township, what have you could legalize if they wished.

I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy.

[ltndncr59]

Yobyag wrote:

<quoted text>
Well not to split hairs, but if it is legal in any one place in the state then it is legal in the state. I assume that any county, township, what have you could legalize if they wished.
I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy.

Nevada state law is very clear about where prostitution is legal, and where it is not. It has something to do with population, I believe. It is illegal in Las Vegas, for example, because the population is over whatever the legal limit is.
Please don't split hairs! I spend WAY too much money on hair product as it is!(Just kidding...).

[OutVoice]

As one who lives in a hate state, Virginia, I have to disagree. At some point we must make the bigots accountable. It will hurt the Gov if it becomes knowledge that he is causing the state a financial loss. The argument that a boycott hurts the gays that live there is not really accurate. Look at the boycott of orange juice due to Ms. Bryant. If we want equality we must be prepared to sacrifice. As our community members live everywhere and are not always able to relocate I also understand the concern. But we, those who live in hate states must also realize the goal is worth the sacrifice.

ltndncr59 wrote:

<quoted text>
That attitude won't hurt the governor any, but it will hurt gay people like me who work in the tourism and hospitality industry.
You might wanna re-think your boycott protocol.

[OutVoice]

Huge shame on you Daniel!!! You continually post the same tirade whether on topic or not and expect us to reread your tired anti-dem rants. Your post is rude and pointing you more to being a poser for the repubs in my opinion.

Daniel P from Long Island wrote:

<quoted text>
Being you're a Canadian, why don't you mind your own business ? You have no problems in Canada you can worry about ?

[Daniel P from Long Island]

OutVoice wrote:

Huge shame on you Daniel!!! You continually post the same tirade whether on topic or not and expect us to reread your tired anti-dem rants. Your post is rude and pointing you more to being a poser for the repubs in my opinion.
<quoted text>

That's the only time I posted that statement because it was directed only at him.

[JohnInToronto]

Daniel P from Long Island wrote:

<quoted text>
Being you're a Canadian, why don't you mind your own business ? You have no problems in Canada you can worry about ?

I am still an American citizen and plan to retain my American citizenship after becoming a Canaidan one. The reason I would not renounce it is that I am planning to continue to vote in American presidential elections. Additionally I have friends in the US and have contacts with other binational same-sex couples who are suffering there as we did.

While it really is not relevant to the gay rights struggle in the US (which in Canada is now largely a non-issue as there is little left to fight for), other US actions affect Canada very strongly due to its close relationship with the US, especially true when Conservatives here are in power. Even economic issues in the US which are indirectly political have affected Canada. For example, the mess the housing industry made created a major downturn in construction, which in turn led to a low demand for lumber. Much of the softwood lumber used in the States is Canadian. Already, many small towns in the upper Ottawa Valley in both Ontario and Quebec have lost lots of jobs due to mills closing or reducing operations because of the downturn in the US construction market.

Another example of economic impact was recently reported in the Ottawa newspaper. A paper mill in Thurso, Quebec on the Ottawa river (alright, it stinks and is probably not the most environmentally friendly thing in the world but it does employ people) will have to close because the US government is subsidizing the paper industry there with taxpayer dollars preventing free competition. As a proclaimed libertarian this should be of interest to you.

[JohnInToronto]

Daniel P from Long Island wrote:

<quoted text>
Being you're a Canadian, why don't you mind your own business ? You have no problems in Canada you can worry about ?

PS: Gay problems I might not have here, but the US forcing my partner and me into exile have caused us personal economic problems indirectly. Canada is not paradise and there are issues hindering us from finding work here.

While the US hassles skilled immigrants whose skills it needs by not issuing enough HB1 visas, those who do arrive are usually immediately employable as they have in-demand skills and are snapped up. Conversely, Canada's government is very welcoming of immigrants but its employers have a subtle xenophobia that expresses itself in constant concern about whether a person has "Canadian experience" regardless of the fact that they are typically much better educated and experienced than Canadians hired for the same job description. It is due to a highly protectionist attitude in the job market here. Again, as a libertarian you might find this of interest.

The upshot is that the US's actions caused us severe personal economic upheaval indirectly. We moved to Ottawa by chance and decided to stay because it was ranked as a good place to work and live here. However, as it is a government town that has lost much of its non-government workforce (telecommunications businesses), it is difficult for an IT person as myself to find work there. Canadian government jobs in IT are virtually never given to non-citizens and contracts require security clearances which are difficult even for many skilled Canadians to obtain, much less immigrants.

Hence we will be relocating, at considerable expense, to Toronto next month.