Schwarzenegger: Let Same-Sex Weddings...

Schwarzenegger: Let Same-Sex Weddings Resume Now

There are 343 comments on the ThePittsburghChannel story from Aug 7, 2010, titled Schwarzenegger: Let Same-Sex Weddings Resume Now. In it, ThePittsburghChannel reports that:

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who twice vetoed legislation that would have legalized same-sex marriage, has surprised gay rights supporters by urging a federal judge to allow gay couples to resume marrying in the state without further delay.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at ThePittsburghChannel.

First Prev
of 18
Next Last
Jim Shorts

Richmond, VA

#1 Aug 7, 2010
"Schwarzenegger: Let Same-Sex Weddings Resume Now", no matter what the majority of Californians voted for.

“LIVE TO HUNT”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#2 Aug 7, 2010
if you don't like the law just find an activist judge who agrees with you.
money honey

United States

#5 Aug 7, 2010
Wait for the first lawsuit for GAY REPARATIONS.

It's coming.
money honey

United States

#6 Aug 7, 2010
Jim Shorts wrote:
"Schwarzenegger: Let Same-Sex Weddings Resume Now", no matter what the majority of Californians voted for.
Why vote when a judge will toss it out.

We, the people...what a joke
Remember in November

United States

#7 Aug 7, 2010
GUNS AND AMMO wrote:
if you don't like the law just find an activist judge who agrees with you.
OBAMA has another two years to appoint LIFETIME activist judges.

It's time you got off your rump and voted in local elections to oust democrats who hold the majority in the Congress (Pelosi), Senate (Reid) and the Executive Branch (Obama). That's all 3 branches of government...what the hell do YOU expect?!

Your local democrats, whom you voted for, support the judicial candidates who are nominated and the democrat majority of the senate approves these activist judges.

Your local votes have great impact. REVERSE the democrat trend. REbalance our government.

NO ONE PARTY CONTROL of 3 branches of government. That just isn't good.

It has to be ALL DMEMOCRATS VOTED OUT.
Chicago Guy

Newark, NJ

#9 Aug 7, 2010
money honey wrote:
Wait for the first lawsuit for GAY REPARATIONS.
It's coming.
Too bad there's no fund for stupid reparations. You'd be a wealthy woman.
Chicago Guy

Newark, NJ

#10 Aug 7, 2010
money honey wrote:
<quoted text>
Why vote when a judge will toss it out.
We, the people...what a joke
1) the entire notion of ballot initiatives is of dubious constitutionality.
2) neither the people, nor the legislature, can pass a law that's unconstitutional.

Ever take Civics 101??

“i hope we can change this!”

Since: Aug 08

usa

#11 Aug 7, 2010
Chicago Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
1) the entire notion of ballot initiatives is of dubious constitutionality.
2) neither the people, nor the legislature, can pass a law that's unconstitutional.
Ever take Civics 101??
well, we better get busy striking down a shitpot full of laws, and then, close up a bunch of federal agencies!
you know who

Lumberton, NC

#12 Aug 7, 2010
money honey wrote:
<quoted text>
Why vote when a judge will toss it out.
We, the people...what a joke
more like why vote when the constitution goes against the majority in this case?
you know who

Lumberton, NC

#13 Aug 7, 2010
Remember in November wrote:
<quoted text>
OBAMA has another two years to appoint LIFETIME activist judges.
It's time you got off your rump and voted in local elections to oust democrats who hold the majority in the Congress (Pelosi), Senate (Reid) and the Executive Branch (Obama). That's all 3 branches of government...what the hell do YOU expect?!
Your local democrats, whom you voted for, support the judicial candidates who are nominated and the democrat majority of the senate approves these activist judges.
Your local votes have great impact. REVERSE the democrat trend. REbalance our government.
NO ONE PARTY CONTROL of 3 branches of government. That just isn't good.
It has to be ALL DMEMOCRATS VOTED OUT.
did i mention the judge in question was appointed by reagan?
Chicago Guy

Winnetka, IL

#14 Aug 7, 2010
carey529 wrote:
<quoted text>
well, we better get busy striking down a shitpot full of laws, and then, close up a bunch of federal agencies!
Well, you have a right to file suit against any law you feel is constitutional. Otherwise,you're just spouting hot air.
Zombie Corpse Rental

San Jose, CA

#15 Aug 7, 2010
Remember in November wrote:
<quoted text>
OBAMA has another two years to appoint LIFETIME activist judges.
It's time you got off your rump and voted in local elections to oust democrats who hold the majority in the Congress (Pelosi), Senate (Reid) and the Executive Branch (Obama). That's all 3 branches of government...what the hell do YOU expect?!
Your local democrats, whom you voted for, support the judicial candidates who are nominated and the democrat majority of the senate approves these activist judges.
Your local votes have great impact. REVERSE the democrat trend. REbalance our government.
NO ONE PARTY CONTROL of 3 branches of government. That just isn't good.
It has to be ALL DMEMOCRATS VOTED OUT.
You were okay with it when the Republicans ran the show, though ...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#16 Aug 7, 2010
Now that the Governator isn't running for re-election, he finally comes out is support of gays & lesbians. Too bad he didn't have the courage to do this before.

“Freedom Demands Responsibility”

Since: Aug 09

21st Century

#17 Aug 7, 2010
Woof, Arnold wants to run for Feinstein's Senate seat. He'll probably switch parties, and bask in his Kennedy connection. He'll run as a moderate Democrat, peal away independents and thinks his stance on the Gay Marraige issue is a good start.

If you are wondering look at Feinstein's age.

“i hope we can change this!”

Since: Aug 08

usa

#18 Aug 7, 2010
Chicago Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, you have a right to file suit against any law you feel is constitutional. Otherwise,you're just spouting hot air.
as are you...
there is NOTHING in the constitution about marriage, opposite OR same sex.

civics 101?
hot topic

United States

#19 Aug 7, 2010
Jim Shorts wrote:
"Schwarzenegger: Let Same-Sex Weddings Resume Now", no matter what the majority of Californians voted for.
Schwarzenegger is a hypocrite just like most of the politicians! He's bowing down and going with the flow, not his own convictions! The people's votes means nothing anymore!

“Proud to be Mahu”

Since: Sep 07

Sacramento, CA

#20 Aug 7, 2010
GUNS AND AMMO wrote:
if you don't like the law just find an activist judge who agrees with you.
Or, if the law is unconstitutional find ANY judge and let them do their job.
hot topic

United States

#21 Aug 7, 2010
you know who wrote:
<quoted text> more like why vote when the constitution goes against the majority in this case?
Funny thing is the Constitution has been around for a long time. Gay marriage has never been considered normal here. Only now is the lack of gay marriage being found unConstitutional! All the special interest activists/liberal judges and politicians. Taking the US down the toilet fast!

“Proud to be Mahu”

Since: Sep 07

Sacramento, CA

#22 Aug 7, 2010
carey529 wrote:
<quoted text>
as are you...
there is NOTHING in the constitution about marriage, opposite OR same sex.
civics 101?
No, but it sets a basis for equality.
After you.
formerly really

San Pedro, CA

#23 Aug 7, 2010
hot topic wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny thing is the Constitution has been around for a long time. Gay marriage has never been considered normal here. Only now is the lack of gay marriage being found unConstitutional! All the special interest activists/liberal judges and politicians. Taking the US down the toilet fast!
Actually, if you look at the ruling, it really isn't saying that gay marrige is in the Constituiton That's absurd; marriage isn't mentioned in it at all.

What IS mentioned is due process and equal treatment under the law. Telling two people that they cannot make a legal, civil contract based SOLELY on their gender is NOT equal treatment under the law, and the state has NO compelling reason to discriminate against them.

The SCOTUS has ruled that marriage is a fundamnetal right. If the state is going to take away that fundamnetal right from a select group of people, they MUST have a compelling legal reason to do so. "It's tradition" does not qualify.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 18
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

California Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 45 min FastandFurious 189,897
News Gay marriage (Mar '13) 1 hr Rosa_Winkel 59,858
Annette Marion is evil Yvette forced to Russia ... 3 hr Bennet Colorado 1
Annette Marion mentally ill cpmd 3 hr Bennet Colorado 1
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 4 hr Mothra 53,602
News California Senate bills target smoking age, e-c... 4 hr Spreading Knowledge 1
News Capitol Alert: California lawmaker seeks health... (Jan '14) 4 hr wild child 9
More from around the web