The GOP governors just aren’t living up to the Hate the Gays promise that the right wing has in mind.
First, Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. dumped a Metro representative that was calling gays deviants. And then he had the gall to appoint an openly gay judge. Oh, the tragedy.
And now there’s California.
Randy Thomasson, director of Campaign for California Families, is all in a tizzy because California GOP Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is headlining a fund raising dinner for Log Cabin Republicans, an organization for gay and lesbian Republicans and their friends.
A few choice pieces of Thomasson’s invective:
On June 29, Schwarzenegger will take photos with transsexuals, bisexuals, and homosexuals for $5,000 a pop. Overall, Schwarzenegger’s goal is to help raise $300,000 for the “Log Cabin” Republicans so they can transform the California Republican Party into the party that supports homosexual “marriage” and the entire transsexual, bisexual, and homosexual legislative agenda.
Some who participate here will be amused to see that transsexuals now lead the agenda. Who would have thunk it?
And, of course, “Log Cabin” is in quotes because they aren’t really Log Cabin, they just call themselves that.
The Hollywood event is cosponsored by Equality California, the sponsor of every piece of transsexual, bisexual, and homosexual legislation at the State Capitol. Equality California attacks the institutions of marriage and parenthood, the Boy Scouts, religious freedom, and private property, at every opportunity.
Private property, you ask?
Well of course. Every good anti-gay activist knows that gays (especially those who go to Republican fundraisers) oppose the ownership of private property. Yikes!!
You should be very concerned that Arnold Schwarzenegger is teaming up with homosexual activists. In essence, he is spitting on the pro-family Republican Party platform.
I’ll be going to the dinner with the Governor on Thursday and I’ll be sure to report back if he spits on any platforms or abolishes private property rights.
Funny you mention that. I’ve seen innapproriate use of quotes in anti-gay literature before. I remember reading something in an online newspaper article a few months ago where the offspring of and lesbian couple were referred to as “children”, almost to suggest to the reader that there was ambiguity as whether or not they were actually children.
I imagine it’s a subtle form of dog-whistling.
Yeah, only with the religious right folk do transgender people get top billing. ;)Of course, we transpeople are horrifying, and we all know how important transgender issues to the “Homosexual Agenda”:The Homosexual Agenda: It’s No Longer About ToleranceAcademia Pushes Homosexual AgendaBRIEFING PAPER On The Homosexual Agenda
It looks like traditionalvalues.org isn’t accepting links referred from XGW. Just paste the link into another browser window/tab if you want to view that last link.
David Roberts
Please forgive the nitpicking, but I really disagree with the use of the “pro-family” description in the title of this article. We really shouldn’t concede the “pro-family” title to Religious Right organizations since the implication is that those who oppose these self-proclaimed “pro-family” organizations are anti-family. Many GLBT, liberals, and non-religious peoples are “pro-family”.
Oh, this one takes the cake.
Has anyone else noticed just how hyperbolic and screechy that the anti-gay movement has become? They are throwing out every sterotype and bigot-baiting comment they can. Where in the hell did they come up with gays being against private property? I had no idea that the Comintern had taken over the GLBT movement. 😉
I concur that we should not allow the moonbats to own the label “pro-family” when in fact their beliefs and public policies are really very anti-family. We are accused of every horror that they can come up with, regardless of how silly it may be. I fail to understand how standing up and demanding our full share of civil and human rights is the same thing as wanting to “destroy” marriage and families, to end property ownership rights, hell even to kick puppies. It’s astounding. Just how stupid are these people – and just how stupid do they think the rest of us are?
I am a member and worked for EQCA and because of the governor’s veto of the Leno bill, I have to wonder if we can trust Schwartzeneggar.
The Republicans AND Dems have taken money and votes from us, then show us the backs of their hands at crunch time.
We’ve been burned a lot of time, folks. And I’m sick of it.
Okay, so the governor said he’d accept what the courts would do ultimately.
But will he really?
Or will he utter the words ‘activist courts’ if their decision rules in favor of gay couples and their children on marriage?
I wish the pols would stop straddling the fence on such quality of life issues that are important and far from frivolous.
And frivolous is where the anti gay are heading.
And the anti gay are just telling lies outright.
No one on their side is being ‘attacked’ or compromised in any way.
And they are just messing up gay lives…but to what end?
What purpose does it serve that they do it?
It won’t improve straight lives if they do. In fact, it might compromise straight life if they fulfill their own agenda.
Anyway, Jamiel and I are off to Washington, D.C. this Thursday morning.
We have work to do.
Arnold vetoed the gay marriage bill because it would have illegally overturned a proposition outlawing gay marrige approved by the voters of California. The California legislature is not empowered to overturn voter approved initiatives. The governor was just upholding the State Constitution, like it or not.
Yeah, I know Mark.
And all the other governors are supposed to do that too.
They seem only interested in doing so AFTER a gay person’s protection within it is gone.
And you must know too, that when courts have legally intervened on behalf of gay person’s protections and access…they get slapped as activist.
I suppose a tyranny of the majority isn’t ringing a bell with the factions screaming about Constitutional amendments….state or fed.
Mark said:
Arnold vetoed the gay marriage bill because it would have illegally overturned a proposition outlawing gay marrige approved by the voters of California. The California legislature is not empowered to overturn voter approved initiatives. The governor was just upholding the State Constitution, like it or not.
How long has it been since majority rule determined civil rights? Are you not in favor of the court decisions which granted rights to blacks against majority rule during the 1950’s and 60’s? Majority rule is mob rule when applied to the rights of a minority, like it or not.
David Roberts
Regan and David,
I think you are misunderstanding what Mark said. He wasn’t saying that gay rights are subject to majority rule but rather that the method by which the legislature attempted to grant marriage equality was unconstitutional.
In California a legislature cannot overturn a vote of the constituents. The bill, though a nice gesture, was technically illegal. The governor said when he vetoed it that it was pointless. If it is a violation of the CA Constitution to deny equality to gay couples then the Court will determine that based on the case currently in the system. If the courts find that it is not a violation, then the bill would not have had any impact because it too would be appealed to the Court by the right-wingers and they would win on the technical merits.
As much as it annoys me, it happens to be true that the CA legislature was just playing politics. I think the governor should have signed the bill as a gesture or a symbol but that’s all it would be. And he has indicated that he would support gay marriage if it was determined by the CA Supreme Court to be a right.
Incidentally, he did not mention gay marriage last night though he did discuss that all of us are looking for the same thing, gay or straight, someone to love. And he also said that all couples should be treated equally. Of course he may think that the domestic parterships in CA are that, but from what I can tell he is not opposed to gay marriage. And it is clear that he considers gay people no differently than anyone else. His body language said that he considered himself in a “safe” crowd among people he could be natural around. And his words made clear that he does not side with the right-wing side of the Republican Party. He emphasized over and over how important he considered Log Cabin to be.
I’ll give more of my thoughts later.
Posted by: Timothy Kincaid at June 30, 2006 10:59 PM
You are correct in that I didn’t know about that being part of the California Constitution, or if I ever did I forgot it. I was relaying my frustration over the common argument that courts and/or legislatures can’t touch the sacred will of the majority when that is precisely what they had to do during the civil rights era. It’s an argument that is growing very old.
For the record, I think it would have been good of Arnold to sign the bill and force those in opposition to go through the process of nullifying it if they had so wished. I’m not much for symbolism over substance but sometimes symbolism is all one has. He could have said that he realized the likely fate of the measure but signing it was still the right thing to do.
Not being a California resident, I’m not as familiar with the Governor’s track record as you probably are. He seems quite a bit more effective than what he replaced (though that isn’t setting the bar too high), but I’m not sure I can read his body language that accurately from his appearance last night – politicians are often practiced at deception but being an actor as well makes it likely that he can easily fake it. I hope he is genuine as we have enough fakes as it is.
David Roberts