jozjozjoz.com :: brain barf... yum!

Screw the 'Governator', we should rename him the 'Narrow-Minded-Bigot-inator'.

Actually that really doesn't have as nice of a ring to it. Never mind.

It's not really him saying that. He's just a mouthpiece for the REAL politicians doing the work for him while he goes out and shakes hands and plugs movies.

Of course it's not saying that.

But so long as he's the governor and the city of SF is suing the state, he has to be the one to "make the statements."

Oh I know...I'm just saying the statements aren't entirely his. hehe

You may be right, Mikey2, but quite frankly, I don't care what "his" (personal) statements would be/should be/are. But I do care what he is saying "officially" as Governor (no matter who is putting those words in his mouth).

Unfortunately, he is the Governor and he is the "official mouthpiece" for the State. If the "official mouthpiece" is saying that gay marriage is illegal, that's fine. Of course he's going to say that as governor. But it's still wrong & discriminatory.

And I realize that Proposition (blah-blah) means that the people said that marriage (blah) between a (blah) man and a (blah) woman is what is (blah) recognized in (blah) the state of (blah) California.

Just because it's "the law" doesn't mean that it is right.

And as a "leader," he COULD stand up and say this may be the law, but it's wrong & that he'll lead the effort to change it. But he either 1) doesn't believe that or 2) does and is too chicken shit to make that statement.

On the other hand, Gavin Newsom has decided that yes, he'll stand up and protest a discriminatory law and by doing what he did last week, he did decide to be a leader in making change.

People may not like how he did it, but at least Newsom stood up and stood for something (vs. the Governator, who is supposedly standing around being a 'mouthpiece')

Anyway, Mikey2, I know you know where I'm coming from and I also know where you are. Thanks for giving me the chance to get this off my chest.

I like how that comment was longer than my few several posts combined. :)

I know, Joz, I know. It was an ill attempt at humor on my part, for which I apologize.

It's my defense mechanism. I just can't understand why THEY can't understand...and in my confusion I become a clown.

Okay, a BIGGER clown.

If Arnold really chooses too ignore these marriages, I think there will a backlash from the community. It is what they want and deserve as citizens of a free country. They should have the Gay Pride parade across his lawn.

The Governator can say whatever he wants but for the time being- the same-sex marriages are NOT illegal. Not one single court has said as much. Equal protection supercedes Prop 22. Newsom knows this. Ahnold (or his cronies) should do thier homeowrk before making that kind of statement.

In related news. There was an ABC News clip ("Above the Law") that had a 2 sec. snippet of our ceremony at the end which was groovy and all but here's what raised my hackles... the reporter said during the segment, and I quote: "Those getting married here in San Franccisco know that they are breaking the law..." [cough] bullshit [cough] This is the kind of subliminal subversive reporting that burns my britches. As far as I know, my marriage is still legal. Prove me wrong.

And there are people out there who believe that discrimination doesn't exist, that bigotry doesn't exist and that "they" can say what they want and its ok. And we believe we've made so much progress...somehow I don't believe we have.
I agree with you Joz, he should be a "leader" instead of a "follower", but that's just my thing.
I just get pissed off when people are saying well its not a thing of "morals" ok...well then why are you against the whole idea of LGBT marriages?? And more so this just is another reason to prove why I don't like Bush. You're troubled by the idea of same-sex marriages? Whoever said it was wrong? (hmmmm...ok maybe i should get off my soapbox, because this is going to lead into my beliefs about all types of organized religion)....anyways..I'm with you Joz :) And I think I'm going to get on a soapbox if I continue at this pace.

One problem I see with the SF Mayor vs. the state is that by disobeying the law (right or wrong) the mayor of SF is in turn breaking the law. This gives fuel to the narrow, closed-minded bigots who passed the unconstitutional law to begin with.
I'm glad somebody sacked up and took on this bit of bigotry. It will eventually go to the Supreme Court and they will have to rule on the constitutionality of the law. This will also set national precedence. I hope other mayors and even governors join in.
Only then can Californians get to their real problems like why is Ryan Seacrest so popular. Uh? Answer me that.

He'll be back!