Will Gay Rights Sink the CA GOP?

[David__77]

Gov. Gray Davis soon will be sent AB 205, which will equate the rights and responsibilities domestic partnership and marriage in most respects. Thousands of same sex couples are registered domestic partners in this state. Davis will almost certainly sign this bill.

Arnold Schwarzenegger will be under tremendous pressure to speak out against it. When Bill Simon signed lukewarm pro-gay responses to a Log Cabin GOP questionnaire in 2002, it caused an outpouring of rage on the right. Simon pathetically recanted at that point. I predict Schwarzenegger will not speak out against it. The conservatives will rebel, fueling the candidacy of Simon or McClintock. While at this point many rightists are enthused about Scharzenegger, they will throw themselves into a vomitous rage when his pro-same sex couple viewpoints are aired.

If the field is mainly comprised of two Republicans and one Democrat, the odds are definitely in Davis' favor.

At this point, interested activists should make conservative talk radio, GOP officials and others aware of Schwazenegger's "liberal positions" including support for "same sex marriage, late term abortion, affirmative action, amnesty for illegal immigrants, and opposition to parental consent abortion laws for minors."

[UnAmericanJoe]

1. In short

We should do exactly what the republicans are doing with Dean.

[newyawker99]

4. Hi UnAmericanJoe!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[David__77]

5. Yes...

But, I have a feeling that it's not even really necessary. The right has real reasons not to support Schwarzenegger. He's not a "team player" willing to kill Lou Sheldon's ass. If he becomes governor, the ultra-right is dead politically in this state. We would become like Massachusettes, with a centrist GOP and a center-left Democratic Party. In some ways, this would be good. It would shift the debate, and take the air out of the right. But we cannot afford to, as a party, lose this position. There are many battles ahead...

[realFedUp]

2. Ask Congressman Dreier what he thinks about gay marriage

and civil unions since he's in one.

[sam sarrha]

3. no, but banning Porno WILL !!!!!!!!!!!!

:spank:

[Zan_of_Texas]

6. I have to question the basic premise

Electing movie stars, pro wrestlers, and dim sons to public office, no matter what their beliefs, is a bad idea.

If they have exhibited great understanding of issues and a willingness to lead on those issues, that's one thing. I'm not saying fame achieved because of one's pretty face or big muscles EXCLUDES a person from serving in public office. I'm just saying it's not enough. The media fawns over these people and quotes their opinions in the mass media like they are important for us to know.

I had to be subjected to Charles Barkley's views on women and all manner of things while he was playing basketball here, and aspiring to someday be governor of Alabama. Pul-lease.

Putting this type of person in public office creates a vacuum at the top which is then filled by Rovian or Perlian types. Who operate beneath the radar without public accountability. In Reagan's case, it was partially filled by VP George H.W. Bush.

A very bad idea, then, and now.

But, you can see why certain people would like that vacuum.....