Google news

At the risk of dropping yet another name, go to www.sftc.org/docs/marriage.pdf to read the actual opinion written by my fellow former maritime lawyer and good Republican, Judge Richie Kramer.

Two "shut up and sit down" comments from California:

SFGate

The best part of this as gmg mentioned is that this Judge is a Catholic who was a Republican appointee!

How is that for a radical judge?

I think this is wonderful, only sweeter by the fact that it was a Catholic Republican judge. We have realized a huge victory today. Rejoice!

A great ruling by a political "extremist," an "unelected legislator," a...oh why even echo the idiots? In his wisdom he sounds almost like another Catholic Republican who has come out several times in recent years on the correct side of the law, Anthony Kennedy! (Or is that Sandra Day O'Connor?)

I think this info will be of interest to some gays and lesbians!


http://mpetrelis.blogspot.com/



Dear Friends:

The San Francisco Superior Court judge who issued a ruling yesterday supportive of gay marriages, Richard A. Kramer, has made some rather interesting political donations over the past four years.

At the federal level, Kramer has made no donations, according to the PoliticalMoneyLine's web site tray.com.

In California races Kramer gave $500 in 2002 to openly lesbian Superior Court candidate Nancy L. Davis for her successful run.

In 2003 Kramer donated $500 to Californians for Schwarzenegger, according to the Secretary of State's database.

At the local level, during 2002 he wrote a check for $100 to openly gay Board of Supervisors candidate Bevan Dufty, who won his seat to represent the Castro district.

Kramer in 2003 also contributed $750 to Gavin Newsom's campaign for mayor of San Francisco.

He donated $500 that year to Newsom's opponent, former Supervisor Matt Gonzalez.

Kramer most recent donation, made in 2004, was a $500 donation to a former colleague, Lillian Sing, in her losing bid for a Board of Supervisors' seat.

You can find information on Kramer's donations to Judge Davis and Gov. Schwarzenegger at http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/ContributorSearch.aspx.

To verify Kramer's giving to San Francisco candidates, visit http://sunset.ci.sf.ca.us/olfspublish300.nsf.

Michael Petrelis
San Francisco, CA

Now I am just waiting for this guy's local priest or bishop to declare he is unfit for communion on the basis of this ruling. Not only has the Church threated pro-choice Catholic legislators and jurists with this punishment, but at least one conservative member of Canada's Parliament.

Just for the record, I never said anything about Judge Kramer's faith, only his politics. To the best of my knowledge, he's Jewish, but of that I am not sure, though I am sure his faith is irrelevant, so I said nothing of it.

BTW, judges routinely contribute to each others' reelection campaigns, so I wouldn't read too much into his giving record. In a jurisdiction like SF, where judges are often challenged, such contribs are best seen as a form of employment security.

Judge is Catholic Republican appointee.

To the best of my knowledge, this isn't the first time gm's been wrong.

Frankly, I don't care if he is a Zen Budist or howls at the full moon....I'm just glad he is on the bench making solid decisions.

that's "Buddhist"...

wink

I wonder what Bush has to say about Republican "activist judges"?

Weren't those "activist judges" in the People's Republic of Taxachusetts Republicans also???

Thanks Kalabro. I try my best, but God gave me thick long fingers which makes it difficult for me to type. Now only if I could find a good excuse for my spelling.

We have some more support. The California State NAACP endorses the same-sex marriage bill.
San Diego Union Tribune

California Senate approves gay marriage bill.

Will the State Assembly and the Governator step up to the plate???

[ September 01, 2005, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: KeyWest Guy ]

Yes.

This is heartening news. Where does it go from here and what are the chances?

If the California House passes the law, then Governor Schwarzenegger could show how pro-gay he truly is and sign it. It would be a landmark event--the legislature of largest state in the country passing a gay rights bill and a Republican governor signing it.

One question: could right-wingers then push for a referendum that would overturn it? How does California's Constitution settle such things?

Poorly. From what I've seen the only state with a Constitutional mess on their hands to rival Texas' is California.

[ September 02, 2005, 12:09 AM: Message edited by: jqueer ]

You ought to take a look at Florida's Ammendment procedure. It's ridiculous. An example, the voters approved an Ammendment limiting class size (and I don't agree with putting things like that in as a Constitutional Ammendment, but that's beside the point). Gov. Jeb just decided to ignore it. He has simply ignored some of these items several times in his 2 terms.

Kudos to the CA Senate. Heard a report on the news that it's going to be a much tougher fight in the House. But we'll keep our eyes on it and our fingers crossed.

You got that right. We even have a constitutional amendment about how pregnant pigs can be crated. The problem is Florida doesn't have any provision for citizen initiatives other than constitutional amendments. It makes for some insane stuff in our constitution

Supposedly the California Assembly (House) needs only three votes to pass the law. Then do you think Schwarzenegger would sign it? I hope he would. He's in serious political trouble, and his reelection seems dicey, so he should go for broke and cajole some Rethugs to come on board, pass the law, then sign it and go down in history as a hero. Mind you, having California allow gay rights would be revolutionary, since many national trends have originated in the Golden State (or conversely, it seems, in Massachusetts), and with a population larger than Spain's, it would literally change the discussion about gay marriage and equal civil and political rights overnight.

You're not going to cajole anyone into doing anything by calling them "thugs," unless they're looters, in which case the description is an accurate one but wasted on uncomprehending ears who'd just as soon mug you as they would actually listen to anything you might have to say.

If the bill passes the Assembly, which it didn't last time because of an unexpected number of Demo no-votes and no-shows, in addition to the entirely predictable GOP ones, the Governor might well sign it. At this point, though, it's all speculation until it makes it thru the Assembly. Word to the wise, though: don't count this Governor out even if he's down in the polls.

I'm sure in the hell not trying to cajole Rethugs, which they are; this is Ahnold's job, as Governator. Maybe calling Demos \"girlie men\" wasn't a good idea either, given its homophobic and misogynistic undertones, but then I guess you're only focused on \"looters\" or whatever, so nothing else matters.

So let me ask you, are Republicans introducing this bill in the Assembly, or are Democrats? Who are the main supporters? Is it likely that the Governator will be able to persuade more Democrats or more people in his party to vote for it? I read that a three-vote switch would pass it. Can Ahnold get those votes? Would he? If not, why not, since he has been touted as being pro-gay and pro-civil rights. Certainly he is pro-equality, right? So he'd support this bill, right?

California Assembly passes gay marriage bill

Exciting! Not one Republican in the State Assembly supported it. (Why? Didn't gmg blame the past failure in the Assembly on Democrats?)

Schwarzenegger, unlike many Repugs, says that such matters should be decided by the courts, so does this mean he'll veto it? Or will he make history and sign it?

Hmm... it seems like Arnold's support for gay rights is inversely ptoportional to his political viability and star power within the republican party. Since it's not looking like he'll be running for president anytime soon, he might just support gay marriage. Might. :confused:

Way to go California! Any idea how long it will be until Gov. Arnold signs or vetoes the bill? I know this is certainly not profound, but I'm guessing the reeling Repubs will be starting the process for the Federal Marriage Ammendment anytime now. It's their bread & butter issue. And they're not having a very good year...Iraq, budget deficits, Terri Schiavo, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, gas prices, floods, death and destruction.

[ September 06, 2005, 11:43 PM: Message edited by: so fla ref ]

The guvernator has to sign or veto by October 9. I have a sneaking suspicion (knock on wood) that he'll sign. Don't ask me why, but he's never given any inclination to being anti-gay. But then, he is a repug...

I've often wondered when I hear that Arnold is going to run for president of the US, one of the requirements is to be a natural born US citizen.

Hmmm....Isn't he a naturalized citizen and therefore unable to run for office?

Me too.

Orrin Hatch is sponsoring the "Freedom of Choice in Elected Officials Act," something to that effect, that would change that provision.

Doug Ireland is reporting that the LA Times says Schwarzenegger is going to veto it. He has until October 9, as others on here have said, but if he does veto it, so much for profiles in courage....

Again, why didn't any Republicans, even ones from gay areas, support it in the Assembly? Why do they hate our freedom?

I thought his last statement was that he'd support the courts on this now. Funny, the court ruled gay marriage discrimination unconstitutional. That previous decision is just under appeal.

Repugs are so incredibly frustrating trying to pull us back into the dark ages. Bin Laden and Republicans, two peas in pod!

Spare us the sophistries, FT. And yes, the bill did fail the first time because not as many Demos supported it then, even though its proposer's (Leno, D., SF) purpose - to politically embarass Gov. Schwarzenegger - remains the same. And don't forget that the bill passed by only one vote this time in the Demo-majority assembly. Do those Demos who didn't support it also "hate our freedom" and are they "trying to pull us back into the dark ages?"

But speculate as you will, either directly or vicariously through columnists. The Gov. may well let this bill become law without vetoing it or signing it. Somehow that very real option has so far escaped all commentators' blinkered eyes.

Talk about sophistry: that last post was the quitessence of obfuscation and avoidance.

if Ahnuld does anything but veto it, he's toast for re-election

the conservatives will abandon him if he signs it

Make that "quiNtessence," Neptune, and you'll have the beginnings of a point. Too much listening to Larry Tribe, I'm afraid.

The gropernator is sinking like a stone in polls; latest shows only 1/3 supporting his re-election. Most of the initiatives he put on the ballot look like losers and the majority does not even think a special election is needed. The SF Chronicle ran a front page story on how business lobbyists essentially wrote the laws from Day 1 of his "independent" administration.

So I think he may veto to bolster his support. It cannot cost him anything to veto it since those of us who would be outraged are unlikely to vote for him anyway. But it may rally the rightist base around him. He has been very big on cutting workers' rights but has not done enough for them to attack women, gays, marijuana, free speech, etc.

Hmm, well gmg, Tribe was not one of my favorite professors, but even so, he's pretty even handed and teaches multiple points of view, despite what you may think of his advocacy or commentating work.

Anyway, you're going to have a tough time convincing me that your party isn't on the wrong side of the marriage issue, and pointing the finger at Dem's doesn't change the fact that the Republicans currently seem intent on stopping queer folk from getting married.

Of course, you could avoid arguing on the merits, and focus on my spelling instead. I expected more from you than that. My mistake.

Edited to, er, check my spelling, and add--focussing on a wayward "N" instead of the message seems like sophistry to me.

Tally ho!

[ September 07, 2005, 09:31 AM: Message edited by: Neptune ]

Tuner, "arguing on the merits" here is nothing more than repeating what we already know: most GOPers are opposed to gay marriage and all of them in the Cal. Legislature voted against it. No surprises there - and I'm not one to rebroadcast old news. What IS news is that too many of us either don't know or are unwilling to accept that not all Demos are the guardians of gay rights that some would have them be. That's important to bear in mind when giving up on changing GOPers' minds, as too many have done, without really working at it in ways other than those designed to confront and alienate.

Just how has the Governor "attack[ed] women, gays, marijuana, free speech, etc." MdB? That's a pretty broad statement and just so there's no doubt, not all gays support legalized marijuana, whether "compassionately used" or regularly abused. Nor do all gays - or even lesbians, I'd wager - support ultraleft feminist ideas like so-called comparable worth schemes; most of us are pretty comfortable with equal pay. And I can't think of a single instance where the Gov. has done anything remotely akin to stifling free speech, unless you're confusing his expressing his own ideas with that. Finally, I wouldn't count on the Chronicle accurately reporting, let alone predicting, what's going on in California. There's a whole world outside the SF Bay Area - and once you get out and about in it you'll understand why many folks from elsewhere rightly label it, despite all its pretensions, provincial.

FYI: The Gov. announced he will veto the bill.

No shock there about a Republican Governor determined to keep us gay folk in our rightful place.

And yet the California legislature PASSED pro-gay legislation without ONE SINGLE GOP VOTE. I think I'll take my changes with the Demos "guarding" my gay rights over Repubs until I become suicidal. And you even use the phrase "unwilling to accept" in that garbage (how Freudian). Maybe YOU need to be willing to accept a few things? But it's all about the "party" with you GOP gays. Pathetically sad.

You think this is all about trying to \"politically embarass\" the Governor? Hello? You're the one engaging in sophistry. This bill, which was sponsored and voted up by Democrats (whether or not some disagree with it) is a earth-shattering move that will change the social landscape of the nation's largest state and the country in general if it passes. If you can't see that, it's not my problem. Why couldn't EVEN ONE PERSON in YOUR party, that you're working from within to change ON THE LOCAL LEVEL support this damn bill? Why would you even TRY to defend these people, let alone be part of them?

Yes, they do hate our freedoms and do not respect our lives and equality under the law. Yes, I said it, I'm not going to be blasé like you. Whether the bill passed by ONE vote or TEN, it was Democrats who proposed it and passed it. In BOTH chambers. The Republicans have nothing to say for themselves or their homosexual supporters. YOu can't blame everything on the Pride parades and leather crowd. In aggregate these people don't respect you or want you to enjoy the pursuit of happiness they hope to enjoy, not even the sick, sad homosexuals like Ken Mehlman and Jeff Gurley and Jeffjim Gannonguckert among them.

So was Doug Ireland wrong? Was this speculation off? How are you going to wriggle out of this bit of "sophistry"? As Hornfan said, "pathetically sad."

[ September 07, 2005, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

And that was from a so-called liberal Republican. f**k him.

What a hypocrit.

As golfer so eloquently stated, f**k HIM! :mad:

Don't forget, Arnold has a fear of "gurly men". Why to go big guy, you blew it and I hope you pay during the next Governors' election in California.

See, "working within" works, keep up it boys!!
Good job!!

WANTED: New poster boy for Uncle Tom's Log Cabin.
They're dropping like flies!

Sept 6: "Now that the people of California have spoken through their elected representatives, we call on the Governor to respect this decision and the legislative process, and allow this legislation to become law," continued Guerriero. "Governor Schwarzenegger has been a committed ally of LGBT equality and we thank him for his support in the fight for basic fairness for our families."

Sept 7: "Log Cabin expresses deep disappointment in Governor Schwarzenegger's decision to veto legislation recognizing civil marriage equality," said Patrick Guerriero, President of Log Cabin Republicans.

Inclusion wins!!!!

[ September 08, 2005, 07:40 AM: Message edited by: RazorbackTX ]

Yes, I am disappointed that the Governor stated he will veto this bill. As I said, he could have employed the same no sign-no veto option that Jerry Brown did when he allowed the consenting adults bill to become law back in the '70s. But FT, "no predictions, no regrets," so turn your rage elsewhere.

And I do not believe for an instant that this bill was just about gay rights. It was a politically calculated attempt to embarass the Governor that originated in the left wing of the Cal. Demo party and succeeded only the second time around. Anyone who believes otherwise is simply naive of Cal. politics. While the Governor's poll numbers may be lower now than they were when this plot originated, it began in no small part because Demo machine lefties like Leno feared the Governor's popularity back then, especially among gays, and were hell bent on diminishing it. We'll see if their efforts prove lasting. This op-ed by SF Chronicle columnist Debra Saunders explains why.

Here's the full LCR press release so you can read and decide for yourself, free from any pointless barbs:

Log Cabin Expresses Deep Disappointment in Governor Schwarzenegger’s Veto of Civil Marriage Equality

Call on Governor to Strongly Oppose Any Effort to Roll Back Protections for Gay and Lesbian Families

(Sacramento, CA) – “Log Cabin expresses deep disappointment in Governor Schwarzenegger’s decision to veto legislation recognizing civil marriage equality,” said Patrick Guerriero, President of Log Cabin Republicans. “This act is in stark contrast to the Governor’s record of support for the LGBT community, which includes signing five pieces of pro-gay, pro-family bills in his short time in office.”

“Log Cabin Republicans take the Governor at his word, that if, and when, the courts of California join the legislature in recognizing the right to civil marriage equality, he will uphold and support that decision,” continued Guerriero.

“Log Cabin calls on Governor Schwarzenegger to send a firm message to the people of California that he will not allow his agenda to be further hijacked by the radical right, and that he will not allow the forces of intolerance to use the ballot initiative process to roll back domestic partner benefits currently protecting gay and lesbian families,” concluded Jeff Bissiri, California Director of Log Cabin.