There is not a single republican I can think of that I could vote for, with hte possible exception of Tom Campbell and Jerry Sanders– and that would be only in case the democrat was a total douche.

Unfortunately, I can think of very few dems that I could give my whole-hearted support to, either.

The statement is the best we could expect from a serious GOP candidate. What a pity.

One might suppose so but in this case we could expect much better.

Tom Campbell is also a Republican candidate for governor. A week before the election he wrote an editorial in Reason Online in which he argued that Republicans should reject Prop 8.

Campbell seems to be doing about as well in the polls as either Whitman or Poizner, or at least the ones I could find. As the 2000 Republican Senate Nominee against Diane Feinstein he has some name recognition.

Did you know that there was a bill legalizing same sex marriage sent to his desk at least once and he refused to sign it?

Yes, I do. And I know why

Gay CA residents could have had full marriage equality 1-2 years before they were granted it by the courts and the governator did not have the balls to sign the bill.

No, that isn’t correct. And this is not a matter of opinion or speculation.

Schwarzenegger vetoed the legislation because he believed it was in conflict with Prop 22. He said the road to marriage was through the courts but that he could not sign legislation that was unconstitutional by being a legislative attempt to overturn citizen initiated law.

Some gay leaders claimed that he was wrong and that the bills did not violate Prop 22 because it applied only to out-of-state marriages. However, had he signed the bills, they would have immediately been challenged and stayed until the court decided.

And the court did decide.

As part of In Re Marriages, the courts found that the ban on marriage was unconstitutional. However, they also found that the legislature’s marriage bills would have been in violation of 2000′s ballot initiative Prop 22.

As already noted, it is clear that section 300 in itself limits marriages performed in California to opposite-sex couples, but the proper interpretation of section 308.5 nonetheless is quite significant because, unlike section 300, section 308.5 is an initiative statute — a measure that, under the provisions of article II, section 10, subdivision (c) of the California Constitution, cannot be modified by the Legislature without submitting the proposed modification to a vote of the people.
…
For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that in light of both the language and the purpose of section 308.5, this provision reasonably must be interpreted to apply both to marriages performed in California and those performed in other jurisdictions.

In other words, Schwarzenegger was right on both counts and there would not have been marriage one day sooner had he signed rather than vetoed.

(Nevertheless, in retrospect I wish he had signed as a symbol of support even if legally it was irrelevant).

I’m so tired of the “defend the term” argument. It’s a stupid one. Gays are going to call each other married whether its in the law or now, and the word will be “degraded” in meaning all the same. Government’s role is to protect TANGIBLE RIGHTS, not contemporary definitions of words.

After reading this article, her position seems to be pro-equality. One might characterize it as “government shouldn’t be in the marriage business; domestic partnerships for all.” Which, as a thought experiment, is all fine and good. But since that’s politically off the table, how is it not immediately obvious to her that separate-but-kind-of-equal is a slap in the face?

His reasoning for vetoing the bill was because he wanted the courts to decide the case; and then came Prop H8.