Comments on: Ruby-Sachs: California feeling the unrest after Proposition 8 http://www.365gay.com/blog/ruby-sachs-california-feeling-the-unrest-after-proposition-8/ The daily news source for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:11:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.4 By: David Watson http://www.365gay.com/blog/ruby-sachs-california-feeling-the-unrest-after-proposition-8/comment-page-1/#comment-31252 David Watson Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:09:17 +0000 http://www.365gay.com/?p=4254#comment-31252 Maybe we should recall Arnold Schwarzenegger, for all his lack of support. After all, when the time came to support us, he was a eunuch. I know one thing; he will never get my vote for anything getting him near the white house. He help took away my constitutional right to marry; So he can scratch my support for changing the constitution for him becoming our president. Or did Arnold forget that we would remember one of his life goals? Maybe we should recall Arnold Schwarzenegger, for all his lack of support.

After all, when the time came to support us, he was a eunuch. I know one thing; he will never get my vote for anything getting him near the white house. He help took away my constitutional right to marry; So he can scratch my support for changing the constitution for him becoming our president. Or did Arnold forget that we would remember one of his life goals?

]]> By: drewski http://www.365gay.com/blog/ruby-sachs-california-feeling-the-unrest-after-proposition-8/comment-page-1/#comment-30861 drewski Tue, 18 Nov 2008 05:24:58 +0000 http://www.365gay.com/?p=4254#comment-30861 So...I still wanna know how in the hell AG Brown saw fit to authorize a ballot issue which was a direct violation of the California Supreme Court's own verdict? The US Constitution delegates most powers and most authority to the states. A state right can exceed a Federal right, but it can't fall short. If, for example, California argued against the EPA that it had the right as a state to implement additional regulatory standards, and the US Supreme Court agreed, then how is there a fundamental legal difference between requiring more efficient diesel engines and treating gay access to marriage as a matter of state-determined civil rights? Conservatives need to be VERY careful on this, because it goes to the heart of states rights. So…I still wanna know how in the hell AG Brown saw fit to authorize a ballot issue which was a direct violation of the California Supreme Court’s own verdict? The US Constitution delegates most powers and most authority to the states. A state right can exceed a Federal right, but it can’t fall short. If, for example, California argued against the EPA that it had the right as a state to implement additional regulatory standards, and the US Supreme Court agreed, then how is there a fundamental legal difference between requiring more efficient diesel engines and treating gay access to marriage as a matter of state-determined civil rights? Conservatives need to be VERY careful on this, because it goes to the heart of states rights.

]]>