Video: San Diego mayor gets emotional in announcing reversal on gay marriage

posted at 5:30 pm on September 22, 2007 by Allahpundit

It’s Republican Jerry Sanders, elected two years ago after promising to oppose same-sex marriage (but not civil unions) and presented this week with a resolution passed by the city council vowing San Diego’s support for a lawsuit that would legalize marriage for gays in California. The expected mayoral veto did not materialize; here Sanders explains why. I agree with his position and his feeling is clearly heartfelt but I hate it when politicians get emotional this way. It gives them an unearned layer of Absolute Moral Authority where to challenge their stance is to fly in the face of Love Itself. The right pulled the same thing a few years ago at Alito’s confirmation hearing when his wife got upset at some of the questioning — again, sincerely so — and it turned into a passion play about a lady’s tears. Just take a breath and make your case.

On the upside, this should give Sullivan a chance to indulge in the sort of fawning, lyrical praise we haven’t seen since he was heralding the martial and political genius of George Bush circa 2002.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Get a grip.

Does Mike Rogers have pictures of this guy?

JammieWearingFool on September 22, 2007 at 5:37 PM

At least San Diego gets to keep the cross.

CrimsonFisted on September 22, 2007 at 5:39 PM

I’ve no disbelief that eventually gay marriage will become a reality in the US, even though I’m agin it.

I’m even less impressed though when I hear that his daughter is gay, so I’m sure that played a significant part in his decision. My best friend in the world is gay, and while I’d do almost anything for her, I won’t compromise my core beliefs for her. I expect the same from her.

eclark1849 on September 22, 2007 at 5:48 PM

After all that water, he’s gonna want to run to the mens room and do some toe tapping.
Maybe he just needs a hug?

AMA card?

Kini on September 22, 2007 at 5:51 PM

What would Dick Cheney do?

Kini on September 22, 2007 at 5:52 PM

To think that I voted for that a$$hole. Never again Mr. Sanders, I will be voting for someone but it wont be you. The people of the State of California have rejected the idea of Gay marriages year after year after year and always by a 70 percent or larger margin. What Sanders is doing is disgusting because it flies in the face of what the public has clearly stated time and time again. What the homosexual community can not get the people to agree with they will now attempt to force down our throat by litigation.

doriangrey on September 22, 2007 at 5:53 PM

Gotta say I agree with him.

Big S on September 22, 2007 at 5:56 PM

can not get the people to agree with they will now attempt to force down our throat by litigation.

doriangrey

Isn’t that the democrats way? Everything they stand for is opposed by the majority …

darwin on September 22, 2007 at 5:56 PM

Another lying politician using his power for personal gain.

Nothing to see here.

JayHaw Phrenzie on September 22, 2007 at 5:58 PM

Yuck.

Nyog_of_the_Bog on September 22, 2007 at 6:02 PM

San Diego’s fire chief is an open lesbian and forced some firemen to participate in the gay parade. The mayor stood by her. Now all’s ‘splained, at least.

I ‘love’ the hypocrisy on the right far more than the one on the left.

Entelechy on September 22, 2007 at 6:10 PM

Now that’s what I call tasty emotional blackmail.

Yum.

The Ugly American on September 22, 2007 at 6:11 PM

I demand the right to marry dozens of women. Tell me why I don’t deserve this right, if gays deserve the right to get married.

RightWinged on September 22, 2007 at 6:13 PM

Hey Jerry Sanders…Remember Gray Davis…Looks like its time for you to get the exact same treatment.

doriangrey on September 22, 2007 at 6:19 PM

Another lying politician using his power for personal gain.

Nothing to see here.

JayHaw Phrenzie on September 22, 2007 at 5:58 PM

How will this benefit his career?

Big S on September 22, 2007 at 6:22 PM

I demand the right to marry dozens of women. Tell me why I don’t deserve this right, if gays deserve the right to get married.

Dozens? All at once? Yikes! No end to chores for you! Also, good luck remembering birthdays and anniversaries.

dedalus on September 22, 2007 at 6:23 PM

Oh, shut up!!!!

What a pandering fool!

Times have changed….in regards to what?

I CAN’T TAKE IT ANYMORE! GET HIM OFF MY SPEAKERS!!!

Mcguyver on September 22, 2007 at 6:24 PM

I”m not buying that crap. He made a campaign promise. Later he finds out his daughter is gay. So he wants to break a promise for personal reasons. No dice sir. Reneging on campaign promises flies in the face of honesty and elected stewardship. Personal reasons should not be a crutch for deceitful actions against the electorate.

He’s obviously under duress for his deceit so he might be under emotional blackmail from his daughter i.e. “If you loved me you would give me what I want otherwise I think you hate me and therefore I hate you”. Why else would he be so tearful if he was happy in his decision to renege?

Guardian on September 22, 2007 at 6:25 PM

Any Republican politician who changes their stance on any issue because of one of their family members over the will of the majority of their voters should be run out of the party and politics. I say Republican politicians because it’s expected from the Democrats, they change their opinions from day to day based on the polls.

Are we to assume that if his daughter joined some radical form of Islam that he would somehow start thinking that flying airplanes into packed skyscrapers was Ok?

Buzzy on September 22, 2007 at 6:29 PM

I couldn’t watch it all. The pauses were too boring. I want my MTV.

laelaps on September 22, 2007 at 6:31 PM

What a pthetic waste of flesh, this guy is.

I love his logic, though:

My opinions on this issue have evolved significantly …

Obviously. But who knew that the evolution would be so punctuated? More on this tidbit.

In order to be consistent with the position I took during the mayoral election …

If this line doesn’t scream that he admits that he flat-out lied during the campaign, then I don’t know what does. At this point he should have been hauled off the podium and held for some sort of fraud charges from the election.

I intended to veto the council resolution. As late as yesterday afternoon, that was my position.

So now we are starting to see how evolution works in the Mayor’s world.

A decision to veto this resolution would have been inconsistent with values I’ve embraced over the past 30 years.

But he campaigned against this some time in the last 30 years … So he’s admitting that he threw his values (I doubt he has any that extend beyond himself) to the wind in the election and was just lying the whole time. I wonder if he cried like this every night when he went home after a day of being sullied with having to say that he was against gay marriage. Probably. He looks like a regular crier.

I do believe that times have changed, and with changing time [sic] and new life experiences come different opinions.

So, times have changed since he was ready to veto the resolution last night?

This guy is pathetic. Beyond the fact that his simple-minded argument for gay marriage is laughable, his own multiple, inadvertent admissions that he is a pathological liar should be enough to get him recalled.

This guy is pathetic. He should cry.

progressoverpeace on September 22, 2007 at 6:32 PM

To be sure, I find him only hypocritical for having said what he did during his run for Mayor, which at times wasn’t a sure win. San Diego was in a huge mess then, the previous mayor having left in disgrace.

He won decisively against Donna Fry, but the win wasn’t always sure and at times they were very, very close.

Entelechy on September 22, 2007 at 6:35 PM

“In the end, I could not look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationships — their very lives — were any less meaningful than the marriage that I share with my wife Rana,” Sanders said.

That line of emotionalism thinly disguised as argument leads to ruin. A few years from now when a mayor’s daughter converts to Islamic fundamentalism and tells Daddy that she wants to marry Said Muhammad as his third wife, the same in of reasoning will be used. With a few slight revisions.

“In the end, I could not look any of them in the face veil and tell them that their relationships — their very lives — were any less meaningful than the marriage that I share with my one wife Rana,” the mayor will say.

Once again, a spineless toady pol defies the expressed will of the majority. Why bother voting, why pretend it’s a democratic system, if the “leaders” disregard what the majority actually wants? They should impeach him and shame him out of town.

Thomas the Wraith on September 22, 2007 at 6:37 PM

Watching an older pol go metrosexual right before our eyes is just not a pretty thing.

bbz123 on September 22, 2007 at 6:39 PM

Just another girly man.

Zaire67 on September 22, 2007 at 6:45 PM

I”m not buying that crap. He made a campaign promise. Later he finds out his daughter is gay. So he wants to break a promise for personal reasons. No dice sir. Reneging on campaign promises flies in the face of honesty and elected stewardship. Personal reasons should not be a crutch for deceitful actions against the electorate.

He’s obviously under duress for his deceit so he might be under emotional blackmail from his daughter i.e. “If you loved me you would give me what I want otherwise I think you hate me and therefore I hate you”. Why else would he be so tearful if he was happy in his decision to renege?

Guardian on September 22, 2007 at 6:25 PM

Actually, he’s known that his daughter was homosexual since 2003. He was elected in 2005.

Damian G. on September 22, 2007 at 6:45 PM

I suppose if gays are willing to accept the darkside of marriage through nasty divorces, well alright then.

If there’s children involved, what then? Who gets custody? Alimony? Who pays?

If this is what they wish for, then so be it. No tears will be shed.

Kini on September 22, 2007 at 6:51 PM

How will this benefit his career?

Big S on September 22, 2007 at 6:22 PM

It benefitted him in 2005, when he ran a close race with Donna Fry, and said/promised the reverse.

…Later he finds out his daughter is gay. So he wants to break a promise for personal reasons…

Guardian on September 22, 2007 at 6:25 PM

No Guardian. Read the link AP provided and you will find that his daughter told him 4 years ago that she’s lesbian. Also, see my link in comment at 6:35 PM. His daughters are standing to his right when he celebrates the win, knowing how he lied.

Again, the only hypocrisy is what he said then, not what he did/said in the video. He’s an honest guy and a good man by all accounts, a good servant too. His power-drive/politics got in his way two years ago. That’s all.

I demand the right to marry dozens of women. Tell me why I don’t deserve this right, if gays deserve the right to get married.

RightWinged on September 22, 2007 at 6:13 PM

Dear Rany, beware all those mothers-in-law :)

Entelechy on September 22, 2007 at 6:53 PM

I pretty much agree with what Allah said.

Bad Candy on September 22, 2007 at 6:54 PM

another mental midget politician, appealing to EMOTIONS and FEELINGS over Logic and Right/Wrong…

yet again proving Francis Schaeffer a prophet. down the road this debate will be centered around Pedophiles, polygamist and you name it in a meaningless/postmodern culture…..assuming we last that long and the Islamo-fascist don’t take over.

jp on September 22, 2007 at 6:56 PM

Sorry “dear Randy” of course

Entelechy on September 22, 2007 at 6:56 PM

I cannot even watch it. The whole premise makes me sick. The faux indignation of not having “equal” rights is ridiculous.

If I worked for the State I could get someone of the same sex on my insurance with the snap of a finger. If my dpendant relative needed to be on my insurance, I’m SOL. Love those “equal” rights. Once a viable option to Sanders becomes available he’ll never see my vote again.

Theworldisnotenough on September 22, 2007 at 6:56 PM

Actually, he’s known that his daughter was homosexual since 2003. He was elected in 2005.

Damian G. on September 22, 2007 at 6:45 PM

Sorry Damian, just now read your comment.

Entelechy on September 22, 2007 at 6:58 PM

He’s an honest guy and a good man by all accounts, a good servant too.

Entelechy on September 22, 2007 at 6:53 PM

Not in that video, he’s not. And he basically called all of his “supporters” really nasty people who don’t care about “justice and equality”. And he cried all the time. That was one of the most self-centered, bridge-burning speeches I’ve ever heard, and he didn’t even have the guts to give it like a man, but cried so as to ward off the criticism and scorn that he rightfully deserves.

He is not honest and not a good man. He is a whining low-life. That is evident.

progressoverpeace on September 22, 2007 at 7:00 PM

This guy is pathetic. He should cry.

progressoverpeace on September 22, 2007 at 6:32 PM

Perhaps the pathetic ones are those who get so worked up over a word – “marriage” – that they’d require a separate system of domestic partnership for gay couples. When the legal differences are removed, as they are for civil unions, all that’s left is the name. I say good for him.

Big S on September 22, 2007 at 7:02 PM

I do not oppose the right of gay men to get married. Gay men have been getting married for thousands of years. I do oppose the right for them to marry other gay men, however, and have society sanction it.

The elite force ideals upon the majority that the majority reject. The liberal elite strike a blow for the oppressed again. Long live che!

In the 9th grade, He wore skin tight red polka dot pants to work and frilly shirts. He was out in left field in a big way. Some of the kids would tease him about his homosexuality. He would have fits of ghey anger and throw pencils about with the herculean force of Andy Dick. I remember he had a bumper sticker on his ’74 Vega that said, “Vote Libertarian”.

Ever since then I have associated Libertarians with red polka dot pants and frilly shirts.

That was the day I became a conservative.

jihadwatcher on September 22, 2007 at 7:07 PM

you can always tell the libs on social issues and most others, they always say: “I feel…”

jp on September 22, 2007 at 7:08 PM

Sorry that should read:

I do not oppose the right of gay men to get married. Gay men have been getting married for thousands of years. I do oppose the right for them to marry other gay men, however, and have society sanction it.

The elite force ideals upon the majority that the majority reject. The liberal elite strike a blow for the oppressed again. Long live che!

In the 9th grade, I had a flaming homosexual for a French teacher. Mr. Bell. He wore skin tight red polka dot pants to work and frilly shirts. He was out in left field in a big way. Some of the kids would tease him about his homosexuality. He would have fits of ghey anger and throw pencils about with the herculean force of Andy Dick. I remember he had a bumper sticker on his ’74 Vega that said, “Vote Libertarian”.

Ever since then I have associated Libertarians with red polka dot pants and frilly shirts.

That was the day I became a conservative.

jihadwatcher on September 22, 2007 at 7:09 PM

I noticed no one has taken a stab at my question, just a few jokes… so I’ll ask again

I demand the right to marry dozens of women. Tell me why I don’t deserve this right, if gays deserve the right to get married.

RightWinged on September 22, 2007 at 6:13 PM

RightWinged on September 22, 2007 at 7:11 PM

Ever since then I have associated Libertarians with red polka dot pants and frilly shirts.

jihadwatcher on September 22, 2007 at 7:09 PM

Who doesn’t? I’m lookin’ at you Levy!

RightWinged on September 22, 2007 at 7:12 PM

Gee right wing, could it be because homosexuals are considered a protected group? The fact is that opposing anything gay is considered being bigoted of a protected group. Just as if bigoted was a bad thing.

jihadwatcher on September 22, 2007 at 7:14 PM

RightWinged on September 22, 2007 at 7:11 PM

i’m holding out for the right to marry my dog personally

jp on September 22, 2007 at 7:14 PM

I demand the right to marry dozens of women. Tell me why I don’t deserve this right, if gays deserve the right to get married.

RightWinged

You’d deserve it if you could find “dozens” of women who would have you …

darwin on September 22, 2007 at 7:16 PM

take away the religious base the country is found upon and which marriage comes from, and the State still has good reason for not allowing gay marriage and thus condoning the activity as long as you have all these Govt. programs that are dependent on the Family to pro-create and have atleast 2.11 kids to keep the ponzi-schemes going…

jp on September 22, 2007 at 7:16 PM

Perhaps the pathetic ones are those who get so worked up over a word – “marriage” – that they’d require a separate system of domestic partnership for gay couples. When the legal differences are removed, as they are for civil unions, all that’s left is the name. I say good for him.

Big S on September 22, 2007 at 7:02 PM

Are you kidding?

Trying to pass legislation is “getting worked up”. If there’s nothing left but a “name”, then why would anyone bother to fight for it? Your argument goes to the idiocy of people who try to get “gay marriage” legalized, clearly against public opinion.

progressoverpeace on September 22, 2007 at 7:18 PM

RightWinged on September 22, 2007 at 6:13 PM

you do deserve this right, if u can really support a family of 15+ a) god bless you and b) this is a free country :-)

ernesto on September 22, 2007 at 7:19 PM

Good point JP, the only problem is that most gays are already married, people like Senator Craig. What is worse, they then pass on the gay gene to the next generation. How do you think gays keep popping up in every generation when Darwin’s theory of natural selection would naturally eliminate them from the gene pool by virtue of their own homosexuality?

Answer: They do marry women.

Personally, it would make more sense from a conservative stance to force them to marry men, and men only, and NOT to procreate. In one generation, that gene would be out of the human race. Problem solved.

jihadwatcher on September 22, 2007 at 7:22 PM

Government got into regulating marriage to protect women and children not to help those with severe neurosis pretend they are normal.

peacenprosperity on September 22, 2007 at 7:25 PM

What is worse, they then pass on the gay gene to the next generation

There is no gay gene, no proven physical difference. Only theories that never stand up to scrutiny. the only theory not to be disproven is that homosexuality is a severe neurosis.

peacenprosperity on September 22, 2007 at 7:27 PM

There is a gay gene, isolating it will take time. Gays are born gay. Some men are fruity from the womb. Chris Crocker was bringing Barbie dolls to public school. It’s in the genes, don’t doubt it.

jihadwatcher on September 22, 2007 at 7:30 PM

The government has no business being in the marriage business. Straight, gay or otherwise. If 8 adults want to live together and say they are married, so be it. The government really shouldn’t care.

dougless on September 22, 2007 at 7:31 PM

progressoverpeace on September 22, 2007 at 7:18 PM

If you listen to the video, he states that he has changed his mind from supporting civil unions/domestic partnerships (which legally sanction the relationships and allow equality before the law-except for the name) to marriage. His previous position, he stated, had been to allow equal rights but to call them something other than “marriage.”

Big S on September 22, 2007 at 7:40 PM

Some men are fruity from the womb.

That does not mean it’s genetic. Nothing has ever been proven. There is alot of cause and effect between the blank slate of a newborn and bringing barbie dolls to school. There have been plenty of examples of identical twins with one heterosexual and one not.

Besides, are pedophiles genetic? Should we start looking out for their rights. How about Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahmer and John Wayne Gacy? They said they had their urges as long as they could remember. Does that mean they were genetically determined to be monsters?

peacenprosperity on September 22, 2007 at 7:41 PM

jihadwatcher on September 22, 2007 at 7:22 PM

So you’re saying that homosexuality is an inherited genetic quality? I’m pretty sure you’d find lots of folks on this thread that would disagree with that.

SouthernDem on September 22, 2007 at 7:42 PM

jihadwatcher on September 22, 2007 at 7:30 PM

It probably isn’t a single gene, but an interaction between a bunch of different genes and the environment that provide a range of probabilities for being gay.

Big S on September 22, 2007 at 7:42 PM

Nevermind, obviously you’ve answered that.

SouthernDem on September 22, 2007 at 7:44 PM

There is no perfect human. Everyone has some type of neurosis. Some are more svere then others. Some people twitch, some people smoke, some are morbidly obese and some are gay. Doesn’t mean that anyone should be allowed to discriminate against them. Also doesn’t mean they should be able to change the definition of institutions and demand society change to suit them.

It’s all signs of our crumbling post modern society.

peacenprosperity on September 22, 2007 at 7:44 PM

There are lots of things that have never been proven. We have just finished mapping the human genome. We have only begun to look at it. Finding the gay gene might take generations. Or we can find it tomorrow. If it is found, there will be a huge ethical debate about what to do that will make the abortion debate look like a spat.

You don’t have to be gay to make gay children. Just as if you don’t need to have Leukemia to have children with Leukemia. But you may carry the gene. That is how genes work.

So really, homosexuality is a birth defect, not something that needs to be protected, but something that hopefully science can prevent. As a society, we should not be giving legal status to birth defects.

jihadwatcher on September 22, 2007 at 7:48 PM

If there’s nothing left but a “name”, then why would anyone bother to fight for it?
progressoverpeace on September 22, 2007 at 7:18 PM

The reason would mainly be to retain the same rights as married heterosexuals. All they are fighting for is the ability to be recognized as a legal partnership and all that comes with it. If it is just a word, then why are some people opposed even to “civil unions” and the such?

SouthernDem on September 22, 2007 at 7:48 PM

RightWinged on September 22, 2007 at 7:11 PM

You should be able to, but do you really want that many wives and all of the inlaws that go with it?

xplodeit on September 22, 2007 at 7:53 PM

So really, homosexuality is a birth defect, not something that needs to be protected, but something that hopefully science can prevent. As a society, we should not be giving legal status to birth defects.

We are arguing from the same perspective though I really disagree that people are born that way. There may be physical issues that make it more of a possibility. I think the fact the gay men and gay women are so different would indicate they are not born that way. Lesbians seem to be motivated by emotion while gay men seem to be all about the act. I read an article about George Michael being confronted about his prowling for anonymous sex in public places. He basically said that was what homosexuality was all about. i don’t think you see lesbians in parks and publis rest rooms looking for that. They seem to be all about relationships.

peacenprosperity on September 22, 2007 at 7:54 PM

jihadwatcher on September 22, 2007 at 7:48 PM

Wait a minute your post at

jihadwatcher on September 22, 2007 at 7:22 PM

just said that all we have to do is to ensure homosexuals don’t reproduce and the “problem” will be solved with Natural Selection. Now you say it would have to be manually eliminated through genetic manipulation. Which is it?

SouthernDem on September 22, 2007 at 7:57 PM

Actually, he’s known that his daughter was homosexual since 2003. He was elected in 2005.

Damian G. on September 22, 2007 at 6:45 PM

No Guardian. Read the link AP provided and you will find that his daughter told him 4 years ago that she’s lesbian.

Entelechy on September 22, 2007 at 6:53 PM

Then he has even less a crutch to lean on. Instead of changing his position due to his daughters gayness, I would say he’s guilty of intentional deceit. If his tears are not suggestive of some type of emotional blackmail, then why is he crying? I don’t think he’s crying over the guilt of lying to the electorate.

Guardian on September 22, 2007 at 7:58 PM

He’s going to get voted out. Voters don’t like these bait and switch tactics especially when the switch is selfish and personal and not the will of the people.

CCRWM on September 22, 2007 at 7:59 PM

peacenprosperity on September 22, 2007 at 7:54 PM

Believe it or not, there are gay men in stable, monogamous relationships.

SouthernDem on September 22, 2007 at 7:59 PM

All they are fighting for is the ability to be recognized as a legal partnership

They have that. They can go to a lawyer and right up a contract and it is binding. Being able to be “married” lets them think that there is something normal about their situation and forces, in their minds, acceptance on the rest of society. You can’t force acceptance, that’s a state of mind. The law can only force(or demand) tolerance.

peacenprosperity on September 22, 2007 at 8:00 PM

Take a look at gays and lesbians. They even look that way. Gays have that gay voice, the feminine physiques, and such. And for the lesbians, hell, they look more like men than the gays do. I was watching women’s soccer this afternoon, and I’d swear, there was more testosterone on that field than at a stag party. There wasn’t a player on that field that couldn’t kick my ass. Those women don’t just shave their legs, they shave their backs and faces, too.

Chris Crocker was gay the moment that sperm went into the egg.

jihadwatcher on September 22, 2007 at 8:00 PM

Gee right wing, could it be because homosexuals are considered a protected group? The fact is that opposing anything gay is considered being bigoted of a protected group. Just as if bigoted was a bad thing.

jihadwatcher on September 22, 2007 at 7:14 PM

I’m assuming, based on your earlier comment, that this one was heavy on sarcasm? Correct me if I’m wrong, I’m really just trying to gather what you’re saying… Are you one of the few conservatives left around here who, like me, hasn’t abandoned common sense in favor of “inclusiveness” and “tolerance” or simply because they have a super cool gay friend, relative, or coworker?

i’m holding out for the right to marry my dog personally

jp on September 22, 2007 at 7:14 PM

Don’t worry, I’ll take it there before long… but no one is really challenging me yet on multiple wives. Personally I prefer parakeets. Dave Chappelle prefers monkeys (LANGUAGE WARNING FOR THAT VID).

You’d deserve it if you could find “dozens” of women who would have you …

darwin on September 22, 2007 at 7:16 PM

I’ll handle that.

RightWinged on September 22, 2007 at 8:00 PM

Believe it or not, there are gay men in stable, monogamous relationships

Right. How come so many obituaries about gay men who die of aids mention there partners of 20, 25 30 years? If you are in a monogamous relationship for the past 30 years, how did he get aids?

peacenprosperity on September 22, 2007 at 8:02 PM

If you listen to the video, he states that he has changed his mind from supporting civil unions/domestic partnerships (which legally sanction the relationships and allow equality before the law-except for the name) to marriage. His previous position, he stated, had been to allow equal rights but to call them something other than “marriage.”

Big S on September 22, 2007 at 7:40 PM

He was very clear that he (now) thought that his previous position was nasty and bigoted (which means that all of those who supported his position are exactly that) and that he has had an epiphany (since his evolution last night) and is now on the side of “justice and equality”.

Perhaps you need to email Sanders and explain to him that he made up all of those excuses for nothing.

By the way, civil unions and marriage are different things, and, in the eyes of most Americans, they should stay that way.

Sanders is a whining, name-calling, stupid liar who should be run out of office on a rail.

progressoverpeace on September 22, 2007 at 8:02 PM

Lesbians seem to be motivated by emotion while gay men seem to be all about the act

peacenprosperity on September 22, 2007 at 7:54 PM

So…the stereotypes about men and women hold true whether or not they happen to be gay?

Big S on September 22, 2007 at 8:03 PM

You should be able to, but do you really want that many wives and all of the inlaws that go with it?

xplodeit on September 22, 2007 at 7:53 PM

Entelechy already beat you on that one!

Dear Rany, beware all those mothers-in-law :)

Entelechy on September 22, 2007 at 6:53 PM

Sorry “dear Randy” of course

Entelechy on September 22, 2007 at 6:56 PM

….

Believe it or not, there are gay men in stable, monogamous relationships.

SouthernDem on September 22, 2007 at 7:59 PM

Believe it or not? I’ll choose not. Anyone who chooses, against nature and all rationality is involved in something that is anything but “stable”.

RightWinged on September 22, 2007 at 8:03 PM

Huh? My last comment was flagged for moderation. Maybe it’s the word “lesbians” that triggered the filter?

Big S on September 22, 2007 at 8:05 PM

Yup.

Big S on September 22, 2007 at 8:05 PM

I just went to a gay Arab in Paris. Whatever slim hope Europe has to stop its Islamization is these gay boys and girls who have a strong interest in resisting that Islamization. So, say whatever nonsense you want to oppose gay marriage, but the only viable Fifth Column we have against our muslim enemies is the energy of their gays and their self-assertive women.

thuja on September 22, 2007 at 8:06 PM

peacenprosperity on September 22, 2007 at 8:00 PM

Legal contracts are disputed all the time. Especially by the families of said partners. Not to mention the right to make medical and legal decisions for an incapacitated partner.

SouthernDem on September 22, 2007 at 8:07 PM

Whoops that should read (and the reason for the error should be obvious):

I just went to a gay Arab bar in Paris. Whatever slim hope Europe has to stop its Islamization is these gay boys and girls who have a strong interest in resisting that Islamization. So, say whatever nonsense you want to oppose gay marriage, but the only viable Fifth Column we have against our muslim enemies is the energy of their gays and their self-assertive women.

thuja on September 22, 2007 at 8:06 PM

thuja on September 22, 2007 at 8:08 PM

SouthernDem, I said if gay men only had gay men as mates, natural selection would prevent the gay gene from carrying on. Because gay men don’t have kids. As it is, gay men often marry women and have families, and then pass on the gay gene, before they eventually come out of the closet. Now the gays that are flaming, don’t get married of course. But just because you carry the gay gene, doesn’t make you gay. It may lay dormant for generations.

Or it could be, that everyone carries the gay gene.

jihadwatcher on September 22, 2007 at 8:09 PM

doriangrey on September 22, 2007 at 5:53 PM

Teresa Sayward in upstate NY pulled this very same thing.

Connie on September 22, 2007 at 8:09 PM

So…the stereotypes about men and women hold true whether or not they happen to be gay?

Sounds like you might have been offended by what Lawrence Summer said that got him drummed out of his job. Yes, there are fundamental differences in men and women that not only define our behavior but have affected the evolution of civilization.

Isn’t using the word sterotype a buzzward for political incorrectness?

peacenprosperity on September 22, 2007 at 8:09 PM

Legal contracts are disputed all the time.

As are marriages.

peacenprosperity on September 22, 2007 at 8:10 PM

but the only viable Fifth Column we have against our muslim enemies is the energy of their gays and their self-assertive women

After this little tidbit of insanity I’ll just walk away slowly.

Good night

peacenprosperity on September 22, 2007 at 8:12 PM

As are marriages.
peacenprosperity on September 22, 2007 at 8:10 PM

Yes, by the two people involved in the marriage. Not by outside parties. Your analogy doesn’t make sense.

SouthernDem on September 22, 2007 at 8:13 PM

Sounds like you might have been offended by what Lawrence Summer said that got him drummed out of his job.

peacenprosperity on September 22, 2007 at 8:09 PM

Not at all. Like Summers, actually, I recognize that neither I nor anyone else knows how different men and women actually are, and that there are some who do not match the prevailing trend. Consider my use of the word “stereotype” a neutral observation, rather than a politically loaded term.

Big S on September 22, 2007 at 8:13 PM

The reason would mainly be to retain the same rights as married heterosexuals. All they are fighting for is the ability to be recognized as a legal partnership and all that comes with it. If it is just a word, then why are some people opposed even to “civil unions” and the such?

SouthernDem on September 22, 2007 at 7:48 PM

The majority are in favor of civil unions. The only state amendment to fail was Arizonas because it made even civil unions against the law.

The majority is in favor of civil unions but respect the institution of marriage as a union betwenn a man and a woman.

Theworldisnotenough on September 22, 2007 at 8:16 PM

Another politician abdicating his campaign promises for his own gain. The people didn’t elect this fool to exorcise his demons on the rest of the community. He should have resigned his position and allowed someone without a personal stake in this to make the decision.

His logic is flawed, his emotions are flawed, and he is not worthy to hold office. I think the people of San Diego should recall him post haste!

csdeven on September 22, 2007 at 8:17 PM

But just because you carry the gay gene, doesn’t make you gay. It may lay dormant for generations.
jihadwatcher on September 22, 2007 at 8:09 PM

So how is Natural Selection going to eliminate it then? I’m sorry, but this doesn’t make sense.

SouthernDem on September 22, 2007 at 8:17 PM

csdeven on September 22, 2007 at 8:17 PM

Well said.

progressoverpeace on September 22, 2007 at 8:21 PM

Natural selection works be eliminating genetic traits that are a liability to the organism, that inhibit its chances of producing healthy offspring. Since homosexuality would preclude procreation, nothing would be more effective in natural selection than that.

jihadwatcher on September 22, 2007 at 8:21 PM

I demand the right to marry dozens of women. Tell me why I don’t deserve this right, if gays deserve the right to get married.

RightWinged on September 22, 2007 at 6:13 PM

Good point.

If marriage means “anything” as deemed “acceptable” by a particular special interest group, then ultimately marriage means nothing.

If one philosophically defines marriage broadly and, then one has to admit at the same time that one has not defined marriage clearly at all.

The gay rights American Left agenda of redefining marriage opens up a philosophical Pandora’s box that America is not ready for.

ColtsFan on September 22, 2007 at 8:22 PM

Grant of a drivers license is not a “right,” it’s a privilege that you must qualify for. If a drivers license was a right then government would be forced to issue them to blind people, rights cannot lawfully be denied. A marriage license is not a “right” either, in fact the term “license” literally means grant of privilege.

Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition

License: The permission by competent authority to do an act which, without such permission, would be illegal, a trespass, or a tort. People v. Henderson, 391 Mich. 612, 218 N.W.2d 2, 4. Certificate or the document itself which gives permission. Leave to do thing which licensor could prevent. Western Electric co. V. Pacent Reproducer Corporation, C.C.A.N.Y., 42 F.2d 116, 118. Permission to do a particular thing, to exercise a certain privilege or to carry on a particular business or to pursue a certain occupation. Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 88 Cal.App.2d 438, 160 P.2d 37, 39, 40.

Gays do not qualify for a marriage license because marriage is between a man and a woman. Gays no more qualify for a marriage license than a disabled person qualifies to join the military, which is also a “privilege” and NOT a “right.” Government grants special privileges to the nuclear family because this arrange is beneficial to building strong families and thus beneficial to government for building a strong society. Tax breaks are granted with a marriage license because government has a compelling interest in the nuclear family; that is a family that consist of a mother, a father and their children.

Tax breaks are not granted for homosexuality because that lifestyle, while not opposed by law, has been shown as detrimental to society at large. We need look no further than the Catholic Church, which tolerated a large buildup of gay priest within it’s ministry and the havoc, scandal and violations of children that caused to understand gays should not be in a position of authority over children.

So gays are not being denied anything when they are refused a marriage license, the fact is they simply do not qualify. They no more qualify for a marriage license than a bank robber is qualifies to “withdraw” YOUR money from a bank. When gays attempt to obtain a marriage license, they are attempting to obtain something that does not belong to them. If so called “gay marriage” ever becomes widely accepted in American law, then everyone by virtue of their tax dollars will be forced to subsidize homosexuality.

I doubt homosexuals are clamoring for “marriage.” There are too many ways currently available to them to lawfully bequeath their estates to their partner if they desire to do so. There are “powers of attorney” that can be enacted that would grant them nearly every aspect of marriage, except the tax breaks. Homosexuals are not clamoring for marriage, they are clamoring for legitimacy and if they gain that legitimacy then their cry will be…. MARRIED LIKE YOU.

They will invade the pulpits and demand to lead the churches. They will demand to be Boy Scout and Girl Scout leaders and take your children for camping trips. They will demand public school curriculum’s that are favorable to homosexuality and encourage your children to be homosexual. In fact this is already happening in the public schools even without the legitimacy cover of marriage. They will demand hate crime laws to be enacted, that will not allow you to call homosexuality a sin or criticize homosexuality in anyway whatsoever. You will be subject to harsh penalties under law for simply expressing a Christian belief that homosexuality is sin.

All of these reasons and more is why its important to stop so called “gay marriage.” Sodom and Gomorrah were not very pleasant places to live for non-homosexuals.

San Diego mayor Republican Jerry Sanders is a fraud and a liar, he needs to be dis-elected in the next cycle. He gave his word to his constituents and then he betrayed them. Not only that, but he is ignoring the vast majority of American people that have spoke loud and clear on this issue, American’s don’t want anything like “gay marriage.” So why is Jerry Sanders giving more weight to the minority view than the majority view. He needs to be kicked out of office.

Maxx on September 22, 2007 at 8:27 PM

Natural selection works be eliminating genetic traits that are a liability to the organism, that inhibit its chances of producing healthy offspring. Since homosexuality would preclude procreation, nothing would be more effective in natural selection than that.

jihadwatcher on September 22, 2007 at 8:21 PM

Ok, let’s just admit the brillance of your argument. It implies that the right way to get rid of homosexuality is to permit gay marriage. I for one am willing to take the risk that you are right.

thuja on September 22, 2007 at 8:45 PM

I live in San Diego, and I can tell you that if they held this thing up to a vote of the people, there is no way in hell we would approve gay marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

SoulGlo on September 22, 2007 at 8:57 PM

jihadwatcher on September 22, 2007 at 8:21 PM

You are still double talking. You’ve said that if homosexuals don’t procreate, then Natural Selection will take care of it.
Then you said that it is also a possible recessive gene heteros can carry thus it must be eliminated through genetic manipulation.

SouthernDem on September 22, 2007 at 8:58 PM

What a pathetic wuss. Boo-freaking-hoo.

infidel4life on September 22, 2007 at 9:02 PM

There are too many ways currently available to them to lawfully bequeath their estates to their partner if they desire to do so. There are “powers of attorney” that can be enacted that would grant them nearly every aspect of marriage, except the tax breaks.
Maxx on September 22, 2007 at 8:27 PM

Completely contestable, and not airtight. Like I said, all they want, in essence, is the right to take care of each other financially and medically without interference.

SouthernDem on September 22, 2007 at 9:04 PM

SouthernDem on September 22, 2007 at 8:58 P

What part do you not understand? Gays carry a gene, that may be carried forward when they procreate with women. If they did not procreate, that gene would eliminate itself over time. Now that it continues, it can be turned on in future generations. Genes have an on/off switch.

Once the gene is passed on, everybody in that lineage on down, may carry it. Thus, genetic coding may, in the future, allow us to identify those who have it, and eliminate it from them.

jihadwatcher on September 22, 2007 at 9:09 PM

Why is homosexuality treated like a race now? There are subcultures and minority activities everywhere. Do they all get “race” status?

A guy goes for a job interview and puts down that he’s a minority. The prospective employer wonders why a white male would count as a minority, when the applicant declares, “I like to do such and such in the bedroom. I’m a minority.”

What happens in the bedroom should stay there.

p40tiger on September 22, 2007 at 9:11 PM

As Crimson pointed out earlier, we get to keep our cross.
I’ve lived here in San Diego since 1993. We’re the most conservative large city in the country.
If that’s the way the man feels, then give him credit for standing up and saying it.
Wish more politicians would say what they believe, rather than what’s popular in the polls this week.

Brian the sailor on September 22, 2007 at 9:18 PM

Oh, and Duncan Hunter rocks!

Brian the sailor on September 22, 2007 at 9:19 PM

Comment pages: 1 2