Schwarzenegger pours fuel on anti-Prop. 8 fire
The GOP governor of California is encouraging church-bashing protesters to continue to defy the will of the people and wreak havoc until Proposition 8, the traditional marriage ballot measure, is overturned.
Yep, Arnold Schwarzenegger — who wants to “rebrand” the Republican Party in his image — apparently applauds the mob taking to the streets and targeting people of faith:
Reporting from Sacramento and Pasadena — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today expressed hope that the California Supreme Court would overturn Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that outlawed same-sex marriage. He also predicted that the 18,000 gay and lesbian couples who have already married would not be affected by the initiative.
“It’s unfortunate, obviously, but it’s not the end,” Schwarzenegger said in an interview on CNN this morning. “I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area.”
With his favorable comments toward gay marriage, the governor’s thinking appears to have evolved on the issue.
In past statements, he has said he personally believes marriage should be between a man and a woman and has rejected legislation authorizing same-sex marriage. Yet he has also said he would not care if same-sex marriage were legal, saying he believed that such an important societal issue should be determined by the voters or the courts.
Following that position, he publicly opposed Proposition 8, which amends the state Constitution to declare that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
Today, Schwarzenegger urged backers of gay marriage to follow the lesson he learned as a bodybuilder trying to lift weights that were too heavy for him at first. “I learned that you should never ever give up. . . . They should never give up. They should be on it and on it until they get it done.”
An anti-Prop. 8 rally in Palm Springs turned violent over the weekend. Mormon churches, evangelical churchs, and Catholics continue to be threatened.
To the Left and to “rebranding” advocate Arnold Schwarzenegger, tolerance is a one-way street.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Traditional Values Still Fighting On Even Under an Obama Presidency « BUUUUURRRRNING HOT
- Schwarzenegger: Hopefully We Can Overturn Prop. 8 | The American Pundit
- Jeremaih Films
- The “fruit” of the Left–Idol Worship and Poor Education: Why the Left gets it WRONG « Mark Epstein
- For Schwarzenegger, too little too late » A Couple Things » A couple things about politics, sports, travel, and other stuff.
- Coming To The Defense Of Christian Persecution In California | Political Vindication
- And the hits keep on coming! « This…that and everything else!
- The pursuit of happiness » Blog Archive » The hits keep on coming!
- Sierra Faith
- Hard Starboard
- Michelle Malkin » Anti-Prop. 8 mob: It’s over. You lost. Move on.
- Michelle Malkin » Who will quell the anti-Prop. 8 rage?
- Prop 8 Madness | TDCMedia
- Militant homosexuality and their anti-Prop 8 efforts « Northern Thoughts And Reflections
- Militant homosexuality and anti-Prop 8 efforts « Northern Thoughts And Reflections
- Pieces of a Whole » Blog Archive » Violence toward Prop 8 supporters, and beyond
- Prop 8 and The Federalist 10 (Madison) : Drex Davis
- The Strident Conservative
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Proposition 8
Power Line
» More From the East Anglia Archives
Mudville Gazette
» Leakiest administration ever?Sister Toldjah
» Obama plans to announce troop decision on Afghanistan next weekPundit & Pundette
» Various and sundryStop The ACLU
» Obama To Hold Another Prime Timer To Explain Our Afghanistan Strategy To Islamic ExtremistsRedstate
» Put Me in the No Camp on the Purity TestAmSpecBlog
» Lieberman Says He's "Stubborn" on Gov't Plan
your inability to comprehend what I said is not my fault.
your irrationality prevents you from seeing rationality.
I’ve elucidated what I believe to be one of the core values of Conservatism: limited, non-intrusive government.
Do Conservatives NOT believe in this?
Six degrees:
You are confusing conservatism (in it’s present Christian manifestation), with libertarianism, which honors religious freedom and argues that the government should not have a stake in ANY marriage.
There is no Federal “ban” on gay marriage. Rather, the people of individual states have spoken @ the polls in favor of NOT creating a new special “right.” Whether it’s for religious or secular reasons, the people have spoken on this issue. MA has ignored the will of the people, finding a ban on gay marriage “unconstitutional” (does this State’s constitution create a right to marriage that is not present in the U.S. Constitution?). The governor of CA apparently is hoping to do the same. That is NOT conservatism.
but you want government to INTRUDE and allow gay marriage.
limited non-intrusive government does NOT mean anything goes. conservatives are all about preseving traditional values and society. gay marriage destroys this. and of course the whole reason for gay marriage is to silence and destroy christianity.
conservatism isn’t a cliche. its a rather complex philosphy, you should check into it sometimes…try Burnham, chambers, Orwell, Buckley, etc.
Even Jerry Brown, our AG, understands it’s his job to defend the California Constitution and this recent amendment. Ahnold…buh-bye.
Actually, I didn’t say I was for it.
You seem intent on evading the central question here, which is why government should be empowered to ban such activities, and how such a rationale flows from Conservative philosophy. Name calling and insulting those who question you hardly seems like the way to win hearts and minds in the next electoral contest.
If you can’t explain your position, that’s fine; there’s nothing wrong with that. But it indicates that you need to give it more careful thought.
your inability to understand my explanation speaks volumes.
newsflash: I won the electoral contest in 3 states on this issue!! you need to get a clue.
“and of course the whole reason for gay marriage is to silence and destroy christianity.”
That is simply NOT TRUE.
thats very true. and the truth hurts. again you prove you’re just a troll.
link
This seems like an awfully convoluted argument. It certainly isn’t one that’s likely to win over anyone who isn’t already firmly planted on one side of this issue. One can just as easily argue that no new right is being created, that a fundamental right which should extend to everyone is being denied to a portion of the population, much as the right to vote was denied to women, and the right to citizenship in any meaningful form was denied to slaves.
I’m just not finding this argument compelling. And I can’t shake the feeling that it is fundamentally opposed to what Conservatism ought to be striving for – an environment where people are free to live their own lives as they see fit, on equal terms with everyone else.
Homosexuals don’t care about getting ‘married’. It’s all about destroying true marriage, between one man and one woman, and so destroying civilization as we know it. And Arnold is all for it. What a guy.
@right4life
Well, for what it’s worth, I am not out to destroy Christianity, nor is any gay person I’ve ever known. Nor is that the push for legal recognition of our unions. We just want the protection of the law.
Well, apparently I’m not going to get any answers from your quarter. Perhaps if you give it a bit more thought, you’ll come up with something. Please post it, if you do.
That’s where we differ. There is no “right” to marriage. Marriage licenses are issued by the States, with criteria determined by the State, just like driver’s licenses, business licenses, etc.
The people of each State are empowered to make this decision. Where they have spoken, it has been in favor of NOT granting a new, special “right.” How is that convoluted?
I knew I shouldn’t have started casting pearls before swine.
This has an unhealthy ring of paranoia about it. Do you have some proof of this underhanded scheme?
I mean, I’ve been reading this and other Conservative blogs for years, and this sounds like something the Kos Kooks would put out about Karl Rove, with about as much evidence to back it up. Do you honestly believe this?
“Homosexuals don’t care about getting ‘married’.”
Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor. I’m having a conversation here. I’m not a troll. I’ve not attacked Christianity. You have lied about me and my motives for wanting my marriage to have legality.
BTW, the purpose of Government is to uphold the will of the people. A completely “hands-off” approach is as dangerous to a civilized society as too much government control.
Ah. Another ad hominem attack.
This sort of response isn’t exactly shoring up your position.
Here’s what I think: it’s true that proposals banning gay marriage have passed in many places. But it’s also true that the margins seem to be narrowing, and are doing so over a very short span of time. Meaning that there isn’t some pernicious, creeping plague of gayness driving the change. It’s something else.
I think it’s people getting tired of other people trying to tell them what to do. I think people see allowing gay marriage as simply allowing it – and don’t see it as something that impacts them, unless gay marriage is something they want. I think that people don’t really care a helluva lot what other people do in their spare time, as long as they’re allowed to spend their own spare time the way they see fit.
And every time someone moves over to this position, it’s a tic mark in the “loss” column for Conservatism, because Conservatism has drifted away from it’s fundamental premise of keeping the government’s nose out of people’s private business, and has become inextricably linked in the public’s mind with over-zealous religious and moral tyranny.
From what I’ve seen here today, there is apparently no good justification for this stance from a Conservative perspective. No cogent argument has been offered in defense of it. There may be one, but it hasn’t been presented here. Frankly, I doubt that there is one, but I’m open to being shown otherwise. Trying to turn me into the enemy and heaping scorn and vitriol on me in response doesn’t smack of anyone who has a legitimate, defensible position. And I suspect those who have answered in this way know that full well.
We got our asses kicked last Tuesday, from sea to shining sea. And if the sort of argument I’m seeing here today is typical, we totally deserved it. Because we’ve abandoned those things that we are supposed to hold in highest regard – freedom, and liberty. For all.
SixDegrees, only one poster sparred with you in this way. I don’t condone that poster’s actions. But you haven’t responded to my posts with anything except the label of “convoluted,” which I tried to address.
Again, I say “marriage” is not a right. The Constitution already spells out individual rights, leaving the rest up to the States. Where the people in the States have spoken, they have been against creating a new “right” to gay “marriage.”
The courts attempting to overturn the will of the people is the tyranny.
Trop wrote:
You betcha. Freedom of religion means you can invent your own if you like, or become ordained in one that has only one core belief: Pacifism.
I am sad for the fighting going on in these comments. As Christians, it is our commission to, “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”. We are not winning souls for the cause of Christ by arguing over this. I am reminded, as I study the Word, that Christ spent a great deal of time rebuking the religious leaders of the day for misunderstanding God’s direction and bashing people for not following their interpretation of the law. Christ came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill the law. Without Him, none of us get to heaven. How about focusing on the needs of hurting people and reach out in love? I’d rather feed a homeless person standing next to a married gay man or woman than I would next to the best debater on the subject of gay marriage.
Please. Can’t peace start with us?
(And thank you, SixDegrees, for your eloquence and thoughtfulness. I stumbled over my emotion.)
I’ve got the winning position. hate to tell you. you have done nothing to prove your position. and in fact all you have proved is that facts don’t matter to one such as yourself.
I think people are tired of having self-righteous people trying to ram this down our throat. we don’t want it. and please don’t tell *ME* what conservatism is. I have been RIGHT before you were born most likely sonny.
again you prove yourself to be a liar. you just dismiss that which you disagree with. but you cannot argue with what I have posted, or what Kurtz has said. you have no facts to disprove him. all you can do is dismiss him.. troll
uh we WON the gay marriage votes..sigh
so you think Jesus would be all for gay marriage huh? what ‘jesus’ do you serve? not the Jesus of the bible surely.
Jesus stood up for the truth, even at the cost of His life.
vickisoup wrote:
Christ forgave sin. Show me an instance in which he endorsed it, and I’ll buy into your outreach idea.
And then He followed up with, “Go and sin no more.”
Peace with the world is enmity with God. He loves His creation, but He cannot tolerate sin, which means that He expects us to repent and turn from our wicked ways. In that regard, Jesus was very much “intolerant.” Again, I compare it to parenting: Loving your children doesn’t mean you condone, encourage, or support everything they do. In fact, good parents say NO when necessary and mean it.
So your argument is basically, become more conservative by giving up a stalwart of conservatism: the traditional, nuclear family?
Really?
Wow.
What if Arnold had said the same thing about abortion? I can see it now: “The GOP governor of California is encouraging abortion clinic bashing protesters to continue to defy the will of the courts and wreak havoc until Roe v. Wade is overturned.”
Why is it that only conservatives are expected to be non-violent, civil, and tolerant? Maybe we should take to the streets and protest the election of Obama until the will of the people is overturned. How would liberals react to that? Civil unrest for me but not for thee…
right4life cut-and-pasted:
Trop responded:
Nobody intended for the Americans with Disabilities Act to become a cash machine for unscrupulous lawyers and disabled activists to try to extort money out of small businesses for the crime of not being accessible, but that’s what ended up happening. And I don’t think there’s much doubt that if the scenario posted by right4life came to pass, your reaction would be
outrageindignationsorrowdisappointment“Oh, well.”Jesus did not “stand up for the truth, even at the cost of His life.” He died so that we could be made right before a holy and just God; not so that we could recognize the sin of other people, which you are calling “truth”. All have sinned and fall short of God’s glory. That is why we need a Savior. Christ’s life was the price paid for our sin, to provide a way to heaven for all who would believe. He died for all sin. Yes, of course, confronting sin and calling it out was a large part of His ministry (think of the Samaritan woman at the well, for instance), but it was so that others may understand their need for salvation, which comes through Him, alone, and that by His love. Christ never left a sinner convicted without telling of His provision (”living water” for the Samaritan woman), so they knew of their choice. People are much more likely to choose heaven when they know of the love that awaits them there, and how they can experience the free gift of God’s love through a relationship with Jesus Christ.
What are you hoping to gain by pounding on gays over the issue of marriage? How do you think that even one will repent based upon your arguments?
Christ did not command us, His followers, to convict others of their sin. That is the job of the Holy Spirit. Do I believe homosexuality is a sin? I believe the bible makes it clear that it is a sin. I don’t believe that the bible elevates sexual sin as being worse than other sins; the sins that you and I commit every day and which, only by God’s grace as demonstrated through the price paid by Christ, are forgiven.
Christ told His disciples to tell others of Himself and of His love and the work He did to repair our relationship to God. It is that relationship, and its ruined condition, that Christ came to repair. His instruction to believers was to tell the story and to “shake the dust off our sandals” and head to the next house, if we are not welcomed. He didn’t tell us to beat unbelievers over the head about their sin.
“Why do you worry about the speck in your brother’s eye, and ignore the plank in your own?”
I think he’s also pro-abortion. RINO.
We love others because Christ first loved us. It is while we were yet sinners that Christ died for our sin. He did not wait until we were no longer sinning, Praise God, because if He did we would never have forgiveness. As Jesus said, He did not come to heal the healthy but the sick.
There IS a difference…
FWIW, with all due respect, you brought the discussion of Scripture into this thread. I can’t speak for others, but my argument is that whether the people opposed gay “marriage” for religious or secular reasons, the courts and others who attempt to overturn the will of the people is TYRANNY. Has nothing to do with being peaceful or tolerant of other’s differences.
Here’s one of my posts on this topic:
so HE LIED??? amazing. He did stand up for the truth…that He is God almighty, and that cost his him his life.
what are they hoping to gain by pounding us? and why is opposing gay marriage ‘pounding’ gays?? please.
most of the gay marriage supporters are like pharisees…they have rejected the truth…..this is a war if you haven’t guessed.
and where am *I* doing that???
you know this isn’t all about religion…*I* was the one who posted Stanley Kurtz’ research about the deleterious effect of gay marriage on regular marriage and families. I have not used a religious argument.
so where you get off with all this stuff I dont’ know.
and He didn’t tell us to bend over for any sin that comes along in the name of ‘tolerance’
you should apply that verse to yourself too.
Only in the number of letters in the words, IMHO.
Since when do Conservatives shy away from implimenting laws for the good of society? Ever hear of the laws that make murder illegal? Or stealing?
In California gays can be joined in Civil Unions which give them all the same rights as married people.
The people have spoken, again.
The argument really should be over now.
Yes, the people of the State of California have spoken and amended the Constitution to limit marriage as between one man and one woman. I’m not arguing about whether this was a good or bad thing. I’m saying that continuing to argue over it is not doing anything but driving a wedge deeper into society. If Proposition 8 supporters won, and they did, why are they still so angry?
The battle is not against flesh and blood; stop fighting with each other, and keep praying. We have a lot of problems right now. Do you really want to keep this at the top of the list, now that the people of California have spoken??
Right4Life, you are allegedly championing for Christ by arguing and insulting other people. I am suggesting that this is not helpful to the discussion; that’s all. This is not about you and it’s not about me, and it’s not about gays and it’s not about heterosexuals. It’s about man’s condition before God, and how we effectively communicate restoring that condition.
Please calm down.
Seems like the angry/violent ones are the protestors.
God bless you guys. Try to get along with one another and sort this out peacefully.
actually I haven’t mentioned the religious arguments against gay marriage…as I said, I quoted Kurtz.
as far as insulting…if telling the truth about someone is ‘insulting’, then I guess I’m guilty!
Ok, Vickisoup, we won’t stone anyone today. We’ll just say “Go and sin no more.”
No stoning. Good plan.
The “judge not, lest ye be judged” phrase I assume you’re referring to here is all well and good…except that it means we’re not to convict others to hell. It does not mean we’re not to call sin a sin when we believe there is one.
Indeed, when we come before the final judgment, we will be asked who we brought with us. And we’ll look back on our lives and the people we spent time with and those people will look at us and wonder why we – in all the good times – never mentioned Christ.
The onus is on us to always be witnesses for the faith. Christ forgave, but He did not overlook, condone, or appease sin.
This thread has turned into a Jim Jones “drink the kool-aid my children” SNAFU.
OK, englishqueen01; so you’ve called a sin a sin. Now what?
All I’m recommending is that you do what Christ said to do in Matthew 10:14.
“If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town.”
Christians bear the responsibility to tell, to be His “witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” It is for this we must stand in account to the Lord.
We will not be held to account for others’ response to our witness.
That’s all well and good, vickisoup, but I’m not going to roll over and let them threaten to burn down my church, harrass my fellow parishoners, or otherwise intimidate me.
Christ may have wanted us to dust off our feet, but he didn’t want us to cave in.
Cave in to what? I’ve never suggested you should stand there while someone burns your church down; of course not. If that was all this comment string was about, we’d have no beef between us. What I’m reading is that folks are still wishing to argue the merits of one another’s position on gay marriage. As we both know, you can’t stop people from sinning. If you’re in California, you’ve already voted, and you’ve won. If the fight is to keep them from burning churches down, I stand with you shoulder to shoulder. It’s the combination of gloating and vitriol from the Pro-8′ers that concern me. If you are not among those, then I apologize.
I’m not gloating, but I am taking umbrage with the violent protesters. I guess this just brings to a head the anger I’ve felt over the left’s treatment of religion the past 30-40 years.
The people have spoken. It’s over. Give it a rest. Governor, it’s time for you to direct your attention to the budget mess you’ve helped to create.
I definitely feel your pain on that, englishqueen01. This, too, is something we can expect. The cross is foolishness to them that are perishing.
That said, I do speak out whenever I encounter intolerance of my faith or the faith of others. That’s a voice heard loud and clear.
I think we’re on the same side of things. Either way, I’m sorry if I offended you earlier.
Freedom of religion has ensured that this country has enough nuts go go around…
Mormons regularly “baptize dead people” against the wishes of their survivors. It’s troubling.
If the court “overturns” Prop 8, it’s torches and pitchforks time.
You can take the guy out of Hollywood but you can’t take Hollywood out of the guy!
I used to think Arnold was a good politician. Early in his potitical career…he was a Republican… now hes a lefty… pushing for environmentalism and peace.
Its amazing to see whos a true Republican or not. Arnold, along with McCain … are in the NOT column.
Sarah 2012! The True Republican.