Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Arnold Schwarzenegger: “Gay friendly governator” or frenemy? You be the judge.


by Brian Leubitz

In their Opinion LA blog, the LA Times calls Governor Schwarzenegger “the gay friendly governator.” Sure, he has recently been getting a lot of respect for declining, repeatedly, to get involved on behalf of Proposition 8. But how much is that worth?

Here’s the Times take on the issue:

Who could have called it in 2003: Arnold Schwarzenegger, the body-building terminator who originally showcased his brutish masculinity as a campaign centerpiece and once called Democrats “girlie men,” could go down in history as California’s most gay-friendly governor to date. Sure, Schwarzenegger’s done more for gay men and women when he’s done nothing: Though he vetoed then-Assemblyman Mark Leno’s bill to legalize same-sex marriage in 2005 (legislation that was almost certainly illegal under Proposition 22), he and Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown have refused to defend Proposition 8 in federal court.

This is in the context of a bill, AB 2199, that would delete from the state law books an official policy of curing homosexuality that recently passed out of the Legislature and is now heading for the Governor’s desk. He’ll likely sign the bill, as, truthfully, it isn’t all that controversial. It sailed through both houses, with but one dissenting vote. The one vote would be the anachronistic and bigoted Assemblyman from San Diego, Joel Anderson.

It is great that Arnold has been on our side in the last few years. But, he has never been willing to put any of his own political capital on the line. Instead, he’s content to wait it out. He vetoed the Harvey Milk Day bill before signing it. And with Mark Leno’s marriage bills, he ran for the hills. His rationale was that somebody, the judges, the people, anybody but him, should say something first. Regardless of whether he thought Prop 22 was unconstitutional back in 2005 or not, he was not willing to take the lead by just signing the bill. If marriage inequality was odious to the constitution 6 months ago, it was odious in 2005 as well. Would it have stirred up some controversy? Most definitely. But real leaders have a tendency to do that.

Or perhaps he could have expended a bit of energy in 2008 campaigning against Prop 8? He did make a token endorsement of Prop 8, but beyond that was out of the picture.

But, LGBT issues go beyond the single issue of marriage, and on transgender rights he hasn’t been quite so good, even of late:

On 12 October 2009, California Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, fell short of ensuring full protection of LGBTQ people in the California’s prison system. Choosing to veto the LGBT Prisoner Safety Act (AB 382, Ammiano) and the Equal ID Act (AB 1185, Lieu), he has failed to cement two crucial policies into law. Needless to say, the LGBTQ community has been failed, and must now overturn the Governor’s cruel and unusual decision.

First and foremost, the Governor’s reasons for vetoing the LGBT Prisoner Safety Act (AB 382, Ammiano), was due to the fact that California’s prison system already takes gender identity and sexual orientation into account when housing prisoners. Whilst that is very likely the case, GLBTQ inmates shall remain vulnerable until this becomes actual law. Until then, human rights violations may continue.

As for the vetoing of the Equal ID Act (AB 1185, Lieu), the Governor’s reasons were similar. Thanks to a past landmark victory, Somers v. Superior Court, it had already been ruled unconstitutional to deny transgender inmates the right to petition a gender change. Despite this fact, the Transgender Law Center asserts that the “Equal ID Act would have alleviated any confusion in the statutory language itself.” (Examiner blogs)

These veto messages are hardly the stuff of civil rights heroes. You hope, you think gender identity is considered in jails and prisons? Well, that might be nice in theory, but in reality the situation isn’t quite so smooth. Transgender prisoners face very difficult conditions in the prisons, and very little extra caution is given to them.

In the end, I find it difficult to call this Governor gay friendly. Real friends are there for you, good times or bad. This one swoops in when the tide is clearly turning. At best, I would call him a frenemy. But let’s hear your take. As we approach the election in November to replace him, what do you think of California’s current Governor?


  • 1. AndrewPDX  |  August 28, 2010 at 1:06 am


  • 2. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  August 28, 2010 at 1:32 am


  • 3. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 28, 2010 at 2:34 am


  • 4. Kathleen  |  August 28, 2010 at 3:47 am


  • 5. JonT  |  August 28, 2010 at 2:40 pm

    slip-scribing awaaayyyy…

  • 6. Sagesse  |  August 28, 2010 at 1:19 am

    Once more into the breach….

  • 7. Ann S.  |  August 28, 2010 at 2:25 am

    I'll be back.


  • 8. Alan E.  |  August 28, 2010 at 3:47 am

    Your clothes. Give them to me.

  • 9. Ann S.  |  August 28, 2010 at 4:06 am

    Hasta la vista, Baby.

  • 10. Kate  |  August 28, 2010 at 1:26 am

    He's doing gay catch-up. Unfortunately (for my set of standards), I'm taking it from him on this court issue.

  • 11. Alan E.  |  August 28, 2010 at 1:34 am

    I have no idea how I am going to catch up. I will be getting ready to see Dave Matthews Band (and swoon over Boyd Tinsley, the violinist) all day today!

  • 12. Linda  |  August 28, 2010 at 1:50 am

    My take on our illustrious governor is that he likes to make sure he's got himself covered. I don't think he could find any way to defend supporting the constitutionality of prop 8, and so he simply passed.

  • 13. Kate  |  August 28, 2010 at 2:06 am

    They definitely all want to be on the correct side of history. Look at all those right-wingers co-opting MLK's message in DC today! They are the same as the Holocaust deniers, trying to re-write history. I'll bet some of those same people attended the real March of Washington — but you can bet they weren't standing with MLK and putting their very lives in danger.

  • 14. Mark  |  August 28, 2010 at 2:19 am

    He is definately a more gay friendly Republican governor than Republican hopeful Meg Whirman will ever be. Jerry Brown for governor in 2010…

  • 15. Bolt  |  August 28, 2010 at 2:20 am

    If Schwarzenegger and Brown support ssm in California, why can't we resume our practice of marriage equality? According to Walker, these marriages cannot be overturned. He stated this in his denial for a stay ruling.

    Sorry for not citing the source.

  • 16. Mark  |  August 28, 2010 at 2:20 am


  • 17. Paul Waters  |  August 28, 2010 at 2:26 am

    While Governor Schwarzenegger has indeed vetoed legislation important to the GLBT community, this needs to be considered in the context of previous California governors.

    Governor Davis, a Democrat, and his immediate predecessor, had a “quota.” He wouldn’t sign any more than three pieces of LGBT legislation into law in a single year — and usually not even that. The legislature (controlled by Democrats) was complicit in this glacial pace, by refraining from passing GLBT legislation. So it’s true that Gov D didn’t veto much, but it was because it never reached his desk in the first place.

    One of these “not passed” bills was carried by then Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg, which was intended to do an incremental expansion of Domestic Partnership rights/responsibilities beyond CA’s DP rights of the time (seventeen?). At the behest of Gov. D, she pulled the bill. But when she did, she said she’d be coming back the following year with a “whopper” (her description). That bill was the one the left nothing on the table, and expanded CA’s DP rights/responsibilities to its current state, i.e., marriage, but not by that name.

    The next year, Governor Davis was the subject of a recall campaign. He couldn’t afford to lose a single LGBT vote, and signed the Goldberg bill into law. So while it’s unknown if he would have done the same had he not been fighting for his political life, given his previous actions, a Davis veto seems likely.

    The recall was successful, and California found itself with Gov. S.

    The Democratically controlled legislature — spitting mad at having lost the governor’s mansion to a Republican, and now no longer constrained by the Davis “quota” — said a collective, “We’ll fix HIM!!!” and began passing GLBT bills at a blinding rate.

    Which Governor Schwarzenegger then signed, and signed, and signed (plus a couple of vetos) — the end result being that far more LGBT legislation becomming law than had done so during the tenure of every single one of his predecessors combined.

    Had Governor Davis remained in office, without question the 2005 Leno bill would have never made it to his desk on account of the Davis “quota,” and the legislature’s willingness to play along. And even if it had, there is no question that it would have received a Davis veto.

    So while we can and should criticize Gov. S. for vetoing critically needed legislation, painting him with the same brush that we would use to paint the likes of George Bush, Sarah Palin, and Mitt Romney flies in the face of the facts.

    There is no California Governor who has ever done more for the GLBT community than Governor Schwarzenegger. Period. For that, he well deserves our heartfelt thanks.

  • 18. Carpool Cookie  |  August 28, 2010 at 5:27 am

    Well THAT'S carefully written! Thank you.

    I'll be returning to that post, to poke my nose around and ponder (sort of how my dog plays with the crumpled bedspread)

  • 19. Dick Mills  |  August 28, 2010 at 2:30 am

    My opinion… now that the Governator's political career is coming to an end, he realizes that his movie career needs the LGBT community, and that he has pissed us off so many times while Governor. So, now that he doesn't have any lunatics to appease for the next election, he is attempting to make nice. It isn't working for me…

  • 20. draNgNon  |  August 28, 2010 at 3:12 am

    your comment is a pretty succinct statement of what I thought was going on in his head about the matter too.

  • 21. A A  |  August 28, 2010 at 2:48 am

    These are very interesting observations made by the author. I too am wary of Arnold Swarzenegger. The bottom line is, he is a Repug and a "flip-flopper" from way back. I do not trust him, and I never will. To this day, I cannot fathom why voters placed him into office. Before he took office his anti-Gay comments calling Gays "faggots" was totally offensive, and he thought women were only good to be used for sex. Not only has he placed the lives of Gay men and women prisoners in jeopardy, but he vetoed Same-Sex Marriages in California the first go around. To top it off, he has squandered tax payer dollars on ridiculous self-serving elections and International traveling, and has driven the State economy to the brink of bankruptcy. He even demonstrated, demonized and tyrannized State employees , playing a political game by laying off and furloughing them into impoverished situations that is having devastating effects on the State economy. Furthermore he is an opportunist from the word go. For years he rode around in gas guzzling Hum-V's polluting the environment, until recently, when "Going Green" became the environmentally conscious right thing to do. I lay the blame for all this wasted time, energy and resources on so-called Gov. Arnold.

  • 22. Kate  |  August 28, 2010 at 2:51 am

    I enjoyed Karel when he was a host on KGO (blatantly OUT). And I sure like his Equal=Equal design; take a look here. No, I have no association with him or his site. Great stuff for rallies!

  • 23. Alex  |  August 28, 2010 at 3:20 am

    The CA GOP is surly counterdicting theirselves when they voted to repeal the gay cure law. According to the majority of CA GOP being gay is a choice and all you need is a cure of a brain washing religious counselor to cure your gayness.

  • 24. Bolt  |  August 28, 2010 at 3:25 am

    I think Schwarzenegger should run for president. I understand that he couldn't be president for constitutional reasons, but it shouldn't stop him from campaigning for the position.

    I wonder if he would do an about face like Obama has?While campaigning for president, Obama sold himself as an ideal figure, but in office he is something totally different.

  • 25. draNgNon  |  August 28, 2010 at 8:50 am

    it's easy to ignore the practical considerations of the office of the president, when you are Not It.

    :-/ too bad W found ignoring it all was all to easy when he WAS It.

  • 26. draNgNon  |  August 28, 2010 at 8:53 am

    by which I meant to say, Obama is pretty much performing exactly up to my expectations, if not my desires, in almost everything in his presidency. the only glaring thing to me is his treating of NASA.

    while I wish he had a better stance on gay marriage & gay rights, he is doing exactly what I expected :-/

  • 27. Ann S.  |  August 28, 2010 at 4:07 am

    Apropos of some of our guests:

    “We must beware of those who burn with zeal but are not endowed with much sense…”

    Pope John XXIII

  • 28. Don in Texas  |  August 28, 2010 at 7:14 am

    "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." — Justice Louis D. Brandeis

  • 29. Sagesse  |  August 28, 2010 at 4:24 am

    As an observer-from-a-distance, as of today, I don't think about Schwarzenegger much at all. He is termed out, he has done the right thing as far as the Prop 8 case is concerned, and, once he signs AB 2199, there is nothing on the agenda (legislative or gay) between now and November, or during the lame duck session, where he could either help or do damage.

    Time to pull out all the stops to elect Jerry Brown and Kamala Harris, and if Meg Whitman and Steve Cooley and Andy Pugno can be completely shredded in the process, so much the better.

  • 30. Carpool Cookie  |  August 28, 2010 at 5:25 am

    I don't think of him much at all, either, as he will not be effecting too many people's lives anymore.

  • 31. Bob  |  August 28, 2010 at 4:44 am

    waayyyy offf topic, but just a question for Straight Grandmother, would love to hear your views on France's explusion of the Roma's. I've been following that story. it is an interesting predicament. I feel a connection

  • 32. Kate  |  August 28, 2010 at 4:48 am

    I second that motion. Would love to be able to hear more.

  • 33. Carpool Cookie  |  August 28, 2010 at 5:46 am

    Roma Maffia has been expelled from FRANCE???

    That is an OUTRAGE!!

  • 34. Straight Grandmother  |  August 28, 2010 at 6:25 am

    Bob another time perhaps. We already have the gypsies here. In fact every city in France must have a camping area for when the gypsies show up. Wel not a camping area but more like an undeveloped piece of land where they can pull up in their campers. I live about 45 minutes away from Saint marie de La Mer where like 100,000 Gypsies show up every year in May to have a month long, well basically a camp out, and they elect their new king. They come from all over Europe and these gypsies have thier own self government, in other words they live among us but seperate. Some people call these Gypsies "Roma." When the gypsies pull out of their designated "camping" area it is a pig sty, an absolute pig sty. I know the area for the gypsies in our city, it is only a couple miles from my house. Then the city has to use city personell to go in and clean up after them. You know what? The city does not come to my property and clean up after me, I do it myself. I am also familiar with the gypsie area in Aix en Provence, it is by the TGV train station and there is jsut garbage all over, I mean it flys across the roads. It is interesting, the gypsies pull in, are here for a while and then when you look to their camping area you notice they are gone.

    But the gypies are different from the now "new" Roma immigrants we are now getting inundated with. These are not the traditional gypsies who have been accomodated in France. This is a new breed of Roma who are basically beggers. Hate to be so blunt, but there it is. They live anywhere they can, almost all in squats.

    France says ,sure open boarders but you gotta be able to support yourself and not be a burden on the state. I am an immigrant here in France but I don't beg in order to sustain myself. And I don't have a man at the end of the block keeping watch over 5 – 6 new Roma women who are forced to wash car windows at intersections while the man watches to make sure they keep working and they turn their money over to him.

    My husband immigrated to the United States with skills and talents. He didnt' show up and squat and beg. This may be somewhat of a generalization however the ones who are bring asked to go back to Romania are these beggers, other Roma who have integrated into French society and are working at legitimate (even black marke,t as many do) jobs are not being actively requested to move back.

    So do I want France to be a country that has street begging for whole groups of people who do this as a way of life (not someone down on their luck, or someone with mental health issues, or substance abuse issues)? No. We are not a third world country. And BTW Italy does the exact same thing.

  • 35. Bob  |  August 28, 2010 at 9:25 am

    @Straight Grandmother, thanks for taking the time to give me your perspctive re the Roma's,

    It is a very intense situaltion, and as I said hearing these stories in the news raises my awareness, and concern for the situation. another time perhaps but when, and how, and why. too much, (a people with no home, and a burden to others, what will happen to Europes little secret)

    I'm a bleeding heart, my partner just put his foot down cause I wanted to get a trailer on the property to rent to a person who has no where else. He sayshe's not having anything to do with turning the place into a trailer park, I don't know why those people do not have a home:????? or a country,

    Canada does not consider itself a third world country either, but many of our people live in third world conditions, Holmes on Homes, are you familiar with his home renovation progrqam, he has just volunteered to work on a native reserve to upgrade their housing and teach them skills on the way, that will be an interesting venture.

    I very much enjoyed your response to the radio ad by NOM, by the way,

  • 36. Bob  |  August 28, 2010 at 10:28 am

    just to let you know , we on the west coast of canada, are just processing our newly arrived boat load of tamil's from india, and word is there are more boats coming. they were turned away at ports in Australia, and much debate if we should prevent them from landing here,

    maybe NOM should figure out some way of dealing with this problem of a shrinking globe and homeless people, we all want to just blend in and feel at home.

  • 37. JAG  |  August 28, 2010 at 5:02 am

    Arnold is a political weathervane. He will go wherever the current trend and influence on his future, whatever that may be, will take him. I studied a little on him and in his early days, he called Gays "Fags" as well as considered women nothing pore than a place to put his penis. And we all know that "girly men" statement.
    When Arnold ascended by self interest, into the political arena, he followed his self determined path of discrimination and 'anti". He was anti- environment with a fleet of 11 Hum Vees he so proudly cherished. He prided himself on motorhead attitudes and advocated an improved roads system so he could "ride his motorcycles" freely on them (though he was doing THAT illegally at the time). It wasn't until environmentalism became more prevalent, that he hopped on the "green' bandwagon. In all the gay legislation issues, he never took a "pro" stance, often evading the issue, or outright vetoing pending legislation that would have immediately resolved the issue (gay marriage for example). Instead he hid behind the "ballot box" letting hate groups promote propositions of hate and despisal with Props 22 and 8 and he avoided Harvey Milk Day, instead palming it off as a "Local" discussion. Gov Schwarz is out for HIMSELF with his "special elections" his buy office campaign and all. He is NOT a pro-gay governor, just one who will go with the flow when the popular pressure is shoving hard against him. He is not my hero. He was a crappy "actor" too, more an entertainer, more like a trick dog show.

  • 38. Ed  |  August 28, 2010 at 5:05 am

    Ok guys, something on a lighter note….
    Everyone should go to NOM's Youtube site and read the comments…..They pretty much sum up what NOM is facing as marriage equality grows.
    And it's entertaining as well..


  • 39. Carpool Cookie  |  August 28, 2010 at 6:13 am

    Well, those leave you with a good feeling ! !

    My favorite is " you [NOM] just formulate lies to protect your ridiculous ideals. I hope all people like you will one day wake up in a rubber room, and not be allowed to interfere with the rest of the reasonably thinking, rational world. "

  • 40. PDD  |  August 28, 2010 at 6:21 am

    this is all obvious lies and misinformation… cant they be sued for slander playing this on radio?…

  • 41. anonygrl  |  August 28, 2010 at 7:11 am

    I made a video, the first one I have ever done (yay!) to answer that NOM video. Err… how do I post it? I've never done the youtube thing… can someone advise?

  • 42. Alan E.  |  August 28, 2010 at 8:02 am

    You need to create a Youtube account. When you do that, you need to go to your main profile page, and there should be a link to upload the video. It's pretty step-by-step (day by day) from there.

  • 43. anonygrl  |  August 28, 2010 at 8:16 am

    Oh, dear lord…

    I think I got it.


  • 44. AndrewPDX  |  August 28, 2010 at 2:01 pm

    sorry, I'm a big fan of the movie….

    <cite>By George, she's got it. By George, she's got it. Now once again, where does it rain?</cite>

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

  • 45. Eden James  |  August 28, 2010 at 4:42 pm

    Anonygrl — when you are able to post it on YouTube, please email it to me at prop8trial AT couragecampaign DOT ORG


  • 46. anonygrl  |  August 29, 2010 at 3:11 am

    You got it Eden… it is in your email.

  • 47. Tim in Sonoma  |  August 29, 2010 at 5:24 am

    Thank You Ed. I went there. Nom is still using the same tactics they always have, (nothing else will work) lieing and trying to scare the puppets. I posted a comment to the video as "Theclsycby" (classy cowboy) wich happens to be the license plate on my truck. Yes, I drive a truck not a miata. LOL Thank's again for sharing the link. Tim…

  • 48. Straight Grandmother  |  August 28, 2010 at 5:19 am

    Completely off topic but once in a while in a whiile we need it.
    One Hellava Laugh 🙂
    My daughter is a teacher BTW

    [youtube =]

  • 49. Tim in Sonoma  |  August 29, 2010 at 5:27 am

    That was HILARIOUS! I'm going to share it! ROFLMGAYAO!

  • 50. Linda  |  August 29, 2010 at 7:42 am

    Yes, SG, this is hilarious! It was actually played at one of my back-to-school meetings a year or so ago (I'm a teacher).

    Oh, wouldn't it be wonderful to be able to be that frank???

  • 51. Straight Grandmother  |  August 29, 2010 at 9:13 am

    @Tim & Linda, good I am glad you liked it 🙂
    I hardly ever post YouTube videos mainly I guess because i don't search around over there. I got this one through my daughter and thought i would share it here even though it is off topic, jsut because it is so darned funny and I was thinking of you Linda. Even though it is off topic I thought, "Oh I'll post it anyway, Linda will like it"

    Tim I think you are a teacher as well???

  • 52. Kathleen  |  August 29, 2010 at 9:50 am

    It is funny, but I'm pretty sure the claim that it was actually on a school's answering machine is apocryphal. I've seen versions of this circulating for years, claiming to be from various places around the world.

  • 53. Ann S.  |  August 29, 2010 at 9:53 am

    Kathleen, you're right:

    Still funny, though.

  • 54. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 29, 2010 at 10:32 am

    Straight Grandmother, I am sorry that I did not get to comment on this post of yours yesterday, but BZ and I were out of town at a fundraiser for one of the local LGBT organizations. We were able to go because I had an opportunity to donate some Stanley Home Products as prizes. But we both got the biggest laugh out of this. And we wish there were schools here in the United States that were brave enough to hold the parents and students accountable for their lack of effort. At least here in our part of NC, they don't seem to do that.

  • 55. BK  |  August 28, 2010 at 5:24 am

    What about Ahnuld? He's done. But I'd call him a frenemy. Maybe.

    Somewhat off topic, is there a list of anti-equality organizations, websites, etc.? I'd like to find that.

  • 56. Kathleen  |  August 28, 2010 at 5:29 am

    I'd also like to know if there is one centralized location that lists the anti-gay groups. If there isn't, we should make one.

  • 57. Straight Grandmother  |  August 28, 2010 at 5:43 am

    If you do that please make sure and include all the politicians from all over the United States who are anti Equality.

    I am thinking this topic is going to be most interesting to those who live in California. I don't have anything to contribute so I'll catch up another time.

  • 58. draNgNon  |  August 28, 2010 at 8:58 am

    try this.

  • 59. Don in Texas  |  August 28, 2010 at 7:21 am

    The Southern Poverty Law Center lists anti-gay hate groups at

  • 60. Kathleen  |  August 28, 2010 at 7:24 am

    There are clearly many organizations that take a solid anti-gay-rights position missing from that list. That's the thing, there are lists in various places that include some, but I don't know of any centralized listing of all the groups we know about.

  • 61. Don in Texas  |  August 28, 2010 at 7:30 am

    An excellent overview of anti-gay history also by the SPLC.

  • 62. anonygrl  |  August 28, 2010 at 7:34 am

    Errr… so Brian's video yesterday got me so upset, I made a response… I have NO idea how to post it here, so let me try this…

  • 63. Sagesse  |  August 28, 2010 at 8:32 am

    Very nice :)!

  • 64. Cat  |  August 28, 2010 at 8:38 am

    Wonderful video, very well made! Thanks for doing that!

  • 65. Bob  |  August 28, 2010 at 9:02 am

    wow WOW wow standing O that is really really good, thanks for doing that anonygrl.

  • 66. anonygrl  |  August 28, 2010 at 10:52 am

    Thanks! Glad you like it!!!

    It was the first one I've done, but it was a lot of fun to put together!


  • 67. Mark M  |  August 28, 2010 at 4:45 pm

    Excellent job!!

  • 68. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  August 28, 2010 at 6:34 pm

    That is a fantastic video. How can I link to it on my facebook page?

  • 69. anonygrl  |  August 29, 2010 at 3:09 am

    I think you can do it from the Youtube page… if you double click in the video, it will take you there, and there is a button that says "share" below it.

  • 70. Straight Grandmother  |  August 28, 2010 at 11:13 pm

    Anonogrl, WOW!!!!!!!! I finally got it to play through completely this morning. Let me repeat, WOW! You did a really nice job. On the other thread you said that this is you speaking and your voice is really nice. Actually it is just perfect. You enunciate well without it sounding wooden. You don't sound shrill or for lack of a better word, bossy. Your intonation is jsut great.

    I am surprised this is your first try at a video, it sure doens't look that way. You did a wonderful job picking out unflattering pictures of Brian Brown from NOM the Biggest Bigot in America. I thought I would do a Nom Commercial Counter Video but now yours has intimidated me. "Chapeau"

  • 71. Straight Grandmother  |  August 28, 2010 at 11:19 pm

    Okay I jsut listened to thi again, and anongrl I want to let you know that your video gave me goosebumps. Really, I got goose bumps up and down my arms while listening to it. IMHO it is of commercial quality, I would love to see this video used in our mainstream campaigns. It is really good, wait till Rick Jacobs takes a look at it, I bet he is going to give you props also.

  • 72. anonygrl  |  August 29, 2010 at 3:10 am

    Wow! Thanks SG!

    And I think you should do your counter video too! The more, the merrier… don't let me intimidate you!

  • 73. Ronnie  |  August 29, 2010 at 1:35 pm

    I love it anonygrl….<3..Ronnie

  • 74. anonygrl  |  August 29, 2010 at 1:37 pm



  • 75. Ed Cortes  |  August 30, 2010 at 1:36 am

    WOW!! That is a really amazing job.

  • 76. Don in Texas  |  August 28, 2010 at 7:35 am

    Kathleen is correct. My previous post was a small list. Here is listed by SPLC.

  • 77. Don in Texas  |  August 28, 2010 at 7:36 am

    Sorry, didn't close my tag.

    Corrected link.

  • 78. Ronnie  |  August 28, 2010 at 8:08 am

    Does anybody else find it ironic that The Governator called people "girlie men" but played a pregnant man who eventually chose to dress in drag to disguise the experiment in the movie "Junior"?……<3…Ronnie:

  • 79. Ronnie  |  August 28, 2010 at 8:09 am

    Forgot to subscribe to the governator….<3…Ronnie

  • 80. Brandy S.  |  August 28, 2010 at 8:32 am


    So our condo was supposed to close escrow on Friday.

    It didn't…

    Someone in the chain decided there was an error in the vesting and had it at single individuals. We are clearly married and have offered proof without being asked..
    This will be the third time they have decided we are single and put a halt to our purchase.

    Our Mortgage Consultant assures us that this will be fixed and over with on Monday…

  • 81. Cat  |  August 28, 2010 at 8:42 am

    Sorry hear that… In situations like yours I always tell myself: 'Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity'. Keeps me from getting very angry… Hope it all works out for you.

  • 82. Ann S.  |  August 28, 2010 at 9:27 am

    Brandy, I agree with Cat, but at the same time this stupidity is just appalling. It's not as though couples of the same sex getting married wasn't all over the news in 2008.

    Good luck, stand firm, and do not let them record it without the proper vesting. Please come back and tell us when it has closed?

  • 83. Dpeck  |  August 28, 2010 at 11:45 am

    I think you've been more than patient. If it were me, at this point I would demand to speak to the folks at the top and point out that this would NEVER happen if you were not a gay couple and tell them that if they let their ignorant incompetant employees f*uck this up one more time they will be sued for massive amounts and you and your LEGALLY MARRIED WIFE will own their company.

    But that's just me.

  • 84. Dave in Maine  |  August 28, 2010 at 8:54 am

    I suppose it's fair to expect 100 percent conformity when it comes to our allies. They must always back up every single piece of gay-friendly legislation or else. Alternatively, I guess what we really want are politicians that never change their mind and think and vote the same way year after year. Apparently we aren't satisfied with the maturation of people and will forever condemn them for acts they committed when they were younger and even before they entered politics. We, the members of this community, are always 100% righteous and never EVER do or say anything that might be taken as intolerant or insensitive. We gay people and gay allies were born perfect in our acceptance of the world around us, so it's no wonder that we DEMAND that from everyone else. ~rolls eyes~

    As for the two bills referenced, I would like to know more about them and what the ramifications would they have been signed into law. I just cannot automatically condemn a politician, regular person, company, organization, etc., just because they don't appear to be supportive in one way or another. What is the story behind these actions?

    MOST important concerning all this is that acceptance is an evolving condition. It could be that he, like our governor in Maine, has come to realize what we already know about gay people. More and more Americans who did not support us even 2 years ago do so now. AND, there are MANY gay people who do not see the struggle of transgendered people as an issue that concerns them or is even similar to their struggle.

    This post really irks me. I don't believe we are at the point yet where we can discount our allies, whoever they are. Republican Governor Schwarzenegger has taken a stand for us when our president, a Democrat, has not.

    Saying that he is doing this so that we can help him when he returns to Hollywood is ludicrous. Is it possible that he might actually support it because he believe in it? Some people will always be cynical.

    Dave in Maine

  • 85. Dave in ME  |  August 28, 2010 at 8:56 am

    What is the point of this post, anyway? Now that NOM is crashing and burning, attack those who have helped us but not been 100% about it?

    I don't get it.

    Dave in Maine

  • 86. GRod  |  August 28, 2010 at 10:41 am

    @Dave in Maine
    Per usual, your comments are insightful, such as Members of this community never do or say anything that might be taken as intolerant or insensitive.

  • 87. Straight Grandmother  |  August 29, 2010 at 2:47 am

    Dave in ME, thanks for your keen intellect. Hands clapping.

  • 88. Cat  |  August 28, 2010 at 9:34 am

    I agree Dave, we shouldn't be absolutist about it. Sounds too much like "you're either with us, or you're against us". Some things Gov.S did were not supportive, others were. I am personally thankful for Gov.S signing Sen.Leno's Bill 54, which probably would have been relatively easy for him not to sign.

  • 89. the lone ranger  |  August 28, 2010 at 11:33 am

    Brian's post mentioned, in passing, the lone dissenting vote of Joel Anderson, against AB 2199. So I found it ironic (if that's the word I'm looking for) that on Joel's Assembly website (linked above), he would self-promote: "Joel was also recognized with the 2007 'San Diego Psychiatric Society Legislative Award' for his 'interest in, sensitivity to, and knowledge of mental health issues.'" Relative to AB 2199, clearly his knowledge isn't as good as he thinks it is. I wasn't sure if I should laugh, or throw up… but in the end, I just rolled my eyes and thought "yet another hypocrite".

  • 90. Dpeck  |  August 28, 2010 at 12:11 pm

    Of topic, for Felyx & Kevyn –

    I realize that it is unlikely that this could be of direct assistance in your situation, but I thought I should let you two know about an article I saw this morning in the Bay Area Reporter about an organization called ORAM, the Organization for Refuge, Asylum and Migration. A link to the article:

    I figured that it's good to be aware of every potentially helpful resource.

  • 91. Owen  |  August 28, 2010 at 12:38 pm

    Well said, Dave and Cat.

    When the gay rights movement takes on the characteristics of a totalitarian entity, people take notice and we lose credibility.

    It makes us more like our enemies. "You need to support each and every item on our agenda" sounds like a demand from the likes of James Dobson, not people with respect for diversity of lifestyle and thought, which is I hope what our movement is trying to be.

    And really, you have to analyze the Governator contextually. Perhaps his motives were self-serving and purely political, but the fact remains that everything he did for our community puts him in rare company – he is one of very, very few Republicans to do anything to facilitate equality. He *could* have stuck with the party line and been a complete dick, joining the likes of Carcieri in Rhode Island, but he didn't.

  • 92. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 28, 2010 at 3:37 pm

    Will catch up on reading later. Just got back from a trip to Durham for an AIDS fundraiser that is done every other month there. Tonight they raised nearly $10,000!

  • 93. Sagesse  |  August 29, 2010 at 1:21 am

    Something of a tangent… discussing Judge Walker's conclusions on Prop 8 as gender discrimination

    Reconnecting Sex and Sexual Orientation through Proposition 8

  • 94. Cat  |  August 29, 2010 at 1:58 am

    The article presents an interesting angle, that the Perry case is one of the few cases where the defendants explicitly rely on codifying traditional gender roles, wheres the other cases (defended by the government) pretty much rely on the right of the people to define marriage without going into the motivation. That seems to be really the key of Walker's ruling: the right to vote is not sufficient here, the law must also be based on a legitimate government interest. So you turn to the motivation, and find it's based on prejudice and misinformation. Out goes the law…

    It's so sad to think that if the Yes on 8 had truthfully explained their motivations & ideology and refrained from playing on unfounded fears, Prop.8 would have never passed. Given the untruthful campaign and the very slim majority they got, it's safe to say that Prop.8 is NOT the will of the people. Yes on 8 lied their way to a narrow victory. Plain and simple.

  • 95. Sagesse  |  August 29, 2010 at 2:14 am


    Forty years on, I'm so used to these attempts to keep women in their place, it went right over my head that this 'woman as nurturer' message was just the same thing… all over again… still.

  • 96. Cat  |  August 29, 2010 at 3:42 am

    Yes, progress has been slow on that front. Gender equality may be the law, but it's still easy to appeal to the 'woman as the nurturer'. It sounds so valuable and positive, doesn't it? I do believe that many women make great nurturers, but we shouldn't let a statistically common quality turn into an inescapable duty.

    My parents are social liberals, post-sexual revolution, but they are in a largely traditional marriage, by choice. They really instilled in me that it is up to the couple to find an appropriate balance in tasks and roles. I am (more than) disappointed about people who feel that they need laws to codify their personal choices as 'the only right way', as if that makes their choices somehow more valid.

    This whole notion that there is a clear-cut universally best way that we all should strive for scares the heck out of me. Yet, many people seem to take comfort in it, and feel threatened when somebody says there are alternative ways that work too.

  • 97. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 29, 2010 at 9:10 am

    While this is addressing a comment by Sagesse, this is directed at all of the women on this site, all of the women in my P8TT family. While there are some who say that women are nurturers and only nurturers, and try to use this in their attempts to oppress women, and to prevent marriage equality, I must let all of you know that you have all been nurturers in a way that only goes to prove that anyone who tries to oppress women is nothing more than a meshuggah and a shanda der menchen. You see, all of the women in my life, with only about two exceptions, have nurtured in me a love for others, a compassion for all, and a fierce desire to see everyone treated equally. They have nurtured in me a knowledge of what a healthy self-esteem and a healthy love of myself is all about, what self-respect, honor, integrity, and character truly mean. They also nurtured in me a fierce loyalty so that it really takes a lot of someone hurting me and betraying me before I totally cut them out of my life. And you ladies here have only added to that nurturing and proven yet again why women are the stronger of us all. In fact, Dolly Parton did a song a few years ago that to me sums up all of the strengths women have that are too often overlooked.

    This one is for all of you strong women in my life–past, present, and future. You are all Eagles!

  • 98. Sagesse  |  August 29, 2010 at 1:39 am

    Short interview with Reed Cowan on 8:The Mormon Proposition

    Exposing One of the Greatest Intrusions of Religion into American Politics: An Interview with Reed Cowan

  • 99. Paul  |  August 29, 2010 at 3:41 am

    While it is certainly fair to be questioning of Gov. S (as it is of any politician) I have to agree with Paul Water's post above, that S has inarguably been the most supportive governor we have ever had. Also, much has been made in this blog of how rapidly attitudes are evolving. We can wish that S's attitudes had evolved more quickly, or criticize that they haven't evolved more, but we should recognize that his attitudes *have* evolved and give him credit for that.

  • 100. the lone ranger  |  August 29, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    S has "evolved" because he's not up for re-election, and he can't run for president (imagine the "birther" rebellion that would invoke!) In 2 or 3 years, when more states & countries have marriage equality (maybe even this whole country?), and the sky obviously hasn't fallen, and the whole issue has lost a lot of its political divisiveness (as Republicans realize their socially-conservative base is rapidly declining by age-related attrition), then the Governator can safely run for a Senate seat without concern of alienating too many of his base. For better or worse, he's simply a politician…

  • 101. Sebastian H  |  August 30, 2010 at 12:58 am

    Isn't Schwarzenegger's position almost exactly the same as Obama's? Vaguely marriage tolerant. Not helping us in any particular way. Sometimes throwing annoying obstacles in the way?

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!