Schwarzenegger signs his first pro-gay bill into law

[Matt_G]

Posted: 9/14/04 at 7:15pm

In a move that might draw reaction from conservative members of his own Republican Party, California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the first major gay rights legislation to reach his desk--a requirement that insurance companies offer coverage to registered domestic partners. Assembly Bill 2208, authored by Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego), upgrades the health benefits of same-sex registered partners to a level previously available only to married couples. Current law requires insurers to offer domestic partners coverage equivalent to that of a dependent rather than a spouse.

Shannon Minter, legal director for National Center for Lesbian Rights, praised the signing. "There are still many businesses all across the state that do not provide any health insurance benefits to domestic partners, much less equal ones," he said. "This bill cuts straight to the source and makes it unlawful for insurers to issue any insurance policies that do not provide equal coverage to domestic partners and spouses." With the signing of the bill, Schwarzenegger enhances his standing as a moderate within the Republican Party, supporting abortion rights as well as gun control and gay rights.

[BroadwayMonkey]

Posted: 9/14/04 at 7:17pm

Score one for Arnold.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 9/14/04 at 7:26pm

Now Mary Cheney has a place to go for her botox treatments (designed to keep her from frowning visibly every time her father picks up a microphone.)

Oh, there's nothing like Republican fervor. I bet this is just the first of many such moves. In fact, I'm sure Bush picked up the phone today and thanked him, personally, you know, in the spirit of the RNC bonding that took place. They're so close, now.

[Cyndy]

Posted: 9/14/04 at 7:30pm

woohoo

[Plum]

Posted: 9/14/04 at 7:46pm

I thought he hated those girlie men.

Seriously, though, good for the Governator. At least the substance of his policy is better than his rhetoric in this case.

[Mattio98]

Posted: 9/14/04 at 7:47pm

Hasta la vista homophobes.

Posted: 9/14/04 at 8:56pm

I have a friend that's working at the California state level for Kerry, and they're somewhat worried about trends they've seen recently in their polling - and this, in particular, has them really jumpy. It's always just assumed that CA will go for Kerry, but they're not feeling comfortable. 55 electoral votes is the most in the country, and a stealth maneuver by Bush here is possible. As Californians watch the exit polls across the country during the day, the Bush supporters might feel empowered by their capacity to swing it his way. And this type of legislation is gold for Republicans wanting to reach the minds of moderate fence-sitters.

[~FloweryFriend~]

Posted: 9/14/04 at 9:42pm

Didn't know the Arnold supported gun control.

I guess that's what happens when you marry a Kennedy.

[Plum]

Posted: 9/14/04 at 10:03pm

He's like the relatively moderate NY Republicans, I guess. Guiliania, Pataki, and especially Bloomberg (who's a fake Republican anyway) are all downright liberal when compared with the mainstream of their party as defined by the President and his circle.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 9/14/04 at 11:14pm

DGrant, whom I admire beyond words, your post gives me the willies. Oh, what if you are right? The idea of CA going to W is beyond Atwood, Orwell and ... and Bradury. (and hell, King!) Please, if this Willougby, and can I get off the train? (And live, of course...to see W leave office.)

Posted: 9/15/04 at 8:06am

Just shamelessly looking for papa's opinion on the California thing.

[Pip]

Posted: 9/15/04 at 8:46am

I agree, DG, that this could be a very effective strategy for the Republicans. I have to believe that there is some significant percentage of moderate voters who are squirming under the "anti-everything" agenda of the more right-wing factions of the Republican party. Arnold coming across as a true moderate takes the Democrats' most effective "sword" out of their hands and diminishes the clarity of the "lesser of two evils" choice. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. One could even hope, on some level, that it IS effective since its success would strengthen the probability that the pendulum wouldn't be allowed to swing too far right should Bush be re-elected.

Posted: 9/15/04 at 9:04am

Pip - that's the kind of thinking that makes me happy! I don't think it's defeatist to consider all the options, and how best to live life under whatever circumstances exist - because, we will indeed have to keep on living life. God knows I have a preference for what reality should be, but for some reason, they're not letting me dictate it to the rest of the planet - how rude!

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 9/15/04 at 9:09am

god knows I have a preference for what reality should be

well, d, if you'd just acknowldge god's existence and the saving grace of his only son, our savior, jesus h. christ, then perhaps your ability to dictate your preference might be substantially increased.

i'll get more into the cali thang when i get a break later...

Posted: 9/15/04 at 9:13am

papa - the only part I ever really liked about that whole scene was all that genuflecting.

[Pip]

Posted: 9/15/04 at 9:14am

Someone is going to win and someone is going to lose. The trick is to try to nudge the power structure, regardless, toward the kind of civilization that we want to be a part of.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 9/15/04 at 9:14am

There's as much chance of California going red as Texas going blue. It just isn't going to happen.

Posted: 9/15/04 at 9:18am

Pip - I can only hope that there are many more like you who are willing to move forward in positivity! It seems that no matter what happens, many people are going to feel disenfranchised - it would be nice to think that, at some point, we can start to move toward each other rather than apart.

[Pip]

Posted: 9/15/04 at 9:48am

I'm just trying to be practical. I know I shouldn't be this cynical but I'm starting to believe that it isn't about politicians doing the right thing because it's right. It seems to be more about them doing the right thing because that's the direction the power is being pushed. And they could just as easily be pushed in a different direction if that's the way the power seems to be going. That's the game of politics that we're stuck with so we need to influence the direction of the power push. Enough people need to make a statement, through votes, and polls and contributions that makes it more clear that "no, we're not going there". Naive, maybe, but I think it's obvious we can't depend on politicians to be the moral voice of the people unless there is a mandate to do so.

Posted: 9/15/04 at 10:02am

jrb - certainly, conventional wisdom is exactly what you said. HOWEVER, it is dangerous to assume anything. It's no accident that Arnold spoke at their convention, and don't underestimate his ability to draw votes - the state did elect him, remember. I'm not saying it's likely, but there are people who are working very hard to make sure that it doesn't happen. Don't underestimate these people - they're very good at what they're doing, no matter how distressing I think that is.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 9/15/04 at 10:07am

I hear you. That makes sense. But Ann Richards never made Texas go blue. Granted, Arnie is a much bigger player (in every sense).

[SonofMammaMiaSam]

Posted: 9/15/04 at 10:13am

Speaking of the lady ... she was here last night. Her one liners slay me!

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/111-09152004-366134.html
Updated On: 9/15/04 at 10:13 AM

[SamIAm]

Posted: 9/15/04 at 10:25am

I'd like to see Kerry polling stronger but it's still early. I AM worried about the sneaky little maneuvers going on. Having said that...I think the worst thing that happened to this country was this stupid idea of spending all kinds of money on campaigns and advertising. If they didn't have this kind of funding, they'd be forced to keep it simple and straightforward. Not to mention the involvement of lobbies and big business.

I HATE politics and hate that people are being manipulated and because most Americans are too da*mned lazy to research a candidate they trust the sound bites and that bastion of information for the fast food generation: USAToday to give them the 'facts'.

OR they allow themselves to be manipulated by something a candidate says that they KNOW will strike a chord in a certain area of the country or in a certain interest group. Don't just look at that ONE thing, look at the overall record and overall position of the candidate. He won't be president just to accomplish that one thing!

Stepping carefully down off soap box

P.S. I heartily agree with the bill signed to give same sex partners these rights. Hope this is just the beginning. We have to start somewhere.

Updated On: 9/15/04 at 10:25 AM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 9/15/04 at 10:33am

I can't imagine that the state of California would equate Schwartzenegger's liberal move with Bush's campaign simply because they're both Republican. Or that somehow Arnold's decisions suddenly make Bush seem more intelligent and less bigoted. Now if Bush suddenly jumps in to praise Arnold and support his moves, then it could get dicey, but I think Kerry's folks would jump all over that hypocracy should it play out.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 9/15/04 at 10:51am

the situation in cali is fluid and certainly there's cause for worry there for the left, d. after all, despite what the la times and most of the conventional wisdom stated at the time, arnie whupped gray but good. i doubt that george will win out there, but one never knows does one? with the constant bickering within the kerry campaign and with outside sniping from democratic operatives and with the latest anonymous source from within the kerry camp blaming memo-gate on the "amateurs" at move-on.org it's possible that enough dems will be turned off. if enough get turned off there's an interesting study that i'll link to here about recent trends in party affiliation.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=750

this could be a card that along with re-vitalized gop efforts at both voter registration and get out the vote campaigns in swing states turns the election. now the gop has a traditionally better turnout than the dems, so if it's true that 9/11 has actually changed enough minds about party affiliation, it might be a factor. especially since almost all the major polls are weighted to a traditionally democratic bent based on 2000 census numbers.

with regard to the exit polls, i think it's a double edged sword. i can't decide whether the number from the abc poll of 60% of people expecting bush to win is good or bad. there's a possibility that such a number means that people will come out in greater force to try to defeat him. but historically that kind of mentality has led to the opposite effect in that it's encouraged people to stay home as they feel the race is already decided. are the issues at stake here in this election enough to change a historical trend?

personally i think the dems chose a piss poor candidate based on medals. they got blinded by his vietnam service and forgot to look at the fact that he's been in the senate for 20+ years and by necessity has taken both sides of far too many issues. i think had the dems nominated edwards, he'd be ahead by a comfortable margin. but they didn't. they held their noses and picked kerry because they thought he gave them the best chance to defeat bush, no matter what they thought of him personally. they sold their souls and now we're seeing the beginning of the rift that's going to continue to develop within the democratic party between the moderates (and i count hillary among those) and the moonbats (al gore's constituents). this is the second time in presidential history that a democratic nominee has failed to heed the advice of the best pure politician the country's produced in a generation, bubba. kerry will go down in flames and the only question left is by how much and what will the democratic party look like after he does.