Friday Musings

Share:
There are a bunch of interesting happenings that somehow do not seem to amount to one full story, so here they are.

Wedding Time

Every year County Clerk Freddie Oakley holds her protest hoping that some day same-sex partners can get married. Apparent that day will come next Monday and the County will have to open a second room to accommodate the roughly 19 or 20 same-sex couples that have scheduled weddings for next week.

The weddings, according to Davis Enterprise reporter Corey Golden will take place in the Roland and Betsy Marchand Room in the basement of the County Administration building.

I am a strong supporter of marriage for same-sex partners. My belief is that it is really only a matter of time before same-sex marriage is accepted throughout the nation. If you look at the demographic shift, you realize how inevitable this is.

I am 35, people around my age are in general supportive of gay marriage. We have friends who are gay, family members, etc. People younger than me are even more supportive of marriage equality. The gay marriage issue is really only controversial among people who are older than 45 or 50 and people who are very religious. Even those who are very religious and young do not have same animosity toward gay people are older people. It is a simple matter for us, we just grew up around gay people, it is no longer something unusual or scary.

That said, I do not know that we are there yet as a society or even a state. I am nervous having the gay marriage issue on the ballot this year both from the standpoint of not wishing to have a constitutional amendment on the books to deal with but also from the standpoint of not wanting to draw out the hardcore anti-gay voters who might not be enthusiastic about John McCain.

I also wonder what happens to people who got married in the narrow window between now and Election Day, should the voters vote to make marriage between same-sex partners unconstitutional. Obviously part of this is symbolic, going through the ceremony with your loved one in front of your families and friends. But the other part is legal and perhaps more important. There are legal rights that go along with marriage that are crucial and one of the reasons we will eventually have to do something in this society.

We cannot have a class of people who do not have rights to benefits, health care, power of attorney, and other marital legal rights. We may not need expressly marriage to get those legal rights, but we do need something and this is an issue not address enough.

In the meantime, a large number of same-sex partners will be having the time of their lives and that cannot be a bad thing.

Clinton Backs Out of Graduation

Former President Bill Clinton was scheduled to deliver a commencement speech at UCLA today. But earlier this week he canceled that speech due to the ongoing labor dispute.

Clinton’s office said he would not appear because of the long-running rift between the university and AFSCME Employees.

The 20,000 workers involved in the wage dispute range from technicians at UC medical facilities to janitors and landscapers. Contract talks have sputtered for months.

Clinton’s office issued a statement:

“Due to the ongoing labor dispute, he regrets that he will be unable to participate in commencement this year and he wishes the UCLA graduates the best of luck”

A couple of days ago on the Vanguard, a student wrote in to the previous story where Clinton and Former Speaker Fabian Nunez declared that they would not cross the picket line to speak at graduation.

The student said:

“As a student about to graduate from UCLA, I am terribly disappointed that our graduation ceremony, a special time for students’ friends and families, is being turned into a political circus.

We were only awarded two tickets this year for graduation. That’s right – while most campuses get to have as many guests as their hearts desire, we can only have mom and pop sitting in the audience because Bill has to have plenty of elbow room for his posse of media and special friends. Last year’s paltry number of FOUR tickets was low – this is just ridiculous!

Graduation is supposed to be a time for us to celebrate our accomplishments. Sometimes I am terribly disappointed in just how politicized every event at this campus manages to be. I certainly wish I knew about this coming into college…

I can’t believe he would pull out just a few short days before one of the biggest achievements of our lives so that he can make a political statement. This day has nothing to do with him and everything to do with the graduates. “

I post this here, because most probably did not see that post but also because the student makes some good points even if I ultimately disagree.

First, I think there is a problem that you can only get two tickets for graduation and that might suggest that Clinton is not the best speaker to begin with. How can any event with Clinton in a year where his wife was a Presidential candidate up until last week, manage to not be political? Somethings are simply beyond my comprehension, I suppose.

As the student points out, graduation is supposed to be a time for students and their families to celebrate a great accomplishment and if one cannot have their family there, it makes it more difficult.

On the other hand, I think people need to have an understanding of helping those less fortunate that they are. Growing up in a union household, one of the things you learned is that you do not cross a picket line. So for Clinton to do so, would likely go against his own principles. It is unfortunate that innocent people get caught up in the middle of it, but at the same time, I am struck at the complete lack of acknowledgment by the student about the situation with AFSCME and their employees.

So while I agree that the day has nothing to do with Clinton and everything to do with the graduates, ultimately, when Clinton made the arrangement to speak at the graduation, he was not aware of the labor the strife on campus.

Target Breaks Ground

As we all know by now in 2006, voters approved rezoning for a Target store near the intersection of Second Street and Mace Blvd. Now finally almost two years later they will break ground on the store despite concerns about it being near a superfund cite.

Apparently in addition to Target there will be several other stores right next to it, the largest will be about 25,000 square feet.

The site is supposed to open in October of 2009. Apparently Target only opens stores three months out of the year in April, July, and October.

According to the Davis Enterprise story:

“Although the city doesn’t know which businesses eventually will fill the buildings adjacent to Target, it put some limitations in the development agreement.

One 25,000-square-foot pad will allow for a building about the size of the former Food Fair store in West Davis, Webb said. Two pads allow for 7,500-square-foot buildings and one will be 6,000 square feet.

The city was able to specify the type of businesses it would like to see in those spaces, allowing restaurants, and community retail like clothing, electronics, soft goods or office supplies. Fast-food restaurants and neighborhood services can take up no more than 10 percent of each pad building space, Webb said.

The city also specified that building permits for the pads must be issued within two years of Target’s permit. “

Funny no mention of the LEED certification. I know some people are excited to have a Target in Davis. As one who does not shop in Target outside of Davis, I will likely not shop in Target in Davis or at any of the satellite stores as well. I think we need to continue to support our local downtown business.

—Doug Paul Davis reporting

Share:

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

272 thoughts on “Friday Musings”

  1. Tarjay, not Target

    People said that they would never shop at Borders or frequent the stores at that little shopping center. Once the stores were built, people found that they enjoyed the space and changed their minds.

    I will probably shop at the Target from time to time just like I shop at the Target in Woodland from time to time. I don’t think having the Target in town will change my shopping habits that much.

  2. Tarjay, not Target

    People said that they would never shop at Borders or frequent the stores at that little shopping center. Once the stores were built, people found that they enjoyed the space and changed their minds.

    I will probably shop at the Target from time to time just like I shop at the Target in Woodland from time to time. I don’t think having the Target in town will change my shopping habits that much.

  3. Tarjay, not Target

    People said that they would never shop at Borders or frequent the stores at that little shopping center. Once the stores were built, people found that they enjoyed the space and changed their minds.

    I will probably shop at the Target from time to time just like I shop at the Target in Woodland from time to time. I don’t think having the Target in town will change my shopping habits that much.

  4. Tarjay, not Target

    People said that they would never shop at Borders or frequent the stores at that little shopping center. Once the stores were built, people found that they enjoyed the space and changed their minds.

    I will probably shop at the Target from time to time just like I shop at the Target in Woodland from time to time. I don’t think having the Target in town will change my shopping habits that much.

  5. davis republican

    I personally think its wonderful that same-sex couples will have the opportunity to wed. It’s about time – and I certainly hope that the ruling is not overturned by a ballot measure.

    The polling on same-sex marriage is very stark – DPD is right – younger people are far, far more likely to support it, regardless of party, although there is a deep divide by region, which is split pretty much on party lines (central valley being opposed). I think its a shame that the Republican party does not support same-sex marriage…I actually think supporting is more in-line with the traditional Republican way of thinking, but, since the 1960s, the party has been usurped by the Religious Right. Regardless, I am very happy about the ruling and say Mazel-Tov to all who are planning to wed!

  6. davis republican

    I personally think its wonderful that same-sex couples will have the opportunity to wed. It’s about time – and I certainly hope that the ruling is not overturned by a ballot measure.

    The polling on same-sex marriage is very stark – DPD is right – younger people are far, far more likely to support it, regardless of party, although there is a deep divide by region, which is split pretty much on party lines (central valley being opposed). I think its a shame that the Republican party does not support same-sex marriage…I actually think supporting is more in-line with the traditional Republican way of thinking, but, since the 1960s, the party has been usurped by the Religious Right. Regardless, I am very happy about the ruling and say Mazel-Tov to all who are planning to wed!

  7. davis republican

    I personally think its wonderful that same-sex couples will have the opportunity to wed. It’s about time – and I certainly hope that the ruling is not overturned by a ballot measure.

    The polling on same-sex marriage is very stark – DPD is right – younger people are far, far more likely to support it, regardless of party, although there is a deep divide by region, which is split pretty much on party lines (central valley being opposed). I think its a shame that the Republican party does not support same-sex marriage…I actually think supporting is more in-line with the traditional Republican way of thinking, but, since the 1960s, the party has been usurped by the Religious Right. Regardless, I am very happy about the ruling and say Mazel-Tov to all who are planning to wed!

  8. davis republican

    I personally think its wonderful that same-sex couples will have the opportunity to wed. It’s about time – and I certainly hope that the ruling is not overturned by a ballot measure.

    The polling on same-sex marriage is very stark – DPD is right – younger people are far, far more likely to support it, regardless of party, although there is a deep divide by region, which is split pretty much on party lines (central valley being opposed). I think its a shame that the Republican party does not support same-sex marriage…I actually think supporting is more in-line with the traditional Republican way of thinking, but, since the 1960s, the party has been usurped by the Religious Right. Regardless, I am very happy about the ruling and say Mazel-Tov to all who are planning to wed!

  9. Hjellum Metal Militian

    What happened to equality in this nation? You mean to tell me we need to build another room just for Same-Sex marriages? Give me a break! Since when did gay people become so hated? It’s like the “Separate but equal” thing back a long time ago. Why put two guy’s in a totally different room? Are you straight people afraid they might kiss each in front of your brat kids? Im straight, and i accept all people, but when idiots begin disrespecting other people based on religious fear, look out.

    As for the article about Clinton, it seems as if he doesn’t really want to help out the school. What doesn’t makes sense is that he is a democrat, and he is supposed to reunite the country as such. But he didn’t reunite a school? BS in my opinion.

    Target is coming to Davis? Somebody get the shotgun! We need to defend our economy (the alamo called Davis) and get rid of this eastern menace!

  10. Hjellum Metal Militian

    What happened to equality in this nation? You mean to tell me we need to build another room just for Same-Sex marriages? Give me a break! Since when did gay people become so hated? It’s like the “Separate but equal” thing back a long time ago. Why put two guy’s in a totally different room? Are you straight people afraid they might kiss each in front of your brat kids? Im straight, and i accept all people, but when idiots begin disrespecting other people based on religious fear, look out.

    As for the article about Clinton, it seems as if he doesn’t really want to help out the school. What doesn’t makes sense is that he is a democrat, and he is supposed to reunite the country as such. But he didn’t reunite a school? BS in my opinion.

    Target is coming to Davis? Somebody get the shotgun! We need to defend our economy (the alamo called Davis) and get rid of this eastern menace!

  11. Hjellum Metal Militian

    What happened to equality in this nation? You mean to tell me we need to build another room just for Same-Sex marriages? Give me a break! Since when did gay people become so hated? It’s like the “Separate but equal” thing back a long time ago. Why put two guy’s in a totally different room? Are you straight people afraid they might kiss each in front of your brat kids? Im straight, and i accept all people, but when idiots begin disrespecting other people based on religious fear, look out.

    As for the article about Clinton, it seems as if he doesn’t really want to help out the school. What doesn’t makes sense is that he is a democrat, and he is supposed to reunite the country as such. But he didn’t reunite a school? BS in my opinion.

    Target is coming to Davis? Somebody get the shotgun! We need to defend our economy (the alamo called Davis) and get rid of this eastern menace!

  12. Hjellum Metal Militian

    What happened to equality in this nation? You mean to tell me we need to build another room just for Same-Sex marriages? Give me a break! Since when did gay people become so hated? It’s like the “Separate but equal” thing back a long time ago. Why put two guy’s in a totally different room? Are you straight people afraid they might kiss each in front of your brat kids? Im straight, and i accept all people, but when idiots begin disrespecting other people based on religious fear, look out.

    As for the article about Clinton, it seems as if he doesn’t really want to help out the school. What doesn’t makes sense is that he is a democrat, and he is supposed to reunite the country as such. But he didn’t reunite a school? BS in my opinion.

    Target is coming to Davis? Somebody get the shotgun! We need to defend our economy (the alamo called Davis) and get rid of this eastern menace!

  13. proud in Woodland

    As a proud lesbian woman in Woodland (Yes, Woodland has lesbians, so get over it people) I’m really disturbed to see that Supervisor Rexroad has to again post his homophobic rants online. Obviously, to him I’m a second-class citizen. This isn’t the sort of representation we deserve and I hope someone boots him off the Board of Supervisors. His illogical extension that this will lead to three people getting married is insulting and laughable. The bottom line is that we represent change, and Republicans like Rexroad (control freaks, really) hate change.
    He’s a close-minded little man and I will be glad to be rid of him.
    I will be standing with pride at some of my friend’s wedding ceremonies, as we celebrate finally having EQUAL rights; something all people should enjoy. So sad that there is so much hate in this world, even from elected officials. hate is so ugly.

  14. proud in Woodland

    As a proud lesbian woman in Woodland (Yes, Woodland has lesbians, so get over it people) I’m really disturbed to see that Supervisor Rexroad has to again post his homophobic rants online. Obviously, to him I’m a second-class citizen. This isn’t the sort of representation we deserve and I hope someone boots him off the Board of Supervisors. His illogical extension that this will lead to three people getting married is insulting and laughable. The bottom line is that we represent change, and Republicans like Rexroad (control freaks, really) hate change.
    He’s a close-minded little man and I will be glad to be rid of him.
    I will be standing with pride at some of my friend’s wedding ceremonies, as we celebrate finally having EQUAL rights; something all people should enjoy. So sad that there is so much hate in this world, even from elected officials. hate is so ugly.

  15. proud in Woodland

    As a proud lesbian woman in Woodland (Yes, Woodland has lesbians, so get over it people) I’m really disturbed to see that Supervisor Rexroad has to again post his homophobic rants online. Obviously, to him I’m a second-class citizen. This isn’t the sort of representation we deserve and I hope someone boots him off the Board of Supervisors. His illogical extension that this will lead to three people getting married is insulting and laughable. The bottom line is that we represent change, and Republicans like Rexroad (control freaks, really) hate change.
    He’s a close-minded little man and I will be glad to be rid of him.
    I will be standing with pride at some of my friend’s wedding ceremonies, as we celebrate finally having EQUAL rights; something all people should enjoy. So sad that there is so much hate in this world, even from elected officials. hate is so ugly.

  16. proud in Woodland

    As a proud lesbian woman in Woodland (Yes, Woodland has lesbians, so get over it people) I’m really disturbed to see that Supervisor Rexroad has to again post his homophobic rants online. Obviously, to him I’m a second-class citizen. This isn’t the sort of representation we deserve and I hope someone boots him off the Board of Supervisors. His illogical extension that this will lead to three people getting married is insulting and laughable. The bottom line is that we represent change, and Republicans like Rexroad (control freaks, really) hate change.
    He’s a close-minded little man and I will be glad to be rid of him.
    I will be standing with pride at some of my friend’s wedding ceremonies, as we celebrate finally having EQUAL rights; something all people should enjoy. So sad that there is so much hate in this world, even from elected officials. hate is so ugly.

  17. Mike Hart

    A veritable cluster-bomb of issues, and I think I see the linkage:

    Gays and Lesbians can finally get married in Woodland (which is good), but is a town that already has a Target (which is bad), but now that Target is coming to Davis (this is really bad) people will not shop at this new store (which shows we are good) thus impoverishing the workers (collateral damage, unless unionized, in which case bad) and thus Clinton will avoid visiting Davis (good, unless you are an attractive coed who doesn’t mind playing “intern” with former commander in chief while he spanks you and calls you Senator).

    So all this does make sense DPD, thanks!

  18. Mike Hart

    A veritable cluster-bomb of issues, and I think I see the linkage:

    Gays and Lesbians can finally get married in Woodland (which is good), but is a town that already has a Target (which is bad), but now that Target is coming to Davis (this is really bad) people will not shop at this new store (which shows we are good) thus impoverishing the workers (collateral damage, unless unionized, in which case bad) and thus Clinton will avoid visiting Davis (good, unless you are an attractive coed who doesn’t mind playing “intern” with former commander in chief while he spanks you and calls you Senator).

    So all this does make sense DPD, thanks!

  19. Mike Hart

    A veritable cluster-bomb of issues, and I think I see the linkage:

    Gays and Lesbians can finally get married in Woodland (which is good), but is a town that already has a Target (which is bad), but now that Target is coming to Davis (this is really bad) people will not shop at this new store (which shows we are good) thus impoverishing the workers (collateral damage, unless unionized, in which case bad) and thus Clinton will avoid visiting Davis (good, unless you are an attractive coed who doesn’t mind playing “intern” with former commander in chief while he spanks you and calls you Senator).

    So all this does make sense DPD, thanks!

  20. Mike Hart

    A veritable cluster-bomb of issues, and I think I see the linkage:

    Gays and Lesbians can finally get married in Woodland (which is good), but is a town that already has a Target (which is bad), but now that Target is coming to Davis (this is really bad) people will not shop at this new store (which shows we are good) thus impoverishing the workers (collateral damage, unless unionized, in which case bad) and thus Clinton will avoid visiting Davis (good, unless you are an attractive coed who doesn’t mind playing “intern” with former commander in chief while he spanks you and calls you Senator).

    So all this does make sense DPD, thanks!

  21. 無名 - wu ming

    as i understand it (IANAL), the same-sex couples who get married between june 16th and election day will remain married no matter what, because not even a constitutional amendment can retroactively strip rights away once gained.

    and then there’s the question of whether the amendment will even withstand the test of law if it is passed; since the supreme court ruling based its judgement on the 14th amendment, some have argued that any amendment would have to first amend the 14th to read “except for gays and lesbians” and then change the writing on marriage.

    i think this could be a relatively close fight, but suspect that it will go much like the parental notification ones they keep cramming down our throats. the wind is on our back on this one.

  22. 無名 - wu ming

    as i understand it (IANAL), the same-sex couples who get married between june 16th and election day will remain married no matter what, because not even a constitutional amendment can retroactively strip rights away once gained.

    and then there’s the question of whether the amendment will even withstand the test of law if it is passed; since the supreme court ruling based its judgement on the 14th amendment, some have argued that any amendment would have to first amend the 14th to read “except for gays and lesbians” and then change the writing on marriage.

    i think this could be a relatively close fight, but suspect that it will go much like the parental notification ones they keep cramming down our throats. the wind is on our back on this one.

  23. 無名 - wu ming

    as i understand it (IANAL), the same-sex couples who get married between june 16th and election day will remain married no matter what, because not even a constitutional amendment can retroactively strip rights away once gained.

    and then there’s the question of whether the amendment will even withstand the test of law if it is passed; since the supreme court ruling based its judgement on the 14th amendment, some have argued that any amendment would have to first amend the 14th to read “except for gays and lesbians” and then change the writing on marriage.

    i think this could be a relatively close fight, but suspect that it will go much like the parental notification ones they keep cramming down our throats. the wind is on our back on this one.

  24. 無名 - wu ming

    as i understand it (IANAL), the same-sex couples who get married between june 16th and election day will remain married no matter what, because not even a constitutional amendment can retroactively strip rights away once gained.

    and then there’s the question of whether the amendment will even withstand the test of law if it is passed; since the supreme court ruling based its judgement on the 14th amendment, some have argued that any amendment would have to first amend the 14th to read “except for gays and lesbians” and then change the writing on marriage.

    i think this could be a relatively close fight, but suspect that it will go much like the parental notification ones they keep cramming down our throats. the wind is on our back on this one.

  25. 無名 - wu ming

    and let me also say that i really wish the old traditional moderate to liberal republicans that davis republican was talking about would return, at least in california. it’d make a lot of the safe california districts competitive again, and free us from treating every election like some manichaean struggle. a lot of decline to state voters i know would have been republicans in an earlier era, but just cannot stand where the party’s gone.

  26. 無名 - wu ming

    and let me also say that i really wish the old traditional moderate to liberal republicans that davis republican was talking about would return, at least in california. it’d make a lot of the safe california districts competitive again, and free us from treating every election like some manichaean struggle. a lot of decline to state voters i know would have been republicans in an earlier era, but just cannot stand where the party’s gone.

  27. 無名 - wu ming

    and let me also say that i really wish the old traditional moderate to liberal republicans that davis republican was talking about would return, at least in california. it’d make a lot of the safe california districts competitive again, and free us from treating every election like some manichaean struggle. a lot of decline to state voters i know would have been republicans in an earlier era, but just cannot stand where the party’s gone.

  28. 無名 - wu ming

    and let me also say that i really wish the old traditional moderate to liberal republicans that davis republican was talking about would return, at least in california. it’d make a lot of the safe california districts competitive again, and free us from treating every election like some manichaean struggle. a lot of decline to state voters i know would have been republicans in an earlier era, but just cannot stand where the party’s gone.

  29. Richard

    you are giving the UCLA student way, way too much attention

    he’s just a right wing guy who doesn’t like the Clintons, a dime a dozen

    and, the student also suffers from a mild bout of narcissism:

    I can’t believe he would pull out just a few short days before one of the biggest achievements of our lives so that he can make a political statement.

    Oh, my, you mean President Clinton cares about something other than YOU? He actually cares about the working conditions of people employed on the UCLA campus?

    For shame! How insensitive can you get?

    –Richard Estes

  30. Richard

    you are giving the UCLA student way, way too much attention

    he’s just a right wing guy who doesn’t like the Clintons, a dime a dozen

    and, the student also suffers from a mild bout of narcissism:

    I can’t believe he would pull out just a few short days before one of the biggest achievements of our lives so that he can make a political statement.

    Oh, my, you mean President Clinton cares about something other than YOU? He actually cares about the working conditions of people employed on the UCLA campus?

    For shame! How insensitive can you get?

    –Richard Estes

  31. Richard

    you are giving the UCLA student way, way too much attention

    he’s just a right wing guy who doesn’t like the Clintons, a dime a dozen

    and, the student also suffers from a mild bout of narcissism:

    I can’t believe he would pull out just a few short days before one of the biggest achievements of our lives so that he can make a political statement.

    Oh, my, you mean President Clinton cares about something other than YOU? He actually cares about the working conditions of people employed on the UCLA campus?

    For shame! How insensitive can you get?

    –Richard Estes

  32. Richard

    you are giving the UCLA student way, way too much attention

    he’s just a right wing guy who doesn’t like the Clintons, a dime a dozen

    and, the student also suffers from a mild bout of narcissism:

    I can’t believe he would pull out just a few short days before one of the biggest achievements of our lives so that he can make a political statement.

    Oh, my, you mean President Clinton cares about something other than YOU? He actually cares about the working conditions of people employed on the UCLA campus?

    For shame! How insensitive can you get?

    –Richard Estes

  33. PRED Old Timer

    Richard, that the exact feeling I came away with as well.

    As to same sex marriages, you can be older then 40, straight, and all for them. For most people I know, describing someone has gay about as important as saying they drive a red nissan. Data but not divisive. I never understood what all the flap was about.

  34. PRED Old Timer

    Richard, that the exact feeling I came away with as well.

    As to same sex marriages, you can be older then 40, straight, and all for them. For most people I know, describing someone has gay about as important as saying they drive a red nissan. Data but not divisive. I never understood what all the flap was about.

  35. PRED Old Timer

    Richard, that the exact feeling I came away with as well.

    As to same sex marriages, you can be older then 40, straight, and all for them. For most people I know, describing someone has gay about as important as saying they drive a red nissan. Data but not divisive. I never understood what all the flap was about.

  36. PRED Old Timer

    Richard, that the exact feeling I came away with as well.

    As to same sex marriages, you can be older then 40, straight, and all for them. For most people I know, describing someone has gay about as important as saying they drive a red nissan. Data but not divisive. I never understood what all the flap was about.

  37. Anonymous

    The good news is that the anti- same sex marriage initiative will probably fail. if it passes, marriages performed between Monday at 5PM and the effective date of the initiative would probably continue to be valid. This is true for the following reason:

    The California Supreme Court has held that the there is a right under the California constitution to same sex marriage. If the initiative passes, the California Constitution would be amended to deny that right in the future. However, marriages performed prior to the amendment would arguably be valid since the couples had a constitutional right to web on the date of their marriage.

    Also there is precedent for invalidating a ballot initiative–even a constitutional amendment– on equal protection grounds if the sole purpose of the initiative is to discriminate against a particular class of persons.

  38. Anonymous

    The good news is that the anti- same sex marriage initiative will probably fail. if it passes, marriages performed between Monday at 5PM and the effective date of the initiative would probably continue to be valid. This is true for the following reason:

    The California Supreme Court has held that the there is a right under the California constitution to same sex marriage. If the initiative passes, the California Constitution would be amended to deny that right in the future. However, marriages performed prior to the amendment would arguably be valid since the couples had a constitutional right to web on the date of their marriage.

    Also there is precedent for invalidating a ballot initiative–even a constitutional amendment– on equal protection grounds if the sole purpose of the initiative is to discriminate against a particular class of persons.

  39. Anonymous

    The good news is that the anti- same sex marriage initiative will probably fail. if it passes, marriages performed between Monday at 5PM and the effective date of the initiative would probably continue to be valid. This is true for the following reason:

    The California Supreme Court has held that the there is a right under the California constitution to same sex marriage. If the initiative passes, the California Constitution would be amended to deny that right in the future. However, marriages performed prior to the amendment would arguably be valid since the couples had a constitutional right to web on the date of their marriage.

    Also there is precedent for invalidating a ballot initiative–even a constitutional amendment– on equal protection grounds if the sole purpose of the initiative is to discriminate against a particular class of persons.

  40. Anonymous

    The good news is that the anti- same sex marriage initiative will probably fail. if it passes, marriages performed between Monday at 5PM and the effective date of the initiative would probably continue to be valid. This is true for the following reason:

    The California Supreme Court has held that the there is a right under the California constitution to same sex marriage. If the initiative passes, the California Constitution would be amended to deny that right in the future. However, marriages performed prior to the amendment would arguably be valid since the couples had a constitutional right to web on the date of their marriage.

    Also there is precedent for invalidating a ballot initiative–even a constitutional amendment– on equal protection grounds if the sole purpose of the initiative is to discriminate against a particular class of persons.

  41. wdf

    Well, at 5:01 p.m. on Monday, I will check in with my wife to see if our heterosexual marriage has deteriorated any due to same-sex marriage in California.

  42. wdf

    Well, at 5:01 p.m. on Monday, I will check in with my wife to see if our heterosexual marriage has deteriorated any due to same-sex marriage in California.

  43. wdf

    Well, at 5:01 p.m. on Monday, I will check in with my wife to see if our heterosexual marriage has deteriorated any due to same-sex marriage in California.

  44. wdf

    Well, at 5:01 p.m. on Monday, I will check in with my wife to see if our heterosexual marriage has deteriorated any due to same-sex marriage in California.

  45. Mrs. Doug Paul Davis

    Doug Paul Davis and I are celebrating our 6th year anniversary this year on Bastille Day, July 14th!

    My wish is for everyone to be able to find the love of their life and be able to celebrate their anniversary every year.

    It may sound corny, but it’s what makes life wonderful!

  46. Mrs. Doug Paul Davis

    Doug Paul Davis and I are celebrating our 6th year anniversary this year on Bastille Day, July 14th!

    My wish is for everyone to be able to find the love of their life and be able to celebrate their anniversary every year.

    It may sound corny, but it’s what makes life wonderful!

  47. Mrs. Doug Paul Davis

    Doug Paul Davis and I are celebrating our 6th year anniversary this year on Bastille Day, July 14th!

    My wish is for everyone to be able to find the love of their life and be able to celebrate their anniversary every year.

    It may sound corny, but it’s what makes life wonderful!

  48. Mrs. Doug Paul Davis

    Doug Paul Davis and I are celebrating our 6th year anniversary this year on Bastille Day, July 14th!

    My wish is for everyone to be able to find the love of their life and be able to celebrate their anniversary every year.

    It may sound corny, but it’s what makes life wonderful!

  49. IMHO

    Just because one does not agree with gay marriage does not make them homophobic. Some gays don’t believe in gay marriage.

    Furthermore, it is troublesome that judges are being allowed to legislate from the bench. It sets a dangerous precedent. Judges tend not to be answerable to the voter and are appointed for life.

    Already there is a backlash in the form a push for a constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage. 26 states prohibit gay marriage. “Married gay couples” will not have their “marriages recognized should they move to one of these states. How is that going to work?

    The gays picked the wrong issue here, IMHO. Be careful what you wish for…

  50. IMHO

    Just because one does not agree with gay marriage does not make them homophobic. Some gays don’t believe in gay marriage.

    Furthermore, it is troublesome that judges are being allowed to legislate from the bench. It sets a dangerous precedent. Judges tend not to be answerable to the voter and are appointed for life.

    Already there is a backlash in the form a push for a constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage. 26 states prohibit gay marriage. “Married gay couples” will not have their “marriages recognized should they move to one of these states. How is that going to work?

    The gays picked the wrong issue here, IMHO. Be careful what you wish for…

  51. IMHO

    Just because one does not agree with gay marriage does not make them homophobic. Some gays don’t believe in gay marriage.

    Furthermore, it is troublesome that judges are being allowed to legislate from the bench. It sets a dangerous precedent. Judges tend not to be answerable to the voter and are appointed for life.

    Already there is a backlash in the form a push for a constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage. 26 states prohibit gay marriage. “Married gay couples” will not have their “marriages recognized should they move to one of these states. How is that going to work?

    The gays picked the wrong issue here, IMHO. Be careful what you wish for…

  52. IMHO

    Just because one does not agree with gay marriage does not make them homophobic. Some gays don’t believe in gay marriage.

    Furthermore, it is troublesome that judges are being allowed to legislate from the bench. It sets a dangerous precedent. Judges tend not to be answerable to the voter and are appointed for life.

    Already there is a backlash in the form a push for a constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage. 26 states prohibit gay marriage. “Married gay couples” will not have their “marriages recognized should they move to one of these states. How is that going to work?

    The gays picked the wrong issue here, IMHO. Be careful what you wish for…

  53. IMHO II

    As to the graduation issue, I heartily agree with the student. Remember when the U.S. and the Soviet Union boycotted the Olympics for political reasons? The Olympic games are supposed to be about good sportsmanship among athletes, regardless of the politics of the times.

    Graduation ceremonies are supposed to be about celebrating student achievement and looking toward a brighter future.

    Instead we have Clinton, and other dipsticks like the Hollywood crowd, making themselves the center of attention by inappropriately usurping graduation ceremonies for their own political ends. Fie for shame!

    How would you have felt if Republican David Horowitz was invited to speak at graduation, and decided to demonize unions that day? Would you have been OK with that? I think not!

  54. IMHO II

    As to the graduation issue, I heartily agree with the student. Remember when the U.S. and the Soviet Union boycotted the Olympics for political reasons? The Olympic games are supposed to be about good sportsmanship among athletes, regardless of the politics of the times.

    Graduation ceremonies are supposed to be about celebrating student achievement and looking toward a brighter future.

    Instead we have Clinton, and other dipsticks like the Hollywood crowd, making themselves the center of attention by inappropriately usurping graduation ceremonies for their own political ends. Fie for shame!

    How would you have felt if Republican David Horowitz was invited to speak at graduation, and decided to demonize unions that day? Would you have been OK with that? I think not!

  55. IMHO II

    As to the graduation issue, I heartily agree with the student. Remember when the U.S. and the Soviet Union boycotted the Olympics for political reasons? The Olympic games are supposed to be about good sportsmanship among athletes, regardless of the politics of the times.

    Graduation ceremonies are supposed to be about celebrating student achievement and looking toward a brighter future.

    Instead we have Clinton, and other dipsticks like the Hollywood crowd, making themselves the center of attention by inappropriately usurping graduation ceremonies for their own political ends. Fie for shame!

    How would you have felt if Republican David Horowitz was invited to speak at graduation, and decided to demonize unions that day? Would you have been OK with that? I think not!

  56. IMHO II

    As to the graduation issue, I heartily agree with the student. Remember when the U.S. and the Soviet Union boycotted the Olympics for political reasons? The Olympic games are supposed to be about good sportsmanship among athletes, regardless of the politics of the times.

    Graduation ceremonies are supposed to be about celebrating student achievement and looking toward a brighter future.

    Instead we have Clinton, and other dipsticks like the Hollywood crowd, making themselves the center of attention by inappropriately usurping graduation ceremonies for their own political ends. Fie for shame!

    How would you have felt if Republican David Horowitz was invited to speak at graduation, and decided to demonize unions that day? Would you have been OK with that? I think not!

  57. Rich Rifkin

    “Just because one does not agree with gay marriage does not make them homophobic.”

    Yes it does.

    “Some gays don’t believe in gay marriage.”

    Then those gays won’t have to get married.

  58. Rich Rifkin

    “Just because one does not agree with gay marriage does not make them homophobic.”

    Yes it does.

    “Some gays don’t believe in gay marriage.”

    Then those gays won’t have to get married.

  59. Rich Rifkin

    “Just because one does not agree with gay marriage does not make them homophobic.”

    Yes it does.

    “Some gays don’t believe in gay marriage.”

    Then those gays won’t have to get married.

  60. Rich Rifkin

    “Just because one does not agree with gay marriage does not make them homophobic.”

    Yes it does.

    “Some gays don’t believe in gay marriage.”

    Then those gays won’t have to get married.

  61. IMHO III

    I can’t wait for Target to be built. We need the tax revenue it will generate. Right now, valuable tax revenue of Davisites is leaking out to Woodland and other surrounding areas.

    Remember when Borders was demonized by Avid Reader and other downtown merchants, who were afraid of a little competition? Just about everyone I know loves Borders Books. I just hope they can weather the storm of a downturn in the fiscal health of their parent company.

    Borders has been a wonderful addition to our community – it is where I do a good deal of my Xmas shopping at bargain prices on a very limited income. Target will also add a needed dimension to our commercial community – and generate much needed tax revenue.

  62. IMHO III

    I can’t wait for Target to be built. We need the tax revenue it will generate. Right now, valuable tax revenue of Davisites is leaking out to Woodland and other surrounding areas.

    Remember when Borders was demonized by Avid Reader and other downtown merchants, who were afraid of a little competition? Just about everyone I know loves Borders Books. I just hope they can weather the storm of a downturn in the fiscal health of their parent company.

    Borders has been a wonderful addition to our community – it is where I do a good deal of my Xmas shopping at bargain prices on a very limited income. Target will also add a needed dimension to our commercial community – and generate much needed tax revenue.

  63. IMHO III

    I can’t wait for Target to be built. We need the tax revenue it will generate. Right now, valuable tax revenue of Davisites is leaking out to Woodland and other surrounding areas.

    Remember when Borders was demonized by Avid Reader and other downtown merchants, who were afraid of a little competition? Just about everyone I know loves Borders Books. I just hope they can weather the storm of a downturn in the fiscal health of their parent company.

    Borders has been a wonderful addition to our community – it is where I do a good deal of my Xmas shopping at bargain prices on a very limited income. Target will also add a needed dimension to our commercial community – and generate much needed tax revenue.

  64. IMHO III

    I can’t wait for Target to be built. We need the tax revenue it will generate. Right now, valuable tax revenue of Davisites is leaking out to Woodland and other surrounding areas.

    Remember when Borders was demonized by Avid Reader and other downtown merchants, who were afraid of a little competition? Just about everyone I know loves Borders Books. I just hope they can weather the storm of a downturn in the fiscal health of their parent company.

    Borders has been a wonderful addition to our community – it is where I do a good deal of my Xmas shopping at bargain prices on a very limited income. Target will also add a needed dimension to our commercial community – and generate much needed tax revenue.

  65. IMHO

    “”Just because one does not agree with gay marriage does not make them homophobic.”

    Yes it does.”

    What makes you the arbiter of all things right and relevant? Why is someone else not allowed to have a view opposed to your own, that is not just as valid?

    Sit back and watch the backlash that is coming…it may surprise even you…

  66. IMHO

    “”Just because one does not agree with gay marriage does not make them homophobic.”

    Yes it does.”

    What makes you the arbiter of all things right and relevant? Why is someone else not allowed to have a view opposed to your own, that is not just as valid?

    Sit back and watch the backlash that is coming…it may surprise even you…

  67. IMHO

    “”Just because one does not agree with gay marriage does not make them homophobic.”

    Yes it does.”

    What makes you the arbiter of all things right and relevant? Why is someone else not allowed to have a view opposed to your own, that is not just as valid?

    Sit back and watch the backlash that is coming…it may surprise even you…

  68. IMHO

    “”Just because one does not agree with gay marriage does not make them homophobic.”

    Yes it does.”

    What makes you the arbiter of all things right and relevant? Why is someone else not allowed to have a view opposed to your own, that is not just as valid?

    Sit back and watch the backlash that is coming…it may surprise even you…

  69. Richard

    As to the graduation issue, I heartily agree with the student. Remember when the U.S. and the Soviet Union boycotted the Olympics for political reasons? The Olympic games are supposed to be about good sportsmanship among athletes, regardless of the politics of the times.

    Graduation ceremonies are supposed to be about celebrating student achievement and looking toward a brighter future.

    Instead we have Clinton, and other dipsticks like the Hollywood crowd, making themselves the center of attention by inappropriately usurping graduation ceremonies for their own political ends. Fie for shame!

    How would you have felt if Republican David Horowitz was invited to speak at graduation, and decided to demonize unions that day? Would you have been OK with that? I think not!

    I think you have some reading comprehension issues. Clinton is NOT speaking at the graduation at all, because he disagrees with the conduct of the institution, something that, as an individual, he has every right to do.

    So, the student isn’t being subjected to anything at all, except the ABSENCE of Clinton. Indeed, given the ideological attitudes of you and the student, I would think that the both of you would be happy with this.

    Unless, of course, you are as narcissistic as the student, and believe that Clinton is required to speak at the graduation, despite the fact that he finds it personally objectionable, just to please you.

    But, as to your question, I could care less who spoke at my university graduation ceremony.

    –Richard Estes

  70. Richard

    As to the graduation issue, I heartily agree with the student. Remember when the U.S. and the Soviet Union boycotted the Olympics for political reasons? The Olympic games are supposed to be about good sportsmanship among athletes, regardless of the politics of the times.

    Graduation ceremonies are supposed to be about celebrating student achievement and looking toward a brighter future.

    Instead we have Clinton, and other dipsticks like the Hollywood crowd, making themselves the center of attention by inappropriately usurping graduation ceremonies for their own political ends. Fie for shame!

    How would you have felt if Republican David Horowitz was invited to speak at graduation, and decided to demonize unions that day? Would you have been OK with that? I think not!

    I think you have some reading comprehension issues. Clinton is NOT speaking at the graduation at all, because he disagrees with the conduct of the institution, something that, as an individual, he has every right to do.

    So, the student isn’t being subjected to anything at all, except the ABSENCE of Clinton. Indeed, given the ideological attitudes of you and the student, I would think that the both of you would be happy with this.

    Unless, of course, you are as narcissistic as the student, and believe that Clinton is required to speak at the graduation, despite the fact that he finds it personally objectionable, just to please you.

    But, as to your question, I could care less who spoke at my university graduation ceremony.

    –Richard Estes

  71. Richard

    As to the graduation issue, I heartily agree with the student. Remember when the U.S. and the Soviet Union boycotted the Olympics for political reasons? The Olympic games are supposed to be about good sportsmanship among athletes, regardless of the politics of the times.

    Graduation ceremonies are supposed to be about celebrating student achievement and looking toward a brighter future.

    Instead we have Clinton, and other dipsticks like the Hollywood crowd, making themselves the center of attention by inappropriately usurping graduation ceremonies for their own political ends. Fie for shame!

    How would you have felt if Republican David Horowitz was invited to speak at graduation, and decided to demonize unions that day? Would you have been OK with that? I think not!

    I think you have some reading comprehension issues. Clinton is NOT speaking at the graduation at all, because he disagrees with the conduct of the institution, something that, as an individual, he has every right to do.

    So, the student isn’t being subjected to anything at all, except the ABSENCE of Clinton. Indeed, given the ideological attitudes of you and the student, I would think that the both of you would be happy with this.

    Unless, of course, you are as narcissistic as the student, and believe that Clinton is required to speak at the graduation, despite the fact that he finds it personally objectionable, just to please you.

    But, as to your question, I could care less who spoke at my university graduation ceremony.

    –Richard Estes

  72. Richard

    As to the graduation issue, I heartily agree with the student. Remember when the U.S. and the Soviet Union boycotted the Olympics for political reasons? The Olympic games are supposed to be about good sportsmanship among athletes, regardless of the politics of the times.

    Graduation ceremonies are supposed to be about celebrating student achievement and looking toward a brighter future.

    Instead we have Clinton, and other dipsticks like the Hollywood crowd, making themselves the center of attention by inappropriately usurping graduation ceremonies for their own political ends. Fie for shame!

    How would you have felt if Republican David Horowitz was invited to speak at graduation, and decided to demonize unions that day? Would you have been OK with that? I think not!

    I think you have some reading comprehension issues. Clinton is NOT speaking at the graduation at all, because he disagrees with the conduct of the institution, something that, as an individual, he has every right to do.

    So, the student isn’t being subjected to anything at all, except the ABSENCE of Clinton. Indeed, given the ideological attitudes of you and the student, I would think that the both of you would be happy with this.

    Unless, of course, you are as narcissistic as the student, and believe that Clinton is required to speak at the graduation, despite the fact that he finds it personally objectionable, just to please you.

    But, as to your question, I could care less who spoke at my university graduation ceremony.

    –Richard Estes

  73. IMHO

    “I think you have some reading comprehension issues. Clinton is NOT speaking at the graduation at all, because he disagrees with the conduct of the institution, something that, as an individual, he has every right to do.

    So, the student isn’t being subjected to anything at all, except the ABSENCE of Clinton. Indeed, given the ideological attitudes of you and the student, I would think that the both of you would be happy with this.

    Unless, of course, you are as narcissistic as the student, and believe that Clinton is required to speak at the graduation, despite the fact that he finds it personally objectionable, just to please you.

    But, as to your question, I could care less who spoke at my university graduation ceremony.”

    Clinton was supposed to show up to talk about something uplifting, usually the bright future for students to look forward to. Because Clinton chooses to grace a campus with his august presence, students are allowed only two family members to see the ceremony of them graduating. If Clinton’s presence is going to be that disruptive, then better a different speaker was chosen who might have been more appropriate.

    Make no mistake, Clinton’s absence was a political statement, but it had already disrupted the ceremony. His absence disrupted it even further because now there is a hole in the schedule of speakers. His entire presence then absence has made HIM the CENTER OF ATTENTION, when the STUDENTS SHOULD BE.

    I have had three students graduate, have gone to every single ceremony, and thoroughly enjoyed each and every moment. If you felt so bored by it all, why did you even bother to go? Your empty seat could have been given to another family member of another student that really wanted to attend but couldn’t because of seating limitations!

  74. IMHO

    “I think you have some reading comprehension issues. Clinton is NOT speaking at the graduation at all, because he disagrees with the conduct of the institution, something that, as an individual, he has every right to do.

    So, the student isn’t being subjected to anything at all, except the ABSENCE of Clinton. Indeed, given the ideological attitudes of you and the student, I would think that the both of you would be happy with this.

    Unless, of course, you are as narcissistic as the student, and believe that Clinton is required to speak at the graduation, despite the fact that he finds it personally objectionable, just to please you.

    But, as to your question, I could care less who spoke at my university graduation ceremony.”

    Clinton was supposed to show up to talk about something uplifting, usually the bright future for students to look forward to. Because Clinton chooses to grace a campus with his august presence, students are allowed only two family members to see the ceremony of them graduating. If Clinton’s presence is going to be that disruptive, then better a different speaker was chosen who might have been more appropriate.

    Make no mistake, Clinton’s absence was a political statement, but it had already disrupted the ceremony. His absence disrupted it even further because now there is a hole in the schedule of speakers. His entire presence then absence has made HIM the CENTER OF ATTENTION, when the STUDENTS SHOULD BE.

    I have had three students graduate, have gone to every single ceremony, and thoroughly enjoyed each and every moment. If you felt so bored by it all, why did you even bother to go? Your empty seat could have been given to another family member of another student that really wanted to attend but couldn’t because of seating limitations!

  75. IMHO

    “I think you have some reading comprehension issues. Clinton is NOT speaking at the graduation at all, because he disagrees with the conduct of the institution, something that, as an individual, he has every right to do.

    So, the student isn’t being subjected to anything at all, except the ABSENCE of Clinton. Indeed, given the ideological attitudes of you and the student, I would think that the both of you would be happy with this.

    Unless, of course, you are as narcissistic as the student, and believe that Clinton is required to speak at the graduation, despite the fact that he finds it personally objectionable, just to please you.

    But, as to your question, I could care less who spoke at my university graduation ceremony.”

    Clinton was supposed to show up to talk about something uplifting, usually the bright future for students to look forward to. Because Clinton chooses to grace a campus with his august presence, students are allowed only two family members to see the ceremony of them graduating. If Clinton’s presence is going to be that disruptive, then better a different speaker was chosen who might have been more appropriate.

    Make no mistake, Clinton’s absence was a political statement, but it had already disrupted the ceremony. His absence disrupted it even further because now there is a hole in the schedule of speakers. His entire presence then absence has made HIM the CENTER OF ATTENTION, when the STUDENTS SHOULD BE.

    I have had three students graduate, have gone to every single ceremony, and thoroughly enjoyed each and every moment. If you felt so bored by it all, why did you even bother to go? Your empty seat could have been given to another family member of another student that really wanted to attend but couldn’t because of seating limitations!

  76. IMHO

    “I think you have some reading comprehension issues. Clinton is NOT speaking at the graduation at all, because he disagrees with the conduct of the institution, something that, as an individual, he has every right to do.

    So, the student isn’t being subjected to anything at all, except the ABSENCE of Clinton. Indeed, given the ideological attitudes of you and the student, I would think that the both of you would be happy with this.

    Unless, of course, you are as narcissistic as the student, and believe that Clinton is required to speak at the graduation, despite the fact that he finds it personally objectionable, just to please you.

    But, as to your question, I could care less who spoke at my university graduation ceremony.”

    Clinton was supposed to show up to talk about something uplifting, usually the bright future for students to look forward to. Because Clinton chooses to grace a campus with his august presence, students are allowed only two family members to see the ceremony of them graduating. If Clinton’s presence is going to be that disruptive, then better a different speaker was chosen who might have been more appropriate.

    Make no mistake, Clinton’s absence was a political statement, but it had already disrupted the ceremony. His absence disrupted it even further because now there is a hole in the schedule of speakers. His entire presence then absence has made HIM the CENTER OF ATTENTION, when the STUDENTS SHOULD BE.

    I have had three students graduate, have gone to every single ceremony, and thoroughly enjoyed each and every moment. If you felt so bored by it all, why did you even bother to go? Your empty seat could have been given to another family member of another student that really wanted to attend but couldn’t because of seating limitations!

  77. Richard

    Clinton was supposed to show up to talk about something uplifting, usually the bright future for students to look forward to. Because Clinton chooses to grace a campus with his august presence, students are allowed only two family members to see the ceremony of them graduating. If Clinton’s presence is going to be that disruptive, then better a different speaker was chosen who might have been more appropriate.

    Make no mistake, Clinton’s absence was a political statement, but it had already disrupted the ceremony. His absence disrupted it even further because now there is a hole in the schedule of speakers. His entire presence then absence has made HIM the CENTER OF ATTENTION, when the STUDENTS SHOULD BE.

    As I said, it was a right wing, anti-Clinton thing all along.

    First, it was bad that he was selected as the speaker, and then, once he decided not to attend, it was bad that he withdrew.

    By the way, I never said that my graduation ceremony was boring, I merely said that I didn’t care about the commencement speaker. That’s what you asked about, and I answered, honestly.

    Try reading my responses a little more slowly and little more carefully, and perhaps you won’t find them so challenging to understand.

    –Richard Estes

  78. Richard

    Clinton was supposed to show up to talk about something uplifting, usually the bright future for students to look forward to. Because Clinton chooses to grace a campus with his august presence, students are allowed only two family members to see the ceremony of them graduating. If Clinton’s presence is going to be that disruptive, then better a different speaker was chosen who might have been more appropriate.

    Make no mistake, Clinton’s absence was a political statement, but it had already disrupted the ceremony. His absence disrupted it even further because now there is a hole in the schedule of speakers. His entire presence then absence has made HIM the CENTER OF ATTENTION, when the STUDENTS SHOULD BE.

    As I said, it was a right wing, anti-Clinton thing all along.

    First, it was bad that he was selected as the speaker, and then, once he decided not to attend, it was bad that he withdrew.

    By the way, I never said that my graduation ceremony was boring, I merely said that I didn’t care about the commencement speaker. That’s what you asked about, and I answered, honestly.

    Try reading my responses a little more slowly and little more carefully, and perhaps you won’t find them so challenging to understand.

    –Richard Estes

  79. Richard

    Clinton was supposed to show up to talk about something uplifting, usually the bright future for students to look forward to. Because Clinton chooses to grace a campus with his august presence, students are allowed only two family members to see the ceremony of them graduating. If Clinton’s presence is going to be that disruptive, then better a different speaker was chosen who might have been more appropriate.

    Make no mistake, Clinton’s absence was a political statement, but it had already disrupted the ceremony. His absence disrupted it even further because now there is a hole in the schedule of speakers. His entire presence then absence has made HIM the CENTER OF ATTENTION, when the STUDENTS SHOULD BE.

    As I said, it was a right wing, anti-Clinton thing all along.

    First, it was bad that he was selected as the speaker, and then, once he decided not to attend, it was bad that he withdrew.

    By the way, I never said that my graduation ceremony was boring, I merely said that I didn’t care about the commencement speaker. That’s what you asked about, and I answered, honestly.

    Try reading my responses a little more slowly and little more carefully, and perhaps you won’t find them so challenging to understand.

    –Richard Estes

  80. Richard

    Clinton was supposed to show up to talk about something uplifting, usually the bright future for students to look forward to. Because Clinton chooses to grace a campus with his august presence, students are allowed only two family members to see the ceremony of them graduating. If Clinton’s presence is going to be that disruptive, then better a different speaker was chosen who might have been more appropriate.

    Make no mistake, Clinton’s absence was a political statement, but it had already disrupted the ceremony. His absence disrupted it even further because now there is a hole in the schedule of speakers. His entire presence then absence has made HIM the CENTER OF ATTENTION, when the STUDENTS SHOULD BE.

    As I said, it was a right wing, anti-Clinton thing all along.

    First, it was bad that he was selected as the speaker, and then, once he decided not to attend, it was bad that he withdrew.

    By the way, I never said that my graduation ceremony was boring, I merely said that I didn’t care about the commencement speaker. That’s what you asked about, and I answered, honestly.

    Try reading my responses a little more slowly and little more carefully, and perhaps you won’t find them so challenging to understand.

    –Richard Estes

  81. Fire In the Hole

    I LOVE Borders too …to take a dump. Yes, every time I need to go to the bathroom downtown I stop by Borders. They are always there to service me.

    To people who “claim” to be all Davis-y (“Ooooh I love Davis! I can finally shop here now that there’s a Target and a Borders!”) you could have been buying that stuff here already. And yes, at the same cost.

    Why don’t you try buying that stuff in Davis and fixing that sales tax leakage for the next 16 months? You’d be surprised what you can buy here when you actually step outside of your “name-brand zone” and find a community-friendly world.

  82. Fire In the Hole

    I LOVE Borders too …to take a dump. Yes, every time I need to go to the bathroom downtown I stop by Borders. They are always there to service me.

    To people who “claim” to be all Davis-y (“Ooooh I love Davis! I can finally shop here now that there’s a Target and a Borders!”) you could have been buying that stuff here already. And yes, at the same cost.

    Why don’t you try buying that stuff in Davis and fixing that sales tax leakage for the next 16 months? You’d be surprised what you can buy here when you actually step outside of your “name-brand zone” and find a community-friendly world.

  83. Fire In the Hole

    I LOVE Borders too …to take a dump. Yes, every time I need to go to the bathroom downtown I stop by Borders. They are always there to service me.

    To people who “claim” to be all Davis-y (“Ooooh I love Davis! I can finally shop here now that there’s a Target and a Borders!”) you could have been buying that stuff here already. And yes, at the same cost.

    Why don’t you try buying that stuff in Davis and fixing that sales tax leakage for the next 16 months? You’d be surprised what you can buy here when you actually step outside of your “name-brand zone” and find a community-friendly world.

  84. Fire In the Hole

    I LOVE Borders too …to take a dump. Yes, every time I need to go to the bathroom downtown I stop by Borders. They are always there to service me.

    To people who “claim” to be all Davis-y (“Ooooh I love Davis! I can finally shop here now that there’s a Target and a Borders!”) you could have been buying that stuff here already. And yes, at the same cost.

    Why don’t you try buying that stuff in Davis and fixing that sales tax leakage for the next 16 months? You’d be surprised what you can buy here when you actually step outside of your “name-brand zone” and find a community-friendly world.

  85. Anonymous

    Do you have to copy and paste the entire post for a comment you are rebutting? It makes for a long read to get your point and usually it’s not worth it. Some reference to the comment should be sufficient.

  86. Anonymous

    Do you have to copy and paste the entire post for a comment you are rebutting? It makes for a long read to get your point and usually it’s not worth it. Some reference to the comment should be sufficient.

  87. Anonymous

    Do you have to copy and paste the entire post for a comment you are rebutting? It makes for a long read to get your point and usually it’s not worth it. Some reference to the comment should be sufficient.

  88. Anonymous

    Do you have to copy and paste the entire post for a comment you are rebutting? It makes for a long read to get your point and usually it’s not worth it. Some reference to the comment should be sufficient.

  89. Rich Rifkin

    “Why is someone else not allowed to have a view opposed to your own, that is not just as valid?”

    You are free to have an opposing view. No one said otherwise. I suspect your view is based on ignorance and prejudice and inertia. I’m willing to change my opinion of how you come to your conclusions, should you offer something to substantiate a change. But on the surface of it, that’s what it appears to be: homobodaphobia.

  90. Rich Rifkin

    “Why is someone else not allowed to have a view opposed to your own, that is not just as valid?”

    You are free to have an opposing view. No one said otherwise. I suspect your view is based on ignorance and prejudice and inertia. I’m willing to change my opinion of how you come to your conclusions, should you offer something to substantiate a change. But on the surface of it, that’s what it appears to be: homobodaphobia.

  91. Rich Rifkin

    “Why is someone else not allowed to have a view opposed to your own, that is not just as valid?”

    You are free to have an opposing view. No one said otherwise. I suspect your view is based on ignorance and prejudice and inertia. I’m willing to change my opinion of how you come to your conclusions, should you offer something to substantiate a change. But on the surface of it, that’s what it appears to be: homobodaphobia.

  92. Rich Rifkin

    “Why is someone else not allowed to have a view opposed to your own, that is not just as valid?”

    You are free to have an opposing view. No one said otherwise. I suspect your view is based on ignorance and prejudice and inertia. I’m willing to change my opinion of how you come to your conclusions, should you offer something to substantiate a change. But on the surface of it, that’s what it appears to be: homobodaphobia.

  93. 無名 - wu ming

    IMHO – so are you upset about marbury v. madison too, then? judges have been ruling on the constitutionality of laws for centuries now. perhaps we should just dissolve the court system, and just let the churches tell us which laws are ok?

    just because you don’t like a ruling doesn’t mean something is “legislating from the bench.” if you read through the decision, it is pretty clear which constitutional amendments were salient in their decision.

    for starters, i suggest boning up on perez v. sharp and the fourteenth amendment. then their decision looks a lot less startling. of course, who knows, you might find both of those legal precedents abhorrant as well. all people being deserving of equal treatment under law! people of different races allowed to marry! shameful!

    to paraphrase one of the founders, other people marrying neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket. quite the opposite, really, allowing my friends to marry and have their marriages legally recognized actively improves my standard of living (and may get me invited to a couple more weddings than i otherwise would have, to boot; then again, maybe that does pick my pocket, slightly…).

    and i remain heterosexually married, despite it all, to boot! amazing!

    threaten backlash all you want, you’re on the losing side of a historic change, and we both know it.

  94. 無名 - wu ming

    IMHO – so are you upset about marbury v. madison too, then? judges have been ruling on the constitutionality of laws for centuries now. perhaps we should just dissolve the court system, and just let the churches tell us which laws are ok?

    just because you don’t like a ruling doesn’t mean something is “legislating from the bench.” if you read through the decision, it is pretty clear which constitutional amendments were salient in their decision.

    for starters, i suggest boning up on perez v. sharp and the fourteenth amendment. then their decision looks a lot less startling. of course, who knows, you might find both of those legal precedents abhorrant as well. all people being deserving of equal treatment under law! people of different races allowed to marry! shameful!

    to paraphrase one of the founders, other people marrying neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket. quite the opposite, really, allowing my friends to marry and have their marriages legally recognized actively improves my standard of living (and may get me invited to a couple more weddings than i otherwise would have, to boot; then again, maybe that does pick my pocket, slightly…).

    and i remain heterosexually married, despite it all, to boot! amazing!

    threaten backlash all you want, you’re on the losing side of a historic change, and we both know it.

  95. 無名 - wu ming

    IMHO – so are you upset about marbury v. madison too, then? judges have been ruling on the constitutionality of laws for centuries now. perhaps we should just dissolve the court system, and just let the churches tell us which laws are ok?

    just because you don’t like a ruling doesn’t mean something is “legislating from the bench.” if you read through the decision, it is pretty clear which constitutional amendments were salient in their decision.

    for starters, i suggest boning up on perez v. sharp and the fourteenth amendment. then their decision looks a lot less startling. of course, who knows, you might find both of those legal precedents abhorrant as well. all people being deserving of equal treatment under law! people of different races allowed to marry! shameful!

    to paraphrase one of the founders, other people marrying neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket. quite the opposite, really, allowing my friends to marry and have their marriages legally recognized actively improves my standard of living (and may get me invited to a couple more weddings than i otherwise would have, to boot; then again, maybe that does pick my pocket, slightly…).

    and i remain heterosexually married, despite it all, to boot! amazing!

    threaten backlash all you want, you’re on the losing side of a historic change, and we both know it.

  96. 無名 - wu ming

    IMHO – so are you upset about marbury v. madison too, then? judges have been ruling on the constitutionality of laws for centuries now. perhaps we should just dissolve the court system, and just let the churches tell us which laws are ok?

    just because you don’t like a ruling doesn’t mean something is “legislating from the bench.” if you read through the decision, it is pretty clear which constitutional amendments were salient in their decision.

    for starters, i suggest boning up on perez v. sharp and the fourteenth amendment. then their decision looks a lot less startling. of course, who knows, you might find both of those legal precedents abhorrant as well. all people being deserving of equal treatment under law! people of different races allowed to marry! shameful!

    to paraphrase one of the founders, other people marrying neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket. quite the opposite, really, allowing my friends to marry and have their marriages legally recognized actively improves my standard of living (and may get me invited to a couple more weddings than i otherwise would have, to boot; then again, maybe that does pick my pocket, slightly…).

    and i remain heterosexually married, despite it all, to boot! amazing!

    threaten backlash all you want, you’re on the losing side of a historic change, and we both know it.

  97. Anonymous

    To all you Target supports:
    My family will not be stepping on any property that says its “green” but is built on/near a superfund site.
    I do not care how much tax dollars stay in Davis.
    There is no easy car trip, economical gain or green washing that can justify the lies that Target, Saylor, Souza, Jen Baker (Studio 66), and the 51% of the people in this town voted for. Drive up Pole Line and go to the Target there, you’ll already be at Costco and you won’t be in a building with painted green leaves and red bullseyes on the walls that’s on a superfund site.
    Shame on all of you.

  98. Anonymous

    To all you Target supports:
    My family will not be stepping on any property that says its “green” but is built on/near a superfund site.
    I do not care how much tax dollars stay in Davis.
    There is no easy car trip, economical gain or green washing that can justify the lies that Target, Saylor, Souza, Jen Baker (Studio 66), and the 51% of the people in this town voted for. Drive up Pole Line and go to the Target there, you’ll already be at Costco and you won’t be in a building with painted green leaves and red bullseyes on the walls that’s on a superfund site.
    Shame on all of you.

  99. Anonymous

    To all you Target supports:
    My family will not be stepping on any property that says its “green” but is built on/near a superfund site.
    I do not care how much tax dollars stay in Davis.
    There is no easy car trip, economical gain or green washing that can justify the lies that Target, Saylor, Souza, Jen Baker (Studio 66), and the 51% of the people in this town voted for. Drive up Pole Line and go to the Target there, you’ll already be at Costco and you won’t be in a building with painted green leaves and red bullseyes on the walls that’s on a superfund site.
    Shame on all of you.

  100. Anonymous

    To all you Target supports:
    My family will not be stepping on any property that says its “green” but is built on/near a superfund site.
    I do not care how much tax dollars stay in Davis.
    There is no easy car trip, economical gain or green washing that can justify the lies that Target, Saylor, Souza, Jen Baker (Studio 66), and the 51% of the people in this town voted for. Drive up Pole Line and go to the Target there, you’ll already be at Costco and you won’t be in a building with painted green leaves and red bullseyes on the walls that’s on a superfund site.
    Shame on all of you.

  101. Underwear is for wussies!

    TV: radio shack
    Underwear: don’t need it! Seriously, try Longs, Rite Aid, Anthony James mens store downtown, and the Davis Underwear Outlet “where all your Underwear Needs are taken care of whilst in Davis” and “We have so much Underwear we are swimming in Underwear for Davis Citizens to come buy so they don’t have to go without Underwear prompting them to get chaffing and build a Target out of spite”

  102. Underwear is for wussies!

    TV: radio shack
    Underwear: don’t need it! Seriously, try Longs, Rite Aid, Anthony James mens store downtown, and the Davis Underwear Outlet “where all your Underwear Needs are taken care of whilst in Davis” and “We have so much Underwear we are swimming in Underwear for Davis Citizens to come buy so they don’t have to go without Underwear prompting them to get chaffing and build a Target out of spite”

  103. Underwear is for wussies!

    TV: radio shack
    Underwear: don’t need it! Seriously, try Longs, Rite Aid, Anthony James mens store downtown, and the Davis Underwear Outlet “where all your Underwear Needs are taken care of whilst in Davis” and “We have so much Underwear we are swimming in Underwear for Davis Citizens to come buy so they don’t have to go without Underwear prompting them to get chaffing and build a Target out of spite”

  104. Underwear is for wussies!

    TV: radio shack
    Underwear: don’t need it! Seriously, try Longs, Rite Aid, Anthony James mens store downtown, and the Davis Underwear Outlet “where all your Underwear Needs are taken care of whilst in Davis” and “We have so much Underwear we are swimming in Underwear for Davis Citizens to come buy so they don’t have to go without Underwear prompting them to get chaffing and build a Target out of spite”

  105. 無名 - wu ming

    i get all my underwear at gottschalks. they have a surprisingly nice selection of columbia clothes as well, although generally it’s pretty hit and miss as a store. my favorite socks can be got at fleet feet, and i keep meaning to get some shirts at james anthony but never get around to it.

    the tv, OTOH i did get at target, but that really isn’t a regular purchase, at least for me.

    i rarely need to go out of town to shop, and get by well enough.

  106. 無名 - wu ming

    i get all my underwear at gottschalks. they have a surprisingly nice selection of columbia clothes as well, although generally it’s pretty hit and miss as a store. my favorite socks can be got at fleet feet, and i keep meaning to get some shirts at james anthony but never get around to it.

    the tv, OTOH i did get at target, but that really isn’t a regular purchase, at least for me.

    i rarely need to go out of town to shop, and get by well enough.

  107. 無名 - wu ming

    i get all my underwear at gottschalks. they have a surprisingly nice selection of columbia clothes as well, although generally it’s pretty hit and miss as a store. my favorite socks can be got at fleet feet, and i keep meaning to get some shirts at james anthony but never get around to it.

    the tv, OTOH i did get at target, but that really isn’t a regular purchase, at least for me.

    i rarely need to go out of town to shop, and get by well enough.

  108. 無名 - wu ming

    i get all my underwear at gottschalks. they have a surprisingly nice selection of columbia clothes as well, although generally it’s pretty hit and miss as a store. my favorite socks can be got at fleet feet, and i keep meaning to get some shirts at james anthony but never get around to it.

    the tv, OTOH i did get at target, but that really isn’t a regular purchase, at least for me.

    i rarely need to go out of town to shop, and get by well enough.

  109. Doug Paul Davis

    wdf:

    I certainly would never buy a TV at Target. For me, if I cannot find what I want in town, I shop on the internet. Very rarely do I drive out of town to do shopping. I know there are people who do. I have never bought clothing at Target either.

    Everyone talks about cheap prices at Target, I’ve not seen cheap prices at Target.

    I’ve often wanted to do a price comparison between Target, Wal Mart and what you can get in this town. I suspect as I have read from the research on big box, that there are few highlighted items that are cheaper, but most are the same price. If someone can quantify that, I’d be interested.

  110. Doug Paul Davis

    wdf:

    I certainly would never buy a TV at Target. For me, if I cannot find what I want in town, I shop on the internet. Very rarely do I drive out of town to do shopping. I know there are people who do. I have never bought clothing at Target either.

    Everyone talks about cheap prices at Target, I’ve not seen cheap prices at Target.

    I’ve often wanted to do a price comparison between Target, Wal Mart and what you can get in this town. I suspect as I have read from the research on big box, that there are few highlighted items that are cheaper, but most are the same price. If someone can quantify that, I’d be interested.

  111. Doug Paul Davis

    wdf:

    I certainly would never buy a TV at Target. For me, if I cannot find what I want in town, I shop on the internet. Very rarely do I drive out of town to do shopping. I know there are people who do. I have never bought clothing at Target either.

    Everyone talks about cheap prices at Target, I’ve not seen cheap prices at Target.

    I’ve often wanted to do a price comparison between Target, Wal Mart and what you can get in this town. I suspect as I have read from the research on big box, that there are few highlighted items that are cheaper, but most are the same price. If someone can quantify that, I’d be interested.

  112. Doug Paul Davis

    wdf:

    I certainly would never buy a TV at Target. For me, if I cannot find what I want in town, I shop on the internet. Very rarely do I drive out of town to do shopping. I know there are people who do. I have never bought clothing at Target either.

    Everyone talks about cheap prices at Target, I’ve not seen cheap prices at Target.

    I’ve often wanted to do a price comparison between Target, Wal Mart and what you can get in this town. I suspect as I have read from the research on big box, that there are few highlighted items that are cheaper, but most are the same price. If someone can quantify that, I’d be interested.

  113. davisite

    “…if all agree with DPD…downtown stores will thrive and Target will fail!!”

    Target can’t FAIL now. They write-off the building of new Targets on their taxes and have a history of moving on when the tax incentive runs out. They now have a piece of property zoned for any other mega-big-box purchaser/leaser. The city will have no say in the new tenant as long as it meets the current zoning requirements. With the massive Target just built down the road in Woodland, many believe that this was Target’s fall-back corporate strategy from the start.

  114. davisite

    “…if all agree with DPD…downtown stores will thrive and Target will fail!!”

    Target can’t FAIL now. They write-off the building of new Targets on their taxes and have a history of moving on when the tax incentive runs out. They now have a piece of property zoned for any other mega-big-box purchaser/leaser. The city will have no say in the new tenant as long as it meets the current zoning requirements. With the massive Target just built down the road in Woodland, many believe that this was Target’s fall-back corporate strategy from the start.

  115. davisite

    “…if all agree with DPD…downtown stores will thrive and Target will fail!!”

    Target can’t FAIL now. They write-off the building of new Targets on their taxes and have a history of moving on when the tax incentive runs out. They now have a piece of property zoned for any other mega-big-box purchaser/leaser. The city will have no say in the new tenant as long as it meets the current zoning requirements. With the massive Target just built down the road in Woodland, many believe that this was Target’s fall-back corporate strategy from the start.

  116. davisite

    “…if all agree with DPD…downtown stores will thrive and Target will fail!!”

    Target can’t FAIL now. They write-off the building of new Targets on their taxes and have a history of moving on when the tax incentive runs out. They now have a piece of property zoned for any other mega-big-box purchaser/leaser. The city will have no say in the new tenant as long as it meets the current zoning requirements. With the massive Target just built down the road in Woodland, many believe that this was Target’s fall-back corporate strategy from the start.

  117. Rich Rifkin

    “For me, if I cannot find what I want in town, I shop on the internet. Very rarely do I drive out of town to do shopping.”

    With the price of gas, this makes good sense and I’m sure it is the practice of everyone now who does not commute out of town to work.

    However, I recall your saying on this site that you are a fan of Costco (particularly for its labor practices) and would be shopping at its new Woodland store. That was some time ago — back in the old days of $3/gallon gasoline — and you may have changed your mind. But I do believe that is what you said.

  118. Rich Rifkin

    “For me, if I cannot find what I want in town, I shop on the internet. Very rarely do I drive out of town to do shopping.”

    With the price of gas, this makes good sense and I’m sure it is the practice of everyone now who does not commute out of town to work.

    However, I recall your saying on this site that you are a fan of Costco (particularly for its labor practices) and would be shopping at its new Woodland store. That was some time ago — back in the old days of $3/gallon gasoline — and you may have changed your mind. But I do believe that is what you said.

  119. Rich Rifkin

    “For me, if I cannot find what I want in town, I shop on the internet. Very rarely do I drive out of town to do shopping.”

    With the price of gas, this makes good sense and I’m sure it is the practice of everyone now who does not commute out of town to work.

    However, I recall your saying on this site that you are a fan of Costco (particularly for its labor practices) and would be shopping at its new Woodland store. That was some time ago — back in the old days of $3/gallon gasoline — and you may have changed your mind. But I do believe that is what you said.

  120. Rich Rifkin

    “For me, if I cannot find what I want in town, I shop on the internet. Very rarely do I drive out of town to do shopping.”

    With the price of gas, this makes good sense and I’m sure it is the practice of everyone now who does not commute out of town to work.

    However, I recall your saying on this site that you are a fan of Costco (particularly for its labor practices) and would be shopping at its new Woodland store. That was some time ago — back in the old days of $3/gallon gasoline — and you may have changed your mind. But I do believe that is what you said.

  121. Thoughtful Realist

    “You are free to have an opposing view. No one said otherwise. I suspect your view is based on ignorance and prejudice and inertia. I’m willing to change my opinion of how you come to your conclusions, should you offer something to substantiate a change. But on the surface of it, that’s what it appears to be: homobodaphobia.”

    Why is my view based on ignorance, but yours isn’t? How arrogant – but then I am not surprised based on many of your columns and comments I have read. One man’s opinion is another man’s prejudice. I suppose gays who oppose gay marriage are ignorant and prejudice too, right? And since when must we substantiate our opinions to satisfy your unbridled criticisms? Who died and made you Darth Vader?

    Did you ever stop to think that the backlash from permitting gay marriage may be worse than if the matter had been addressed differently? But then you seem incapable of thinking outside your narrow little box, as many other knee-jerk reactionists are.

    Furthermore, what has just happened throughout this country is judges have begun to legislate from the bench. It is happening with greater and greater frequency. This sets a dangerous precedent, and may have unintended consequences. Only time will tell if I am correct in being concerned. I may not agree with your opinion, but I would die to protect your right to profess it – but don’t step on my right to have one opposing yours by attempting to dismiss it as not worth as much as yours. Do you walk on water or something?

  122. Thoughtful Realist

    “You are free to have an opposing view. No one said otherwise. I suspect your view is based on ignorance and prejudice and inertia. I’m willing to change my opinion of how you come to your conclusions, should you offer something to substantiate a change. But on the surface of it, that’s what it appears to be: homobodaphobia.”

    Why is my view based on ignorance, but yours isn’t? How arrogant – but then I am not surprised based on many of your columns and comments I have read. One man’s opinion is another man’s prejudice. I suppose gays who oppose gay marriage are ignorant and prejudice too, right? And since when must we substantiate our opinions to satisfy your unbridled criticisms? Who died and made you Darth Vader?

    Did you ever stop to think that the backlash from permitting gay marriage may be worse than if the matter had been addressed differently? But then you seem incapable of thinking outside your narrow little box, as many other knee-jerk reactionists are.

    Furthermore, what has just happened throughout this country is judges have begun to legislate from the bench. It is happening with greater and greater frequency. This sets a dangerous precedent, and may have unintended consequences. Only time will tell if I am correct in being concerned. I may not agree with your opinion, but I would die to protect your right to profess it – but don’t step on my right to have one opposing yours by attempting to dismiss it as not worth as much as yours. Do you walk on water or something?

  123. Thoughtful Realist

    “You are free to have an opposing view. No one said otherwise. I suspect your view is based on ignorance and prejudice and inertia. I’m willing to change my opinion of how you come to your conclusions, should you offer something to substantiate a change. But on the surface of it, that’s what it appears to be: homobodaphobia.”

    Why is my view based on ignorance, but yours isn’t? How arrogant – but then I am not surprised based on many of your columns and comments I have read. One man’s opinion is another man’s prejudice. I suppose gays who oppose gay marriage are ignorant and prejudice too, right? And since when must we substantiate our opinions to satisfy your unbridled criticisms? Who died and made you Darth Vader?

    Did you ever stop to think that the backlash from permitting gay marriage may be worse than if the matter had been addressed differently? But then you seem incapable of thinking outside your narrow little box, as many other knee-jerk reactionists are.

    Furthermore, what has just happened throughout this country is judges have begun to legislate from the bench. It is happening with greater and greater frequency. This sets a dangerous precedent, and may have unintended consequences. Only time will tell if I am correct in being concerned. I may not agree with your opinion, but I would die to protect your right to profess it – but don’t step on my right to have one opposing yours by attempting to dismiss it as not worth as much as yours. Do you walk on water or something?

  124. Thoughtful Realist

    “You are free to have an opposing view. No one said otherwise. I suspect your view is based on ignorance and prejudice and inertia. I’m willing to change my opinion of how you come to your conclusions, should you offer something to substantiate a change. But on the surface of it, that’s what it appears to be: homobodaphobia.”

    Why is my view based on ignorance, but yours isn’t? How arrogant – but then I am not surprised based on many of your columns and comments I have read. One man’s opinion is another man’s prejudice. I suppose gays who oppose gay marriage are ignorant and prejudice too, right? And since when must we substantiate our opinions to satisfy your unbridled criticisms? Who died and made you Darth Vader?

    Did you ever stop to think that the backlash from permitting gay marriage may be worse than if the matter had been addressed differently? But then you seem incapable of thinking outside your narrow little box, as many other knee-jerk reactionists are.

    Furthermore, what has just happened throughout this country is judges have begun to legislate from the bench. It is happening with greater and greater frequency. This sets a dangerous precedent, and may have unintended consequences. Only time will tell if I am correct in being concerned. I may not agree with your opinion, but I would die to protect your right to profess it – but don’t step on my right to have one opposing yours by attempting to dismiss it as not worth as much as yours. Do you walk on water or something?

  125. Thoughtful Realist

    “threaten backlash all you want, you’re on the losing side of a historic change, and we both know it.”

    Don’t speak for me, only for yourself. I know no such thing. Already the backlash has begun, with a push to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to prohibit gay marriage. What if it should pass? Then you might have a different feeling about tactics, no?

    If gays are after equal rights, then push FOR THAT. It makes more sense, would be less confrontational, and will probably have a much better chance of succeeding without all the animous.

    If you don’t think this is legislating from the bench, and are not convinced it is going on nationwide at an alarming rate, I would advise you to stay tuned to upcoming events. The next judge that “passes legislation from the bench” may not be of a like mind as you. And my guess is you and others like you will be the first to raise holy heck – and cry foul! What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

  126. Thoughtful Realist

    “threaten backlash all you want, you’re on the losing side of a historic change, and we both know it.”

    Don’t speak for me, only for yourself. I know no such thing. Already the backlash has begun, with a push to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to prohibit gay marriage. What if it should pass? Then you might have a different feeling about tactics, no?

    If gays are after equal rights, then push FOR THAT. It makes more sense, would be less confrontational, and will probably have a much better chance of succeeding without all the animous.

    If you don’t think this is legislating from the bench, and are not convinced it is going on nationwide at an alarming rate, I would advise you to stay tuned to upcoming events. The next judge that “passes legislation from the bench” may not be of a like mind as you. And my guess is you and others like you will be the first to raise holy heck – and cry foul! What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

  127. Thoughtful Realist

    “threaten backlash all you want, you’re on the losing side of a historic change, and we both know it.”

    Don’t speak for me, only for yourself. I know no such thing. Already the backlash has begun, with a push to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to prohibit gay marriage. What if it should pass? Then you might have a different feeling about tactics, no?

    If gays are after equal rights, then push FOR THAT. It makes more sense, would be less confrontational, and will probably have a much better chance of succeeding without all the animous.

    If you don’t think this is legislating from the bench, and are not convinced it is going on nationwide at an alarming rate, I would advise you to stay tuned to upcoming events. The next judge that “passes legislation from the bench” may not be of a like mind as you. And my guess is you and others like you will be the first to raise holy heck – and cry foul! What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

  128. Thoughtful Realist

    “threaten backlash all you want, you’re on the losing side of a historic change, and we both know it.”

    Don’t speak for me, only for yourself. I know no such thing. Already the backlash has begun, with a push to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to prohibit gay marriage. What if it should pass? Then you might have a different feeling about tactics, no?

    If gays are after equal rights, then push FOR THAT. It makes more sense, would be less confrontational, and will probably have a much better chance of succeeding without all the animous.

    If you don’t think this is legislating from the bench, and are not convinced it is going on nationwide at an alarming rate, I would advise you to stay tuned to upcoming events. The next judge that “passes legislation from the bench” may not be of a like mind as you. And my guess is you and others like you will be the first to raise holy heck – and cry foul! What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

  129. Amazed

    “To all you Target supports:
    My family will not be stepping on any property that says its “green” but is built on/near a superfund site.”

    This statement amazes me. Where were you when Mace Ranch was built right next to the Superfund site? Homeowners were assured the site would be cleaned up, but meanwhile it was safe because there was some sort of liner to protect adjacent lots from seepage of toxins. At the time I thought it was absolutely outrageous.

    Fast forward a few years. Now we hear that in fact there has been seepage, which has effected the Target site. What about the homeowners??? Why in heaven’s name are you expressing all this concern about Target, but don’t seem to care about the adjacent homeowners. Perhaps because you have an anti-Target agenda?

    That site should have been cleaned up years ago, before anything was built, period. But it is hardly fair to build houses right next door, then tell Target “oh by the way, you can’t build your store here because there has been seepage from an uncleaned up Superfund site”!

  130. Amazed

    “To all you Target supports:
    My family will not be stepping on any property that says its “green” but is built on/near a superfund site.”

    This statement amazes me. Where were you when Mace Ranch was built right next to the Superfund site? Homeowners were assured the site would be cleaned up, but meanwhile it was safe because there was some sort of liner to protect adjacent lots from seepage of toxins. At the time I thought it was absolutely outrageous.

    Fast forward a few years. Now we hear that in fact there has been seepage, which has effected the Target site. What about the homeowners??? Why in heaven’s name are you expressing all this concern about Target, but don’t seem to care about the adjacent homeowners. Perhaps because you have an anti-Target agenda?

    That site should have been cleaned up years ago, before anything was built, period. But it is hardly fair to build houses right next door, then tell Target “oh by the way, you can’t build your store here because there has been seepage from an uncleaned up Superfund site”!

  131. Amazed

    “To all you Target supports:
    My family will not be stepping on any property that says its “green” but is built on/near a superfund site.”

    This statement amazes me. Where were you when Mace Ranch was built right next to the Superfund site? Homeowners were assured the site would be cleaned up, but meanwhile it was safe because there was some sort of liner to protect adjacent lots from seepage of toxins. At the time I thought it was absolutely outrageous.

    Fast forward a few years. Now we hear that in fact there has been seepage, which has effected the Target site. What about the homeowners??? Why in heaven’s name are you expressing all this concern about Target, but don’t seem to care about the adjacent homeowners. Perhaps because you have an anti-Target agenda?

    That site should have been cleaned up years ago, before anything was built, period. But it is hardly fair to build houses right next door, then tell Target “oh by the way, you can’t build your store here because there has been seepage from an uncleaned up Superfund site”!

  132. Amazed

    “To all you Target supports:
    My family will not be stepping on any property that says its “green” but is built on/near a superfund site.”

    This statement amazes me. Where were you when Mace Ranch was built right next to the Superfund site? Homeowners were assured the site would be cleaned up, but meanwhile it was safe because there was some sort of liner to protect adjacent lots from seepage of toxins. At the time I thought it was absolutely outrageous.

    Fast forward a few years. Now we hear that in fact there has been seepage, which has effected the Target site. What about the homeowners??? Why in heaven’s name are you expressing all this concern about Target, but don’t seem to care about the adjacent homeowners. Perhaps because you have an anti-Target agenda?

    That site should have been cleaned up years ago, before anything was built, period. But it is hardly fair to build houses right next door, then tell Target “oh by the way, you can’t build your store here because there has been seepage from an uncleaned up Superfund site”!

  133. All For Competition

    “I certainly would never buy a TV at Target. For me, if I cannot find what I want in town, I shop on the internet… Everyone talks about cheap prices at Target, I’ve not seen cheap prices at Target. I’ve often wanted to do a price comparison between Target, Wal Mart and what you can get in this town. I suspect as I have read from the research on big box, that there are few highlighted items that are cheaper, but most are the same price. If someone can quantify that, I’d be interested.”

    With all due respect DPD, shopping on the internet is not helping the businesses in Davis, which you are always advocating we do. Shopping on the internet is shopping out of town just as much as shopping at Target or Walmart in Woodland, unless I am missing something here? Please explain if I am.

    Furthermore, there is an item that I cannot get in town for less than $27, but only costs $13 (same exact brand and size) at WalMart. Because I have to use it so frequently and am on a limited income, it is worth it to me to actually make a special trip to Woodland once a month to stock up with about three of these. I save more than thirty dollars in one trip, despite the current high cost of gas!

    However, that being said, I have noticed another phenomenon. It used to be a lot of items were much cheaper at WalMart or Target. But the grocery chains in Davis (and I am sure elsewhere) began to realize their prices were being undercut by big box stores. In consequence you will notice grocery stores now sell certain items at a reduced price, such as crackers, cereals, soft drinks, toilet paper.

    But guess what? If it were not for the cheaper prices at big box stores, we would still be paying $6for a box of cereal instead of $3 at the local grocery store. Competition can be a wonderful thing! Now if we could just figure how to use it to bring down the price of gas…

  134. All For Competition

    “I certainly would never buy a TV at Target. For me, if I cannot find what I want in town, I shop on the internet… Everyone talks about cheap prices at Target, I’ve not seen cheap prices at Target. I’ve often wanted to do a price comparison between Target, Wal Mart and what you can get in this town. I suspect as I have read from the research on big box, that there are few highlighted items that are cheaper, but most are the same price. If someone can quantify that, I’d be interested.”

    With all due respect DPD, shopping on the internet is not helping the businesses in Davis, which you are always advocating we do. Shopping on the internet is shopping out of town just as much as shopping at Target or Walmart in Woodland, unless I am missing something here? Please explain if I am.

    Furthermore, there is an item that I cannot get in town for less than $27, but only costs $13 (same exact brand and size) at WalMart. Because I have to use it so frequently and am on a limited income, it is worth it to me to actually make a special trip to Woodland once a month to stock up with about three of these. I save more than thirty dollars in one trip, despite the current high cost of gas!

    However, that being said, I have noticed another phenomenon. It used to be a lot of items were much cheaper at WalMart or Target. But the grocery chains in Davis (and I am sure elsewhere) began to realize their prices were being undercut by big box stores. In consequence you will notice grocery stores now sell certain items at a reduced price, such as crackers, cereals, soft drinks, toilet paper.

    But guess what? If it were not for the cheaper prices at big box stores, we would still be paying $6for a box of cereal instead of $3 at the local grocery store. Competition can be a wonderful thing! Now if we could just figure how to use it to bring down the price of gas…

  135. All For Competition

    “I certainly would never buy a TV at Target. For me, if I cannot find what I want in town, I shop on the internet… Everyone talks about cheap prices at Target, I’ve not seen cheap prices at Target. I’ve often wanted to do a price comparison between Target, Wal Mart and what you can get in this town. I suspect as I have read from the research on big box, that there are few highlighted items that are cheaper, but most are the same price. If someone can quantify that, I’d be interested.”

    With all due respect DPD, shopping on the internet is not helping the businesses in Davis, which you are always advocating we do. Shopping on the internet is shopping out of town just as much as shopping at Target or Walmart in Woodland, unless I am missing something here? Please explain if I am.

    Furthermore, there is an item that I cannot get in town for less than $27, but only costs $13 (same exact brand and size) at WalMart. Because I have to use it so frequently and am on a limited income, it is worth it to me to actually make a special trip to Woodland once a month to stock up with about three of these. I save more than thirty dollars in one trip, despite the current high cost of gas!

    However, that being said, I have noticed another phenomenon. It used to be a lot of items were much cheaper at WalMart or Target. But the grocery chains in Davis (and I am sure elsewhere) began to realize their prices were being undercut by big box stores. In consequence you will notice grocery stores now sell certain items at a reduced price, such as crackers, cereals, soft drinks, toilet paper.

    But guess what? If it were not for the cheaper prices at big box stores, we would still be paying $6for a box of cereal instead of $3 at the local grocery store. Competition can be a wonderful thing! Now if we could just figure how to use it to bring down the price of gas…

  136. All For Competition

    “I certainly would never buy a TV at Target. For me, if I cannot find what I want in town, I shop on the internet… Everyone talks about cheap prices at Target, I’ve not seen cheap prices at Target. I’ve often wanted to do a price comparison between Target, Wal Mart and what you can get in this town. I suspect as I have read from the research on big box, that there are few highlighted items that are cheaper, but most are the same price. If someone can quantify that, I’d be interested.”

    With all due respect DPD, shopping on the internet is not helping the businesses in Davis, which you are always advocating we do. Shopping on the internet is shopping out of town just as much as shopping at Target or Walmart in Woodland, unless I am missing something here? Please explain if I am.

    Furthermore, there is an item that I cannot get in town for less than $27, but only costs $13 (same exact brand and size) at WalMart. Because I have to use it so frequently and am on a limited income, it is worth it to me to actually make a special trip to Woodland once a month to stock up with about three of these. I save more than thirty dollars in one trip, despite the current high cost of gas!

    However, that being said, I have noticed another phenomenon. It used to be a lot of items were much cheaper at WalMart or Target. But the grocery chains in Davis (and I am sure elsewhere) began to realize their prices were being undercut by big box stores. In consequence you will notice grocery stores now sell certain items at a reduced price, such as crackers, cereals, soft drinks, toilet paper.

    But guess what? If it were not for the cheaper prices at big box stores, we would still be paying $6for a box of cereal instead of $3 at the local grocery store. Competition can be a wonderful thing! Now if we could just figure how to use it to bring down the price of gas…

  137. Doug Paul Davis

    “Furthermore, there is an item that I cannot get in town for less than $27, but only costs $13 (same exact brand and size) at WalMart. Because I have to use it so frequently and am on a limited income, it is worth it to me to actually make a special trip to Woodland once a month to stock up with about three of these. I save more than thirty dollars in one trip, despite the current high cost of gas!”

    I guess I don’t understand what’s wrong with going on the internet or out of town for an item. You’d rather bring a Wal Mart to Davis than to buy a single item? May I ask what that item is, that seems like a huge discrepancy in price and would seem to be the exception rather than the rule?

    BTW, I’m talking about a very small number of things as well, which is why when those arise I would rather shop on the internet than drive out of town or bring in a place that is going to put our local businesses at a disadvantage.

  138. Doug Paul Davis

    “Furthermore, there is an item that I cannot get in town for less than $27, but only costs $13 (same exact brand and size) at WalMart. Because I have to use it so frequently and am on a limited income, it is worth it to me to actually make a special trip to Woodland once a month to stock up with about three of these. I save more than thirty dollars in one trip, despite the current high cost of gas!”

    I guess I don’t understand what’s wrong with going on the internet or out of town for an item. You’d rather bring a Wal Mart to Davis than to buy a single item? May I ask what that item is, that seems like a huge discrepancy in price and would seem to be the exception rather than the rule?

    BTW, I’m talking about a very small number of things as well, which is why when those arise I would rather shop on the internet than drive out of town or bring in a place that is going to put our local businesses at a disadvantage.

  139. Doug Paul Davis

    “Furthermore, there is an item that I cannot get in town for less than $27, but only costs $13 (same exact brand and size) at WalMart. Because I have to use it so frequently and am on a limited income, it is worth it to me to actually make a special trip to Woodland once a month to stock up with about three of these. I save more than thirty dollars in one trip, despite the current high cost of gas!”

    I guess I don’t understand what’s wrong with going on the internet or out of town for an item. You’d rather bring a Wal Mart to Davis than to buy a single item? May I ask what that item is, that seems like a huge discrepancy in price and would seem to be the exception rather than the rule?

    BTW, I’m talking about a very small number of things as well, which is why when those arise I would rather shop on the internet than drive out of town or bring in a place that is going to put our local businesses at a disadvantage.

  140. Doug Paul Davis

    “Furthermore, there is an item that I cannot get in town for less than $27, but only costs $13 (same exact brand and size) at WalMart. Because I have to use it so frequently and am on a limited income, it is worth it to me to actually make a special trip to Woodland once a month to stock up with about three of these. I save more than thirty dollars in one trip, despite the current high cost of gas!”

    I guess I don’t understand what’s wrong with going on the internet or out of town for an item. You’d rather bring a Wal Mart to Davis than to buy a single item? May I ask what that item is, that seems like a huge discrepancy in price and would seem to be the exception rather than the rule?

    BTW, I’m talking about a very small number of things as well, which is why when those arise I would rather shop on the internet than drive out of town or bring in a place that is going to put our local businesses at a disadvantage.

  141. Anonymous

    Dear Amazed,
    You’re right, the place should have been cleaned up along time ago. But the voters of Davis did not have the right to vote for those houses being built there. Nothing, nothing should have built and nothing nothing should be built.
    Those home owners need to move away.
    I do think it’s fair to tell Target to not come to Davis and fix what is already a mess.

  142. Anonymous

    Dear Amazed,
    You’re right, the place should have been cleaned up along time ago. But the voters of Davis did not have the right to vote for those houses being built there. Nothing, nothing should have built and nothing nothing should be built.
    Those home owners need to move away.
    I do think it’s fair to tell Target to not come to Davis and fix what is already a mess.

  143. Anonymous

    Dear Amazed,
    You’re right, the place should have been cleaned up along time ago. But the voters of Davis did not have the right to vote for those houses being built there. Nothing, nothing should have built and nothing nothing should be built.
    Those home owners need to move away.
    I do think it’s fair to tell Target to not come to Davis and fix what is already a mess.

  144. Anonymous

    Dear Amazed,
    You’re right, the place should have been cleaned up along time ago. But the voters of Davis did not have the right to vote for those houses being built there. Nothing, nothing should have built and nothing nothing should be built.
    Those home owners need to move away.
    I do think it’s fair to tell Target to not come to Davis and fix what is already a mess.

  145. Anonymous

    DPD,
    I’ll answer your question if you will answer one of mine. There are so many medical,household, pet,electronic and other items SO MUCH lower at Wal Mart it is worth the trip once a month. You live in an apartment and may not understand some of this. Another nice fact about Wal Mart is that it’s not unionized and employs a lot of people who need a job.
    What was/is your and Cecilia’s involvement in C.A.R.O.L.E.?
    YOUR TURN.

  146. Anonymous

    DPD,
    I’ll answer your question if you will answer one of mine. There are so many medical,household, pet,electronic and other items SO MUCH lower at Wal Mart it is worth the trip once a month. You live in an apartment and may not understand some of this. Another nice fact about Wal Mart is that it’s not unionized and employs a lot of people who need a job.
    What was/is your and Cecilia’s involvement in C.A.R.O.L.E.?
    YOUR TURN.

  147. Anonymous

    DPD,
    I’ll answer your question if you will answer one of mine. There are so many medical,household, pet,electronic and other items SO MUCH lower at Wal Mart it is worth the trip once a month. You live in an apartment and may not understand some of this. Another nice fact about Wal Mart is that it’s not unionized and employs a lot of people who need a job.
    What was/is your and Cecilia’s involvement in C.A.R.O.L.E.?
    YOUR TURN.

  148. Anonymous

    DPD,
    I’ll answer your question if you will answer one of mine. There are so many medical,household, pet,electronic and other items SO MUCH lower at Wal Mart it is worth the trip once a month. You live in an apartment and may not understand some of this. Another nice fact about Wal Mart is that it’s not unionized and employs a lot of people who need a job.
    What was/is your and Cecilia’s involvement in C.A.R.O.L.E.?
    YOUR TURN.

  149. Anonymous

    Clinton was am excellent president, in spite of what is said here. Fabian Nunez is/was a greedy little self serving pig. Did anyone catch his comments about those of us who don’t agree with his lavish spending are racists? Fabian nunez is nothing but a phallic symbol with ears.

  150. Anonymous

    Clinton was am excellent president, in spite of what is said here. Fabian Nunez is/was a greedy little self serving pig. Did anyone catch his comments about those of us who don’t agree with his lavish spending are racists? Fabian nunez is nothing but a phallic symbol with ears.

  151. Anonymous

    Clinton was am excellent president, in spite of what is said here. Fabian Nunez is/was a greedy little self serving pig. Did anyone catch his comments about those of us who don’t agree with his lavish spending are racists? Fabian nunez is nothing but a phallic symbol with ears.

  152. Anonymous

    Clinton was am excellent president, in spite of what is said here. Fabian Nunez is/was a greedy little self serving pig. Did anyone catch his comments about those of us who don’t agree with his lavish spending are racists? Fabian nunez is nothing but a phallic symbol with ears.

  153. Don Shor

    “But the voters of Davis did not have the right to vote for those houses being built there.”
    That’s not true. The voters approved Mace Ranch.

    “….SO MUCH lower at Wal Mart it is worth the trip once a month.”
    And it still will be. Wal-Mart isn’t coming to Davis. Target is, and they don’t use the same loss leaders. I’m guessing you’ll still drive to Wal-Mart once a month. They sell some things nearly at cost in order to entice you to do so.

    Target won’t solve the Davis sales tax “leakage” issue. There will still be reasons that shoppers will leave town to buy things cheaper elsewhere. Davis is not a retail hub and doesn’t have a shopping mall. I would be curious how much sales tax “leaks” into Davis, since I know many people do come to specialty stores here from other areas. But we have no way to quantify that.

    There is virtually nothing you will be able to buy at Target that you can’t already buy in Davis, with the possible exception of larger electronics (since the Sears store closed) and cheap, shoddy children’s clothing. But, unfortunately, Target will compete with existing stores in at least ten different retail categories, will have a very visible location and a huge advertising budget (the per-store ad budget average for Target is about $750,000).

  154. Don Shor

    “But the voters of Davis did not have the right to vote for those houses being built there.”
    That’s not true. The voters approved Mace Ranch.

    “….SO MUCH lower at Wal Mart it is worth the trip once a month.”
    And it still will be. Wal-Mart isn’t coming to Davis. Target is, and they don’t use the same loss leaders. I’m guessing you’ll still drive to Wal-Mart once a month. They sell some things nearly at cost in order to entice you to do so.

    Target won’t solve the Davis sales tax “leakage” issue. There will still be reasons that shoppers will leave town to buy things cheaper elsewhere. Davis is not a retail hub and doesn’t have a shopping mall. I would be curious how much sales tax “leaks” into Davis, since I know many people do come to specialty stores here from other areas. But we have no way to quantify that.

    There is virtually nothing you will be able to buy at Target that you can’t already buy in Davis, with the possible exception of larger electronics (since the Sears store closed) and cheap, shoddy children’s clothing. But, unfortunately, Target will compete with existing stores in at least ten different retail categories, will have a very visible location and a huge advertising budget (the per-store ad budget average for Target is about $750,000).

  155. Don Shor

    “But the voters of Davis did not have the right to vote for those houses being built there.”
    That’s not true. The voters approved Mace Ranch.

    “….SO MUCH lower at Wal Mart it is worth the trip once a month.”
    And it still will be. Wal-Mart isn’t coming to Davis. Target is, and they don’t use the same loss leaders. I’m guessing you’ll still drive to Wal-Mart once a month. They sell some things nearly at cost in order to entice you to do so.

    Target won’t solve the Davis sales tax “leakage” issue. There will still be reasons that shoppers will leave town to buy things cheaper elsewhere. Davis is not a retail hub and doesn’t have a shopping mall. I would be curious how much sales tax “leaks” into Davis, since I know many people do come to specialty stores here from other areas. But we have no way to quantify that.

    There is virtually nothing you will be able to buy at Target that you can’t already buy in Davis, with the possible exception of larger electronics (since the Sears store closed) and cheap, shoddy children’s clothing. But, unfortunately, Target will compete with existing stores in at least ten different retail categories, will have a very visible location and a huge advertising budget (the per-store ad budget average for Target is about $750,000).

  156. Don Shor

    “But the voters of Davis did not have the right to vote for those houses being built there.”
    That’s not true. The voters approved Mace Ranch.

    “….SO MUCH lower at Wal Mart it is worth the trip once a month.”
    And it still will be. Wal-Mart isn’t coming to Davis. Target is, and they don’t use the same loss leaders. I’m guessing you’ll still drive to Wal-Mart once a month. They sell some things nearly at cost in order to entice you to do so.

    Target won’t solve the Davis sales tax “leakage” issue. There will still be reasons that shoppers will leave town to buy things cheaper elsewhere. Davis is not a retail hub and doesn’t have a shopping mall. I would be curious how much sales tax “leaks” into Davis, since I know many people do come to specialty stores here from other areas. But we have no way to quantify that.

    There is virtually nothing you will be able to buy at Target that you can’t already buy in Davis, with the possible exception of larger electronics (since the Sears store closed) and cheap, shoddy children’s clothing. But, unfortunately, Target will compete with existing stores in at least ten different retail categories, will have a very visible location and a huge advertising budget (the per-store ad budget average for Target is about $750,000).

  157. Rich Rifkin

    HATER: “Why is my view based on ignorance, but yours isn’t?”

    I said I am willing to change my mind on how you formed your view, if you would say how you formed it. However, you have not done that, so I continue to think your opinion on gays is based on ignorance about biology.

    “How arrogant – but then I am not surprised based on many of your columns and comments I have read.”

    I may be guilty of arrogance in this case, but it’s impossible to know because you have not stated how or why you formed your opinion.

    “One man’s opinion is another man’s prejudice.”

    Some times. Other times one bases his opinions on the known facts or a reasonalbe presumption of the facts.

    “I suppose gays who oppose gay marriage are ignorant and prejudiced too, right?”

    That’s possible.

    “And since when must we substantiate our opinions to satisfy your unbridled criticisms?”

    Your prickly reaction to my simply asking how you formed your views suggests to me you are operating fully in the theater of the absurd.

    “Who died and made you Darth Vader?”

    His wife — Ella Vader.

    “Did you ever stop to think that the backlash from permitting gay marriage may be worse than if the matter had been addressed differently?”

    I don’t think there is much of a backlash, at least not in California. There is, of course, a huge amount of hatred of gays by a segment of our population. But they would hate gays whether there was or was not legal homosexual marriage.

    “But then you seem incapable of thinking outside your narrow little box, as many other knee-jerk reactionists are.”

    I’ve never before been called a “reactionist.”

    “Furthermore, what has just happened throughout this country is judges have begun to legislate from the bench.”

    That is a misplaced criticism in this case. Essentially, the California Supreme Court made the reasonable and logical conclusion that equal treatment under the law applies for gays, too. That is the job of the courts — to defend the constitutional rights of all people.

    This sets a dangerous precedent, and may have unintended consequences. Only time will tell if I am correct in being concerned.”

    Were you equally concerned by Brown v. Board of Education? Your “fear” mirrors that expressed by opponents of the Brown decision.

    “I may not agree with your opinion, but I would die to protect your right to profess it – but don’t step on my right to have one opposing yours by attempting to dismiss it as not worth as much as yours.”

    Whoa, honey. Where did I ever suggest you don’t have the right to express your cockamamie opinions?

    “Do you walk on water or something?”

    You’ve seen me waterski? Yes, I am good.

  158. Rich Rifkin

    HATER: “Why is my view based on ignorance, but yours isn’t?”

    I said I am willing to change my mind on how you formed your view, if you would say how you formed it. However, you have not done that, so I continue to think your opinion on gays is based on ignorance about biology.

    “How arrogant – but then I am not surprised based on many of your columns and comments I have read.”

    I may be guilty of arrogance in this case, but it’s impossible to know because you have not stated how or why you formed your opinion.

    “One man’s opinion is another man’s prejudice.”

    Some times. Other times one bases his opinions on the known facts or a reasonalbe presumption of the facts.

    “I suppose gays who oppose gay marriage are ignorant and prejudiced too, right?”

    That’s possible.

    “And since when must we substantiate our opinions to satisfy your unbridled criticisms?”

    Your prickly reaction to my simply asking how you formed your views suggests to me you are operating fully in the theater of the absurd.

    “Who died and made you Darth Vader?”

    His wife — Ella Vader.

    “Did you ever stop to think that the backlash from permitting gay marriage may be worse than if the matter had been addressed differently?”

    I don’t think there is much of a backlash, at least not in California. There is, of course, a huge amount of hatred of gays by a segment of our population. But they would hate gays whether there was or was not legal homosexual marriage.

    “But then you seem incapable of thinking outside your narrow little box, as many other knee-jerk reactionists are.”

    I’ve never before been called a “reactionist.”

    “Furthermore, what has just happened throughout this country is judges have begun to legislate from the bench.”

    That is a misplaced criticism in this case. Essentially, the California Supreme Court made the reasonable and logical conclusion that equal treatment under the law applies for gays, too. That is the job of the courts — to defend the constitutional rights of all people.

    This sets a dangerous precedent, and may have unintended consequences. Only time will tell if I am correct in being concerned.”

    Were you equally concerned by Brown v. Board of Education? Your “fear” mirrors that expressed by opponents of the Brown decision.

    “I may not agree with your opinion, but I would die to protect your right to profess it – but don’t step on my right to have one opposing yours by attempting to dismiss it as not worth as much as yours.”

    Whoa, honey. Where did I ever suggest you don’t have the right to express your cockamamie opinions?

    “Do you walk on water or something?”

    You’ve seen me waterski? Yes, I am good.

  159. Rich Rifkin

    HATER: “Why is my view based on ignorance, but yours isn’t?”

    I said I am willing to change my mind on how you formed your view, if you would say how you formed it. However, you have not done that, so I continue to think your opinion on gays is based on ignorance about biology.

    “How arrogant – but then I am not surprised based on many of your columns and comments I have read.”

    I may be guilty of arrogance in this case, but it’s impossible to know because you have not stated how or why you formed your opinion.

    “One man’s opinion is another man’s prejudice.”

    Some times. Other times one bases his opinions on the known facts or a reasonalbe presumption of the facts.

    “I suppose gays who oppose gay marriage are ignorant and prejudiced too, right?”

    That’s possible.

    “And since when must we substantiate our opinions to satisfy your unbridled criticisms?”

    Your prickly reaction to my simply asking how you formed your views suggests to me you are operating fully in the theater of the absurd.

    “Who died and made you Darth Vader?”

    His wife — Ella Vader.

    “Did you ever stop to think that the backlash from permitting gay marriage may be worse than if the matter had been addressed differently?”

    I don’t think there is much of a backlash, at least not in California. There is, of course, a huge amount of hatred of gays by a segment of our population. But they would hate gays whether there was or was not legal homosexual marriage.

    “But then you seem incapable of thinking outside your narrow little box, as many other knee-jerk reactionists are.”

    I’ve never before been called a “reactionist.”

    “Furthermore, what has just happened throughout this country is judges have begun to legislate from the bench.”

    That is a misplaced criticism in this case. Essentially, the California Supreme Court made the reasonable and logical conclusion that equal treatment under the law applies for gays, too. That is the job of the courts — to defend the constitutional rights of all people.

    This sets a dangerous precedent, and may have unintended consequences. Only time will tell if I am correct in being concerned.”

    Were you equally concerned by Brown v. Board of Education? Your “fear” mirrors that expressed by opponents of the Brown decision.

    “I may not agree with your opinion, but I would die to protect your right to profess it – but don’t step on my right to have one opposing yours by attempting to dismiss it as not worth as much as yours.”

    Whoa, honey. Where did I ever suggest you don’t have the right to express your cockamamie opinions?

    “Do you walk on water or something?”

    You’ve seen me waterski? Yes, I am good.

  160. Rich Rifkin

    HATER: “Why is my view based on ignorance, but yours isn’t?”

    I said I am willing to change my mind on how you formed your view, if you would say how you formed it. However, you have not done that, so I continue to think your opinion on gays is based on ignorance about biology.

    “How arrogant – but then I am not surprised based on many of your columns and comments I have read.”

    I may be guilty of arrogance in this case, but it’s impossible to know because you have not stated how or why you formed your opinion.

    “One man’s opinion is another man’s prejudice.”

    Some times. Other times one bases his opinions on the known facts or a reasonalbe presumption of the facts.

    “I suppose gays who oppose gay marriage are ignorant and prejudiced too, right?”

    That’s possible.

    “And since when must we substantiate our opinions to satisfy your unbridled criticisms?”

    Your prickly reaction to my simply asking how you formed your views suggests to me you are operating fully in the theater of the absurd.

    “Who died and made you Darth Vader?”

    His wife — Ella Vader.

    “Did you ever stop to think that the backlash from permitting gay marriage may be worse than if the matter had been addressed differently?”

    I don’t think there is much of a backlash, at least not in California. There is, of course, a huge amount of hatred of gays by a segment of our population. But they would hate gays whether there was or was not legal homosexual marriage.

    “But then you seem incapable of thinking outside your narrow little box, as many other knee-jerk reactionists are.”

    I’ve never before been called a “reactionist.”

    “Furthermore, what has just happened throughout this country is judges have begun to legislate from the bench.”

    That is a misplaced criticism in this case. Essentially, the California Supreme Court made the reasonable and logical conclusion that equal treatment under the law applies for gays, too. That is the job of the courts — to defend the constitutional rights of all people.

    This sets a dangerous precedent, and may have unintended consequences. Only time will tell if I am correct in being concerned.”

    Were you equally concerned by Brown v. Board of Education? Your “fear” mirrors that expressed by opponents of the Brown decision.

    “I may not agree with your opinion, but I would die to protect your right to profess it – but don’t step on my right to have one opposing yours by attempting to dismiss it as not worth as much as yours.”

    Whoa, honey. Where did I ever suggest you don’t have the right to express your cockamamie opinions?

    “Do you walk on water or something?”

    You’ve seen me waterski? Yes, I am good.

  161. Blog Administrator

    Folks… we’re back to the tit for tat stuff of days of yore.. Please try and refrain from taking the bait ….. it diminishes the quality of the postings on this blog..

  162. Blog Administrator

    Folks… we’re back to the tit for tat stuff of days of yore.. Please try and refrain from taking the bait ….. it diminishes the quality of the postings on this blog..

  163. Blog Administrator

    Folks… we’re back to the tit for tat stuff of days of yore.. Please try and refrain from taking the bait ….. it diminishes the quality of the postings on this blog..

  164. Blog Administrator

    Folks… we’re back to the tit for tat stuff of days of yore.. Please try and refrain from taking the bait ….. it diminishes the quality of the postings on this blog..

  165. Long Live Capitalism

    I am so glad that Target is finally coming to Davis. This town is desperately in need of a low cost provider of generic items. This store, and the surrounding stores will be hugely successful, and Davis will be better off for it. A few mom and pop shops may suffer because of target, but they will either adjust and survive (good business model – adapts to change) or not (bad business model and strategy).

  166. Long Live Capitalism

    I am so glad that Target is finally coming to Davis. This town is desperately in need of a low cost provider of generic items. This store, and the surrounding stores will be hugely successful, and Davis will be better off for it. A few mom and pop shops may suffer because of target, but they will either adjust and survive (good business model – adapts to change) or not (bad business model and strategy).

  167. Long Live Capitalism

    I am so glad that Target is finally coming to Davis. This town is desperately in need of a low cost provider of generic items. This store, and the surrounding stores will be hugely successful, and Davis will be better off for it. A few mom and pop shops may suffer because of target, but they will either adjust and survive (good business model – adapts to change) or not (bad business model and strategy).

  168. Long Live Capitalism

    I am so glad that Target is finally coming to Davis. This town is desperately in need of a low cost provider of generic items. This store, and the surrounding stores will be hugely successful, and Davis will be better off for it. A few mom and pop shops may suffer because of target, but they will either adjust and survive (good business model – adapts to change) or not (bad business model and strategy).

  169. Don Shor

    “This town is desperately in need of a low cost provider of generic items.”
    Just curious: what will you buy at Target that they don’t already sell at Longs?

  170. Don Shor

    “This town is desperately in need of a low cost provider of generic items.”
    Just curious: what will you buy at Target that they don’t already sell at Longs?

  171. Don Shor

    “This town is desperately in need of a low cost provider of generic items.”
    Just curious: what will you buy at Target that they don’t already sell at Longs?

  172. Don Shor

    “This town is desperately in need of a low cost provider of generic items.”
    Just curious: what will you buy at Target that they don’t already sell at Longs?

  173. Only Time Will Tell

    “Whoa, honey. Where did I ever suggest you don’t have the right to express your cockamamie opinions?”

    “cockamamie opinion”? I would say that was pretty dismissive as an “evil lesser”, wouldn’t you?

    To put things in plain English, so you will not misconstrue what I say – this is all about strategy. I doubt many folks would disagree that gays should be entitled to visit a friend in the hospital; if in a committed relationship get the same tax breaks as married heterosexuals, etc. However, “gay marriage” offends many religious folks and will alienate them even more than they already are; gay sex antics at Disneyland turns the stomach of most people and further gives ammunition for those who are homophobic; televised events of gays kissing each other in a marriage ceremony will not play well to the general public since a majority do not approve, etc., etc., etc. ad nauseum.

    As I have indicated before, the better strategy IMHO (notice IMHO – I don’t expect anyone to necessarily agree) would be to carry on a quiet campaign of fighting for equal rights in civil unions, a much more palatable alternative and less devisive. The gay movement being so vitriolic and “in your face” has resulted in 26 states prohibiting gay marriage, the murder of innocent gays, and the list goes on.

    I have a feeling folks out here really don’t get this, bc they live in a liberal CA bubble, which does not reflect the nation. I come from the South, where racism is alive and well as we speak for a reason, and where gays would not be welcome at all. In “them thar hills” it takes a gentler hand, rather than the “in your face” approach. The “in your face” approach will get you dead and has. Just ask African-Americans, who have had to suffer injustice for years. Boycotts made sense, and worked quite well. Money is a universal language. Violence, on the other hand, begets violence.

    As for the legislating from the bench issue, this is a phenomenon that is occurring on the gay marriage issue and in many others. I predict you will be singing a different tune soon, when some judge overrides the voters and passes new legislation you don’t like.

    Listen to the following, “…this arrogant act of judicial tyranny creates a serious constitutional crisis for our gov’t…As one of the three dissenting justices said, the majority of the court is guilty of ‘seriously overstepping the judicial power’, resulting in a ‘cataclysmic transformation’ of the institution of marriage ‘by judicial fiat’. The only way to overturn that ruling is to pass the California Marriage Amendment…”

    The backlash has already begun. Voters are angry, and who do you think is going to take the brunt of that anger? Was this really the best strategy to use? Only time will tell… I find what is to come next very sobering…

  174. Only Time Will Tell

    “Whoa, honey. Where did I ever suggest you don’t have the right to express your cockamamie opinions?”

    “cockamamie opinion”? I would say that was pretty dismissive as an “evil lesser”, wouldn’t you?

    To put things in plain English, so you will not misconstrue what I say – this is all about strategy. I doubt many folks would disagree that gays should be entitled to visit a friend in the hospital; if in a committed relationship get the same tax breaks as married heterosexuals, etc. However, “gay marriage” offends many religious folks and will alienate them even more than they already are; gay sex antics at Disneyland turns the stomach of most people and further gives ammunition for those who are homophobic; televised events of gays kissing each other in a marriage ceremony will not play well to the general public since a majority do not approve, etc., etc., etc. ad nauseum.

    As I have indicated before, the better strategy IMHO (notice IMHO – I don’t expect anyone to necessarily agree) would be to carry on a quiet campaign of fighting for equal rights in civil unions, a much more palatable alternative and less devisive. The gay movement being so vitriolic and “in your face” has resulted in 26 states prohibiting gay marriage, the murder of innocent gays, and the list goes on.

    I have a feeling folks out here really don’t get this, bc they live in a liberal CA bubble, which does not reflect the nation. I come from the South, where racism is alive and well as we speak for a reason, and where gays would not be welcome at all. In “them thar hills” it takes a gentler hand, rather than the “in your face” approach. The “in your face” approach will get you dead and has. Just ask African-Americans, who have had to suffer injustice for years. Boycotts made sense, and worked quite well. Money is a universal language. Violence, on the other hand, begets violence.

    As for the legislating from the bench issue, this is a phenomenon that is occurring on the gay marriage issue and in many others. I predict you will be singing a different tune soon, when some judge overrides the voters and passes new legislation you don’t like.

    Listen to the following, “…this arrogant act of judicial tyranny creates a serious constitutional crisis for our gov’t…As one of the three dissenting justices said, the majority of the court is guilty of ‘seriously overstepping the judicial power’, resulting in a ‘cataclysmic transformation’ of the institution of marriage ‘by judicial fiat’. The only way to overturn that ruling is to pass the California Marriage Amendment…”

    The backlash has already begun. Voters are angry, and who do you think is going to take the brunt of that anger? Was this really the best strategy to use? Only time will tell… I find what is to come next very sobering…

  175. Only Time Will Tell

    “Whoa, honey. Where did I ever suggest you don’t have the right to express your cockamamie opinions?”

    “cockamamie opinion”? I would say that was pretty dismissive as an “evil lesser”, wouldn’t you?

    To put things in plain English, so you will not misconstrue what I say – this is all about strategy. I doubt many folks would disagree that gays should be entitled to visit a friend in the hospital; if in a committed relationship get the same tax breaks as married heterosexuals, etc. However, “gay marriage” offends many religious folks and will alienate them even more than they already are; gay sex antics at Disneyland turns the stomach of most people and further gives ammunition for those who are homophobic; televised events of gays kissing each other in a marriage ceremony will not play well to the general public since a majority do not approve, etc., etc., etc. ad nauseum.

    As I have indicated before, the better strategy IMHO (notice IMHO – I don’t expect anyone to necessarily agree) would be to carry on a quiet campaign of fighting for equal rights in civil unions, a much more palatable alternative and less devisive. The gay movement being so vitriolic and “in your face” has resulted in 26 states prohibiting gay marriage, the murder of innocent gays, and the list goes on.

    I have a feeling folks out here really don’t get this, bc they live in a liberal CA bubble, which does not reflect the nation. I come from the South, where racism is alive and well as we speak for a reason, and where gays would not be welcome at all. In “them thar hills” it takes a gentler hand, rather than the “in your face” approach. The “in your face” approach will get you dead and has. Just ask African-Americans, who have had to suffer injustice for years. Boycotts made sense, and worked quite well. Money is a universal language. Violence, on the other hand, begets violence.

    As for the legislating from the bench issue, this is a phenomenon that is occurring on the gay marriage issue and in many others. I predict you will be singing a different tune soon, when some judge overrides the voters and passes new legislation you don’t like.

    Listen to the following, “…this arrogant act of judicial tyranny creates a serious constitutional crisis for our gov’t…As one of the three dissenting justices said, the majority of the court is guilty of ‘seriously overstepping the judicial power’, resulting in a ‘cataclysmic transformation’ of the institution of marriage ‘by judicial fiat’. The only way to overturn that ruling is to pass the California Marriage Amendment…”

    The backlash has already begun. Voters are angry, and who do you think is going to take the brunt of that anger? Was this really the best strategy to use? Only time will tell… I find what is to come next very sobering…

  176. Only Time Will Tell

    “Whoa, honey. Where did I ever suggest you don’t have the right to express your cockamamie opinions?”

    “cockamamie opinion”? I would say that was pretty dismissive as an “evil lesser”, wouldn’t you?

    To put things in plain English, so you will not misconstrue what I say – this is all about strategy. I doubt many folks would disagree that gays should be entitled to visit a friend in the hospital; if in a committed relationship get the same tax breaks as married heterosexuals, etc. However, “gay marriage” offends many religious folks and will alienate them even more than they already are; gay sex antics at Disneyland turns the stomach of most people and further gives ammunition for those who are homophobic; televised events of gays kissing each other in a marriage ceremony will not play well to the general public since a majority do not approve, etc., etc., etc. ad nauseum.

    As I have indicated before, the better strategy IMHO (notice IMHO – I don’t expect anyone to necessarily agree) would be to carry on a quiet campaign of fighting for equal rights in civil unions, a much more palatable alternative and less devisive. The gay movement being so vitriolic and “in your face” has resulted in 26 states prohibiting gay marriage, the murder of innocent gays, and the list goes on.

    I have a feeling folks out here really don’t get this, bc they live in a liberal CA bubble, which does not reflect the nation. I come from the South, where racism is alive and well as we speak for a reason, and where gays would not be welcome at all. In “them thar hills” it takes a gentler hand, rather than the “in your face” approach. The “in your face” approach will get you dead and has. Just ask African-Americans, who have had to suffer injustice for years. Boycotts made sense, and worked quite well. Money is a universal language. Violence, on the other hand, begets violence.

    As for the legislating from the bench issue, this is a phenomenon that is occurring on the gay marriage issue and in many others. I predict you will be singing a different tune soon, when some judge overrides the voters and passes new legislation you don’t like.

    Listen to the following, “…this arrogant act of judicial tyranny creates a serious constitutional crisis for our gov’t…As one of the three dissenting justices said, the majority of the court is guilty of ‘seriously overstepping the judicial power’, resulting in a ‘cataclysmic transformation’ of the institution of marriage ‘by judicial fiat’. The only way to overturn that ruling is to pass the California Marriage Amendment…”

    The backlash has already begun. Voters are angry, and who do you think is going to take the brunt of that anger? Was this really the best strategy to use? Only time will tell… I find what is to come next very sobering…

  177. Catch My Drift

    “I know some people are excited to have a Target in Davis. As one who does not shop in Target outside of Davis, I will likely not shop in Target in Davis or at any of the satellite stores as well. I think we need to continue to support our local downtown business.”

    “I guess I don’t understand what’s wrong with going on the internet or out of town for an item. You’d rather bring a Wal Mart to Davis than to buy a single item? May I ask what that item is, that seems like a huge discrepancy in price and would seem to be the exception rather than the rule?”

    I thought you indicated we should support Davis stores by shopping in town, not in Woodland or on the internet? Seems to be a bit of an inconsistency there.

    The item in question is Konsyl – right next to the Metamucil, if you catch my drift (pardon the pun). Also take a look at the prices for Beggin’ Strips for dogs, large, large size at Walmart, which you cannot get in the grocery store.

  178. Catch My Drift

    “I know some people are excited to have a Target in Davis. As one who does not shop in Target outside of Davis, I will likely not shop in Target in Davis or at any of the satellite stores as well. I think we need to continue to support our local downtown business.”

    “I guess I don’t understand what’s wrong with going on the internet or out of town for an item. You’d rather bring a Wal Mart to Davis than to buy a single item? May I ask what that item is, that seems like a huge discrepancy in price and would seem to be the exception rather than the rule?”

    I thought you indicated we should support Davis stores by shopping in town, not in Woodland or on the internet? Seems to be a bit of an inconsistency there.

    The item in question is Konsyl – right next to the Metamucil, if you catch my drift (pardon the pun). Also take a look at the prices for Beggin’ Strips for dogs, large, large size at Walmart, which you cannot get in the grocery store.

  179. Catch My Drift

    “I know some people are excited to have a Target in Davis. As one who does not shop in Target outside of Davis, I will likely not shop in Target in Davis or at any of the satellite stores as well. I think we need to continue to support our local downtown business.”

    “I guess I don’t understand what’s wrong with going on the internet or out of town for an item. You’d rather bring a Wal Mart to Davis than to buy a single item? May I ask what that item is, that seems like a huge discrepancy in price and would seem to be the exception rather than the rule?”

    I thought you indicated we should support Davis stores by shopping in town, not in Woodland or on the internet? Seems to be a bit of an inconsistency there.

    The item in question is Konsyl – right next to the Metamucil, if you catch my drift (pardon the pun). Also take a look at the prices for Beggin’ Strips for dogs, large, large size at Walmart, which you cannot get in the grocery store.

  180. Catch My Drift

    “I know some people are excited to have a Target in Davis. As one who does not shop in Target outside of Davis, I will likely not shop in Target in Davis or at any of the satellite stores as well. I think we need to continue to support our local downtown business.”

    “I guess I don’t understand what’s wrong with going on the internet or out of town for an item. You’d rather bring a Wal Mart to Davis than to buy a single item? May I ask what that item is, that seems like a huge discrepancy in price and would seem to be the exception rather than the rule?”

    I thought you indicated we should support Davis stores by shopping in town, not in Woodland or on the internet? Seems to be a bit of an inconsistency there.

    The item in question is Konsyl – right next to the Metamucil, if you catch my drift (pardon the pun). Also take a look at the prices for Beggin’ Strips for dogs, large, large size at Walmart, which you cannot get in the grocery store.

  181. Don Shor

    “Beggin’ Strips for dogs, large, large size at Walmart, which you cannot get in the grocery store.”

    Both Davis Ace and PetCo list Beggin’ Strips on their web sites in various sizes. Have you looked there? Have you asked the buyer at Davis Ace if they can get it for you?
    Long’s and Rite-Aid both carry Konsyl. Have you asked the buyer at Long’s if he/she can get it for you in the size you like?

  182. Don Shor

    “Beggin’ Strips for dogs, large, large size at Walmart, which you cannot get in the grocery store.”

    Both Davis Ace and PetCo list Beggin’ Strips on their web sites in various sizes. Have you looked there? Have you asked the buyer at Davis Ace if they can get it for you?
    Long’s and Rite-Aid both carry Konsyl. Have you asked the buyer at Long’s if he/she can get it for you in the size you like?

  183. Don Shor

    “Beggin’ Strips for dogs, large, large size at Walmart, which you cannot get in the grocery store.”

    Both Davis Ace and PetCo list Beggin’ Strips on their web sites in various sizes. Have you looked there? Have you asked the buyer at Davis Ace if they can get it for you?
    Long’s and Rite-Aid both carry Konsyl. Have you asked the buyer at Long’s if he/she can get it for you in the size you like?

  184. Don Shor

    “Beggin’ Strips for dogs, large, large size at Walmart, which you cannot get in the grocery store.”

    Both Davis Ace and PetCo list Beggin’ Strips on their web sites in various sizes. Have you looked there? Have you asked the buyer at Davis Ace if they can get it for you?
    Long’s and Rite-Aid both carry Konsyl. Have you asked the buyer at Long’s if he/she can get it for you in the size you like?

  185. Rich Rifkin

    “However, ‘gay marriage’ offends many religious folks and will alienate them even more than they already are;”

    I agree. It is mostly on the grounds of religion (and the tradition which accompanies religion) that people oppose gay marriage. Because you have not stated why you personally opposed legalized gay marriage, I assume your bigotry is due to your religious tradition.

    The answer to this is that no religion need accept gays or gay marriage. Every church has the right to discriminate as it sees fit.

    However, when it comes to equal treatment under the law, the government must be unbiased. If the government certifies the marriage of a man and a woman, then it must certify the marriage of two homosexuals. That is the essence of our constitution.

    “gay sex antics at Disneyland turns the stomach of most people and further gives ammunition for those who are homophobic;”

    I agree that explicit public affection (beyond holding hands or light kissing) is inappropriate. However, I doubt gays are more guilty of committing this offense than straights are. Insofar as they face discrimination, they are in most cases, I would guess, less likely to make a public display of affection.

    “televised events of gays kissing each other in a marriage ceremony will not play well to the general public since a majority do not approve, etc., etc., etc. ad nauseum.”

    Every time this issue comes up, the TV news shows like to show gays kissing as they get married. That’s probably just a poor decision on the producers’ behalf, by overplaying these kinds of shots. However, much of your discomfort in seeing that is simply your tradition. When a man and a woman get married, they always seal the ceremony with a kiss. That kind of thing is always shown on TV. So, as long as it’s not overplayed, I don’t see the big deal.

    “The gay movement being so vitriolic and “in your face” has resulted in 26 states prohibiting gay marriage, the murder of innocent gays, and the list goes on.”

    The hatred of gays by religious conservatives is an ancient hatred. So naturally, when gays threaten to upset their tradition, those religious folks fight back by denying gays the right to get married. Passing the laws you refer to has not changed the reality for gays in those backward states. Rather, it has simply affirmed the status quo.

    “I come from the South, where racism is alive and well as we speak for a reason, and where gays would not be welcome at all.”

    Are you saying that racism is reasonable? If so, please exlain that reason.

    “In ‘them thar hills’ it takes a gentler hand, rather than the ‘in your face’ approach. The ‘in your face’ approach will get you dead and has. Just ask African-Americans, who have had to suffer injustice for years.”

    Actually, the biggest change in the South’s tradition of racial discrimination came about from the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown. Further, the 1964 Civil Rights laws were imposed on the South from above. So your reading of history is wrong.

    “Boycotts made sense, and worked quite well. Money is a universal language. Violence, on the other hand, begets violence.”

    The only violence against innocents in the Civil Rights movement — and probably in the current gay rights movement — was by the religious conservatives in the South. To say “violence begets violence” presumes that both sides were and are violent. That is not the case.

    “As for the legislating from the bench issue, this is a phenomenon that is occurring on the gay marriage issue and in many others.”

    You are confusing two distinct matters. Courts have since Marbury vs. Madison had to interpret the constitutionality of our laws. That is not “legislating from the bench.” And that is exactly what the Calif. Supreme Court did.

    By contrast, presuming a legal interpretation which is not based on the words in our constitution can fairly be said to be “legislating from the bench.”

    “The backlash has already begun. Voters are angry”

    I realize that there are a lot of people who hate gays. I was not raised to be prejudiced against people on their biolical traits. However, I doubt most Californians are “angry” over legal gay marriage. Don’t confuse California with Alabama or South Carolina, where the hatred of gays is much stronger.

  186. Rich Rifkin

    “However, ‘gay marriage’ offends many religious folks and will alienate them even more than they already are;”

    I agree. It is mostly on the grounds of religion (and the tradition which accompanies religion) that people oppose gay marriage. Because you have not stated why you personally opposed legalized gay marriage, I assume your bigotry is due to your religious tradition.

    The answer to this is that no religion need accept gays or gay marriage. Every church has the right to discriminate as it sees fit.

    However, when it comes to equal treatment under the law, the government must be unbiased. If the government certifies the marriage of a man and a woman, then it must certify the marriage of two homosexuals. That is the essence of our constitution.

    “gay sex antics at Disneyland turns the stomach of most people and further gives ammunition for those who are homophobic;”

    I agree that explicit public affection (beyond holding hands or light kissing) is inappropriate. However, I doubt gays are more guilty of committing this offense than straights are. Insofar as they face discrimination, they are in most cases, I would guess, less likely to make a public display of affection.

    “televised events of gays kissing each other in a marriage ceremony will not play well to the general public since a majority do not approve, etc., etc., etc. ad nauseum.”

    Every time this issue comes up, the TV news shows like to show gays kissing as they get married. That’s probably just a poor decision on the producers’ behalf, by overplaying these kinds of shots. However, much of your discomfort in seeing that is simply your tradition. When a man and a woman get married, they always seal the ceremony with a kiss. That kind of thing is always shown on TV. So, as long as it’s not overplayed, I don’t see the big deal.

    “The gay movement being so vitriolic and “in your face” has resulted in 26 states prohibiting gay marriage, the murder of innocent gays, and the list goes on.”

    The hatred of gays by religious conservatives is an ancient hatred. So naturally, when gays threaten to upset their tradition, those religious folks fight back by denying gays the right to get married. Passing the laws you refer to has not changed the reality for gays in those backward states. Rather, it has simply affirmed the status quo.

    “I come from the South, where racism is alive and well as we speak for a reason, and where gays would not be welcome at all.”

    Are you saying that racism is reasonable? If so, please exlain that reason.

    “In ‘them thar hills’ it takes a gentler hand, rather than the ‘in your face’ approach. The ‘in your face’ approach will get you dead and has. Just ask African-Americans, who have had to suffer injustice for years.”

    Actually, the biggest change in the South’s tradition of racial discrimination came about from the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown. Further, the 1964 Civil Rights laws were imposed on the South from above. So your reading of history is wrong.

    “Boycotts made sense, and worked quite well. Money is a universal language. Violence, on the other hand, begets violence.”

    The only violence against innocents in the Civil Rights movement — and probably in the current gay rights movement — was by the religious conservatives in the South. To say “violence begets violence” presumes that both sides were and are violent. That is not the case.

    “As for the legislating from the bench issue, this is a phenomenon that is occurring on the gay marriage issue and in many others.”

    You are confusing two distinct matters. Courts have since Marbury vs. Madison had to interpret the constitutionality of our laws. That is not “legislating from the bench.” And that is exactly what the Calif. Supreme Court did.

    By contrast, presuming a legal interpretation which is not based on the words in our constitution can fairly be said to be “legislating from the bench.”

    “The backlash has already begun. Voters are angry”

    I realize that there are a lot of people who hate gays. I was not raised to be prejudiced against people on their biolical traits. However, I doubt most Californians are “angry” over legal gay marriage. Don’t confuse California with Alabama or South Carolina, where the hatred of gays is much stronger.

  187. Rich Rifkin

    “However, ‘gay marriage’ offends many religious folks and will alienate them even more than they already are;”

    I agree. It is mostly on the grounds of religion (and the tradition which accompanies religion) that people oppose gay marriage. Because you have not stated why you personally opposed legalized gay marriage, I assume your bigotry is due to your religious tradition.

    The answer to this is that no religion need accept gays or gay marriage. Every church has the right to discriminate as it sees fit.

    However, when it comes to equal treatment under the law, the government must be unbiased. If the government certifies the marriage of a man and a woman, then it must certify the marriage of two homosexuals. That is the essence of our constitution.

    “gay sex antics at Disneyland turns the stomach of most people and further gives ammunition for those who are homophobic;”

    I agree that explicit public affection (beyond holding hands or light kissing) is inappropriate. However, I doubt gays are more guilty of committing this offense than straights are. Insofar as they face discrimination, they are in most cases, I would guess, less likely to make a public display of affection.

    “televised events of gays kissing each other in a marriage ceremony will not play well to the general public since a majority do not approve, etc., etc., etc. ad nauseum.”

    Every time this issue comes up, the TV news shows like to show gays kissing as they get married. That’s probably just a poor decision on the producers’ behalf, by overplaying these kinds of shots. However, much of your discomfort in seeing that is simply your tradition. When a man and a woman get married, they always seal the ceremony with a kiss. That kind of thing is always shown on TV. So, as long as it’s not overplayed, I don’t see the big deal.

    “The gay movement being so vitriolic and “in your face” has resulted in 26 states prohibiting gay marriage, the murder of innocent gays, and the list goes on.”

    The hatred of gays by religious conservatives is an ancient hatred. So naturally, when gays threaten to upset their tradition, those religious folks fight back by denying gays the right to get married. Passing the laws you refer to has not changed the reality for gays in those backward states. Rather, it has simply affirmed the status quo.

    “I come from the South, where racism is alive and well as we speak for a reason, and where gays would not be welcome at all.”

    Are you saying that racism is reasonable? If so, please exlain that reason.

    “In ‘them thar hills’ it takes a gentler hand, rather than the ‘in your face’ approach. The ‘in your face’ approach will get you dead and has. Just ask African-Americans, who have had to suffer injustice for years.”

    Actually, the biggest change in the South’s tradition of racial discrimination came about from the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown. Further, the 1964 Civil Rights laws were imposed on the South from above. So your reading of history is wrong.

    “Boycotts made sense, and worked quite well. Money is a universal language. Violence, on the other hand, begets violence.”

    The only violence against innocents in the Civil Rights movement — and probably in the current gay rights movement — was by the religious conservatives in the South. To say “violence begets violence” presumes that both sides were and are violent. That is not the case.

    “As for the legislating from the bench issue, this is a phenomenon that is occurring on the gay marriage issue and in many others.”

    You are confusing two distinct matters. Courts have since Marbury vs. Madison had to interpret the constitutionality of our laws. That is not “legislating from the bench.” And that is exactly what the Calif. Supreme Court did.

    By contrast, presuming a legal interpretation which is not based on the words in our constitution can fairly be said to be “legislating from the bench.”

    “The backlash has already begun. Voters are angry”

    I realize that there are a lot of people who hate gays. I was not raised to be prejudiced against people on their biolical traits. However, I doubt most Californians are “angry” over legal gay marriage. Don’t confuse California with Alabama or South Carolina, where the hatred of gays is much stronger.

  188. Rich Rifkin

    “However, ‘gay marriage’ offends many religious folks and will alienate them even more than they already are;”

    I agree. It is mostly on the grounds of religion (and the tradition which accompanies religion) that people oppose gay marriage. Because you have not stated why you personally opposed legalized gay marriage, I assume your bigotry is due to your religious tradition.

    The answer to this is that no religion need accept gays or gay marriage. Every church has the right to discriminate as it sees fit.

    However, when it comes to equal treatment under the law, the government must be unbiased. If the government certifies the marriage of a man and a woman, then it must certify the marriage of two homosexuals. That is the essence of our constitution.

    “gay sex antics at Disneyland turns the stomach of most people and further gives ammunition for those who are homophobic;”

    I agree that explicit public affection (beyond holding hands or light kissing) is inappropriate. However, I doubt gays are more guilty of committing this offense than straights are. Insofar as they face discrimination, they are in most cases, I would guess, less likely to make a public display of affection.

    “televised events of gays kissing each other in a marriage ceremony will not play well to the general public since a majority do not approve, etc., etc., etc. ad nauseum.”

    Every time this issue comes up, the TV news shows like to show gays kissing as they get married. That’s probably just a poor decision on the producers’ behalf, by overplaying these kinds of shots. However, much of your discomfort in seeing that is simply your tradition. When a man and a woman get married, they always seal the ceremony with a kiss. That kind of thing is always shown on TV. So, as long as it’s not overplayed, I don’t see the big deal.

    “The gay movement being so vitriolic and “in your face” has resulted in 26 states prohibiting gay marriage, the murder of innocent gays, and the list goes on.”

    The hatred of gays by religious conservatives is an ancient hatred. So naturally, when gays threaten to upset their tradition, those religious folks fight back by denying gays the right to get married. Passing the laws you refer to has not changed the reality for gays in those backward states. Rather, it has simply affirmed the status quo.

    “I come from the South, where racism is alive and well as we speak for a reason, and where gays would not be welcome at all.”

    Are you saying that racism is reasonable? If so, please exlain that reason.

    “In ‘them thar hills’ it takes a gentler hand, rather than the ‘in your face’ approach. The ‘in your face’ approach will get you dead and has. Just ask African-Americans, who have had to suffer injustice for years.”

    Actually, the biggest change in the South’s tradition of racial discrimination came about from the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown. Further, the 1964 Civil Rights laws were imposed on the South from above. So your reading of history is wrong.

    “Boycotts made sense, and worked quite well. Money is a universal language. Violence, on the other hand, begets violence.”

    The only violence against innocents in the Civil Rights movement — and probably in the current gay rights movement — was by the religious conservatives in the South. To say “violence begets violence” presumes that both sides were and are violent. That is not the case.

    “As for the legislating from the bench issue, this is a phenomenon that is occurring on the gay marriage issue and in many others.”

    You are confusing two distinct matters. Courts have since Marbury vs. Madison had to interpret the constitutionality of our laws. That is not “legislating from the bench.” And that is exactly what the Calif. Supreme Court did.

    By contrast, presuming a legal interpretation which is not based on the words in our constitution can fairly be said to be “legislating from the bench.”

    “The backlash has already begun. Voters are angry”

    I realize that there are a lot of people who hate gays. I was not raised to be prejudiced against people on their biolical traits. However, I doubt most Californians are “angry” over legal gay marriage. Don’t confuse California with Alabama or South Carolina, where the hatred of gays is much stronger.

  189. Don Shor

    “I come from the South … where gays would not be welcome at all.”

    Atlanta “has the third highest percentage (12.8%) of gay, lesbian, and bisexual couples among the fifty largest cities in the United States.” (Wikipedia)

    “The gay movement being so vitriolic and ‘in your face’ has resulted in … the murder of innocent gays…”
    Hm. I thought the murder of innocent gays was caused by homophobic sociopaths.

    Some churches will accept gay marriage, others won’t. Some will bless the marriages but not perform them. How are secular institutions supposed to arbitrate among these differing positions, apply rights equally to all citizens, and avoid offending those who happen to hold the most conservative position? Your clergy are free to do what they want. The state can’t discriminate on your or their behalf.

  190. Don Shor

    “I come from the South … where gays would not be welcome at all.”

    Atlanta “has the third highest percentage (12.8%) of gay, lesbian, and bisexual couples among the fifty largest cities in the United States.” (Wikipedia)

    “The gay movement being so vitriolic and ‘in your face’ has resulted in … the murder of innocent gays…”
    Hm. I thought the murder of innocent gays was caused by homophobic sociopaths.

    Some churches will accept gay marriage, others won’t. Some will bless the marriages but not perform them. How are secular institutions supposed to arbitrate among these differing positions, apply rights equally to all citizens, and avoid offending those who happen to hold the most conservative position? Your clergy are free to do what they want. The state can’t discriminate on your or their behalf.

  191. Don Shor

    “I come from the South … where gays would not be welcome at all.”

    Atlanta “has the third highest percentage (12.8%) of gay, lesbian, and bisexual couples among the fifty largest cities in the United States.” (Wikipedia)

    “The gay movement being so vitriolic and ‘in your face’ has resulted in … the murder of innocent gays…”
    Hm. I thought the murder of innocent gays was caused by homophobic sociopaths.

    Some churches will accept gay marriage, others won’t. Some will bless the marriages but not perform them. How are secular institutions supposed to arbitrate among these differing positions, apply rights equally to all citizens, and avoid offending those who happen to hold the most conservative position? Your clergy are free to do what they want. The state can’t discriminate on your or their behalf.

  192. Don Shor

    “I come from the South … where gays would not be welcome at all.”

    Atlanta “has the third highest percentage (12.8%) of gay, lesbian, and bisexual couples among the fifty largest cities in the United States.” (Wikipedia)

    “The gay movement being so vitriolic and ‘in your face’ has resulted in … the murder of innocent gays…”
    Hm. I thought the murder of innocent gays was caused by homophobic sociopaths.

    Some churches will accept gay marriage, others won’t. Some will bless the marriages but not perform them. How are secular institutions supposed to arbitrate among these differing positions, apply rights equally to all citizens, and avoid offending those who happen to hold the most conservative position? Your clergy are free to do what they want. The state can’t discriminate on your or their behalf.

  193. Cheaper At Walmart

    “Both Davis Ace and PetCo list Beggin’ Strips on their web sites in various sizes. Have you looked there? Have you asked the buyer at Davis Ace if they can get it for you?
    Long’s and Rite-Aid both carry Konsyl. Have you asked the buyer at Long’s if he/she can get it for you in the size you like?”

    Don, as I said before, Konsyl at Longs’s for the same size is about $27, but is only $13 at Walmart. If you don’t believe it, check it out. Beggin’ Strips are cheaper at Walmart too. If give enough time, I could come up with a lot more…

  194. Cheaper At Walmart

    “Both Davis Ace and PetCo list Beggin’ Strips on their web sites in various sizes. Have you looked there? Have you asked the buyer at Davis Ace if they can get it for you?
    Long’s and Rite-Aid both carry Konsyl. Have you asked the buyer at Long’s if he/she can get it for you in the size you like?”

    Don, as I said before, Konsyl at Longs’s for the same size is about $27, but is only $13 at Walmart. If you don’t believe it, check it out. Beggin’ Strips are cheaper at Walmart too. If give enough time, I could come up with a lot more…

  195. Cheaper At Walmart

    “Both Davis Ace and PetCo list Beggin’ Strips on their web sites in various sizes. Have you looked there? Have you asked the buyer at Davis Ace if they can get it for you?
    Long’s and Rite-Aid both carry Konsyl. Have you asked the buyer at Long’s if he/she can get it for you in the size you like?”

    Don, as I said before, Konsyl at Longs’s for the same size is about $27, but is only $13 at Walmart. If you don’t believe it, check it out. Beggin’ Strips are cheaper at Walmart too. If give enough time, I could come up with a lot more…

  196. Cheaper At Walmart

    “Both Davis Ace and PetCo list Beggin’ Strips on their web sites in various sizes. Have you looked there? Have you asked the buyer at Davis Ace if they can get it for you?
    Long’s and Rite-Aid both carry Konsyl. Have you asked the buyer at Long’s if he/she can get it for you in the size you like?”

    Don, as I said before, Konsyl at Longs’s for the same size is about $27, but is only $13 at Walmart. If you don’t believe it, check it out. Beggin’ Strips are cheaper at Walmart too. If give enough time, I could come up with a lot more…

  197. Hoping For A Better Future

    Rich and Don,
    Did you see the article about gay marriage in the Davis Enterprise yesterday? Even gays recognize that “gay marriage” is going to be a problem for gays – a big problem. Rather than trading insults, and engaging in tit for tat discussions ad nauseum, let’s just let the games begin, and see where it takes us? I suspect the picture won’t be pretty.

    You both underestimate the backlash that is coming. I very much hope you two are correct, and I am wrong. By the way, neither one of you know anything about my beliefs. My position is strictly one of strategy, and IMHO pushing for “gay marriage” was not a good idea for a whole host of reasons. Neither of you agree. Fine. Let’s sit back and see who is right. Remember what I said about legislating from the bench when the next judge oversteps his/her bounds and by fiat passes law you don’t agree with.

  198. Hoping For A Better Future

    Rich and Don,
    Did you see the article about gay marriage in the Davis Enterprise yesterday? Even gays recognize that “gay marriage” is going to be a problem for gays – a big problem. Rather than trading insults, and engaging in tit for tat discussions ad nauseum, let’s just let the games begin, and see where it takes us? I suspect the picture won’t be pretty.

    You both underestimate the backlash that is coming. I very much hope you two are correct, and I am wrong. By the way, neither one of you know anything about my beliefs. My position is strictly one of strategy, and IMHO pushing for “gay marriage” was not a good idea for a whole host of reasons. Neither of you agree. Fine. Let’s sit back and see who is right. Remember what I said about legislating from the bench when the next judge oversteps his/her bounds and by fiat passes law you don’t agree with.

  199. Hoping For A Better Future

    Rich and Don,
    Did you see the article about gay marriage in the Davis Enterprise yesterday? Even gays recognize that “gay marriage” is going to be a problem for gays – a big problem. Rather than trading insults, and engaging in tit for tat discussions ad nauseum, let’s just let the games begin, and see where it takes us? I suspect the picture won’t be pretty.

    You both underestimate the backlash that is coming. I very much hope you two are correct, and I am wrong. By the way, neither one of you know anything about my beliefs. My position is strictly one of strategy, and IMHO pushing for “gay marriage” was not a good idea for a whole host of reasons. Neither of you agree. Fine. Let’s sit back and see who is right. Remember what I said about legislating from the bench when the next judge oversteps his/her bounds and by fiat passes law you don’t agree with.

  200. Hoping For A Better Future

    Rich and Don,
    Did you see the article about gay marriage in the Davis Enterprise yesterday? Even gays recognize that “gay marriage” is going to be a problem for gays – a big problem. Rather than trading insults, and engaging in tit for tat discussions ad nauseum, let’s just let the games begin, and see where it takes us? I suspect the picture won’t be pretty.

    You both underestimate the backlash that is coming. I very much hope you two are correct, and I am wrong. By the way, neither one of you know anything about my beliefs. My position is strictly one of strategy, and IMHO pushing for “gay marriage” was not a good idea for a whole host of reasons. Neither of you agree. Fine. Let’s sit back and see who is right. Remember what I said about legislating from the bench when the next judge oversteps his/her bounds and by fiat passes law you don’t agree with.

  201. wdf

    On the basis that evidence increasingly and frequently shows that there is biological basis for homosexuality (that this lifestyle is not entirely a “free will” choice), it is cruel to deny to same-sex couples the personal happiness that marriage brings, only because of circumstances of their birth.

    It is nice to know that many more couples than usual will be a little happier in the coming days.

    Four more hours to go!

  202. wdf

    On the basis that evidence increasingly and frequently shows that there is biological basis for homosexuality (that this lifestyle is not entirely a “free will” choice), it is cruel to deny to same-sex couples the personal happiness that marriage brings, only because of circumstances of their birth.

    It is nice to know that many more couples than usual will be a little happier in the coming days.

    Four more hours to go!

  203. wdf

    On the basis that evidence increasingly and frequently shows that there is biological basis for homosexuality (that this lifestyle is not entirely a “free will” choice), it is cruel to deny to same-sex couples the personal happiness that marriage brings, only because of circumstances of their birth.

    It is nice to know that many more couples than usual will be a little happier in the coming days.

    Four more hours to go!

  204. wdf

    On the basis that evidence increasingly and frequently shows that there is biological basis for homosexuality (that this lifestyle is not entirely a “free will” choice), it is cruel to deny to same-sex couples the personal happiness that marriage brings, only because of circumstances of their birth.

    It is nice to know that many more couples than usual will be a little happier in the coming days.

    Four more hours to go!

  205. A constitutional conumdrum

    Our society’s definition of marriage has always been synchronous with the Judao-Christian(and increasingly Muslim) religious underpinnings of American society. The U.S’s definition of marriageas between a man and a woman has always intertwined religion and the State..in violation of our Constitution but it presented no problem as long as society was essentially of one mind on this issue. For the State to now redefine marriage is an active rather than previous passive violation of the separation of Church and State. Either the State leaves the old definition stand, based upon the argument of “tradition and custom” or it must separate Church and State,eliminating the word “marriage” from the State lexicon and henceforthonly have the secular term “civil-union” as its descriptive term for all.

  206. A constitutional conumdrum

    Our society’s definition of marriage has always been synchronous with the Judao-Christian(and increasingly Muslim) religious underpinnings of American society. The U.S’s definition of marriageas between a man and a woman has always intertwined religion and the State..in violation of our Constitution but it presented no problem as long as society was essentially of one mind on this issue. For the State to now redefine marriage is an active rather than previous passive violation of the separation of Church and State. Either the State leaves the old definition stand, based upon the argument of “tradition and custom” or it must separate Church and State,eliminating the word “marriage” from the State lexicon and henceforthonly have the secular term “civil-union” as its descriptive term for all.

  207. A constitutional conumdrum

    Our society’s definition of marriage has always been synchronous with the Judao-Christian(and increasingly Muslim) religious underpinnings of American society. The U.S’s definition of marriageas between a man and a woman has always intertwined religion and the State..in violation of our Constitution but it presented no problem as long as society was essentially of one mind on this issue. For the State to now redefine marriage is an active rather than previous passive violation of the separation of Church and State. Either the State leaves the old definition stand, based upon the argument of “tradition and custom” or it must separate Church and State,eliminating the word “marriage” from the State lexicon and henceforthonly have the secular term “civil-union” as its descriptive term for all.

  208. A constitutional conumdrum

    Our society’s definition of marriage has always been synchronous with the Judao-Christian(and increasingly Muslim) religious underpinnings of American society. The U.S’s definition of marriageas between a man and a woman has always intertwined religion and the State..in violation of our Constitution but it presented no problem as long as society was essentially of one mind on this issue. For the State to now redefine marriage is an active rather than previous passive violation of the separation of Church and State. Either the State leaves the old definition stand, based upon the argument of “tradition and custom” or it must separate Church and State,eliminating the word “marriage” from the State lexicon and henceforthonly have the secular term “civil-union” as its descriptive term for all.

  209. wdf

    “Either the State leaves the old definition stand, based upon the argument of “tradition and custom” or it must separate Church and State,eliminating the word “marriage” from the State lexicon and henceforthonly have the secular term “civil-union” as its descriptive term for all.”

    Or the State can just go ahead and define civil marriage as being between two individuals (same or different sex), and the churches can be free to recognize marriage however they see fit. We already have “civil marriages” and “religious marriages”. We could easily just continue in that tradition for same-sex couples and let churches/religions do whatever they chose to do.

    Already there are certain religions who may not recognize certain civil (heterosexual) marriages, for instance divorced Catholics who remarry may not necessarily have their subsequent marriage(s) recognized by that church.

    I am confident that this society will eventually get over its hangups about same-sex marriage. Polling data suggests that it will probably happen when enough old people die off.

  210. wdf

    “Either the State leaves the old definition stand, based upon the argument of “tradition and custom” or it must separate Church and State,eliminating the word “marriage” from the State lexicon and henceforthonly have the secular term “civil-union” as its descriptive term for all.”

    Or the State can just go ahead and define civil marriage as being between two individuals (same or different sex), and the churches can be free to recognize marriage however they see fit. We already have “civil marriages” and “religious marriages”. We could easily just continue in that tradition for same-sex couples and let churches/religions do whatever they chose to do.

    Already there are certain religions who may not recognize certain civil (heterosexual) marriages, for instance divorced Catholics who remarry may not necessarily have their subsequent marriage(s) recognized by that church.

    I am confident that this society will eventually get over its hangups about same-sex marriage. Polling data suggests that it will probably happen when enough old people die off.

  211. wdf

    “Either the State leaves the old definition stand, based upon the argument of “tradition and custom” or it must separate Church and State,eliminating the word “marriage” from the State lexicon and henceforthonly have the secular term “civil-union” as its descriptive term for all.”

    Or the State can just go ahead and define civil marriage as being between two individuals (same or different sex), and the churches can be free to recognize marriage however they see fit. We already have “civil marriages” and “religious marriages”. We could easily just continue in that tradition for same-sex couples and let churches/religions do whatever they chose to do.

    Already there are certain religions who may not recognize certain civil (heterosexual) marriages, for instance divorced Catholics who remarry may not necessarily have their subsequent marriage(s) recognized by that church.

    I am confident that this society will eventually get over its hangups about same-sex marriage. Polling data suggests that it will probably happen when enough old people die off.

  212. wdf

    “Either the State leaves the old definition stand, based upon the argument of “tradition and custom” or it must separate Church and State,eliminating the word “marriage” from the State lexicon and henceforthonly have the secular term “civil-union” as its descriptive term for all.”

    Or the State can just go ahead and define civil marriage as being between two individuals (same or different sex), and the churches can be free to recognize marriage however they see fit. We already have “civil marriages” and “religious marriages”. We could easily just continue in that tradition for same-sex couples and let churches/religions do whatever they chose to do.

    Already there are certain religions who may not recognize certain civil (heterosexual) marriages, for instance divorced Catholics who remarry may not necessarily have their subsequent marriage(s) recognized by that church.

    I am confident that this society will eventually get over its hangups about same-sex marriage. Polling data suggests that it will probably happen when enough old people die off.

  213. Rich Rifkin

    I agree with everything wdf posted just above.

    “You both underestimate the backlash that is coming. I very much hope you two are correct, and I am wrong.”

    I don’t see what you are so worried about. Assume for the moment that California voters will prohibit gay marriage in the California Constitution in a referendum vote. That would ban gay marriage and leave our state where it has been for 158 years, save this week.

    It is not the case that because the CSC ruled that equal justice under the law meant that lawful marriage had to be extended to all consenting adult couples that we will react like buffoons and suddenly ban homosexuals from working in public service positions. You have not said just what this supposed “backlash” will result in, but I cannot see how it will result in anything worse than gays now have it.

    Also, you should be mindful that even if a majority opposes lawful gay marriage — my guess is that a majority probably does now, but one which is shrinking rapidly by the year — a large majority in California believes that gays should have virtually every other right.*

    * I part company with gay rights advocates when it comes to prohibiting discrimination against gays in housing, if that housing is somewhat intimate in nature. If, for example, a person is renting a room in his house and doesn’t want a gay dude to live there, I think he should have the right to discriminate. I would add that I think he should have the right to discriminate against Jews (my religion) or against any other faith group he does not like; or against people on the basis of race, ethnicity, or any other ordinary trait…. I would not extend that right to discriminate in housing when the housing is purely as business transaction with no personal aspect to it, such as renting a room in a for-profit hotel or renting an apartment in a large complex which is professionally managed. The in-between case comes when an apartment complex is small and the manager is the owner. I think such owners should have the right to be bigots, though our civil rights laws say differently.

  214. Rich Rifkin

    I agree with everything wdf posted just above.

    “You both underestimate the backlash that is coming. I very much hope you two are correct, and I am wrong.”

    I don’t see what you are so worried about. Assume for the moment that California voters will prohibit gay marriage in the California Constitution in a referendum vote. That would ban gay marriage and leave our state where it has been for 158 years, save this week.

    It is not the case that because the CSC ruled that equal justice under the law meant that lawful marriage had to be extended to all consenting adult couples that we will react like buffoons and suddenly ban homosexuals from working in public service positions. You have not said just what this supposed “backlash” will result in, but I cannot see how it will result in anything worse than gays now have it.

    Also, you should be mindful that even if a majority opposes lawful gay marriage — my guess is that a majority probably does now, but one which is shrinking rapidly by the year — a large majority in California believes that gays should have virtually every other right.*

    * I part company with gay rights advocates when it comes to prohibiting discrimination against gays in housing, if that housing is somewhat intimate in nature. If, for example, a person is renting a room in his house and doesn’t want a gay dude to live there, I think he should have the right to discriminate. I would add that I think he should have the right to discriminate against Jews (my religion) or against any other faith group he does not like; or against people on the basis of race, ethnicity, or any other ordinary trait…. I would not extend that right to discriminate in housing when the housing is purely as business transaction with no personal aspect to it, such as renting a room in a for-profit hotel or renting an apartment in a large complex which is professionally managed. The in-between case comes when an apartment complex is small and the manager is the owner. I think such owners should have the right to be bigots, though our civil rights laws say differently.

  215. Rich Rifkin

    I agree with everything wdf posted just above.

    “You both underestimate the backlash that is coming. I very much hope you two are correct, and I am wrong.”

    I don’t see what you are so worried about. Assume for the moment that California voters will prohibit gay marriage in the California Constitution in a referendum vote. That would ban gay marriage and leave our state where it has been for 158 years, save this week.

    It is not the case that because the CSC ruled that equal justice under the law meant that lawful marriage had to be extended to all consenting adult couples that we will react like buffoons and suddenly ban homosexuals from working in public service positions. You have not said just what this supposed “backlash” will result in, but I cannot see how it will result in anything worse than gays now have it.

    Also, you should be mindful that even if a majority opposes lawful gay marriage — my guess is that a majority probably does now, but one which is shrinking rapidly by the year — a large majority in California believes that gays should have virtually every other right.*

    * I part company with gay rights advocates when it comes to prohibiting discrimination against gays in housing, if that housing is somewhat intimate in nature. If, for example, a person is renting a room in his house and doesn’t want a gay dude to live there, I think he should have the right to discriminate. I would add that I think he should have the right to discriminate against Jews (my religion) or against any other faith group he does not like; or against people on the basis of race, ethnicity, or any other ordinary trait…. I would not extend that right to discriminate in housing when the housing is purely as business transaction with no personal aspect to it, such as renting a room in a for-profit hotel or renting an apartment in a large complex which is professionally managed. The in-between case comes when an apartment complex is small and the manager is the owner. I think such owners should have the right to be bigots, though our civil rights laws say differently.

  216. Rich Rifkin

    I agree with everything wdf posted just above.

    “You both underestimate the backlash that is coming. I very much hope you two are correct, and I am wrong.”

    I don’t see what you are so worried about. Assume for the moment that California voters will prohibit gay marriage in the California Constitution in a referendum vote. That would ban gay marriage and leave our state where it has been for 158 years, save this week.

    It is not the case that because the CSC ruled that equal justice under the law meant that lawful marriage had to be extended to all consenting adult couples that we will react like buffoons and suddenly ban homosexuals from working in public service positions. You have not said just what this supposed “backlash” will result in, but I cannot see how it will result in anything worse than gays now have it.

    Also, you should be mindful that even if a majority opposes lawful gay marriage — my guess is that a majority probably does now, but one which is shrinking rapidly by the year — a large majority in California believes that gays should have virtually every other right.*

    * I part company with gay rights advocates when it comes to prohibiting discrimination against gays in housing, if that housing is somewhat intimate in nature. If, for example, a person is renting a room in his house and doesn’t want a gay dude to live there, I think he should have the right to discriminate. I would add that I think he should have the right to discriminate against Jews (my religion) or against any other faith group he does not like; or against people on the basis of race, ethnicity, or any other ordinary trait…. I would not extend that right to discriminate in housing when the housing is purely as business transaction with no personal aspect to it, such as renting a room in a for-profit hotel or renting an apartment in a large complex which is professionally managed. The in-between case comes when an apartment complex is small and the manager is the owner. I think such owners should have the right to be bigots, though our civil rights laws say differently.

  217. Don Shor

    “Don, as I said before, Konsyl at Longs’s for the same size is about $27, but is only $13 at Walmart. If you don’t believe it, check it out. Beggin’ Strips are cheaper at Walmart too. If give enough time, I could come up with a lot more…”

    Thanks for trying Davis stores first. That’s all we can ask, really, at this point. There will always be items cheaper at some stores, and for some it will be worth the time and gas to drive to get them. Spread your dollars around, and shop locally whenever you can.

    People sometimes apologize to me about buying things elsewhere, which is nice but unnecessary. When CostCo opened I had customers calling me for advice (!) about the plants they found there at bizarrely low prices. Don’t ask local businesses to match loss-leader prices at big-box stores; there would be little point. But I urge everyone to bring good product lines to the attention of their local merchants, and to recognize the value of supporting locally-owned businesses.

  218. Don Shor

    “Don, as I said before, Konsyl at Longs’s for the same size is about $27, but is only $13 at Walmart. If you don’t believe it, check it out. Beggin’ Strips are cheaper at Walmart too. If give enough time, I could come up with a lot more…”

    Thanks for trying Davis stores first. That’s all we can ask, really, at this point. There will always be items cheaper at some stores, and for some it will be worth the time and gas to drive to get them. Spread your dollars around, and shop locally whenever you can.

    People sometimes apologize to me about buying things elsewhere, which is nice but unnecessary. When CostCo opened I had customers calling me for advice (!) about the plants they found there at bizarrely low prices. Don’t ask local businesses to match loss-leader prices at big-box stores; there would be little point. But I urge everyone to bring good product lines to the attention of their local merchants, and to recognize the value of supporting locally-owned businesses.

  219. Don Shor

    “Don, as I said before, Konsyl at Longs’s for the same size is about $27, but is only $13 at Walmart. If you don’t believe it, check it out. Beggin’ Strips are cheaper at Walmart too. If give enough time, I could come up with a lot more…”

    Thanks for trying Davis stores first. That’s all we can ask, really, at this point. There will always be items cheaper at some stores, and for some it will be worth the time and gas to drive to get them. Spread your dollars around, and shop locally whenever you can.

    People sometimes apologize to me about buying things elsewhere, which is nice but unnecessary. When CostCo opened I had customers calling me for advice (!) about the plants they found there at bizarrely low prices. Don’t ask local businesses to match loss-leader prices at big-box stores; there would be little point. But I urge everyone to bring good product lines to the attention of their local merchants, and to recognize the value of supporting locally-owned businesses.

  220. Don Shor

    “Don, as I said before, Konsyl at Longs’s for the same size is about $27, but is only $13 at Walmart. If you don’t believe it, check it out. Beggin’ Strips are cheaper at Walmart too. If give enough time, I could come up with a lot more…”

    Thanks for trying Davis stores first. That’s all we can ask, really, at this point. There will always be items cheaper at some stores, and for some it will be worth the time and gas to drive to get them. Spread your dollars around, and shop locally whenever you can.

    People sometimes apologize to me about buying things elsewhere, which is nice but unnecessary. When CostCo opened I had customers calling me for advice (!) about the plants they found there at bizarrely low prices. Don’t ask local businesses to match loss-leader prices at big-box stores; there would be little point. But I urge everyone to bring good product lines to the attention of their local merchants, and to recognize the value of supporting locally-owned businesses.

  221. Don Shor

    In 1978 the backlash against recent gay rights victories resulted in the Briggs Initiative, which would have banned gays from working in California’s public schools. Polls showed it with 2:1 approval ratings. Then the popular Republican governor announced his opposition, a week before the election. It lost statewide by a substantial margin.
    Governor Schwarzenegger has already announced his opposition to the proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage. Say what you will about this governor, IMO he reflects the positions of the state voters on most social issues.

    There may well be a backlash against gay marriage. The fight about this constitutional amendment will be very expensive, especially if conservative activists choose to make a major effort. But there are big donors ready to organize in opposition, and it wouldn’t surprise me to see more money raised by the opponents of the amendment than the supporters.

    “Remember what I said about legislating from the bench when the next judge oversteps his/her bounds and by fiat passes law you don’t agree with.”
    It’s happened, as we discussed on another thread. Higher courts can overturn it when a ruling has no constitutional basis. This does illustrate the importance of who appoints judges, and what is at stake in the presidential election.

  222. Don Shor

    In 1978 the backlash against recent gay rights victories resulted in the Briggs Initiative, which would have banned gays from working in California’s public schools. Polls showed it with 2:1 approval ratings. Then the popular Republican governor announced his opposition, a week before the election. It lost statewide by a substantial margin.
    Governor Schwarzenegger has already announced his opposition to the proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage. Say what you will about this governor, IMO he reflects the positions of the state voters on most social issues.

    There may well be a backlash against gay marriage. The fight about this constitutional amendment will be very expensive, especially if conservative activists choose to make a major effort. But there are big donors ready to organize in opposition, and it wouldn’t surprise me to see more money raised by the opponents of the amendment than the supporters.

    “Remember what I said about legislating from the bench when the next judge oversteps his/her bounds and by fiat passes law you don’t agree with.”
    It’s happened, as we discussed on another thread. Higher courts can overturn it when a ruling has no constitutional basis. This does illustrate the importance of who appoints judges, and what is at stake in the presidential election.

  223. Don Shor

    In 1978 the backlash against recent gay rights victories resulted in the Briggs Initiative, which would have banned gays from working in California’s public schools. Polls showed it with 2:1 approval ratings. Then the popular Republican governor announced his opposition, a week before the election. It lost statewide by a substantial margin.
    Governor Schwarzenegger has already announced his opposition to the proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage. Say what you will about this governor, IMO he reflects the positions of the state voters on most social issues.

    There may well be a backlash against gay marriage. The fight about this constitutional amendment will be very expensive, especially if conservative activists choose to make a major effort. But there are big donors ready to organize in opposition, and it wouldn’t surprise me to see more money raised by the opponents of the amendment than the supporters.

    “Remember what I said about legislating from the bench when the next judge oversteps his/her bounds and by fiat passes law you don’t agree with.”
    It’s happened, as we discussed on another thread. Higher courts can overturn it when a ruling has no constitutional basis. This does illustrate the importance of who appoints judges, and what is at stake in the presidential election.

  224. Don Shor

    In 1978 the backlash against recent gay rights victories resulted in the Briggs Initiative, which would have banned gays from working in California’s public schools. Polls showed it with 2:1 approval ratings. Then the popular Republican governor announced his opposition, a week before the election. It lost statewide by a substantial margin.
    Governor Schwarzenegger has already announced his opposition to the proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage. Say what you will about this governor, IMO he reflects the positions of the state voters on most social issues.

    There may well be a backlash against gay marriage. The fight about this constitutional amendment will be very expensive, especially if conservative activists choose to make a major effort. But there are big donors ready to organize in opposition, and it wouldn’t surprise me to see more money raised by the opponents of the amendment than the supporters.

    “Remember what I said about legislating from the bench when the next judge oversteps his/her bounds and by fiat passes law you don’t agree with.”
    It’s happened, as we discussed on another thread. Higher courts can overturn it when a ruling has no constitutional basis. This does illustrate the importance of who appoints judges, and what is at stake in the presidential election.

  225. Don Shor

    “Konsyl at Longs’s for the same size is about $27, but is only $13 at Walmart. If you don’t believe it, check it out.”
    Then they are selling it below Longs wholesale cost. They can accomplish that by:
    –negotiating a special, exclusive price with the manufacturer;
    –getting it distributed directly to them from the manufacturer, rather than through a distributor;
    –selling it below their own wholesale cost, which they might do locally, regionally, or in all their stores, depending on their particular goal.

    They use all of those strategies, and others, to undercut prices on certain items. Target does them to a lesser degree. So a savvy shopper who clips coupons and reads those glossy ad inserts can save money, if he or she is inclined to invest the time and gasoline, by driving from one store to another and buying only the loss leaders. Eventually you may find that is the only way you can get some products, since smaller stores are disinclined to sell products which manufacturers sell to the big-box stores for much lower price than they sell to us. We’ll find products which we believe give better value, and we’ll give our business to wholesalers who don’t undercut us.

  226. Don Shor

    “Konsyl at Longs’s for the same size is about $27, but is only $13 at Walmart. If you don’t believe it, check it out.”
    Then they are selling it below Longs wholesale cost. They can accomplish that by:
    –negotiating a special, exclusive price with the manufacturer;
    –getting it distributed directly to them from the manufacturer, rather than through a distributor;
    –selling it below their own wholesale cost, which they might do locally, regionally, or in all their stores, depending on their particular goal.

    They use all of those strategies, and others, to undercut prices on certain items. Target does them to a lesser degree. So a savvy shopper who clips coupons and reads those glossy ad inserts can save money, if he or she is inclined to invest the time and gasoline, by driving from one store to another and buying only the loss leaders. Eventually you may find that is the only way you can get some products, since smaller stores are disinclined to sell products which manufacturers sell to the big-box stores for much lower price than they sell to us. We’ll find products which we believe give better value, and we’ll give our business to wholesalers who don’t undercut us.

  227. Don Shor

    “Konsyl at Longs’s for the same size is about $27, but is only $13 at Walmart. If you don’t believe it, check it out.”
    Then they are selling it below Longs wholesale cost. They can accomplish that by:
    –negotiating a special, exclusive price with the manufacturer;
    –getting it distributed directly to them from the manufacturer, rather than through a distributor;
    –selling it below their own wholesale cost, which they might do locally, regionally, or in all their stores, depending on their particular goal.

    They use all of those strategies, and others, to undercut prices on certain items. Target does them to a lesser degree. So a savvy shopper who clips coupons and reads those glossy ad inserts can save money, if he or she is inclined to invest the time and gasoline, by driving from one store to another and buying only the loss leaders. Eventually you may find that is the only way you can get some products, since smaller stores are disinclined to sell products which manufacturers sell to the big-box stores for much lower price than they sell to us. We’ll find products which we believe give better value, and we’ll give our business to wholesalers who don’t undercut us.

  228. Don Shor

    “Konsyl at Longs’s for the same size is about $27, but is only $13 at Walmart. If you don’t believe it, check it out.”
    Then they are selling it below Longs wholesale cost. They can accomplish that by:
    –negotiating a special, exclusive price with the manufacturer;
    –getting it distributed directly to them from the manufacturer, rather than through a distributor;
    –selling it below their own wholesale cost, which they might do locally, regionally, or in all their stores, depending on their particular goal.

    They use all of those strategies, and others, to undercut prices on certain items. Target does them to a lesser degree. So a savvy shopper who clips coupons and reads those glossy ad inserts can save money, if he or she is inclined to invest the time and gasoline, by driving from one store to another and buying only the loss leaders. Eventually you may find that is the only way you can get some products, since smaller stores are disinclined to sell products which manufacturers sell to the big-box stores for much lower price than they sell to us. We’ll find products which we believe give better value, and we’ll give our business to wholesalers who don’t undercut us.

  229. davisite

    “Governor Schwarzenegger has already announced his opposition to the proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage.”

    While I cannot quote the Governator’s public statement, I recall that it was much like Obama’s public statement recently, namely that he “respects” the decision of the CA Supreme Court,period. Discerning readers/listeners recognize that this is not a strong supporting statement on this 5-4 court decision. We can expect that the CA Hispanic vote will dramatically increase in November ,percentage-wise,compared to 1978 and this voting population is decidedly conservative on social-value issues.

  230. davisite

    “Governor Schwarzenegger has already announced his opposition to the proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage.”

    While I cannot quote the Governator’s public statement, I recall that it was much like Obama’s public statement recently, namely that he “respects” the decision of the CA Supreme Court,period. Discerning readers/listeners recognize that this is not a strong supporting statement on this 5-4 court decision. We can expect that the CA Hispanic vote will dramatically increase in November ,percentage-wise,compared to 1978 and this voting population is decidedly conservative on social-value issues.

  231. davisite

    “Governor Schwarzenegger has already announced his opposition to the proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage.”

    While I cannot quote the Governator’s public statement, I recall that it was much like Obama’s public statement recently, namely that he “respects” the decision of the CA Supreme Court,period. Discerning readers/listeners recognize that this is not a strong supporting statement on this 5-4 court decision. We can expect that the CA Hispanic vote will dramatically increase in November ,percentage-wise,compared to 1978 and this voting population is decidedly conservative on social-value issues.

  232. davisite

    “Governor Schwarzenegger has already announced his opposition to the proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage.”

    While I cannot quote the Governator’s public statement, I recall that it was much like Obama’s public statement recently, namely that he “respects” the decision of the CA Supreme Court,period. Discerning readers/listeners recognize that this is not a strong supporting statement on this 5-4 court decision. We can expect that the CA Hispanic vote will dramatically increase in November ,percentage-wise,compared to 1978 and this voting population is decidedly conservative on social-value issues.

  233. Don Shor

    “SACRAMENTO, CA, April 14, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger promised a homosexual group on Friday that he will oppose any ballot measure protecting marriage for a man and a woman.

    Asked if he would oppose a ballot initiative limiting gay marriage, Schwarzenegger replied: “First of all I think that it will never happen in California because I think that California people are much further along with that issue, and number two, I’ll always be there to fight against that.”

  234. Don Shor

    “SACRAMENTO, CA, April 14, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger promised a homosexual group on Friday that he will oppose any ballot measure protecting marriage for a man and a woman.

    Asked if he would oppose a ballot initiative limiting gay marriage, Schwarzenegger replied: “First of all I think that it will never happen in California because I think that California people are much further along with that issue, and number two, I’ll always be there to fight against that.”

  235. Don Shor

    “SACRAMENTO, CA, April 14, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger promised a homosexual group on Friday that he will oppose any ballot measure protecting marriage for a man and a woman.

    Asked if he would oppose a ballot initiative limiting gay marriage, Schwarzenegger replied: “First of all I think that it will never happen in California because I think that California people are much further along with that issue, and number two, I’ll always be there to fight against that.”

  236. Don Shor

    “SACRAMENTO, CA, April 14, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger promised a homosexual group on Friday that he will oppose any ballot measure protecting marriage for a man and a woman.

    Asked if he would oppose a ballot initiative limiting gay marriage, Schwarzenegger replied: “First of all I think that it will never happen in California because I think that California people are much further along with that issue, and number two, I’ll always be there to fight against that.”

  237. davisite

    Don… while I cannot reference you to the Governer’s exact statement following the Court’s opinion, I stand by my recollection that he did not repeat anything like this(in April)within the last week.
    All he said was essentially that he respects the CA Surpreme Court decision, a rather “weak” response.. ALL of us and especially those who are elected to public office acknowledge that our courts deserve “respect”.

  238. davisite

    Don… while I cannot reference you to the Governer’s exact statement following the Court’s opinion, I stand by my recollection that he did not repeat anything like this(in April)within the last week.
    All he said was essentially that he respects the CA Surpreme Court decision, a rather “weak” response.. ALL of us and especially those who are elected to public office acknowledge that our courts deserve “respect”.

  239. davisite

    Don… while I cannot reference you to the Governer’s exact statement following the Court’s opinion, I stand by my recollection that he did not repeat anything like this(in April)within the last week.
    All he said was essentially that he respects the CA Surpreme Court decision, a rather “weak” response.. ALL of us and especially those who are elected to public office acknowledge that our courts deserve “respect”.

  240. davisite

    Don… while I cannot reference you to the Governer’s exact statement following the Court’s opinion, I stand by my recollection that he did not repeat anything like this(in April)within the last week.
    All he said was essentially that he respects the CA Surpreme Court decision, a rather “weak” response.. ALL of us and especially those who are elected to public office acknowledge that our courts deserve “respect”.

  241. Anonymous

    This is Great,
    My first time on this blog and I find out that, Wu Ming, (whoever that is), wears underwear. And Doug Paul Davis wants to make price comparisons between Target, Wal Mart and local outlets.
    In addition, Mrs. Doug Paul Davis is celebrating a 6th anniversary on Bastille Day.
    Thank you for all the great info. I’ll be sure to tune in here on a regular basis.

  242. Anonymous

    This is Great,
    My first time on this blog and I find out that, Wu Ming, (whoever that is), wears underwear. And Doug Paul Davis wants to make price comparisons between Target, Wal Mart and local outlets.
    In addition, Mrs. Doug Paul Davis is celebrating a 6th anniversary on Bastille Day.
    Thank you for all the great info. I’ll be sure to tune in here on a regular basis.

  243. Anonymous

    This is Great,
    My first time on this blog and I find out that, Wu Ming, (whoever that is), wears underwear. And Doug Paul Davis wants to make price comparisons between Target, Wal Mart and local outlets.
    In addition, Mrs. Doug Paul Davis is celebrating a 6th anniversary on Bastille Day.
    Thank you for all the great info. I’ll be sure to tune in here on a regular basis.

  244. Anonymous

    This is Great,
    My first time on this blog and I find out that, Wu Ming, (whoever that is), wears underwear. And Doug Paul Davis wants to make price comparisons between Target, Wal Mart and local outlets.
    In addition, Mrs. Doug Paul Davis is celebrating a 6th anniversary on Bastille Day.
    Thank you for all the great info. I’ll be sure to tune in here on a regular basis.

  245. All for competition

    “But I urge everyone to bring good product lines to the attention of their local merchants, and to recognize the value of supporting locally-owned businesses.”

    I will support Davis businesses only if they are better than elsewhere. If you support Davis stores no matter what, then mediocrity is the result, and more expensive prices. I shop where it is cheapest, taking into account the price of gas, and shop at those specialty stores in Davis that have things I can’t get elsewhere, e.g. Watermelon Music. By the way, because of greater competition, Davis has a lot of good and reasonably priced restaurants, whereas Woodland doesn’t.

  246. All for competition

    “But I urge everyone to bring good product lines to the attention of their local merchants, and to recognize the value of supporting locally-owned businesses.”

    I will support Davis businesses only if they are better than elsewhere. If you support Davis stores no matter what, then mediocrity is the result, and more expensive prices. I shop where it is cheapest, taking into account the price of gas, and shop at those specialty stores in Davis that have things I can’t get elsewhere, e.g. Watermelon Music. By the way, because of greater competition, Davis has a lot of good and reasonably priced restaurants, whereas Woodland doesn’t.

  247. All for competition

    “But I urge everyone to bring good product lines to the attention of their local merchants, and to recognize the value of supporting locally-owned businesses.”

    I will support Davis businesses only if they are better than elsewhere. If you support Davis stores no matter what, then mediocrity is the result, and more expensive prices. I shop where it is cheapest, taking into account the price of gas, and shop at those specialty stores in Davis that have things I can’t get elsewhere, e.g. Watermelon Music. By the way, because of greater competition, Davis has a lot of good and reasonably priced restaurants, whereas Woodland doesn’t.

  248. All for competition

    “But I urge everyone to bring good product lines to the attention of their local merchants, and to recognize the value of supporting locally-owned businesses.”

    I will support Davis businesses only if they are better than elsewhere. If you support Davis stores no matter what, then mediocrity is the result, and more expensive prices. I shop where it is cheapest, taking into account the price of gas, and shop at those specialty stores in Davis that have things I can’t get elsewhere, e.g. Watermelon Music. By the way, because of greater competition, Davis has a lot of good and reasonably priced restaurants, whereas Woodland doesn’t.

  249. Anonymous

    “Davis has a lot of good and reasonably priced restaurants, whereas Woodland doesn’t.”

    Uh, excuse me: The Fat Cat prepares the best chili in town, all the lawyers and judges go there for their beanless fix.
    (don’t get the bean chili unless you want to make an unforessen comment from the nether regions, true though it may be, it wouldn’t sound…polictaclly correct!”
    so the lawyers say, unless they are going home for the day, haha

  250. Anonymous

    “Davis has a lot of good and reasonably priced restaurants, whereas Woodland doesn’t.”

    Uh, excuse me: The Fat Cat prepares the best chili in town, all the lawyers and judges go there for their beanless fix.
    (don’t get the bean chili unless you want to make an unforessen comment from the nether regions, true though it may be, it wouldn’t sound…polictaclly correct!”
    so the lawyers say, unless they are going home for the day, haha

  251. Anonymous

    “Davis has a lot of good and reasonably priced restaurants, whereas Woodland doesn’t.”

    Uh, excuse me: The Fat Cat prepares the best chili in town, all the lawyers and judges go there for their beanless fix.
    (don’t get the bean chili unless you want to make an unforessen comment from the nether regions, true though it may be, it wouldn’t sound…polictaclly correct!”
    so the lawyers say, unless they are going home for the day, haha

  252. Anonymous

    “Davis has a lot of good and reasonably priced restaurants, whereas Woodland doesn’t.”

    Uh, excuse me: The Fat Cat prepares the best chili in town, all the lawyers and judges go there for their beanless fix.
    (don’t get the bean chili unless you want to make an unforessen comment from the nether regions, true though it may be, it wouldn’t sound…polictaclly correct!”
    so the lawyers say, unless they are going home for the day, haha

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for