AP: Ehrlich Vetoes Minimum Wage, Gay Rights Bills

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

AP: Ehrlich Vetoes Minimum Wage, Gay Rights Bills

Governor Ehrlich has vetoed bills to increase the minimum wage and grant additional rights to gay and unmarried couples. | MORE >>

I also have a posting with my commentary on this issue | Click here

What's everyone's opinion?

[Ken King]

It is within the Governor's right to veto these bills just as it is within the rights of the legislature to overturn those vetoes. Let the process work, if the support for them is sufficient they will become law, if not then that is how it should be.

For me, raising the minimum wage could hurt many businesses. If people want to earn more then they should ask for a raise based on their performance or move on. The government mandating the minimum that a person should be paid seems overly controlling and intrusive.

As to same-sex marriages I don't have a problem with them, but I understand the problems many do have with the concept. I think we, the people of the State of Maryland, should vote it up or down via referendum at the next election and let the people be heard on the matter.

[czygvtwkr]

Good

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

I agree 100% that it would hurt small businesses. However, places that I've looked at and other people I know - Some of the smaller businesses pay more than Wal-Mart, Target, etc. Best Buy and Wal-Mart both, from my understanding, pay minimum wage without benefits. Sure, overtime your paycheck will continue to rise. Some people I know that work for smaller businesses though are making between 8$/h and 15$/h. However, I am not sure about every company.

As for the gay rights, as I mentioned in my blog posting: Let it play out differently. What ticks me off the most was when President Bush, who I was a hardcore supporter for, tried to get a Constitutional Amendment. Let's let it play out with the intent of legalizing same-sex marriages. If we try in the path we are, this issue will never end.

[vraiblonde]

Friday's vetoes drew harsh criticism from supporters of the bills. They say the governor's claim to be a political moderate is nothing more than campaign rhetoric.

"Moderate". That's interesting. The only time I ever hear a Democrat call anyone a "moderate" is if they're towing the liberal party line.

Abortion on demand? That's considered a "moderate" position.

Raising taxes through the roof so they can spend it on welfare Moms and crack addicts? They consider that "moderate".

Unfettered gay marriage and teaching homosexuality in classrooms to 2nd graders? More "moderate" positioning.

In fact, the only thing Democrats seem to think is "extreme" is having the Ten Commandments on public property or forbidding sex and profanity on our public airwaves.

Funny, that.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

...first off, welcome.

You post is clear that you are for same sex marriage. Fine. If nothing else, there is no argument that official, legally recognized marriage is something new. Make a case for it.

You note that Massachusetts Supreme Court (a state, not federal court) declared it legal in Massachusetts. If you accept that a state has that right, then aren't you obligated to accept that a state has the right to NOT recognize gay marriage?

If not, if you support the idea that this is a US Constitution issue, as you note:

It is the U.S. Constitution that says every person is an equal and no Government shall infringe on their civil rights.

...then are you not obligate to state that Massachusetts court has no business ruling on federal, national, issues?

Or do you argue to have it both ways; It's a state issue if you agree with a particular states stance. It's a Constitutional issue if you disagree with, say Maryland?

Further, you argue for a vote. The people of Massachusetts were not allowed to vote. You call it a law but the court decreed a right which did not exist prior, gay marriage, which obligates the state to a legal contract, marriage, without a vote and without the governors signature. There was no law passed.

At the minimum, Maryland acted in a proper, accepted, lawful fashion; a bill was passed that the governor veto'd.

California did much the same thing when a city mayor, having far less standing than a state court, attempted to make state law. Or is it federal?

Further, you state:

We cannot continue to deny civil rights to any American for religious purposes

Does this suggest you would accept not recognizing gay marriage on other grounds?

What if three people, with full Constitutional rights, as you say, wish to marry? Or four? Would you argue they have a right? Wha tif they are minors? The Constitutional says nothing about an age requirement before the Bill of Rights applies.

If so, on what basis?

If not, again, on what basis?

Gay marriage does not exist. It has not existed. The marriage contract, both in religious settings and non-secular situations have long been accepted by conventional wisdom and tradition as being between one man and one woman.

Personally, as silly as the entire idea is, I am all for gay marriage...between two consenting adults. This is, by defintion, discrimanatory and I'm fine with that because, absent rational limits, chaos this way lies.

So, let the House and the Senate create some discrimanatory, unconstitutional (as you've defined it) legislation that will certainly be off to the the Supreme Court the moment the ink dries from a Presidential signature. Let homosexuals close the barn door to other peoples 'rights' once they get theirs.

The mayor of San Francisco and the Judges of the Massachusetts state Supreme court should be impeached. They knowingly and intentional violated their responsibilities and the sacred public trust. In a free society where individual rights can only be protected by rule of law they are the worst kind of activists; wrong ones.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

...just set what it is and have the state and feds cut me a check for my employees and I'll pass it on to them. In fact, how about we save a step and just send it direct to them.

So far, in conversations with them, $100 an hour sounds about right. They don't want to be greedy but they could use the money. To prove they are being reasonable, they're willing to give up overtime and all benefits in exchange.

While we're at it, I'd like a minimum of $10,000,000 next year, after taxes. I do more than they do to keep the doors open, so, I figure that's a good number. Wait. You mean it's not merit based?

Sigh. OK, $10 mil for all of us. Minimum.

I'm a citizen as well, entitled to equal rights, yes?

When we tire of that, we can just raise it again, right?

[truby20]

How did this go into a gay marriage debate? Yes Ehrlich used that reasoning to veto the bill allowing unmarried couples to make medical decisions for one another, but gay marriage wasn't what this bill was about. Some on the right said they saw this as a step toward gay marriage but that is just their reasoning. This bill would have helped many heterosexual couples who feel that marriage just isn't necessary for their relationship but would like the option of entering an agreement where they could make medical decisions for the other person, I can think of a few elderly couples who would like that option. Not to mention the thousands of same-sex couples who don't even have the option to marry, now Ehrlich feels that they don't even deserve the right to easily enter into agreement where they can make these important decisions toward the other.

The real gay marriage debate will come up in Maryland at some point and then the legislators and voters will decide if we are ready for it. For now though what Ehrlich did was just cruel.

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

If you don't mind I just might publish that on my blog - but in response: I do not criticize how the state acted - I want this to become one national debate. But, until then states should be able to act freely, the more states get involved - the more the pressure will rise on Washington politicians to act. This is a battle that will be hung in our courts for decades.

I'm not approving of gay marriage but at the same time it doesn't hurt anyone. If a person loves someone, why can't they get married. It's not hurting me what they do and in fact it's not my business either. It's not anyone's business. It's more than definently not the governments.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

can make these important decisions toward the other

Truby, why would anyone expect to be able to or what someone to be able to make important decisions about and for them while incapacitated when they won't take the step of responsibility marriage is?

We just had a nation dividing case in Florida where the HUSBAND was crucified for making decisions for HIS WIFE.

Imagine the battles if someone's 'life partner' or 'dear friend' is calling the shots and some family members gets mad. Or a neighbor. Or Ex. Or Tom Delay. Or...