Tom McClintock speaks out on farm animal, gay marriage measures

State Sen. Tom McClintock, the vocal conservative Republican from Thousand Oaks, probably shouldn’t expect an invitation to the next party by PETA or the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center after comments he made today on two controversial ballot measures.

Locked in a tight race for Congress with Democrat Charlie Brown, McClintock announced today that he opposes Proposition 2, which prohibits confining hens, pigs and calves in small cages that prevent extension of their limbs.

"Sorry, but farm animals are food, not friends," McClintock said. "Plan on somewhat happier cows and much higher grocery bills if this one passes."

He is equally likely to stir up opponents of Proposition 8 with his support for the measure that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

"Lincoln asked, 'If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? The answer is four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one,'" McClintock said in a statement. "And calling a homosexual partnership a marriage doesn’t make it one."

Calls to the "No on Prop. 8" and "Yes on Prop. 2" campaigns were not immediately returned. McClintock also announced that he opposes Proposition 1A, the high-speed rail bond, calling it "the most outrageously expensive boondoggle in California’s long history of outrageously expensive boondoggles."

--Patrick McGreevy

Photo credit: Associated Press

Comments

[Ann]

What an ass. Thanks for the warning on this guy. I will not vote for any proposition he supports, that's for sure!

[Concerned Person]

"Sorry, but farm animals are food, not friends," he says. Well I say your "just a public servant" - prepare to find another job!

[Daniel]

Well, he's your run-of-the-mill Republican, so no surprise about his views on Prop. 8 and Prop. 2. Let's just hope he gets voted out of office.

[Joseph]

McClintock would genocide animals and homosexuals if he could. Monster.

[Gregory Agalsoff]

Why is McClintock (of THOUSAND OAKS) is running for the US Congressional seat in District 4, which is nearly 400 miles from where he currently serves?

[Erin]

One of the things I appreciate most about Tom McClintock is his long view of how things will affect California, not just now, but years down the road. He's a sensible man.

[No on Prop McClintock]

No on Prop McClintock! Tom McClintock's mindset is why the rest of the world despises the U.S. He's the kind of man that will continue to try to get the U.S. into unnecessary wars, oppress the middle class, and pay off the wall street fat cats. No green revolution for the Golden State under McClintock. You can be sure that he will continue to try to carry out George Bush's policies in the state of California.

[Liz]

Wow, what a jerk.

[Phillip]

how can anyone support this person. Mr. McClintock, civilization has progressed since the dark ages and it would be nice of you to join. consider this quote: "he who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." Immanuel Kant. From a great thinker, thinking is something you should consider investing in from time to time. Clearly, compassion and intelligence are not requirements for running for office. What a complete idiot.

[Felicia]

I like Tom McClintock. He speaks his mind, even when it's not popular.

[Stan Risdon]

"...happier cows and much higher grocery bills if this one passes."

How about Soylent Green? Talk about killing many birds with one stone.

[Joseph A. Mustich]

Kudos to CT and its Supreme Court.

In 2005 the CT Legislature enacted a civil union law for same-sex couple and last week the CT Supreme Court voted in favor of marriage equality.

As a Justice of the Peace I look forward to officiating at the marriages of opposite-sex and same-sex couples now.

Cheers CT. And good luck CA. It's time.

Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace
POB 1266 Washington CT 0793 USA

[Leslie]

Well, what should we expect from a dog catcher aspiring to higher office? A desperate man, in a desperate situation using desperate appeals. His opponent just got a campaign donation from this out of district reader.

[Gabriel Jason]

Someone should put him in a cage and take away his civil rights.

[Patrick Fisher]

Have we forgotten the lessons of history? "Separate but equal" is not. If a legally recognized, heterosexual, domestic partnership is a "marriage" but the homosexual equivalent is something different, then it will be treated differently. And treating gays differently means that they do not have equal rights. It is un-American and unconscionable to oppose gay marriage.

[SMT]

McClintock is such a joke. He's run for every major statewide office in this state -- and LOST. He's running scared right now -- God forbid he can't be in politics anymore, since clearly that's ALL he knows how to do -- and will say or do anything to get elected into office. Just like McCain, playing to his base...

[Eddie89]

"Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one." What kind of idiotic statement is that?!

Why does a "civil" union of two men or two women not equal marriage in the eyes of the "State" of California?

These same two couples pay taxes. Make vows to each other that they will take care of each other in sickness or in health, for richer or for poorer, for better or for worse. They can have children through adoption, surrogacy, brought in from previous opposite sex relationships or IVF and a sperm donor.

There already exist tens of thousands of such children living in such households. And many of these couples have been together longer than Britney Spears, Madonna, Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh's multiple marriages COMBINED!

But no, because they are the same gender, they cannot possibly be considered "married" under the eyes of the State and the "civil" laws of California. So says State Sen. Tom McClintock. What a dufus!

Vote "NO" on Prop. 8!

[Barbara]

I married my partner of 20 years a couple of weeks ago. The official document I received from the County says Certificate of MARRIAGE. This knuckle-dragger is going to have to battle with alot of State officials if he doesn't think gay people are really married.

[darren]

Go McClintock!!!!
Loved the Lincoln quote. Yes on Prop 8.
Marriage as defined by every society in recorded history is man and woman. Stop the tyrany in the name of tolerence. Judges shouldn't make law, just interpret law.

[Lisa]

I believe the gay population has the right to be married and have all the rights that marriage entails ... I also believe that the gay population doesn't have the right to make it that religious institutions change ideals or beliefs , when it comes to children needing to know ... I go by what my openly and very loved gay brother told me in regards to his niece " She'll ask me when she's ready "
P.S. My daughter is in 5th. grade and has attended many Gay Pride events the only time she questioned or was grossed out was when people made public displays of affection , she has the same feeling seeing heterosexual couples .

[J]

@darren:
"Go McClintock!!!!
Loved the Lincoln quote. Yes on Prop 8.
Marriage as defined by every society in recorded history is man and woman."

A.) Polygamy was more common until recently, especially if you count the use of concubines and courtesans.

B.) Just because our snaggle-toothed, cave-dwelling ancestors did something one way doesn't mean we have to.

[Hillary]

Oh, my grossness.

I cannot drive by a “yes on 8” street corner rally without instantly becoming thunderously angry, and I will admit it: I roll down my window, and use my freedom of speech to tell them what inbred pathetically religious prejudiced jerk-butts they are. And occasionally I will throw an old taco bell wrapper at them.

I live here, in this world. And people are trying to take an equal right away from me?

Mind you, I am a heterosexual girl, in a hetero relationship. I am afforded the right to marry a man. I would be absolutely devastated if anyone took that right from me. However, some stupid religious right is trying to make it so one whole group of people cannot get married. That turns my right to marry unequal.

I am no better than anyone else: I support love, equality, and freedom. I will not be treated better than anyone else.

How is it that a man who strays from his wife is still legally permitted to, how do they word it, oh, “protect the sanctity of marriage”? Or a self-confessed convict is allowed the right to marry. Even former chesters.

How about hermaphrodites? Can we single them out, too? Are they allowed the constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness? What about, dare I say, interracial marriages? Fifty years ago, that was frowned upon and considered immoral.

Oh, and, my personal favourite. Proponents of yes on 8 have spent well over $25 million trying to take away a right from people whose lives don’t even effect them. I could give two sh*ts who marries who/does what. I am force fed enough Brangelina, Britney, and Iraq war that I have no room to interfere in other people’s lives. I am trying to live my own, in a country who rigs its voting booths, and wages fraudulent wars.

There are seven year old girls being sold into marriage in other countries. I have an idea. Let’s take this $25 million and save those girls, and protect them instead of trying to prohibit two consensual adults who are in love from getting married. Or, we could help people who are living on less than a dollar a day. No! Why could we? They probably made the Yes on 8 shirts in some sweatshop anyway.

This is, at the very least, regressive. Those of you who do not support homosexuality, fine. But think of it this way: If we strip a whole group of people of their rights now, who is to say you are not next?

We could try to impose the same rules to people of a certain creed, or certain religious affiliation. If 8 passes, it will set a precedent. A dangerous precedent.

If you don’t like something, why bother over-involving yourself in their life? If I didn’t like the colour blue, I could make a conscience effort not to buy something blue, but if someone wore a blue shirt near me, I could do one of two things: Badger and oppress the hell out of them, or, I could choose to not pay attention to their blue shirt.

Grow the hell up, people. This proposition has created a ruckus and is causing people great sadness. In my opinion, stealing someone’s smile from them is far worse a sin than vowing to love and honour someone for the remainder of eternity.

[JM]

Good point about the polygamy. By the logic used in the decision to grant homosexuals the right to marry, polygamist will fight for the right to marry. How can the court say no to them? Neither of these marriage options is good for society or for kids. Because of activist judges we need this constitutional amendment to define marriage.

[Hillary]

While we are at it, can we also have a similar amendment to define the word “shoot” and “shot”?

I could have a wheatgrass shot, and that would be good for me.
I could have a shot of whiskey, and that would be bad.
I could take a shot in the dark.
I could get a vaccination shot.
I could be shot in the head.
I could take a great photo shoot.
I could shoot heroin.
I could step on a tack and scream the word, “shoot!”

Oh, so many definitions from just one word. All this is is semantics. A $25 million waste over words. They are just letters, my dear.

The hypocrisy and idiocy here is ridiculous.

Dictionaries constantly update. The F word appeared in the dicktionary up until the 70s or so. So, now, my brave warriors. Let us take our klan hoods off, and redefine marriage to allow for a contractual union between two people. Let us remove the gender specification of it, and be done with this.

Let us live, since we are only allowed in this body once. Let everyone have an equal chance at love.

[Henry Tabatha]

Re: Eddie89... You're argument is exactly why we DON"T need same-sex marriage.

Gay couples already have every right they need. Please reserve marriage for what it is intended for: creating, bearing, and rearing children by the mother and father they are entitled to.

Yes on Prop 8!

[George Clinton]

Why spend so much time working to prohibit same-sex marriage, while divorce rates are too high, there's too many single parent households, and celebrities get married for only hours before ending their marriage? If marriage is so sacred, why not campaign against those practices?

Simple. Everyone already agrees those are less than ideal. No law is being proposed, or judges ruling, that the government should recognize and endorse these practices as equal to traditional marriage. And no one is seeking for legal protection that considers speaking against these practices as hate-speech and inequality. If they were, the backlash would be far more intense than anything seen by the Yes on 8 campaign.
Yes on 8!

[Andru]

Henry Tabatha .... so divorce, single parents, having children out of wedlock...thats all ok because its intended?? you are a bigoted fool. You just described what RELIGION says marriage is intended for...Can we please pull our heads out of our respective religions and think logically for a moment? Gays are NOT DEMANDING RELIGIOUS RECOGNITION, prop 8 will not effect churches, teachers, taxes or anything else for hetero sexuals.... and how dare someone say homosexuals have "all the rights they need" thats what the conservative southerners said about their slaves! Until they were freed by an activist President... Lincoln..A REPUBLICAN. You bigoted hetero's who are pro prop 8 twist and molest all your words to make Gays look like some kind of freak show...they are human. We are all Human. And the judges...oh my god you people will believe anything you see on TV...the judges were not activists...they discovered a flaw in the previous voted upon law, that contradicted the constitution of California....thus why YOUR OWN CAMPAIGN SAYS: TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION ON CALIFORNIA TO RECOGNIZE ONLY MARRIAGE BETWEEN AND MAN AND A WOMAN AS LEGAL" They weren't activists, they were just really good at paying attention to details. Denying gays ANYTHING is against the constitution of California AND the United States. What happened to "all people are created equal."?? Frankly I think that if ALL people can't get married, then no one should have legal union! keep "Marriage" a religious contract, and the state should stay out of it all together. Give it to all or deny it to all. Its the only way to be fair and just.

Think about this people: Proposition 8 and its supporters are: A group of people who wish to deny certain rights from another group of people, because they have different beliefs. There was a fairly famous group of people who also managed to succeed in denying, and removing the rights of a group of people who had different beliefs....maybe you have heard of them....they were called NAZIS!!!!! So what does that make you?

Jews, blacks, and any other minorities better watch out...if prop 8 passes, you might be next!!

as far as McClintock... LOL he is nothing. He is a clown. "Animals are food, not friends"...way to piss off vegans and vegetarians everywhere you jack ass. If politicians want to win, you would think they would want as many people as possible to LIKE THEM...so keep the stupid hateful words out of your mouth.

[Hillary]

Oh, you went there.

Some married hetero couples have their tubes tied, or their vasectomies. Or women take birth control, and get this, people even use condoms.

Shudder to think. Every time we fornicate without the express purpose of procreation, are we sinning? Do men go to hell when sodomizing their wives? And what about the all important bj? Swallowing a potential fetus. Thus, marriage should be annulled to all married hetero couples who are not reproducing.

Has anyone not noticed the overpopulation? Is procreation all that necessary? What about the orphanages? Hello!

By the yes on 8 argument, Marriage is a legal union between a woman and a man. Nowhere in that definition does it require having children. I would think then, that creating, bearing, and raising children is not the intention of getting married. Dumb ass.

Gay couples DO NOT have every right they need. Domestic Partnerships do not allow a partner the same rights in an every day or emergency situation. If someone grows ill, and is rushed to the hospital, they will not be able to get into the ambulance, or hospital room with no questions asked. There will be too much confusion that a married couple would not have to deal with.

Gay couples still have people protesting their funerals. Oh, for sure, they have every right they need. Gay people have to live their life in constant fear of violence, they lose family members because of the taboo placed on them, they are denied jobs, etc. They have to hide their being “in a closet.” That does not sound to me like they have every right they need.

This would change as soon as we allot them the rights every other human in California has. They would not have a classification, outside of blonde or brunette.

Is America the land of the free or the land of the WASP?

And before we go gay bash any further, I am willing to say a few of the Yes on 8 posters have enjoyed watching a girl on girl kiss in their time.

[Feeling Sorry for JM]

JM, I'm not worried about polygamy, just your logic that the decision to grant homosexuals the right to marry will cause polygamist to fight for the right to marry. I suppose you also think allowing interracial marriage was the slippery slope that led to gay couples asking for the right to marry. Maybe we shouldn't have given any of your interracial couple friends the right to marry. Or maybe you don't know any of those folks, just like you probably don't know any gay couples who want this right. I feel sorry for you JM.

[Zeke]

I agree with him on the animal front. I'm sick of all the pretention surrounding animals. We eat cows, pigs, and chickens - big deal. I'm tired of pretending that these animals have feeling and emotions that we need to cater to. It's garbage.

On the gay front, he's a complete moron. He seems to be of the ilk that thinks that gays are just hopping from one bed to another and having nothing but wild, crazy sex. While this is true of some members of the population, the same can be said for many heteros as well. The fact of the matter is, there are a lot of gays who just want their love recognized and to be given the same privileges from that that the straight couples get. Quite frankly, given that the divorce rate is at an all time high and NO ONE but the straights can be blamed for it, you'd think they'd want our help in getting that number up a little bit.

[Mac]

People Eating Tasty Animals (PETA) and the militant homosexual/feminists activists deserve one another. Now if they would all move en masse to Massachusetts.

[Earl]

Gay "marriage" will be looked on after the election as cruel folly foisted on the public by some activist judges.

The voters of California rejected the notion of gay "marriage in 2000. It will happen again.

Hopefully those already "married" will have their licenses rescinded!

[David Allaun]

The television and radio advertising for NO on 8 has been very restrained and reasonable. However the Yes on 8 proponents use lies, fear and dishonesty to promote the proposition. Major funding for the proposition comes from the Knights of Columbus (a Catholic organization) and the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints (Mormans). The Catholic Church has shielded and relocated thousands of pedophile priests, allowing them to continue their vile and criminal offences while some sects of the Morman Church support and practice Polygamy and allow 13 year old girls to be raped and forced into marriages which are often incestuous. It could be suggested that they spend their money and time on putting their own houses in order before they attempt to deny loving gay and lesbian (adult) couples the same marriage rights that are enjoyed and granted to all heterosexual Californians. It seems that they worry more about a child reading a book that says a Princess can marry a Princess than they do about molesting and raping little children.

[Hillary]

Mac and Earl,

I think I speak for every one reading this: You are both a collective douchebag.

[Already Married]

Earl (above) I'm a gay man who already has a marriage license. The only thing I wish for you is that some day you come home and your wife and children have left you because you are such an intolerant jerk. And your hatefulness isn't passed down. With the irony being that I'm still at home with my life partner living happily ever after. Your knd of hate never wins. Hopefully your wife and kids will read this. Fewww, that felt good.

[na]

The amendment will pass.

[Hillary]

Wow, “na”. What a strong, and compelling argument. I am just going to throw the towel in.

The amendment will NOT pass. Step to that.

Can you imagine how sue happy 100,000 couples could get if the amendment does pass? Never mind the class action discrimination lawsuits, but what about the money spent on their weddings, their homes, their loans, all consequential and implied earnings that a married couple would have, and would have served as a basis for their financial planning, as was granted to them when issued their marriage licenses.

I don’t think California wants to eat that cost. And, we have both the governator and the the majority of California on our side.

I wanted to let everyone know that 30,000 children starved to death yesterday. A good Christian community would have donated $25 million dollars to feed them, but instead chose to spend that money attempting to tear up families.

Wow, way to protect children.

[Steve of MV]

McClintock's use of Lincoln's “call a tail a leg” analogy is right on point. Procreation is essential to the nature of marriage. (“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply...” Genesis 1:27-28, KJV.) Since same-sex couples cannot procreate, they cannot get married and possibly procreate. Their relationship is not marriage, even if you try to call it "marriage.” Marriage legislation is society’s attempt to insure responsible procreation, and marriage legislation that does not include same-sex couples does not unjustly discriminate against them because they are incapable of procreation, and marriage is not relevant to them.

[Larry J.]

Why is it that gays insist on the word marriage? Why not invent a new word and make it know to be the same as marriage except that it is between two of the same sex call it “gayrriage”. Why must the gays have something only in title which brings those nothing more in rights than what they already have? Are gays stupid, ignorant or do they just want to be like all others, which they are not? Get over it!! They just want the title, let them take pride in a title which designates their union is different than that of the non-gays. Again I say create a new title, something like “gayrraige” which will have definition and meaning to the gays. Sorry marriage is all ready taken by a bunch of weird opposite sexually oriented people. Get something for yourselves!

[Marysza]

I work in the advertising industry and in an office of about 200, maybe 20 gays work here. More than half of them were indifferent to Prop 8. Several suggested gays should get their own word to define their unions. More than half of them did not believe in marriage at all - thought it was too confining for their sexually active lifestyle. Two suggested it could lead to a slippery slope - challenges to polygamy, fathers marrying daughters, brothers and sisters marrying, or two straight people of the same sex marrying.

[Ashlie]

Higher grocery bills? Has he never done an ounce of research on any of these topics that he votes on?

Average increase in price per egg is .02 cents!

[concerned american]

I am thankful to have one politician who is at least honest, and has a backbone.
I also believe that our politicians should never have started down this road of legislating moral behaviour. That in this country of freedom of speech AND freedom of religion, we should have valued it enough to behave with respect for each other as fellow countrymen in a manner that reflects our gratitude for the freedoms in the first place. I think anything taken to extremes including our freedoms eventually leads us right back to bonds. Therefore giving away our freedom. I for one would like to see our fellow country men begin to follow in the tiniest part 'the golden rule', to behave in a civil manner in all things. Now the left doesn't want religion shoved down their throat, and the right doesn't want sin shoved in their face but somehow we have forgotten that we each have our own homes and our own lives with which to practice our beliefs, and that we have the right to remove ourselves from each venue if needed . If God is who is says he is then he has he power to convict each of us of our behavior, the only thing confusing to me is that when our government which is made up of mankind starts to legalize moral issues then they (the conflicting groups) become judge. I personally don't condone abortion, but I also have never had one and would never presume to know about the situaltions that lead people to do as they do. I don't presume to know about homosexuality, I personally believe it is unnatural, so I don't do it. And just because I have the freedom to not condone certain behaviours does not make me a bigot, or a person of inequality. I love this country and I appreciate all the freedoms that I do have.
I wish that our politician would get back to the issues that matter to us a whole. To see us prosper, in every area, including our freedoms. We could put a lid on our judgements, we could behave as if we are concerned that each of us is insured of our personal welfares. I think if one works, and pays for his way, he should not be denied any of the inalienable rights. We need to know our country is protected against violence, we need to know that as we age we will have worked and made a way for us to take care of ourselves, we need to know that our economy is good and strong, we need to know that healthcare is provided for each of us. The only thing I am not happy with is the continued allowances of handouts to people who aren't responsible for their own lives. People do make choices, choices to spend their money, and their time, choices to not go to school, and to think they deserved something better than a minimum paying job and are too proud to do it, but expect welfare. These things I have a problem with, we enable laziness. I can't see us ever becoming prosperous again with such enabling. No backbone to stand up for responsible living........

[Michael]

He's right on regarding Ramos and Campean, but he'll never get my vote as long as he supports initiatives like Prop 8.

[wyatt]

this guy freking rocks he should run for president so awsome