L.A. NOW

Southern California -- this just in

« Previous Post | L.A. NOW Home | Next Post »

Tom McClintock speaks out on farm animal, gay marriage measures

Pro Prop 8, anti Prop 2 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 () | Archives (44)

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

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

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.

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

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?

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! 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.

Wow, what a jerk.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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...

"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!

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.

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.

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 .

@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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

 
1 2 | »

Connect

Recommended on Facebook


Advertisement

In Case You Missed It...

Video

About L.A. Now
L.A. Now is the Los Angeles Times’ breaking news section for Southern California. It is produced by more than 80 reporters and editors in The Times’ Metro section, reporting from the paper’s downtown Los Angeles headquarters as well as bureaus in Costa Mesa, Long Beach, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, Ventura and West Los Angeles.
Have a story tip for L.A. Now?
Please send to newstips@latimes.com
Can I call someone with news?
Yes. The city desk number is (213) 237-7847.

Categories




Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: