4 ms·

Gov. Newsom, as of late, has found his veto pen and hasn't stopped using it. He vetoed one insane law which would have taken parental rights away (AB 957 would

Gov. Newsom, as of late, has found his veto pen and hasn't stopped using it. He vetoed one insane law which would have taken parental rights away (AB 957 would have updated California law to clarify that, for the purposes of child custody and visitation decisions, a parent's affirmation of a child's gender identity or gender expression is an essential factor that must be considered in determining the best interest of the child) he also vetoed a bill which would have added caste as a protected class to California’s current anti-discrimination laws, as well as ones to decriminalize psychedelics, and one to require humans in self-driving trucks. I just can't figure this guy out, but he's such a political animal I can't believe any of these have anything to do with any sort of principles on his side.

BurningFrog 3y ago
My guess is this is preparations for a presidential run.
- ProjectArcturis 3y ago
  You'd think he'd lose the Gordon Gekko hairstyle first.
  - lazide 3y ago
    I’m not the only one who can’t believe he still keeps that thing! Woo!
    - frellus 3y ago
      To me, his smile is more like The Joker, Batman 1989, when Jack puts on flesh colored makeup but has that smile as he's talking into the TV camera. Creeps me out every time I see Newsom smile because I believe he is truly a literal psychopath.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
frellus 3y ago
Oh, add to it this one: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-10-08/newsom-vetoes-bill-that-would-make-condoms-freely-distributed-to-public-high-school-students https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-10-08/newsom-v...
babl-yc 3y ago
Hardly any politician wins an election only considering their personal beliefs and ignoring that of their electorate. It's pretty obvious he wants to run for President, so moving a bit to the right as opposed to what he'd do for a purely California political position makes sense.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
silenced_trope 3y ago
As a centrist type thank you Gov Newsom for vetoing that crazy gender identity bill. I remember as a kid being into feminine things and I couldn't imagine today the pressures on kids to start identifying as a different gender that would come from teachers and other "care givers" in our school system. I'm also against the people who say that parents shouldn't be notified if a kid is talking to a counselor about identifying as a different gender. I suspect said counselor would push the child in the different direction in order to be a "hero" - it's such a shame that we're doing this to our children while other similar countries (in Europe where they aren't doing crazy stuff) are clearly looking on at us with pity. Recently I've watched as Bill Maher has taken up the mantle of rejecting this idea as liberalism and I've been happy to see a prominent(-ish) face doing so without fear of "cancellation" or being called bigoted or risking getting fired.
- RangerScience 3y ago
  So. Uh. Can’t speak to the bill, or the veto, but turns out Letting someone else tell who you are is - generally speaking - a Bad Thing. And, turns out If you’re telling someone who you are, and they say “No, you’re not that” - well, that’s generally an even worse thing. Plus, denying autonomy - and I’ll go out in a serious limb here - IMHO is pretty antithetical to “home of the free”.
  - vel0city 3y ago
    They're talking about children. They're denied autonomy all the time. It's absolutely normal and fine usually, they're not mentally developed. Next thing you know I'll be hearing five year olds should be able to sign apartment leases drive cars or smoke cigarettes or work a full time job. After all we wouldn't want to deny autonomy.
    - RangerScience 3y ago
      (to paraphrase some quotes from some greats) I cannot rightly comprehend the ignorance of history that would engender such an utterance. I do not think that this statement is sufficiently genuine to require refutation. Reflection would be more appropriate: perhaps this should be sought in the replacement of the word “children” with any subjugated group, from “women” to “black people” to “Sicilians” to “Irish” to “<any First Nations people> to… —- People deserve the support of their families and communities in their self-actualization, and while of course that looks different for children, if you’re the kind of person that doesn’t look at kids as people then I wouldn’t be surprised to find you’re the kind of parent that finds themselves cut out of the lives of their kids as soon as they’re able.
bparsons 3y ago
He is doing what every Democrat does. Campaign from the left, govern on the right.
- gaoshan 3y ago
  But he's not governing on the Right. He's governing from much closer to the center.
kurikuri 3y ago
> insane law which would have taken parental rights away It sounds like the law would have given more rights to children who’s parents refuse to accept their child’s gender expression. To me, ‘parental rights’ could often be more aptly named ‘child ownership.’
- frellus 3y ago
  It's not about "ownership", it's about parents having a right to raise their children how they see best. No one argues against parents naming their baby (well, some on the insane far-left do, going as far as to call gender assignments at birth being wrong). A parent's job is to raise their child well, to keep them safe, healthy and morally grounded so they can develop into good human adults. Their job isn't to sit on the sidelines and let the state make decisions in these arbitrary situations. Otherwise the only "child ownership" will be the State owning our children, in the long run.
drewrv 3y ago
Can you spell out what’s insane about AB 957? Because that sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
- junofan 3y ago
  It’s poorly drafted, and family law isn’t an appropriate place for the state to take positions on emerging medical issues. Imagine if such a bill enshrined a parent’s affirmation of the violent psychiatric treatments of the 1930s and 1940s. Wiser to let the courts figure out this issue using their current tools.
  - drewrv 3y ago
    The courts will continue to have substantial leeway and the bill makes no mention of medical care: “Democratic California lawmakers have approved a bill that would instruct courts to consider, among many other factors, whether a parent affirms a child’s gender identity when making custody and visitation decisions.” https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/wireStory/fact-focus-critics-twist-california-bill-weigh-gender-103133844 https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/wireStory/fact-focus-cri...
- frellus 3y ago
  It assumes that what is in the best interest of the child is to affirm their feelings of gender dysphoria with a name change, and that the court can consider this and grant a name change over the parent's objections. Why am I against this? It is against parental rights. It takes away the rights of a parent to name their child and raise them as they see fit, and hands it to the state. I won't even get into what happens with children experiencing gender dysphoria and how the mental health profession is (mis)handling the vast majority of these by affirming the child's dysphoria, and the pressure parents receive that if they do not affirm their child's desire to transition they are putting them at mortal risk. I don't agree with any of this for children who cannot consent to any other things, legally, until they reach the age of majority. Once they do, it's up to them how to live their lives (with, or without, their parents' support). Nor is this to say I do not believe children have rights, but I see what these family courts do and in a lot of cases how biased they are, I do not think anything good would come of this law pure and simple.

BurningFrog 3y ago

My guess is this is preparations for a presidential run.

ProjectArcturis 3y ago
You'd think he'd lose the Gordon Gekko hairstyle first.
- lazide 3y ago
  I’m not the only one who can’t believe he still keeps that thing! Woo!
  - frellus 3y ago
    To me, his smile is more like The Joker, Batman 1989, when Jack puts on flesh colored makeup but has that smile as he's talking into the TV camera. Creeps me out every time I see Newsom smile because I believe he is truly a literal psychopath.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

frellus 3y ago

Oh, add to it this one: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-10-08/newsom-vetoes-bill-that-would-make-condoms-freely-distributed-to-public-high-school-students https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-10-08/newsom-v...

babl-yc 3y ago

Hardly any politician wins an election only considering their personal beliefs and ignoring that of their electorate. It's pretty obvious he wants to run for President, so moving a bit to the right as opposed to what he'd do for a purely California political position makes sense.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

silenced_trope 3y ago

As a centrist type thank you Gov Newsom for vetoing that crazy gender identity bill. I remember as a kid being into feminine things and I couldn't imagine today the pressures on kids to start identifying as a different gender that would come from teachers and other "care givers" in our school system. I'm also against the people who say that parents shouldn't be notified if a kid is talking to a counselor about identifying as a different gender. I suspect said counselor would push the child in the different direction in order to be a "hero" - it's such a shame that we're doing this to our children while other similar countries (in Europe where they aren't doing crazy stuff) are clearly looking on at us with pity. Recently I've watched as Bill Maher has taken up the mantle of rejecting this idea as liberalism and I've been happy to see a prominent(-ish) face doing so without fear of "cancellation" or being called bigoted or risking getting fired.

RangerScience 3y ago
So. Uh. Can’t speak to the bill, or the veto, but turns out Letting someone else tell who you are is - generally speaking - a Bad Thing. And, turns out If you’re telling someone who you are, and they say “No, you’re not that” - well, that’s generally an even worse thing. Plus, denying autonomy - and I’ll go out in a serious limb here - IMHO is pretty antithetical to “home of the free”.
- vel0city 3y ago
  They're talking about children. They're denied autonomy all the time. It's absolutely normal and fine usually, they're not mentally developed. Next thing you know I'll be hearing five year olds should be able to sign apartment leases drive cars or smoke cigarettes or work a full time job. After all we wouldn't want to deny autonomy.
  - RangerScience 3y ago
    (to paraphrase some quotes from some greats) I cannot rightly comprehend the ignorance of history that would engender such an utterance. I do not think that this statement is sufficiently genuine to require refutation. Reflection would be more appropriate: perhaps this should be sought in the replacement of the word “children” with any subjugated group, from “women” to “black people” to “Sicilians” to “Irish” to “<any First Nations people> to… —- People deserve the support of their families and communities in their self-actualization, and while of course that looks different for children, if you’re the kind of person that doesn’t look at kids as people then I wouldn’t be surprised to find you’re the kind of parent that finds themselves cut out of the lives of their kids as soon as they’re able.

bparsons 3y ago

He is doing what every Democrat does. Campaign from the left, govern on the right.

gaoshan 3y ago
But he's not governing on the Right. He's governing from much closer to the center.

kurikuri 3y ago

> insane law which would have taken parental rights away It sounds like the law would have given more rights to children who’s parents refuse to accept their child’s gender expression. To me, ‘parental rights’ could often be more aptly named ‘child ownership.’

frellus 3y ago
It's not about "ownership", it's about parents having a right to raise their children how they see best. No one argues against parents naming their baby (well, some on the insane far-left do, going as far as to call gender assignments at birth being wrong). A parent's job is to raise their child well, to keep them safe, healthy and morally grounded so they can develop into good human adults. Their job isn't to sit on the sidelines and let the state make decisions in these arbitrary situations. Otherwise the only "child ownership" will be the State owning our children, in the long run.

drewrv 3y ago

Can you spell out what’s insane about AB 957? Because that sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

junofan 3y ago
It’s poorly drafted, and family law isn’t an appropriate place for the state to take positions on emerging medical issues. Imagine if such a bill enshrined a parent’s affirmation of the violent psychiatric treatments of the 1930s and 1940s. Wiser to let the courts figure out this issue using their current tools.
- drewrv 3y ago
  The courts will continue to have substantial leeway and the bill makes no mention of medical care: “Democratic California lawmakers have approved a bill that would instruct courts to consider, among many other factors, whether a parent affirms a child’s gender identity when making custody and visitation decisions.” https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/wireStory/fact-focus-critics-twist-california-bill-weigh-gender-103133844 https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/wireStory/fact-focus-cri...
frellus 3y ago
It assumes that what is in the best interest of the child is to affirm their feelings of gender dysphoria with a name change, and that the court can consider this and grant a name change over the parent's objections. Why am I against this? It is against parental rights. It takes away the rights of a parent to name their child and raise them as they see fit, and hands it to the state. I won't even get into what happens with children experiencing gender dysphoria and how the mental health profession is (mis)handling the vast majority of these by affirming the child's dysphoria, and the pressure parents receive that if they do not affirm their child's desire to transition they are putting them at mortal risk. I don't agree with any of this for children who cannot consent to any other things, legally, until they reach the age of majority. Once they do, it's up to them how to live their lives (with, or without, their parents' support). Nor is this to say I do not believe children have rights, but I see what these family courts do and in a lot of cases how biased they are, I do not think anything good would come of this law pure and simple.