Newsom vetoes bill requiring gender identity to be considered in custody battles

[ThatRobGuy]

Newsom vetoes bill requiring gender identity to be considered in custody battles

California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill late Friday night that would have required judges to consider whether parents have affirmed the gender identity of their children amid custody disputes. N…

thehill.com

California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill late Friday night that would have required judges to consider whether parents have affirmed the gender identity of their children amid custody disputes.

The bill, introduced by state Assemblywoman Lori Wilson (D), would allow courts to consider each parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity when making decisions about custody and visitation.

“I urge caution when the Executive and Legislative branches of state government attempt to dictate — in prescriptive terms that single out one characteristic — legal standards for the Judicial branch to apply,” Newsom wrote in his veto letter.


Color me surprised about this one. While I think he was right to veto it (there are a plethora of factors and considerations required with regards to custody disputes beyond just "does Parent A affirm gender identity while Parent B does not")

Possible that this surprising move (vetoing a pro-Trans bill introduced by a fellow democrat in the blue state of Cali) is part of a larger strategy to move a few notches toward the middle in the chances that Biden opts to bow out and the DNC will be looking for someone else to "carry the torch"? (knowing that in order to win, there has to be some measure of moderation?)


It just seems odd...if he has no aspirations of pursuing any office beyond the scope of California, then there seems to be no political upside for him to have vetoed this bill. It certainly won't gain him any popularity points among democrats in Cali...which is why I floated the idea that maybe it's not "Cali-exclusive popularity" he's going for with that move.

Thoughts?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Newsom vetoes bill requiring gender identity to be considered in custody battles

California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill late Friday night that would have required judges to consider whether parents have affirmed the gender identity of their children amid custody disputes. N…

thehill.com

California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill late Friday night that would have required judges to consider whether parents have affirmed the gender identity of their children amid custody disputes.

The bill, introduced by state Assemblywoman Lori Wilson (D), would allow courts to consider each parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity when making decisions about custody and visitation.

“I urge caution when the Executive and Legislative branches of state government attempt to dictate — in prescriptive terms that single out one characteristic — legal standards for the Judicial branch to apply,” Newsom wrote in his veto letter.


Color me surprised about this one. While I think he was right to veto it (there are a plethora of factors and considerations required with regards to custody disputes beyond just "does Parent A affirm gender identity while Parent B does not")

Possible that this surprising move (vetoing a pro-Trans bill introduced by a fellow democrat in the blue state of Cali) is part of a larger strategy to move a few notches toward the middle in the chances that Biden opts to bow out and the DNC will be looking for someone else to "carry the torch"? (knowing that in order to win, there has to be some measure of moderation?)


It just seems odd...if he has no aspirations of pursuing any office beyond the scope of California, then there seems to be no political upside for him to have vetoed this bill. It certainly won't gain him any popularity points among democrats in Cali...which is why I floated the idea that maybe it's not "Cali-exclusive popularity" he's going for with that move.

Thoughts?

He's running for president.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Newsom vetoes bill requiring gender identity to be considered in custody battles

California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill late Friday night that would have required judges to consider whether parents have affirmed the gender identity of their children amid custody disputes. N…

thehill.com

California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill late Friday night that would have required judges to consider whether parents have affirmed the gender identity of their children amid custody disputes.

The bill, introduced by state Assemblywoman Lori Wilson (D), would allow courts to consider each parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity when making decisions about custody and visitation.

“I urge caution when the Executive and Legislative branches of state government attempt to dictate — in prescriptive terms that single out one characteristic — legal standards for the Judicial branch to apply,” Newsom wrote in his veto letter.


Color me surprised about this one. While I think he was right to veto it (there are a plethora of factors and considerations required with regards to custody disputes beyond just "does Parent A affirm gender identity while Parent B does not")

Possible that this surprising move (vetoing a pro-Trans bill introduced by a fellow democrat in the blue state of Cali) is part of a larger strategy to move a few notches toward the middle in the chances that Biden opts to bow out and the DNC will be looking for someone else to "carry the torch"? (knowing that in order to win, there has to be some measure of moderation?)


It just seems odd...if he has no aspirations of pursuing any office beyond the scope of California, then there seems to be no political upside for him to have vetoed this bill. It certainly won't gain him any popularity points among democrats in Cali...which is why I floated the idea that maybe it's not "Cali-exclusive popularity" he's going for with that move.

Thoughts?

This wasn't just about custody to my knowledge....it would consider "not affirming your child's gender identity" child abuse that could cause your child to be put into foster care.

There was a state legislator who literally said "parents should flee California" when this was originally passed....again, if I'm not mistaken.

I don't think this is a calculated presidential bid. It's an example of the problem the political left is facing due to identity politics. The left embraced identity politics as a substitute for the class politics they abandoned....and this problem is one of several similar problems. Consider this example....

California Gov. Newsom declines to back reparations checks, says slavery's legacy is 'more than cash payments'

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has declined to endorse specific recommendations from the state’s reparations task force, which voted last week to recommend proposals that could result in California’s Black residents receiving billions of dollars in reparations.

www.google.com

That's Newsome rejecting reparations. Why? Because it won't work economically. Why reject penalizing parents for not affirming "gender identity" in children? It's political suicide. California has the highest percentage of gender confused children. Why reject 1.5 million in reparations? It's economic suicide. Identity politics encourages everyone to greedily demand things for themselves...at the expense of others. Politicians have to pretend to support these things for votes....knowing full well they cannot deliver.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Not all Democrats are for Transgender surgery in kids. Also, it's getting to acceptable to liberal parents. That they might accidentally encourage their kid. Because their kid does something, that makes them think, that they're kid is Transgender.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Newsom vetoes bill requiring gender identity to be considered in custody battles

California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill late Friday night that would have required judges to consider whether parents have affirmed the gender identity of their children amid custody disputes. N…

thehill.com

California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill late Friday night that would have required judges to consider whether parents have affirmed the gender identity of their children amid custody disputes.

The bill, introduced by state Assemblywoman Lori Wilson (D), would allow courts to consider each parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity when making decisions about custody and visitation.

“I urge caution when the Executive and Legislative branches of state government attempt to dictate — in prescriptive terms that single out one characteristic — legal standards for the Judicial branch to apply,” Newsom wrote in his veto letter.


Color me surprised about this one. While I think he was right to veto it (there are a plethora of factors and considerations required with regards to custody disputes beyond just "does Parent A affirm gender identity while Parent B does not")

Possible that this surprising move (vetoing a pro-Trans bill introduced by a fellow democrat in the blue state of Cali) is part of a larger strategy to move a few notches toward the middle in the chances that Biden opts to bow out and the DNC will be looking for someone else to "carry the torch"? (knowing that in order to win, there has to be some measure of moderation?)


It just seems odd...if he has no aspirations of pursuing any office beyond the scope of California, then there seems to be no political upside for him to have vetoed this bill. It certainly won't gain him any popularity points among democrats in Cali...which is why I floated the idea that maybe it's not "Cali-exclusive popularity" he's going for with that move.

Thoughts?

Well, I think this falls into the "Even a stopped watch is correct twice a day" category. Newsom has done absolutely nothing useful or helpful in his many years of being elected to various offices. He showed us exactly who he is, if there were any doubt, so many times, but the one that really sticks out is the French Laundry birthday bash he enjoyed with friends and family during the height of the pandemic while he demanded his fiefdom be shut down.

That about does it. Yes, he definitely has aspirations and he definitely must be prevented from achieving them.