You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Culture Wars
Schwarzenegger Vows Gay Marriage Bill Veto
2005-09-08
Legislature to the people of California: "F*&k you".
Gov. Schwarzenegger - "I don't think so"

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced Wednesday he will veto a bill that would have made California the first state to legalize same-sex marriage through its elected lawmakers. Schwarzenegger said the legislation, given final approval Tuesday by lawmakers, would conflict with the intent of voters when they approved an initiative five years ago. Proposition 22 was placed on the ballot to prevent California from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries.
won by over 30% margin IIRC. The people will go for civil unions/domestic partners with full legal rights - just don't call it marriage.
"We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote," the governor's press secretary, Margita Thompson, said in a statement. "Out of respect for the will of the people, the governor will veto (the bill)." Proposition 22 stated that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The bill to be vetoed by Schwarzenegger would have defined marriage as a civil contract between "two persons."

In Massachusetts, recognition of gay marriages came through a court ruling. Gay rights advocates accused Schwarzenegger of betraying the bipartisan ideals that helped get him elected in the 2003 recall. "Clearly he's pandering to an extreme right wing, which was not how he got elected," said Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, one of the bill's sponsors. "He got elected with record numbers of lesbian and gay voters who had not previously voted for a Republican, and he sold us out."

Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said she was not surprised by word of Schwarzenegger's pending veto. "Any girlie man could have vetoed this legislation," she said, referring to a term Schwarzenegger used previously to mock Democratic legislators. "A real man demonstrating real leadership as governor of the most populous state in the nation would have chosen a different course of action."

The governor has until Oct. 9 to issue the veto. Despite his promise to do so, Schwarzenegger "believes gay couples are entitled to full protection under the law and should not be discriminated against based upon their relationship," Thompson's statement said. "He is proud that California provides the most rigorous protections in the nation for domestic partners."

The Republican governor had indicated previously that he would veto the bill, saying the debate over same-sex marriage should be decided by voters or the courts. A state appeals court is considering appeals of a lower court ruling earlier this year that overturned Proposition 22 and a 1978 law that first formally defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Meanwhile, opponents of same-sex marriages are planning measures on the ballot next year that would place a ban on gay marriages in the state Constitution.

Schwarzenegger's announcement dampened a celebratory mood among the bill's supporters, who only the night before cheered, hugged and kissed as the state Assembly narrowly sent the bill to the governor's desk. Democratic Assemblyman Paul Koretz had called bans on gay marriage "the last frontier of bigotry and discrimination."
Posted by:Frank G

#12  If that redistricting admendment passes it will end a lot of these LLL political careers and good ridden to them.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2005-09-08 19:01  

#11  forced to veto? Arnold's asking to be thrown in that briar patch
Posted by: Frank G   2005-09-08 16:53  

#10  This was a deliberate set-up. A number of Democrat Hispanic legislators somehow were 'convinced' to vote for it. The objective by the opposition is to throw legislation at the governor that he'll be forced to veto.
Posted by: Pappy   2005-09-08 16:31  

#9  The CA legislature is so out of touch with the people. It is unbelievable. They don't care about fixing any of the problems that have led to the HUGE debt. Instead the say "F*U...here's another gay marriage bill and another illegal alien drivers license bill. How do you like me now???" Keep your fingers crossed the redistricting proposition passess in November. Right now every district in the State is a "safe" district for the incumbent. Even some Republicans are against the proposition. They rather have a "safe" district and be in the minority than have to compete and be accountable to the voters.
Posted by: intrinsicpilot   2005-09-08 13:41  

#8  See Eugene Volokh on the subject. "California Legislature About To Violate the California Constitution?"
Posted by: James   2005-09-08 12:08  

#7  No, I'm not talking about possible reproduction. I'm talking after the fact. The government bennies [tax deductions, expenses, etc] should be focused upon the children, not based upon contracts between adults. What adults agree upon is their problem and in no way should obligate a third party [the state as the representative of the people] for anything, with the state only being involved in resolution of in breach of contract [in writing or implied] as a disinterested third party. The children, who being unable by definition to take care of themselves, are the interest of the state in any such unions. If you remove the governmental monetary rewards for marriage and move it to children, I suspect a lot of the activist movement for acquiring the cultural annotation of 'marriage' will disappear.
Posted by: Flack Elmegum1744   2005-09-08 10:50  

#6  "He got elected with record numbers of lesbian and gay voters who had not previously voted for a Republican, and he sold us out."

Guess whos not getting invited to next years parade.
Posted by: DepotGuy   2005-09-08 10:28  

#5  FE - Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but do you mean that the only people who could get married are the ones who could possibly have children? I don't want that to be the criteria for allowing marriage between two people.
Posted by: Desert Blondie   2005-09-08 10:10  

#4  Its all about $$$. Someone wants the special treatment that another group receives. After no-fault divorces the whole concept changed but the state subsidies and perks remained. Time to adjust that by limiting any differences in treatment to be based solely on raising children. Once you take the monetary incentive out of the formula, a lot of the pressure for 'same sex' marriage will disappear and the fight for adoptions by gays increase. Follow the money.
Posted by: Flack Elmegum1744   2005-09-08 09:49  

#3  hasta la vista girly men. no you can't marry in Caleefornia. I veto it.
Posted by: Gubernator   2005-09-08 07:30  

#2  Pretty simple>

The people spoke and passed a law via the ballot initiative - by an overwhelming

THe legilsationtried to override the people with a flwed bill.

The Governator did the right thing: vetoing the bill.

If they want a bill passed, and signed, word it so it doesnt violate the state constitutional law as enacted by the ballot initiative.

Semantics matter.
Posted by: OldSpook   2005-09-08 05:45  

#1  Actually the solid center in California opposes this Bill. Arnie can safely vetot it. If he was pandering to the extreme right he would suggest killing all gays.

Californians support equal rioghts for all. Same sex marriage is not a civil right in this state by voter enacted state law.
Posted by: Sock Puppet O´ Doom   2005-09-08 00:54  

00:00