Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill :(

"SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said on Wednesday he will veto a bill to allow gay marriage in the state and said the issue should be decided by the courts or by voters directly but not by the Democrat-controlled legislature.

A veto had been widely expected after California's Assembly on Tuesday endorsed gay marriage, the first time a state legislature had taken such a step. California's Senate passed the bill last week.

Schwarzenegger's press secretary, Margita Thompson, said the governor "believes that gay couples are entitled to full protection under the law and should not be discriminated against based upon their relationship."

But since California voters approved a ballot measure five years ago defining marriage as between a man and a woman, the question of gay marriage should be put to voters again in a referendum or decided by courts, she said.

"We cannot have a system where the people vote and the legislature derails that vote," Thompson said.

Gay marriage is under review in California courts following San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's decision in 2004 to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples -- a move that set off a national debate.

California's Supreme Court has invalidated the San Francisco licenses, but left the wider issue of whether the ban on gay marriage is constitutional to lower courts.

Democrats admit the gay marriage bill was largely a symbolic gesture and had said they did not expect support from Schwarzenegger, a moderate Republican grappling with declining voter support.

"It certainly seems like he wants the courts to make the decision for him, but we truly feel like we did the right thing," said Richard Stapler, an aide to Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez.

RATINGS SLUMP

Republican media consultant Wayne Johnson said it was inconceivable Schwarzenegger would have signed the bill because his approval ratings have slumped, leaving him with only Republican support. "The people who are his strongest supporters are among the least likely to support this bill," said Johnson."

full article

Well, that is not a big surprize I guess.......

i know it's not, but it still sux :(

Yeah, I bet if they had passed a bill banning gay marriage, he would have signed off on it like a shot. Sad but true..........

This was his chance to leave a legacy to the people of California and he blew it.

Now he will be remembered for nothing other then sexually harassing women, marrying a Kennedy, and supporting discrimination against the Gay community, when all it would have taken to stop it was something so simple, his signature. Pathetic :francais: I hope he has a Gay child.

You can voice your opinion to Schwarzenegger here: http://www.govmail.ca.gov/ it's a direct link to his email page. :thumbsup:

Better to complain to him directly while you take the time to voice your opinions here. :hippy:

You can also contact Californias "first lady" here:

First Lady Maria Shriver
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 445-2841
Fax: (916) 445-4633

She doesn't have email. I wonder why?

We cannot have a system where the people vote and the legislature derails that vote,"
Have you ever seen a budget vote for your schools? They keep on having votes till it pass’s or if it finally gets voted down, they get it throw the legislature any way.

Fuck him. :)

You know California had a referendum on defining marriage as heterosexual just a few years ago. I would ask here then - out of curiousity - how exactly should you think popular expressions of opinion should equate to executive decisions. That is - What Is The Point of the Referendum Process?

For example, if 50% + people thought the US should exit Iraq, would you be inclined to take that as a "mandate" and a reason for Bush to do order an exit? Californians did this just a few years ago on the subject of gay marriage.

Also, what exactly do Californians think about their own famous referendum process?

Or look at it this way - if we get polls that say a majority of Americans want the director of FEMA fired, would you give that currency? However if it is a subject you arbitrarily disagree with - like marraige policy - should that be ignored?

Now I happen to have a problem with state referendums, because I think majority rule will infringe upon the rights of minority views... so I've always opposed it for Texas. However it is interesting that California's governor can invoke the state's recent referendum on marriage --- a now completely ignored event. Especiually since today's fashionable thought dictates that all the terrible right-wing, anti-gay political calamity began with the election of the current Presidential administration.

Steve

I actually think he did the right thing by veto'ing it.

Gay marriage SHOULD be left up to the courts to decide NOT politicians where it can be used as a popularity tool when the need arises.

Regards,

Lee

Well I don't even think it should really have much if anything to do with the courts. Not in this case, at least. Yes, I do feel the courts are there to protect people from the abuses of the other branches of government (really just what every branch is tasked with doing relative to the other 2) but in the case of California, Prop 22 passed. Whether we like it or not.

It sucks. I hated it when it passed. I hate that it passed on to today. It's shitty. But whatever, it passed. The will of the people was expressed. And unfortunately, matters regarding the rights of gay couples in this country aren't so clearly laid out or settled so as to even designate a popular proposition as either unconstitutional or in violation of civil rights and liberties.

In California, if we want gay marriage, we have to put it to the people. We need a proposition on the ballot that does away with what Prop 22 set out. Once that's done, then let the legislature legalize gay marriage in CA with the people's mandate and support.

But in the meantime, I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of the state legislature disregarding and undoing what's been put forth by the will of the majority. Whether or not it'd do me any good in this particular case, it's a bad precedent to set. What propositions will mean anything anymore? What value does the majority vote of the residents of this state have any more?

I really thought the guy was cool, but now i feel he is a shit! I feel one of the many reasons why he didn't put his name to it is because he wants to run for president or gov. again. I hope all the gay people they vote him out next time around.
maybe send him back home! gay marriage is really important to my lover and myself!

Yes --- recall and referendum. Two famous legacies of the progressive Republican / Teddy Roosevelt days of the early 20th century.

There are clear advantages with possessing the ability to speak softly and carry a big stick.

Steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desslock

You know California had a referendum on defining marriage as heterosexual just a few years ago. I would ask here then - out of curiousity - how exactly should you think popular expressions of opinion should equate to executive decisions. That is - What Is The Point of the Referendum Process?

For example, if 50% + people thought the US should exit Iraq, would you be inclined to take that as a "mandate" and a reason for Bush to do order an exit? Californians did this just a few years ago on the subject of gay marriage.

Also, what exactly do Californians think about their own famous referendum process?

Or look at it this way - if we get polls that say a majority of Americans want the director of FEMA fired, would you give that currency? However if it is a subject you arbitrarily disagree with - like marraige policy - should that be ignored?

Now I happen to have a problem with state referendums, because I think majority rule will infringe upon the rights of minority views... so I've always opposed it for Texas. However it is interesting that California's governor can invoke the state's recent referendum on marriage --- a now completely ignored event. Especiually since today's fashionable thought dictates that all the terrible right-wing, anti-gay political calamity began with the election of the current Presidential administration.

Steve

---

Steve this is EXACTLY why I value you posting here. Your knowledge about politics, amongst many other things, is so impressive. I really appreciate your posts :thumbsup:

While reading up on this topic I came across an article about a governor that passed a bill to allow interracial marriage years ago, an unpopular move at the time as 80% of the people did NOT want interracial marriage allowed.

The SF Mayor issued marriage licenses, why? Because it was the right thing to do. Extreme I know, but the right thing to do.

A judge was interviewed recently regarding his recent favorable Gay marriage ruling and he said something to the effect of the masses don't always want what is right, it's the courts responsibility to uphold the constitution.. or something to that effect. I agree.

You are right regarding referendums. Minorities are just that, and need to be protected from majority abuses. When will we just be god damn people? It's all so elementary and childish. I'm so frustrated with this. Organized religion has outrun it's use in society. The sooner Catholics, Christians and Muslims are assigned cult status the better. :francais:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desslock

Yes --- recall and referendum. Two famous legacies of the progressive Republican / Teddy Roosevelt days of the early 20th century.

There are clear advantages with possessing the ability to speak softly and carry a big stick.

Steve

---

I think gay people in this country should start yelling and then use a giant stick to beat some brains into the bible thumping church going, a_ _ holes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ponyboy

I think gay people in this country should start yelling and then use a giant stick to beat some brains into the bible thumping church going, a_ _ holes

---

Yes, it is an outrage to have to live in one of the most pleuralistic societies in the world and endure the fact that so many have different views.

Of course, Rudy Guilliani publically supports same sex marriage so I'm sure you'll be first in line to support his next election. Particularly if his opponent for President is Hillary Clinton, who is clearly on record as opposing same sex marraige. (she has the Arnold Schwarzenegger view on the subject, which we see here is tantamount to heretic)

Steve

I just want everyone to know there are a few subjects that really get me going, this happens to be one of them gay marriage.
I’m sure lots of other gay people are in the same boat and have the same feeling as I have. I pay corporation taxes, and personal taxes. I keep the front lawn cut at the right length and wash and polish my cars on Sunday. So if I want to marry my man, who is it going to hurt? Think about that, who really am I going to hurt? The lesbian couple across the street with three kids? The bi guy next door? Tell me who sponge bob am I going to hurt getting legal married?
Is INS that afraid that so many foreign gay people are going to get US green cards? Is the federal government that afraid they are going to have to give tax breaks? Maybe the good old church is going to be brought into the year 2005? After all men dressed in dresses right? The church first drag queens! They rape little boys and girls not married gay couples.
What rock was I under with the separation of state and church? When did that all change? So really what gives?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desslock

Yes, it is an outrage to have to live in one of the most pleuralistic societies in the world and endure the fact that so many have different views.

Of course, Rudy Guilliani publically supports same sex marriage so I'm sure you'll be first in line to support his next election. Particularly if his opponent for President is Hillary Clinton, who is clearly on record as opposing same sex marraige. (she has the Arnold Schwarzenegger view on the subject, which we see here is tantamount to heretic)

Steve

---

Yes she is opposed to national Gay marriage rights, she wants states to decide. She is also strongly opposed to a constitutional ban on Gay marriage. I would have to see more of Giuliani's platform to support him. Giuliani's war on porn is a real turn off and his comment that "purveyors of smut should be driven into the ocean" is disturbing.

Senator Clinton expressed opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment, a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. "I think that would be a terrible step backwards. It would be the first time we've ever amended the Constitution to deny rights to people. And I think that should be left to the states. You know, I find it hard to believe in one program [health care] I'm agreeing with Newt Gingrich, now I'm about to agree with Dick Cheney. But I think Vice President Cheney's position on gay marriage is the right one." Clinton supports the Defense of Marriage Act that allows states to decide same-sex marriage rights independently of other states. SOURCE

What our wonderful government is leaving out one very important thing. Equal right for everyone. That’s everyone not just white straight church going bigots. Senator Clinton will never win for president. Do you really think a woman is going to be able to pull of the Deep South and Midwest? Not a change!

The more moderate she becomes, the more appealing to the masses she'll be. It is possible that after the botch job Bush has done, that she has a good chance. People remember Bill Clinton and the good economy. Bill is in everyones face here supporting Bush, and Bush Sr., his PR is working for Hillary, though most people don't realize this is what he's doing.

I just wrote Hillary an email. I suggest you all do the same. It takes the same amount of time as posting to this board

http://clinton.senate.gov/email_form.html


I basically said that I want her to run for President. I also said that the only issue I had with her is the same sex issue. Though I'm glad she supports states making their own decisions regarding this same sex marriage, I'm dissapointed that she doesn't take a stronger stance on same sex marriage rights for all the 50 states. I told her that the last time I remember a minority having to move to another states to enjoy equal rights was during the days of slavery when "blacks" fleed to the Northern states for protection. I then asked her if it was right in modern day America for people to have to move cross country ( as I'm a California resident ) to enjoy the same rights as every heterosexual American.

I hope she responds.

Again... people reading please take a moment to email your thoughts to senator Clinton, and to Schwarzenegger

http://clinton.senate.gov/email_form.html - Clinton

http://www.govmail.ca.gov - Schwarzenegger


While chatting online about this is a great thing to do, we are preaching to the choir.. no sense in not taking just a few moments to have your voice heard by those in elected office. :francais:

hi there
I have wrote and wrote they don't listen on this subject. they are all afraid of the right wing good bible people :(