Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill :(

[basschick]

"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

[CJ-KJCash]

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

[basschick]

i know it's not, but it still sux

[CJ-KJCash]

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..........

[Squirt]

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.

[Squirt]

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?

[ponyboy]

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.

[XXXWriterDude]

Fuck him.

[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

[Lee]

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

[BDBionic]

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?

[ponyboy]

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!

[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

[Squirt]

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:

[ponyboy]

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