Arnold to Cali: No Gay Nups

According to his press secretary, Gov. Arnold will veto the state's same-sex marriage bill "out of respect for the will of the people."

AP is also reporting that, out of respect for the will of the people, Schwarzenegger may just have to forgo a second term:

The nonpartisan Field Poll found that just 36 percent of voters would support Schwarzenegger, while 56 percent would not. In February, those numbers were almost reversed, with 56 percent saying they were in favor of returning the Republican governor for a second term.

Whole thing here.

Jonathan Rauch defends gay marriage here. And Julian Sanchez reports from the battle over gay parenting here.

Comments

[Portlander]

Well, the good news is that the issue is out in the political arena now. The candidates for the legislature and governor will have to declare where they stand at the next election (like the Repubs won't wave this bloody shirt). If Cali returns a mostly-Dem legislature (a fairly sure thing, given the gerrymandering) and elects a Dem governor, then you could say the "will of the people" has changed.

Extending marriage benefits is a train that has left the station. It will get here, sooner or later. Twenty years from now, a majority of states will allow marriage benefits to more than just one-man/one-woman arrangements.

[Andy_d]

Well, I hate to make excuses for politicians, but I ~might~ be able to forgive Arnold vetoing this *if* he claims it was decided by the voters and he has to right to defy their will. Still, I'd have liked him to sign it, just because it's the right thing to do... fuck the voters.

[drew]

It actually appears as if the bill is a violation of the constitution, which does not allow a law to overturn a referendum. Since there was such a referendum barring same sex marriage in 2000 Arnold would just be saving the courts some effort.

Feel free to chastise californians for voting for a stupid ballot initiative, but in this case you really can't lay any blame on the Governator.

[dead_elvis]

which does not allow a law to overturn a referendum.

Being new here in California, I was wondering how that works. Seems like that kind of conflict would come up all the time. But it would seem wise to have some kind of time limit- after all, we'd have to have to worry about myriad referendi passed decades ago, many of which I'm sure might seem silly now.

[DB]

Drew is right. The bill violated the state Constitution; Arnie did the right thing, even if he did it for the wrong reasons.

Proposition 22 is stupid, but it's the law. Gay marriage is important, but it isn't more important than our democracy.

[Deus ex Machina]

Isn't this like allowing school segregation simply because the most (white) southerners were against it?
The problem with majoritarianism is that sometimes, the majority is plain wrong.

[Adam]

seriously..the majority are a bunch of real assholes sometimes.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

What the fuck is Arnold's problem? Is he that desperate to have another term? He bankrolled himself. I thought this was just something he was doing as a lark. Ergo, he can tell the majority to go fuck itself in cases like this, and happily close out his term.

Even after bending over for the christian right, what are his chances of being re-elected? Arnold, you're a moron.

[Rajan R]

Deus ex Machina: Funny you should use segregration as an analogy - gays can get married today. They just have to do it with the opposite sex. Can a black kid pretend to be white and go to a white school? Most states ban polygamous marriages, pretty common in some parts of the world - is it a matter of civil rights that polygamy should be allowed?

Interestingly enough there wouldn't be a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in California if weren't for gay right groups using the courts to get their way.

(BTW, I'm neither for nor against same-sex marriage... I would prefer to end government involvement in civil marriage. Marriage should be a private contract).

[thoreau]

You know, I understand both arguments: If it's unconstitutional then Arnold is to be respected for actually adhering to his oath of office and acting in accordance with his state constitution.

But if that state constitution represents nothing more than the tyranny of the majority, then it's hardly something sacred that we should be cheering about.

The solution is simple. If he really cares about gay rights AND his oath of office, he should give the following statement:

"I have no choice but to veto the bill. I respect the rights of the gays to do what they want, I think that's FANTASTIC, but the people of Kah-lee-forn-yah passed a referendum that they can't get married. So I say to the girlie men in the legislature, put this bill on the ballot so the people of Kah-lee-forn-yah can pass it and the gays can do what they want which is FANTASTIC."

I'm not holding my breath.

[Scott]

I second the notion that marriage should be taken out of the governmental realm. What this debate is really about is two rival camps of statists, each trying to impose their personal worldview on the rest of us. Arnold did the right thing in this case because irrespective of your views on the issue, what the legislature did violated the Constitution that Arnie is supposed to be upholding.

[Rhywun]

gays can get married today. They just have to do it with the opposite sex

So gays should pretend to be straight and shut up? Problem solved!

[joe]

The appropriate analogy to gay people having sham marriages to opposite sex people is not a black kid pretending to be white to get into the whites only bathroom. It's a black kid going down the block into the colored only bathroom because, hey, there are plenty of bathrooms they can use.

[R C Dean]

The solution to the referendum/constitutional ban is not to just ignore the constitution.

It is to pass another referendum or amend the constitution.

Just blowing off the law of the land because you disagree with it, when there are perfectly valid and usable mechanisms for changing said law, is a very dangerous business, folks.

[Realist]

The Calfornia referendum was statutory, it was not a constitutional amendment. Thus, it is quite possible it will be declared unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court.

There is also considerable debate about whether Prop 22 was only intended to affect out of state marriages because of the section of the California code in which it was placed.

[Realist]

"What this debate is really about is two rival camps of statists, each trying to impose their personal worldview on the rest of us."

I disagree. Allowing gay marriage is not the same thing as condoning it. This is the great obstacle that the fundies just can't get over. Government being agnostic towards something is not the same thing as endorsement.

Plenty of baptists are tetotalers, is it imposing on them to make alcohol available to others to purchase legally?

Banning gay marriage for no rational reason is the imposition of one's own beliefs on others by taking away the choice from a subset of citizens.

[Ruthless]

seriously..the majority are a bunch of real assholes sometimes.

... and not in a sexy way.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

I believe that rules and laws should only exist to make life better, not worst.

If the land is ruled by a simple majority who, in this case, are being very fucking simple, then someone needs to come along to enlighten them.

[DEA Official]

Plenty of baptists are tetotalers, is it imposing on them to make alcohol available to others to purchase legally?

Why yes it is! That was why Prohibition was so important: it freed people from the oppression of knowing alcohol was publicly available. Read about it on our website, kids!

[Akira MacKenzie]

Just blowing off the law of the land because you disagree with it, when there are perfectly valid and usable mechanisms for changing said law, is a very dangerous business, folks.

Ah, but when are we obligated to obey an immoral law?

[differentphil]

I think that the appropriate analogy to gay marriage is when laws banned inter-racial marriage. Hey, everyone was allowed to marry within their own race, so it was not discriminatory!

[jf]

I believe that rules and laws should only exist to make life better, not worst.

Agree 100%

If the land is ruled by a simple majority who, in this case, are being very fucking simple, then someone needs to come along to enlighten them.

Couldn't disagree more. Mostly because at least democratically enacted bad laws can be easily reversed. Once we get the enlightened elite running the show (kinda like now), we just have to live with the shit they decide to pass.

Also, a democratically run country would probably have no reason to license marriages in the first place. Marriage licensing is nothing more than a creation of government bureaucracy, much of which is made of of the same people you think should "enlighten" us.

[The Wine Commonsewer]

You know, I don't really care one way or the other but Kerry is right, Schwarzengroper is a putz when he says that this is for the courts to decide, which is complete and utter BS. The courts aren't supposed to be making law.

And he didn't have to veto the bill, he could just simply allow it to become law without his signature.

And, BTW, Cali is the second largest city in Columbia not a screwed up state on the left coast with astronomical taxes, shitty roads, an idiotic legislature, and a dork for a governor.

[The Wine Commonsewer]

All of the arguments over gay marriage devolve quickly because in the same way that there is no good reason to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, there is no good reason to not define it as a union between three, four, or more people. Boom, ya got polygamy. So?

Anyway, libertarians should be working to get the got dam state completely out of the marriage business not working to get everyone in the country included under the iron rules of marriage where third parties you don't know or like get to decide what the rules are.

[Realist]

If a legislature was to pass a law allowing polygamy then there's no reason to overturn it. There are more rational reasons to disallow polygamy (namely encouraging monogamy) than to disallow gay marriage.

In an ideal world the state would get out of the marriage business but this is not going to happen anytime soon, if ever.

[ChicagoTom]

Although I'm no expert, my impression was the Prop 22 was about recognizing out of state same sex marriages only. (Andrew Sullivan talks about this here )

If that's the case, then something stinks in fundieville, cuz last I checked it was judicial activism that was the alleged culprit. It wasn't that these fundies were anti-gay per say, its just that they were mad that the gays used the courts to push their agenda and bypassed the traditional lawmaking process of lobbying their legislatures and crap like that.

So I guess now the anti-gay marriage position is that gay marriage thru acts of legislation and the judciaciary are bad? Only through the popular vote referendum should gay marriage be allowed?

[Realist]

If AS really wanted the courts to sort it out then he would have signed the bill. The court would have then had two issues to decide:

1) Is Prop 22 unconstitutional? They will decide this anyways.

2) Given 1, is the newly passed law a violation of Prop 22?

As it stand, even if #1 is decided, there is still uncertainty about 2.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

jf:

I got caught up in my indignation and was very poor in making my point.

What I was hoping was that Arnold, being essentially a self-supported, lame duck, would seize this moment to school the idiot collective on adult consensual behavior. "I, in good consciece, cannot veto this bill" and then frankly explain why. Arnold would then secure a deserved place in history as a social progressive.

TWC: Your point is very interesting, in that Arnold could've just let the bill pass without his signature. Not a great option, but certainly much better then a veto. Jesus, this guy has really let me down.

[Dorkus maximus]

"If AS really wanted the courts to sort it out then he would have signed the bill. The court would have then had two issues to decide:

"1) Is Prop 22 unconstitutional? They will decide this anyways.

"2) Given 1, is the newly passed law a violation of Prop 22?

"As it stand[s], even if #1 is decided, there is still uncertainty about 2."

Governor S has as much right to decide the legal validity of the bills which cross his desk as the courts have to decide on the validity of enacted laws which have been duly challenged in legal proceedings. Each branch of govt has its proper sphere.

If Schwarzenegger deferred to the courts, instead of using his own judgment on whether to veto a bill, would be an abdication of his constitutional responsibility. It would be like President Bush signing the Campaign Finance bill without deciding the issue of the bill's constitutionality - after all, the Supreme Court can handle such details.

Did the Supreme Court's decision in favor of the Campaign Finance bill settle the "uncertainty" on the constitutional question? No way!

Much better to follow the example of President Reagan, who vetoed a "Fairness Doctrine" bill on First Amendment grounds, even though the Supreme Court had declared the Fairness Doctrine to be constitutional. Don't wait for the courts to do their job before doing yours!

[Legate Damar]

"Jesus, this guy has really let me down."

The state government hasn't declared a power- or financial-related emergency in the last 2+ years. Remember what a constant state of trouble we were in under Grey. I'm not saying a agree with him on this (nor do I really disagree. This is not an issue I really give a fig about. Pick your battles and whatnot.) I just think he's done pretty much everything we could reasonably expect of him.

[SR]

"everyone was allowed to marry within their own race, so it was not discriminatory!"

Just in case you weren't aware, Virginia seriously made that argument to the US Supreme Court in the Loving v. Virginia case.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

LD:

Actually, I'm speaking as an outside observer. I, too, live in a state that replaced a limp-dick Democratic governor with a libertarian-leaning Republican.

And I think Bob Ehrlich's chances of re-election are probably just as good as Arnold's.

I'm so depressed..

[DB]

The courts aren't supposed to be making law

Neither is the state legislature, if the law in question contradicts a referendum.

[Isaac Bartram]

If the govenator is in a mood to veto something hopefully he'll veto this turkey:

http://www.ussportsmen.org/INTERACTIVE/FEATURES/READ.CFM?ID=1605

and this one if it passes:

http://www.ussportsmen.org/interactive/features/Read.cfm?ID=1603