Posted on 09/08/2005 7:50:43 AM PDT by SmithL
Proposition 22, approved by 61 percent of the voters in March 2000, declared, in full: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.'' Because it was passed by initiative, it can't be amended without another public vote, under state constitutional rules that protect the public's right to make laws at the ballot box.
In announcing his planned veto through a spokeswoman, Schwarzenegger said any attempt by the Legislature to legalize same-sex marriage would conflict with Prop. 22.
Prop. 22 and a 1977 legislative measure, which first defined marriage in California as the union of a man and a woman, are being challenged in lawsuits by same-sex couples and the city of San Francisco. Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer ruled in March that the marriage restriction constituted sex discrimination and violated the fundamental right to marry the partner of one's choice, but Kramer put his ruling on hold while it is appealed.
Meanwhile, Prop. 22 remains in effect, along with the 1977 marriage law that it reinforced.
The conservative groups that sponsored the ballot measure say its meaning is clear: California cannot recognize any same-sex marriage, no matter where it was performed. But gay-rights groups argue that the circumstances that led to the passage of Prop. 22 support a narrower interpretation, which would only prohibit recognition in California of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Liberals hate ballott initiatives, because the people get to speak directly. It's only a matter of time before they get them ruled "unconstitutional."
Nice move by Arnold. He personally supports gay marriage but yet he honored the wishes of the people.
He just got himself re-elected...methinks.
I don't see how. This waffle-fest doesn't play well on either side of the aisle.
He should have just strongly vetoed.
I didn't read the "hands are tied" in the text so I am assuming the title of the story was meant to be a signal to the homosexuals of california that arnold is not against them?
At least 61% of the LEGAL citizens said NO! to homosexual sham marriages (and probably 98% of the illegals agree)!
I wonder about that. I can't see the culturally liberal Arnold campaigning on his decision to stand up for the will of the people. He'll probably be cowed into treating this veto as a shameful act by his Hollywood pals and the media, and as such will probably never mention it on the campaign trail.
And while Arnold should be commended for this vote, he is far from good on the ultimate resolution to the issue. He has said that he thinks the matter of gay marriage should be decided by the people OR the courts. "Or the Courts?" How can someone hold such a position whereby one side guarantees an opposite outcome to the other?
People = No gay marriage
Courts = Gay marriage imposed
I thank God that Arnold veto'ed this monstrocity
You make a valid point.
And it shouldn't!!! This was in no possible way any "act of courage!" Political, or otherwise!!!
He simply had no other option, so no big whup!!!
Waspman, when you have no courage to begin with, anything that can be stuffed into the hole will do !!!! ;o)
You left out Utah, in which it passed with about 66% of the vote.
And in Aug of 2004, Missouri passed an initiative with 71% of the vote, while in Sept one was passed in Louisiana with 78% of the vote.
So for all of 2004 it was 13 out of 13, with an even higher average.
Several more states will have amendments go out to the people next year, and its a pretty safe bet that all will pass once again.
I wonder if it would have stood the test of the courts with Prop 22 not resolved at this time...
Bet the 9th circuit overturns it?
I'd be surprised if there isn't such a case already pending in some state and federal courts.
If it is left to the judiciary, then at a minimum civil unions will be imposed, but most likely full-blown gay marriage. I don't think there is any doubt about this. The current Sup Court would probably do it. Even if Bush hasn't screwed up with Roberts, and doesn't screw up with future nominations, and we finally get a conservative majority, then who is to say that 20 or 30 yrs from now a future Court won't do it?
The only way to deny victory to the Left is for some sort of federal Amendment that at a minimum bars judicial review of all things having to do with marriage and the legal status afforded to it.
Of course the Congress could pass a law that does just that, as the House did last year, but Frist never even brought it up in the Senate. And if it came close to passing, then the cries about infringing on 'judicial independence' (i.e. judicial supremacy) would be deafening, and would probably intimidate the GOP into backing off.
And of course the Congress and President could simply refuse to obey such a SCOTUS order, but the chances of that are probably one in a billion.
Exactly. vetoing this legislation is far from a heroic act. It was not a choice. It is not remarkable. It is not even noteworthy.
Vetoing an attempt at the legal sanctification of homosexual marriage in a Judeo-Christian nation or illegal immigration in a nation of laws is expected in accordance with our national traditions, is demanded by law, and simply borne of a wisdom that over 2000 years of recorded history has provided to us.
What is also unremarkable is that a handful of political activists would attempt to seek partisan, political gain from this unremarkable act. Those on the far left would use it as ammunition to vanquish their foe and fanatic loyalists in the Republican Party shout from the rooftops of the governor's courageous action in the face of the pervasive liberalism in California.
I agree with those who suggest Schwarzenegger had no political alternative. When Schwarzenegger vetoes this legislation he will have improved his image from the center to center left of the political spectrum overshadowing the antics of the far left in the Democrat Party. Schwarzenegger's veto will neither impress nor irritate political conservatives since they expected nothing less. His veto will improve his image with some, more moderate Republicans.
Speaking of partisan political activists, you'll notice Wasp that the majority of those heaping praise on his decision and eliciting greater expectations for his political future within the Republican Party are not California residents who must suffer under the growing pile of debt, taxes and restrictions to personal freedoms that his administration has promoted and/or signed into law.
Thanks for emphasizing the obvious in the face of the irrational exuberance. "The king has no clothing" is not a popular message but it must be repeated again and again on a grass roots, conservative forum for fear the flock will succumb to the siren call of the Republican Party.
Superb summation, Amerigomag!!!
So when's he going to veto the damn thing?!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.