Posted on 05/15/2008 1:01:31 PM PDT by ROP_RIP
SACRAMENTO—Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is vowing to uphold the California Supreme Court's ruling striking down a state ban on gay marriage.
The Republican governor issued a brief statement shortly after the court announced its decision Thursday.
The governor said, "I respect the court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling."
He also reiterated his previously stated opposition to an anti-gay marriage initiative proposed for the November ballot. That initiative would write a ban on same-sex unions into California's constitution.
Last month, Schwarzenegger told a gathering of gay Republicans that he would fight the initiative.
The governor has twice vetoed legislation that sought to legalize gay marriage, saying the issue should be decided by voters or the courts.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
God will NOT be mocked.
He respects the court but not the people, that says a lot about him. How Progre$$ive of him... and all his gay staff members.
AHNOLD IS A JOKE....married to a demonrat....he is one himself hiding behind a repub’s label is all....
Don’t blame me, I voted for Tom McClintock.
Looks like Arnie is taking orders from Maria, again.
Recall of the governor over the gay marriage issue?
Never happen in a liberal state such as Calif.
He had vetoed bills to legalize gay marriage, saying that the courts or the people should decide it. He cleverly didnt’ really take sides on the core issue when he took those positions before.
But now we see, even faced with a court ruling which imposes same-sex marriage, he is not willing to try to override it with a const. amendment. He may not have been a cheerleader for same-sex marriage, but obviously he’s not willing to do anything to try to stop it.
Old Schwarz a closet homo? Or is he just another California liberal?
“saying the issue should be decided by voters or the courts”
Yeah, ya know, either or. That’s right.
WTF?
He respects the court but not the people, that says a lot about him. How Progre$$ive of him...... how gay.
“As recently as 2000, California’s voted 60-40 in a statewide referendum to prohibit gay marriage. “
That was before many conservatives got fed up and left.
Exactly, Individuals don’t have to recognize any damn thing.
Does he have a different option? Can he chose to ignore it by the law or try and take it to SC?
Why not write marriage as a union between one man and one woman of consenting age?
The homosexuals can yell all they want about the law being specfically against them, but it would be against anything that is not a marriage.
Expect no effort from the Gub or the AG for delay or contest this decision.
Both are good little liberals.
He is already being Mocked by the High Divorce Rate among heterosexual couples.
what an absolute moron.
I am sick to my stomach at what is happening in this country. This is a day of shame and outrage. HIt's going to take the constitutional amendment proposition, in November, to overturn this. And it will pass.
Governor you are a lost cause. You are a good example of a RINO that went over to the left.
Then he picked B.
Must think CA voters are idiots.
No surprise, he’s a pu**ywhipped Kennedy clone.
Passing this initiative just took on new importance!
So much for the will of the people. Not the first time CA judges have screwed the voters. Coming soon to the Supreme Court.
Public education....
Toss the turkey OUT.
The Courts have no place is establishing law. And if a ban is added to the state constitution, it is NOT an unconstitutional act. Duh.
There is dissent and no closure on the issue because all of the advances on the homosexual agenda come through the courts, not the legislature or popular vote. The people don't approve of it. It is forced upon them by activist judges.
Which is the point. They don't want "marriage". They want to destroy marriage, and this is a perfect way to do it. If marriage can mean anything, then it means nothing.
The polygamists in this country are also cheering; because if there is nothing special about marriage being between one man and one woman; then, what is so damn special about the number two?
Adding all these dependents to worker’s benefits is certain to help their budget crisis not to mention encourage more businesses to move into the state, NOT.
RNC- RINO’s coming home to roost.
Is he conservative in any way whatsoever.
is there ANY Republican out there? I don’t recognize any.
Not to mention pedophile and bestial lovers. If marriage changed definitions from "Two people of the opposite sex of consenting age..." to "Two people of consenting age...", then "Two", "consenting age", and "people" are all up for grabs.
You know, Huckabee is actually pretty good on this issue...
/ducks
People, we can’t give up on this issue. Far too many have paid the ultimate price for our freedom. We cannot let these liberal, God-hating, socialists to continue to destroy this nation. We defeated Hitler. We defeated Communism. We put a man on the moon. We can defeat this filthy evil too.
You stated what I’ve thought all along. Wonder if Duncan Hunter could be drafted to run against the Gropinator?
He can't contest it; there is no higher court in the state than the state Supreme Court. Maybe there is some way he could appeal to a Federal court, but I doubt it; I just don't see how a Federal court would have standing on such a matter..
As far as I see, the only recourse is a state constitutional amendment. He could, of course, lobby and campaign for the amendment, and it's a big shame on him that he refuses. Nevertheless, I don't think that will be necessary for the amendment to pass.
The good news is that this throws gay marraige right back into the national spotlight, and that can only be bad news for the Democrats and good news for us.
“is there ANY Republican out there? I donÂ’t recognize any”
There are plenty Republocrats but few Republicans.
Damn if this isn’t Gray Davis incarnate.
He sure lives down to his reputation.
Not to get in the way of your hysteria, but I’m not aware of a any uptick in the number of man/dog or man/child marriages in the wake of the Loving v. Virginia decision, in which an activist Supreme Court said state bans on blacks and whites marrying one another violated the constitution.
If suddenly white men being able to marry women of any color didn’t also mean they were allowed to marry, let’s say, ducks, I don’t know why saying they’re allowed to marry other men would have the same effect.
I shudder at the thought of this being the last word. My goodness. San Francisco is an hour away from San Jose where I am. Time to turn the TV off for next few weeks and months. They are going to show these ceremonies day and night.
They already have domestic “parter” benefits in most government offices (State, County and City).
oops partner
Yeah, who better to decide what kind of society they want to have,
the millions of voters or 4/7ths of an unelected body.
Agreed, The gUb shot his wad a long time ago..
and the silver lining is this does as you mentioned..
The good news is that this throws gay marraige right back into the national spotlight, and that can only be bad news for the Democrats and good news for us.
Not to get in the way of your hysteria, but I’m not aware of a any uptick in the number of man/dog or man/child marriages in the wake of the Loving v. Virginia decision, in which an activist Supreme Court said state bans on blacks and whites marrying one another violated the constitution.
One difference is that marriage was still between men and women, after the Loving ruling. I think what has people concerned is that further changes in marriage could come about based on this ruling. I agree it’s silly to say that because of this ruling, then somebody will marry a horse.
On the other hand, if we’re intellectually honest, we must say that limiting marriage to 2 people is a social norm that evolved, just as monogamous opposite sex marriage evolved. But as we see with polygamous compounds, some people live that way, and they too may demand legal recognition.
I think lotsa people are concerned that the essential nature of marriage changes if you allow same-sex marriage and that it opens the door to other changes.
I believe this decision was based on the State not Federal constitution - in which case the Cal. Supremes are the Court of last resort.
You're right, nothing is rational, let alone sacred. You're liable to get verbally shot at by the FLDS folks here about.
it may, or it may not, but of course, horses, children, etc. can’t consent to marriage, and can’t be party to a contract.
There’s also, I think, a legitimate state interest in limiting the number of partners in a marriage to two; it’s just too complicated otherwise, and who wants a situation where one of your wives says pull the plug and the other says keep him on the ventilator?
Respect my arse...this guy is a Buffoon with a capital B. He’s a flipping lier too, he vetoed 1 or 2 same-sex marriage bills his first term to placate conservatives and keep there votes for his second term run, but I always said there’d be he_ _ to pay if he was re-elected.
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.