Arnold vetoes gay marriage bill

[yankeefanatic3]

Whomever the Dem nominee is 2006, I'm donating anything I can to him/her. I think its a disgrace. Arnold would have had my full support if he stood up on this issue unlike 99% of Democrats, now he's on my revenge list right by Rick Santorum.

He promised LGBT equality, he has failed to deliver on that promise.

Proposition 22 was for OUT OF STATE marriages, NOT in-state. Disgraceful!

[PatrioticLeftie]

1. You hear that?

That was the sound of the last shred of dignity Ahnuld could have gotten, but it's gone now.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

2. According to NPR

Arnold said the whole marriage issue should be decided by the people and the courts, not the legislature.

Well, the people elect the legislature, so it's the same thing.

As for the courts, is that a Repub advocating for activist judges making law?

[yankeefanatic3]

4. He's the only Republican who says gay marriage should be decided by the

courts

[mitchtv]

10. Only cause he's the only Repub

with a law facing him

[Isntapundit]

17. decided in the courts?

That's almost surreal. But to be expected.

[sui generis]

14. well Ahnuld, we are the people too. Listen to us you

juiced up steroid sucking bastard.

[Siyahamba]

18. So what's the point of having a legislature?

Going by his reasoning, anything passed by the legislature is invalid. Does he plan to abolish the legislature and have a referendum on every issue?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

3. Didn't Ahnuld use to pose for gay magazines?

It was back in the days when he was an apiring body builder. Before he was a successful (snicker) actor.

[Isntapundit]

19. Not only that

I've heard him speak very favorably of gays and in favor of gay marriage (or perhaps it was just civil unions). Very dissapointing. I want to see T4. Let's vote him out so he can get back to the studio where he belongs.

[dickthegrouch]

25. We should strike

A very large number of gay people in the movie business have helped him make his millions. Now we should band together and refuse to do anything for him, since he is refusing to do anything for us.

I will never pay to see another movie that he is associated with.

[baby_mouse]

5. Oh does he? SuuuurrrPRISE. nt

[bertha katzenengel]

6. Link? Everything I've seen says he hasn't done it yet. n/t

[Siyahamba]

8. Source:

He hasn't officially yet, but plans to:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050907.wgaymarriage0907/BNStory/International/

So, in case he gains a shred of dignity overnight, it's vetoed.

[Siyahamba]

7. Wonder how the LCRs are going to explain this one.

He's been their poster boy up until now.

Goes to show there's no such thing as a "moderate" Republican - they all bow to their masters in DC sooner or later.

[Siyahamba]

16. Turns out they are "deeply disappointed"

http://online.logcabin.org/news_views/log-cabin-expresses-deep-disappointment-in-governor-schwarzeneggers-veto-of-civil-marriage-equality.html

[Ian David]

29. Log Cabin Republicans "disappointed?"

They should have anticipated disappointment when they decided to become gay REPUBLICANS.

[sakabatou]

9. He's failed to deliver on everything

[mitchtv]

11. Time for Governor Newsome

[closeupready]

12. This is bad for gays, but good for Democrats, IMO.

Not that this is how anyone would wish such a thing to happen, but there you have it.

[SnowBack]

23. What's good for Democrats is more important...

Maybe Gays can lose ALL our rights... That'll be GREAT for Democrats.... :sarcasm:

[dickthegrouch]

13. We have to ask how are gays protected *by the veto*?

Equal protection, which is the constitutional law of the land, is not served by a potential veto.

Arnie's feet have to be held to the fire until he actually writes veto on the bill.

Keep calling his comment line.

If the majority had had their way, there would still be anti-miscegenation laws on the books.

Ask him how a minority can ever get redress if we are wholly dependent on the majority for our rights under that equal protection guarantee.

Ask him what part of equal does he not understand.

And ask him what is the statute of limitations on illegal drug use. If he hasn't turned in his dealer yet, he's harboring a criminal.

Think out of the box and get him scared.

[sui generis]

15. we're not waiting for permission arnold "Bigot" schwarzenegger

You had better get used to it.

[jonolover]

20. He hasn't yet. Please change your headline. It's misleading. Thank you.

n/t

[Maat]

21. It is my understanding that the way an official vetoes a bill ..

is to fail to sign it within a specified time period; it gets returned to the legislative body from which it came then.

And my understanding is that the date it gets returned is 10/9.

So, we have some time to pepper him with emails, phone calls, and letters, no?

[closeupready]

27. My understanding is that you are incorrect, that a failure to act on the

part of the governator (meaning a failure to sign it) would not stop the bill from becoming law. He has to actually say "no" by doing something, i.e., vetoing it, in order to stop it from becoming law. Ideally, he'd sign it, of course.

[jonolover]

28. That's what I thought.

Failure to say anything within the specified period of time will, on the contrary, make it a law.

[yankeefanatic3]

22. The veto didn't happen yet, but

Since the "editing period" has past I cannot change the topic. However, I see nothing in the forseeable future that indicates to me that Arnold will change his mind.

[Lexingtonian]

24. It's ugly stuff

but my take is that there is some constructive effect/merit to what Arnie is doing to come out of this.

First of all, the California Supreme Court could still- for some stupid or for some genuine technical reason of conflicting laws or imputed or real conflict with the state constitution- overturn it. That wouldn't do anyone involved any good. The CSC is not exactly famous for its moral courage or sharp and acute jurisprudence in recent years. Better to get them on board incrementally via the legalization lawsuit now running rather than allow them to fuck with a full right-conferral that seems to unusually confuse and irritate them, if their previous behavior on the issue is a guide. The CSC is a weak link, he's sadly right about that.

Secondly, Schwarzenegger has been telling marriage supporters to play the game carefully and not outrun their voter support by much. 46% is where it is, a year from now the numbers should be a bit better- the trend is all for gain now, but it's by irregular lurches. And he knows perfectly well that a similar bill will get passed during next year's Leg session. He can't sign that one either, but when polling says support is over 50% at that point (and it should be) he seems to willing to let it become law (though politically he can't afford to sign it, of course).

It's actually smart pro-marriage politics in that it respects the lesson learned from Vermont and Massachusetts etc.- that the legislative and judicial branches of state government have to be on board, along with a majority of the state electorate, for the rights involved to be secured in the absence of federal guarantees.

The human price for this playing it safe is, of course, delay of legal marriage rights in California for at least a year.

[Siyahamba]

26. Call his office at 1-916-445-2841

1) Push 2 to voice your opinion on legislation.
2) Push 1 to choose the gender-neutral marriage bill.
3) Push 1 to support marriage equality.

Simple!