Arnold Will Veto Same-Sex Marriage Bill
Via Xrlq (in the comments) comes word that Arnold Schwarzenegger will veto the same-sex marriage bill.
I am sympathetic to the concept of same-sex marriage, but I think Schwarzenegger has it just right. This bill clearly conflicts with Proposition 22 (which I voted against), and cannot legally become law without submission to the voters — something the bill does not contemplate. For more, see Dafydd ab Hugh’s earlier post.
UPDATE: The story also says: “The Republican governor had indicated previously that he would veto the bill, saying the debate over same-sex marriage should be decided by voters or the courts.” I don’t support that. Voters, yes. Courts, no.
If Arnold wants the courts to resolve the issue, he has it wrong. If Arnold wants Proposition 22 (meaning the voters) to resolve it, he has it just right.
Its impossible to have same sex “marriage”.
While not trademarked, this term applies only to a dual gender pairing. Any other use would be an infringement.
A homosexual union recognized by civil autorities must have a different label. Marriage is taken, but may I suggest, “dualsihood” (TM).
There you go P, I got the IP ball rolling for you.
Paul Deignan (664c74) — 9/7/2005 @ 9:04 pm” I think Schwarzenegger has it just right.”
I hope you’re not referring to his ‘leave it to the courts’ language.
actus (9982e6) — 9/7/2005 @ 9:06 pmActually, I was just about to do an update making that clear.
Patterico (756436) — 9/7/2005 @ 9:24 pmHowever, his “leave it to the courts” thing references the bullshit “prop 22 was only for out of state stuff!” argument.
Of course, he didn’t put that the right way at all, but what do you expect? I didn’t vote for the guy.
(I won’t in 2006 either. I’ll be voting for Jerry Kilgore, in all likelihood)
Angry Clam (a7c6b1) — 9/7/2005 @ 9:33 pmHmmmmmmm, sounds like a Kallifornia problem.
I’ll let you fellas
Paul Deignan (664c74) — 9/7/2005 @ 9:57 pmstraightensort this out yourselves.Theres nothing in prop 22 that suggests it has anything to do with out of state or in state marriages. It simply defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.
h0mi (630f1b) — 9/7/2005 @ 11:13 pmHe should have said, which is what I think he meant:
“I’d prefer to see if the courts support the will of the people, if not the people should initiate a constitutional amendment to express there will.”
RiverRat (f64620) — 9/8/2005 @ 3:19 am” It simply defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.”
Leaves plenty of room for defining other relations then. Leave it to the courts!
actus (9982e6) — 9/8/2005 @ 5:43 amI have figured it was sloppy reporting in that he meant that Prop 22 is already before the courts. If they ok Prop 22 isn’t this bill unconstitutional in CA?
Veeshir (e06f00) — 9/8/2005 @ 6:09 am[…] Patterico says this is the right thing for Arnold to do. […]
Balloon Juice (c62e7c) — 9/8/2005 @ 6:39 am“Gay marriage” is an oxymoron or at least a moronic view of the commitment between a man and a women.
savet (c34d74) — 9/8/2005 @ 7:14 amI continue to be confused why anyone thinks that civil rights and equality should be a matter of popular vote.
Don (fb9a90) — 9/8/2005 @ 9:04 amThese guys are way overplaying their hand. All this rhetoric about “gay rights”, “gay bashing” and “civil rights”, makes one think about enslaving gays, beating them in the head with a bat, or not letting gays vote or ride on buses. What they want is hot man-on-man weddings!!
The governor vetoed this stupid bill AB866 which “requires candidates who sign a code of fair campaign practices to refrain from using negative references to a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.” Some other bill would have made them list on a state run website the candidates who signed the pledge.
The Sacramento Bee runs the story with the headline “Governor Vetoes Anti-gay Bashing Measure”. Wow. This stuff is just too funny.
Shredstar (532850) — 9/8/2005 @ 9:31 amI don’t think that Arnold wanted to veto this bill, given his more libertarian leanings in the past. He was caught because he has pinned his reform hopes on Propositions in order to get around a completely hostile Assmebly.
Gamer (ed8c2d) — 9/8/2005 @ 9:45 amPatterico – I think that you’re mostly right on this. The courts have a legitimate role in determining whether or not the text of Proposition 22 violates the state constitution. The Legislature has no business trying to do an end run around a ballot initiative at all.
I agree with the legislature on the merits of gay marriage; I disagree that they have the legal power to do what they just did.
aphrael (6b0647) — 9/8/2005 @ 9:55 amA MODEST PROPOSAL:
WHERE AS the legitimacy of government is dependent on the consent of the governed, and
WHERE AS elected representatives of the State of California, meeting as a legislative body, have blatantly disregarded the will of the people as expressed in a popular vote, and
WHERE AS the legislature has voted to establish that which the people have specifically rejected.
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED, the legislature is in violation of the most fundamental rights of the PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA and has violated the legitimacy to govern.
THEREFORE, WE THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA CALL ON THE GOVERNOR TO VETO THE REPUGNANT LEGISLATION.
Black Jack (ee3eb6) — 9/8/2005 @ 9:58 amTHEREFORE, WE THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA CALL ON THE GOVERNOR TO VETO THE REPUGNANT LEGISLATION.
Shredstar (532850) — 9/8/2005 @ 10:46 amVote yes on the governor’s redistricting proposition 77. This goes a long way towards reducing gerrymandering. Many legislators are afraid of what this will do to them.
Black Jack,
methinks your final “therefor” is for girly-men.
“Therefore, WE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, for the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE PURPOSE of excercising our sovereign political authority over the government DO HEREBY DISSOLVE THE LEGISLATURE, FORBID ALL CURRENT MEMBERS FROM EVER HOLDING ELECTED OR APPOINTED OFFICE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AGAIN, AND DESIGNATE October 13th, 2005 as the day for holding a General Election to reconstitute the Legislature.”
I realize that this hoses the 15 Senators who voted against the measure, as well as the Assembly”persons” who did likewise, but it would, hopefully, get the point across.
Bikerdad (a548c0) — 9/9/2005 @ 6:19 pmBikerdad,
Your suggestion has several good points, but I can’t agree to punish the innocent. Perhaps you might consider allowing the virtuous 15 to run for office again. Does 10/13 have any special significance?
In my initial formulation the final “Therefore…” did contain stronger provisions, although not as specific and forceful as yours. However, recent experience with strong language gave me pause to reconsider and mollify my rhetoric.
Black Jack (ee3eb6) — 9/10/2005 @ 8:22 amIn Vermont, a court decision pushed the state legislature into allowing civil unions for homosexuals. In Massachusetts, a court decision didn’t leave the state legislature with as much leeway as Vermont’s had. Had either state voted on something similar to Proposition 22, neither Vermont’s civil unions nor Massachusetts same-sex “marriages” would have been passed.
But California is just too weird. Your state (and the state in which I was born, but from which I happily escaped) did pass Proposition 22, and now your state legislators want to, very specifically, go against the expressed will of the voters? How stupid is that?
We have a representative rebublic, in which the governing authorities are elected by the will of the people. There are a lot of situations in which our elected representatives have to decide things on which there is no clear mandate or expressed will of the people, and that is why we elect representatives. But the idea that a majority of both houses of the state assembly would go directly against the expressed will of the people strikes me as outstandingly arrogant.
Congratulations to Governor Schwarzeneggar for vetoing this bill.
Dana R. Pico (a071ac) — 9/10/2005 @ 5:29 pmDana P Pico,
I knew it, with a great name like yours, you just had to have roots in the Golden State. By the way, there are still isolated spots here where the lunitic fringe is kept in check.
Black Jack (ee3eb6) — 9/11/2005 @ 4:46 pmBlack Jack,
I had considered allowing the 15 “innocents” (and their compadres in the Assembly) to run again, but there are two problems with that. First, it likely will appear blatantly partisan. (I don’t know if all of them were Republicans, but my guess is they were.) Second, it is the Legislature as a whole that is being punished. The dissenters have utterly failed to reign in their anti-republican/anti-democratic colleagues, and by all accounts, they’re just as much a part of the out-of-control political establishment as the 21. Being the “Loyal Opposition” is meaningless when no real opposing ever occurs. (Its times like these when the practice of coalition parliementary governance is attractive.)
As for the date, yes, its significant. October 13th is the date that the SOVEREIGN CITIZENS of California, in whom ALL political power and authority within California resides, adopted their Constitution and in the process DELEGATED some of their power to the resulting government.
Respectfully, BD
Bikerdad (a548c0) — 9/12/2005 @ 9:01 amOK, I’m halfway there. I accept your suggestion to dissolve the legislature, but I’m not ready to ban the incumbents from standing for office again. Let those who wish to toss their hats into the ring do so, the voters can decide. Is that good enough?
Thanks for explaining 10/13. It is a most appropriate date.
Black Jack (ee3eb6) — 9/12/2005 @ 10:05 amBlackJack,
Okay, no lifetime ban. How does a 6 year ban sound?
Bikerdad (a548c0) — 9/13/2005 @ 12:13 pmIt sounds pretty pointless to me. We already have lifetime bans on most legislators who served in the 1990s, and that hasn’t gotten us anywhere. Why would a new lifetime ban on the current members (who, a few years from now, will be banned anyway) make any difference?
Xrlq (816c74) — 9/13/2005 @ 3:25 pmBD,
Dissolving the Legislature and holding new elections, sans any ban, will suffice to make your point. In my view, any extraneous issues attendant will be exploited by the Left to confuse matters and to shift debate away from appropriate reasons for dismissing elected lawmakers. That case will have to be made in the public arena over vigorous MSM opposition. The caterwauling will be shrill enough as it is without adding fuel to the fire. Give and take is the way things work. What say you?
Black Jack (ee3eb6) — 9/14/2005 @ 8:10 am[…] When Arnold vetoed the bill, I supported him. Here’s what I said at the time: I am sympathetic to the concept of same-sex marriage, but I think Schwarzenegger has it just right. This bill clearly conflicts with Proposition 22 (which I voted against), and cannot legally become law without submission to the voters — something the bill does not contemplate. For more, see Dafydd ab Hugh’s earlier post. […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » L.A. Times Has Ignorant Editorial on Gay Marriage in California (421107) — 1/3/2007 @ 6:10 pm