quote:

---

This sounded very strange to me since all the howling thus far has been about "activist judges" messing in the issue that should be left up to legislatures. Seems the reality is the Republicans want it left up to whichever branch of government will give them what they want.

---

To me it just sounds like he doesn't want to deal with the politcal fallout, which will happen no matter what he does. For him, it's really a lose-lose situation.
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
OK, I'll buy that. It did strike a cord, though, because this is the first time in the past 6 years I've heard a republican say anything was best left up to the courts.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
You make a good point.

But I think it's generally a mistake to lump him in there as just another republican. Socially, he has more in common with the Dems than the Repubs.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Well, that didn't last long. He's announced he will veto it.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I'd just like to hear a Republican explain how exactly gay marriage is supposed to become legal.
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
Well you're supposing too much. First you'd have to find one that would accept your premise (Gay marriages are "supposed" to become legal), then you'd have to find one brave enough to stand up against the extreme right wing faction that has taken control of the party in recent years.

In short, I'd like to hear that too, but I'm not holding my breath.
 

---

Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
No, if a veto were his desire, Schwartznegger would have already vetoed it, instead of sending up trial balloons via political aides. Instead it is likely that he will wait until the last legally allowable moment for approval/disapproval before making an irrevocable decision.

Schwartznegger said he would follow the intent of California's law of the land, Proposition22 which states (paraphrased):
The State of Califonia will not recognize same sex marriages approved by other states or nations.
And one would have to admit that it would be absurd to recognize Californian same sex marriages while negating the validity of same sex marriages performed in other states and nations. Or to assume that voters would approve of the former while disapproving of the latter.

The Legislature is essentially making an attempt to overide voter-approved Law -- admittedly by legally dubious sidestep -- which it cannot do under the CaliforniaConstitution.
The Governor of California swears into Office with the promise to enforce the law of the land. Hence Schwartznegger's "this is not a matter for the legislature, but should be determined by the courts or the people."

However, even voter-approved law must meet the standards set by the Constitution. And here, lower courts have already found Prop.22 lacking, with their finding of unconstitutionality stayed (ie delayed in terms of enforcement) to allow time for appeals through the higher courts.
And hence his probable decision to wait for a full month in hopes that higher courts or the CaliforniaSupremeCourt will set the law of the land, taking the political bomb out of his hands; or at least with the Court taking the brunt of the political explosion sure to follow.

[ September 09, 2005, 02:06 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
He said he would veto it according to a report this morning.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
From the reading I've done on the subject, it seems like a very cagey political decision to me. By exercising his veto rather than just waiting 30 days, he keeps the support of social conservatives in his voter base, and then if a higher state court rules against outlawing same-sex marriage, the "activist judges" suffer the brunt of the backlash. Thus the Governator keeps his (slim, barring Constitutional amendment) Presidential hopes alive.
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
If this country passes a constitutional amendment in order to allow Arnold Schwarzenegger to become President it has to be a sign of the apocalypse.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 



 

---

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
When the courts do it, like in Massachussetts, the thumpers say it needs to be done by the legislature. When the legislature does it, like in California, the thumpers say it needs to be done by the courts.

Who can take them seriously after that?
 

---

Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
Passing the buck on tough decisions is an all-American tradition: witness Katrina.

That 36% support that Schwartznegger still enjoys is mostly Democrats and independents who voted for him. So there ain't much sense in chasing after the Republican core. The core voters who choose the Republican candidates in the primary elections deserted him long ago.
And the US ConstitutionalAmendment was in play only back when Republicans still had hope that the Arnold was the Adolf.

And I'm still wondering where you guys got that "Arnold is gonna veto it immediately".
Cuz ya wrote before 7 in the morning California time, which makes it highly unlikely that there was news of change since the articles upon which I based my thoughts.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
I never heard "immediately." I had a CNN alert come through and it just said that he had stated he would veto it. No specific timeline.

I'm very disappointed.

I did notice that Terminator 3 is now in the bargain bins for $4.50 on VHS.

Not that there's any correlation.
 

---

Posted by RoyHobbs (Member # 7594) on :
 
QUOTE: "California voters in 2000 passed Proposition 22 recognizing marriage as only between a man and a woman."


This sounds like the legislature now is not representing the best interests of their constituents. It is thus the governors job, if he sees something as aggregious as this, to actually act in the peoples best interests as they have shown them to be.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Hard to say, really.

What was voter turn out like? By what margin did Prop 22 pass?

More importantly, if it is an unconstitutional law, the legislature can and should address that.

Sure, maybe they will end up addressing it in a way that the people who voted in favor of Prop 22 won't like, but the thing to remember is that CA has a "representative" form of government, those representatives form an independent branch of the government. Once elected, they are supposed to represent ALL citizens.

When you say "Best interests" of their constituents, that can be interpreted in a number of ways.

One sensible approach would be to craft a law that wouldn't cause the state to have to spend huge amounts of taxpayer money defending it from legal challenges. That'd be in the public interest, wouldn't it?

Or, sometimes lawmakers have to decide that fairness and equity over-ride the current attitudes of constituents. In those cases, pressing the case on an issue that's unpopular is still "in the best interests" of the state and its people, no?

One thing about our government is that it isn't ALWAYS majority rule. There's a bit of room for elected officials to vote their conscience even if that goes against the tide of public opinion.

And the public can then choose to vote the rascals out and hire someone who will do the job they want.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RoyHobbs:
QUOTE: "California voters in 2000 passed Proposition 22 recognizing marriage as only between a man and a woman."

This sounds like the legislature now is not representing the best interests of their constituents. It is thus the governors job, if he sees something as aggregious as this, to actually act in the peoples best interests as they have shown them to be.

---