This position makes no sense whatsoever:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) announced Wednesday night that he will veto landmark legislation that would have allowed same-sex couples to marry.
In a statement, Schwarzenegger’s press secretary, Margita Thompson, said the governor opposes the legislation, passed Tuesday night by the California Assembly and last week by the state Senate, because he thinks the matter should be decided by California’s courts or its voters.
Schwarzenegger’s decision ends the prospects for the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, which passed along strict party lines after an impassioned debate in the California Assembly. The measure would have recast the state’s legal definition of marriage as a union between two people rather than a union between a man and a woman.
The vote marked the first time that a state legislature had approved a bill authorizing same-sex marriage without a court order. Massachusetts has passed regulations allowing gay marriage, but only after state courts ordered it to do so.
Don’t the voters select the legislators? Since when do we want the courts to decide these issues.
Given that anymore the election of a Republican statewide in California is an aberration, it will be interesting to see what happens if Arnold does veto this and a Democrat is elected to succeed him. Will the legislature pass it again, or will the bill suddenly not have the votes to be passed again?
*** Update ***
Patterico says this is the right thing for Arnold to do.
Defense Guy
John
What about the voters decision on Prop 22? Do the legislators get to trump that?
Honestly the whole thing is a kludge. The rights inherent in the institution of marriage should be available to gay couples as well, whether they call it a ‘marriage’ or not.
pmm
I have exactly no dogs in this fight, but Dafydd at Patterico explained it (I think):
I don’t see how folks can maintain that they’re just acting on principle, though, if they resort to judicial appeals to block SSM…
TM Lutas
The people of California shouldn’t have to go through another referendum ratifying their Proposition 22 vote and enshrining it in their Constitution. The legislature should have had more sense. I’m glad Gov Schwarzenegger did. All I can hope for at this point is that Ahnold takes the time in his veto message to explain the secular reasons why marriage needs to either stay the same or change in the opposite direction, tying it more firmly to procreation, children, and child raising.
The state has legitimate interests in this aside from any religious appeal and people seem afraid to speak the truth. The truth is that you can’t have the modern welfare state *and* marriage laws decoupled from the duty to create and prepare the next generation in the modern welfare state’s many ponzi schemes. We’re already dancing on the edge of a demographic cliff. We need to back away from the edge, not go forward over it.
Xrlq
Schwarzenegger cited Prop 22 in his statement promising to veto the bill. To have signed it would have been political suicide, and a pointless exercise anyway since courts would have easily struck it down on the same basis.
Krista
The thing is, if marriage is all about procreation, then what about married couples who cannot or choose not to have children? Is their marriage somehow less valid?
The state may have a valid interest in demographics. However, banning gay marriage will likely have no effect on birth rates. Are all of these gay people going to say, “Oh well, if I can’t marry the person I love, I may as well play hetero, get married and have kids.”? I doubt it.
TallDave
Well, I think gays should have the right to marry, but doesn’t a referendum carry more weight than a legislature vote?
I say give it time. This shouldn’t be rammed down people’s throats.
Krista
A referendum WOULD carry a lot of weight, absolutely. The thing is, each state’s government has a pretty darned good idea as to where their constituents stand on the gay marriage debate. So if they keep that in mind, and legislate accordingly, it would probably have the same results as a referendum, and would cost a lot less.
Steve
If Arnold signs the bill, the courts can sort out whether that conflicts with Prop. 22. There is no sense in which signing the bill takes the issue “out of the courts.”
It’s amazing how Republicans in one state can claim that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the legislature rather than the courts, and Republicans in another state can claim that the issue should be decided by the courts rather than the legislature, and some people will claim that BOTH are principled positions.
Anderson
Sorry, I think the Governator has stated a valid reason for his veto. It sure looks like the legislature is trying to reverse Prop. 22. If the people of California have insisted on being bigots, it’s not the legislature’s job to change that.
demimondian
No, it doesn’t. A referendum is a statutory modification, not a constitutional one — and there are significant procedural differences between them. The legislature absolutely has the power to override an initiative from the people.
JWeidner
So, by that reasoning if the people of California voted to reinstate Jim Crow laws, it wouldn’t be up to the legislature to attempt to correct that? How about the courts?
The people aren’t always right.
capelza
In Oregon we have initiatives instead of propositions. All it takes is a certain number of signatures to get it on the ballot. Is that how it works in California?
Early in the morning, but I believe that the “Assisted Suicide” iniative passed once by the people, then the legislature overturned it (I was up north and out of state for a bit of the in between stuff) and then it was AGAIN put on the ballot as an initiative, where, AGAIN it was passed. Of course, we have the Bush Dept of Justice riding our butts up here, trying to overturn it, but that’s a different story.
Where am I going with this? I’d say, sign the bill. The legislators were elected to represent their districts. If the people are so up in arms about it, then they can demonstrate it with a second intiative or by electing folks who better represent them. I’m still all quirked up about a Republican saying, “It’s for the courts to decide…” Now that’s a chuckle.
ppGaz
As long as there is a politican out there who calculates that he can get one more vote by supporting bigotry or demagoguery in this issue, this nonsense will go on. The President of the United States does it …. why not Arnold?
Anderson
How about the courts?
The people aren’t always right.
Maybe not even usually right. Yes, it’s the courts’ job to step in.
Not, btw, that I think legislatures should reflect the majority’s will, where same is shortsighted, uninformed, etc. I’m talking about the specific fact that California law forbids the legislature to overrule a proposition.
CalDevil
I’ve been on the record as supportive of gay marriage in general and this measure in particular.
From strictly a moral sense, I would have preferred the gov to sign this bill.
Nonetheless, I think that AS did the right thing politically, for the short term at least, since this was nothing more than a Dem attempt to set a political trap. Arnold’s quick veto decision and the Katrina news have served to neutralize that gambit.
BTW, given the hatred of AS by the left, fomented on a daily basis by the Chron and the Times, this really was the only political choice he had. Signing the bill would not have resulted in those people suddenly loving him and supporting his finance measures.
I would even go so far as to say that this might bring back some of the social cons into the gov’s camp. They’ve always eyed him with suscpicion and have no qualms about abandoning a “liberal” republican (see 1994 when Huffington’s pro-choice position likely cost him a close election against Feinstein).
In any event, AS needs all the support he can get as the critical referenda on the November ballot need to be focused on. For nearly 10 months, we in California have seen an unending stream of negative attack commercials against AS. None have been responded to. This is the primary reason for AS’ steep poll decline. It remains to be seen whether he and the GOP allowed these attacks to continue uncontested for too long. He’s got a big uphill climb and not a lot of time to accomplish it.
Don
I continue to be amazed that anyone with any sense of history or the slightest amount of moral backbone can say that civil rights should be subject to popular vote. We could have kept slavery, segregation and bans on interracial marriage if we’d just said “oh well, will of the people!”
Nikki
Exactly! Interesting little dance, isn’t it?
Vladi G
Umm, marriage laws already are decoupled from the duty to create and prepare the next generation. This is about the dumbest thing I’ve ever read.
capelza
I agree. I married with no plans to EVER have children (my husband already had SIX kids). Does this invalidate my marriage? Can I tell this to the IRS when I have to file with the marriage penalty? Wow, we married because we loved each other..I didn’t realise that I had some natal duty to the state…I’m a baaaaaaddddd citizen.
Oh,Boy.Stupidity!
Comparing gay marriage to civil rights movement is sheer idiocy. The civil rights movement was borne because blacks were being denied basic rights from the Constitution. Gays are not denied any rights.
There is no legal right to marry the person you love, no matter how warm and fuzzy the sentiment makes you feel.
Furthermore, there is no law outlawing gay marriages. So they’re not recognized by the State. So what? Why do you need a govt. seal of approval to make you feel better about your relationship?
Furthermore, the whole idea of gay marriage from a legal standpt. is joke. When the defense of marriage act was signed in the Late 1990s, it in effect voided out the transferability of gay marriage from state to state.
Patterico
The legislature absolutely has the power to override an initiative from the people.
It absolutely does not. The explanation is set forth in Dafydd ab Hugh’s post.
For the record, I am sympathetic to those who would like to see same-sex marriage in California. But this is the wrong way to go about it (because it’s illegal).
Steve
There is no legal right to drink from the white drinking fountain, or to ride at the front of the bus, or a lot of other things. It’s about the right to be treated the same as everyone else.
It’s ironic that you say gay marriage has nothing to do with the civil rights movement, but then you make an argument against gay marriage that could just as well be applied to interracial marriage. After all, if you love someone of another race, why do you need that government seal of approval to make you feel better about it?
Defense Guy
Actually the civil rights comparison, while horribly stupid to borrow, is not that far off the mark in one small respect. The USSC stated in one of their decisions that marriage is a civil right. In that respect…. it’s still a horrible thing to borrow from the experience black folk endured.
Oh,Boy.Stupidity!
Yeah, okay, Steve, good point. No, I’m kidding. Seriously. You have no idea what you’re talking about. Blacks were denied basic rights of living and the pursuit of happiness.
Marriage is not a basic right. Got it? At the very least, there is no guarantee that the person you love will love you back and want to marry you. You have no RIGHT to be married, regardless of how you FEEL about another person.
Furthermore, gay people can get legally married, even to other gay people, provided they are of the opposite sex.
READ MY LIPS, STEVE-O: the govt. does not make decisions based on your FEELINGS or SEXUAL PREFERENCES because neither can be quantified in a court. No one knows your feelings and preferences except for you.
There is no legal basis for demanding that 2 straight people who marry love, like or can tolerate each other, WHICH IS GOOD. Because it’s not up to the govt. to make sure your personal life is warm and fuzzy.
Denying those of different races the right to marry is hideous because SKIN COLOR is a meaningless trait, WHILE GENDER IS ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL TRAITS OF HUMANITY.
Steve
Right-o. “Gay people are still allowed to get married, as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex.” Still, it was the capital letters that ultimately won me over.
Oh,Boy.Stupidity!
I’m sorry, but is this incorrect? No, it’s true, therefore, the argument that gay people are denied the right to marry is false. And again, there is no right to marry the person of your choosing, and this will also stand if gay marriage becomes the law of the land.
So here’s a question: some gay people like Anne Heche leave the gay lifestyle and get married to a person of the opposite sex. If a partner in a gay union wakes up one day and wants to live straight, does the marriage dissolve at that very moment, without the need for divorce proceedings, because after all it’s not a “gay” marriage anymore, is it?
We should have different levels of marriage. Hot sex marriage for those who just wanna screw each other. Friends marriage for those who just wanna have a friend to come home to, etc.
Steve
Correct, and black people weren’t denied the right to marry, it was just that they had to marry other blacks.
You don’t seem to realize that capital letters are not a substitute for moral authority. Race is irrelevant, because you say so. Gender is a fundamental trait, because you say so. I very much doubt the people who kept blacks out of white schools would concede that “skin color is a meaningless trait,” even if you phrased it as “SKIN COLOR is a meaningless trait.”
Like many opponents of gay marriage, you try to have it both ways: legal recognition of marriage is just a silly “seal of approval” that really shouldn’t matter to anyone anyway, and yet, it is critically important to deny that seal of approval to gay couples for some reason. It must be fun to be in the majority and have the power to deny benefits to the minority that you take for granted in your own life, just because you happen to feel a certain way about them.
SeesThroughIt
Well, yeah. It seems like a no-brainer, doesn’t it? And yet there’s no shortage of people who think that in the alleged land of equality, some (heterosexuals) are more equal than others (homosexuals). And try as they might to come up with some sort of legal support, the argument these people forward always boils down to this:
“Marriage should be between a man and a woman, end of story. Next issue,” insisted Assemblyman Dennis Mountjoy (R-Monrovia). “It’s not about civil rights or personal rights, it’s about acceptance. They want to be accepted as normal. They are not normal.”
Charming. Tell me again, wise men from the MoveOn thread, how the GOP isn’t the party of hate?
Xrlq
Don Says:
I don’t know where you get your information from, but when slavery was left to the courts, the result was not pretty. Getting rid of the slavery, segregation, black disenfranchisement and the male-only vote took more than the will of the people to correct; each took a super-majority in both houses of Congress and a simple majority in 3/4 of the states. But I’m sure your gay marriage thing is much more important than those petty causes were.
Oh,Boy.Stupidity!
Nice try, Steve, but I don’t think the govt. should be involved in any sort of marriage. None of the govt.’s business.
Defense Guy
SeesThroughIt
I’d like to see the written positions of Kerry, Dean or Kennedy on gay marriage. That said, I am just not going to argue that the elephant is on the right side of this one, because I don’t believe it is.
Oh,Boy.Stupidity!
Awwww, someone’s feelings got hurt?
Who signed the Defense of Marriage Act?
Sorry, bub, but heterosexuality is the norm for humanity, you know, the whole procreation thing.
SeesThroughIt
I would too, actually. I think Kerry’s is some wishy-washy pabulum trying to split the difference between “I support gay marriage” and “Look, ‘religious values’ voters, I’m a good Catholic!” though I believe he said he supported gay civil unions during the 2004 campaign. Of course, he said a lot of (meandering, tangential) things during that campaign. Dean signed the Vermont gay civil unions bill into law while he was governor there, so I’m assuming that’s his stance on the matter. Kennedy, I really don’t know. I vaguely recall him voting against prohibiting gay marriage, but I don’t know of any stances he’s taken explicity FOR gay marriage or civil unions.
So really, Democrats en masse aren’t exactly carrying the torch of equality here, either, as they’re too mamby-pamby to come out in force and say “Consenting adults should be allowed to marry each other no matter what genders they are,” or something to that effect. However, Democrats also don’t have the official party stance of being against gay marriage/civil unions in all forms that the GOP seems to have.
W.B. Reeves
I see some folks prefer to argue about Gay marriage rather than the point John was making. To whit: since when do ostensible “Conservatives” believe in punting legislative responsibilities to the Courts?
The short answer is: whenever it suits them.
We can store “judicial restraint” in the same closet with “small government”, “fiscal responsibility” and all the other empty cliches that are trotted out from time to time to befuddle mainstreet conservatives into thinking that the GOP is their party.
The current GOP leadership is Conservative only to the degree that the term can be identified with a defense of entrenched power, privilege and wealth. Oh they can talk the talk. They can even do a fair imitation of the walk, at least for photo-ops. When push comes to shove what they are really about is their own grasp on power. The leviathan state is fine with them as long as they’re the ones in charge.
Nothing is more illustrative of this than the realpolitik defenses of Schwarzeneggar’s action presented here. After all, the point is to stay in office, not whatever principles or philosophy the office holder follows in practice.
I won’t pretend that this bothers me over much. Identifying as neither Conservative or Liberal, I have zero personal investment in the GOP.
I do have some sympathy for folks like John who are sincere in their political convictions and took the hugger mugger at face value, as I have for sincere Liberals who troop dutifully to the polls to elect the latest Democratic career office seeker, convinced that they share the same core values. It’s similar to how I feel about people on fixed incomes who send checks to mercenary televangelists.
This kind of political cynicism is at least as old as the Republic itself. I expect it. Contrary to politicians, pundits and poly-sci instructors, our politics are not and never have been soley concerned with high minded ideals. Then as now, our central political debate has been who gets what and how much.
The two Parties reflect this reality. Political self interest, however short sighted, is a first principle in U.S. politics. The ideals are useful for manufacturing public support.
SeesThroughIt
Thanks for proving my point.
CalDevil
W. B., I’d hesitate to call AS a “conservative”.
However, the question of consistency in the arguments many have made that this is not a question for the courts (a point with which I strongly agree), but rather for the legislature, is a bit muddled in CA. This is due to the 2000 referendum in which 61% of Cali voters voted against gay marriage.
There is some question as to whether this ties the legislature’s hands. I don’t see the argument (although I haven’t studied it too closely), but even the liberal SF Chron (a strong advocate of gay marriage and equally vociferous opponent of AS) seems to be treating it as though it has merit.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/08/MNGFHEJUHU1.DTL
ppGaz
Why? Do we let politicians tell us what to think?
I don’t care what any politician thinks about it, in terms of influencing what I think about it.
Most of them are whores, donkey or elephant.
W.B. Reeves
Caldevil:
Perhaps you would. The fact remains that he was the chosen candidate of the GOP leadership endorse by no less than Pres. Bush. In the past Schwarzeneggar has described himself as conservative in his thinking. If he is not a conservative that is completely in keeping with the thrust of my comment.
Thanks for the link. Your interpretation of the article is curious though. It appears to be a straight news analysis of the partisan debate over the measure. As such it imputes no credibility to either side, it simply presents the rival arguments as to whether the Proposition trumps the Legislation or vice versa. It also documents that the California courts are not in agreement on this point. How did you overlook this jewel:
You see, now that Schwarzeneggar has vetoed the legislation, he has rendered the legal question moot. The courts will never be called upon to rule on it. An occurence that casts his reference to courts as the proper forum for the gay marriage debate in an even more dishonest light.
I’m getting that feeling I spoke of. The one engendered by folks sending checks to mercenary televangelists.
Xrlq
That’s putting it lightly. It’s the counter-argument that Prop 22 doesn’t tie the Legislature’s hands that is strained. Except in the rare instance where an initiative statute expressly authorizes itself to be amended or repealed without a popular vote, Article 2, Section 10(c) of the California Constitution permits the Legislature to amend or repeal it only by passing “another statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors.” Mark Leno knows this. He also knows that Prop 22 passed overwhemlingly in 2000 and would probably pass by a similar margin if put to a vote today. So rather than obey the Constitution, he attempted an end run around it by adding a frivolous section denying the obvious fact that this bill would repeal Prop 22, and that Prop 22 itself (codified at California Family Code Section 308.5) doesn’t really mean what it says anyway.
DougJ
Funny he’d do this given that he’s married to a female impersonator.
SeesThroughIt
Oh, snap!