Posted on 11/17/2008 8:52:31 AM PST by NormsRevenge
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Sunday he will not join legislative Democrats in a court fight against Proposition 8 despite his opposition to the same-sex marriage ban, but he believes the courts ultimately should and will allow such marriages in California.
The Republican governor reiterated on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" that, "for me, marriage is between a man and a woman. But I don't want to ever force my will on anyone."
"I think that the Supreme Court was right by saying (a gay marriage ban) was unconstitutional and that everyone should have the right," Schwarzenegger said. "So the Supreme Court, you know, I think ought to go and look at that again. And we'll go back to the same decision. … I think that they will. And I think that the important thing now is to resolve this issue in that way."
Schwarzenegger compared the legal battle over same-sex marriage to a 1948 challenge in which the California Supreme Court declared a ban on interracial marriage unconstitutional.
While voters approved a constitutional ban on gay marriage through the ballot process this month, Schwarzenegger suggested precedent exists for ruling some initiatives unconstitutional. He cited the fact that courts blocked Proposition 187, which voters approved in 1994 to deny public benefits, such as health care and education, to illegal immigrants.
Proposition 8 passed with 52 percent of the vote. Opponents of Proposition 8 filed challenges after the Nov. 4 election challenging the initiative on grounds that it was an illegal constitutional revision, and as such should have required two-thirds approval.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
That he was re-elected is a testament to the insanity of the California electorate.
What an incredible flake.
Gotta love those RINOs.
Force his will? Prop. 8 was passed by the people, you twit.
Why no recall?
The alternatives were horrible, still, ahhnold has shown himself to be even a bigger flake than anyone thought possible. Lets see, he doesn’t want to force his will on anyone but he does want the court to force its will against the majority. Yah, real clear thinking there dumbinator.
“But I don’t want to ever force my will on anyone.”
Like the murder of the unborn, this “legitimizes” their stance.
Let him try this on Judgement Day. That’ll really go far!
This man should never have been in government.
He does not even understand fundamental Constitutional principles.
Statements like these embolden the Homosexual crowd to get rioting until they get their way.
He should have stated that he will uphold the lawful results of this election and crack heads of anyone violating First Amendment rights of law abiding citizens.
He is not only incompetent, he is dangerous.
Arnold has proven to be a girlie-man of the highest order.
He has no problem “forcing his will” on every ballot initiative he supported. Including bond initiatives I’d rather my money not be paid into...
In fact, I’d prefer not to pay CA income tax, but somehow Gov. Schwarzenegger and the state of California have imposed their will and force upon me and I thereby must.
Why am I even wasting my time pointing out the inane fallacy within his sentences above???...I suppose its just a way to express my frustration.
Why again is he a Republican? Can’t for the life of me figure out why.
Liberals always like the courts legislating from the bench. Schwarzy is no different.
Back in 1996 the SCOTUS decision in Romer v Evans which took away the majority of Colorado voters rights (53.4%), that had voted down special rights for homos. A decision, btw, that CJ John Roberts fought for as a member of his law firm.
I’m always amused when the libs equate homosexual rights with anti-discrimiation actions that eliminated racial barriers. If I were black or any other minority, I’d be PO’d by it.
Eight posts before "girlie-man".
Maria must be putting something in his food.
Prop 187 was a law, not a constitutional amendment. It was overturned by a federal, not a state, court.
I believe the laws against interracial marriage were also laws, not part of the constitution.
If courts overturn constitutional amendments, it means the last gasp of rule “by the people.”
Judges will be supreme, with not even a pretense of allowing the people the ability to overrule them if they choose.
The most peculiar part of this is that the judges have the power they do only because the people revere the constitution, which reverence the judges are doing their best to destroy.
Why stop at same sex marriage—why not allow close relatives to marry as well. Doesn’t a ban on incest deprive them of their rights in the same way gays are being denied their rights?
I was thinking the same thing but through a different question. The citizens changed the State Constitution. How can a State court, subject to that very constitution, now decide that the change is not ... what??? valid???
That would be like SCOTUS saying that the First Amendment is not valid. If that is their ruling, I would like to see the tortured leaps of logic that they came to in order to come to that decision.
I think Arnold spent too much time in the Gym especially the showers and it is starting to tell.
Why no recall?
Garamendi would become Gub.. not much difference, quite frankly, at this point who is in office.
Now if Tom had been elected Lt. Gub, but they aren’t exactly bosom buddies ,, sooo ;-)
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.