Posted on 05/15/2008 1:01:31 PM PDT by ROP_RIP
SACRAMENTO—Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is vowing to uphold the California Supreme Court's ruling striking down a state ban on gay marriage.
The Republican governor issued a brief statement shortly after the court announced its decision Thursday.
The governor said, "I respect the court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling."
He also reiterated his previously stated opposition to an anti-gay marriage initiative proposed for the November ballot. That initiative would write a ban on same-sex unions into California's constitution.
Last month, Schwarzenegger told a gathering of gay Republicans that he would fight the initiative.
The governor has twice vetoed legislation that sought to legalize gay marriage, saying the issue should be decided by voters or the courts.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
I shudder at the thought of this being the last word. My goodness. San Francisco is an hour away from San Jose where I am. Time to turn the TV off for next few weeks and months. They are going to show these ceremonies day and night.
They already have domestic “parter” benefits in most government offices (State, County and City).
oops partner
Yeah, who better to decide what kind of society they want to have,
the millions of voters or 4/7ths of an unelected body.
Agreed, The gUb shot his wad a long time ago..
and the silver lining is this does as you mentioned..
The good news is that this throws gay marraige right back into the national spotlight, and that can only be bad news for the Democrats and good news for us.
Not to get in the way of your hysteria, but I’m not aware of a any uptick in the number of man/dog or man/child marriages in the wake of the Loving v. Virginia decision, in which an activist Supreme Court said state bans on blacks and whites marrying one another violated the constitution.
One difference is that marriage was still between men and women, after the Loving ruling. I think what has people concerned is that further changes in marriage could come about based on this ruling. I agree it’s silly to say that because of this ruling, then somebody will marry a horse.
On the other hand, if we’re intellectually honest, we must say that limiting marriage to 2 people is a social norm that evolved, just as monogamous opposite sex marriage evolved. But as we see with polygamous compounds, some people live that way, and they too may demand legal recognition.
I think lotsa people are concerned that the essential nature of marriage changes if you allow same-sex marriage and that it opens the door to other changes.
I believe this decision was based on the State not Federal constitution - in which case the Cal. Supremes are the Court of last resort.
You're right, nothing is rational, let alone sacred. You're liable to get verbally shot at by the FLDS folks here about.
it may, or it may not, but of course, horses, children, etc. can’t consent to marriage, and can’t be party to a contract.
There’s also, I think, a legitimate state interest in limiting the number of partners in a marriage to two; it’s just too complicated otherwise, and who wants a situation where one of your wives says pull the plug and the other says keep him on the ventilator?
Respect my arse...this guy is a Buffoon with a capital B. He’s a flipping lier too, he vetoed 1 or 2 same-sex marriage bills his first term to placate conservatives and keep there votes for his second term run, but I always said there’d be he_ _ to pay if he was re-elected.
The lead paragraph of the article, to be correct, should have said:
“California Governor agrees that the California State Supreme Court can strike down the California State Constitution and write one to the judges own liking, against the people of California.”
There are majorities on all sides of this issue that will say the main issue is “gay rights”, or “equal rights” or “marriage”, “gay marriage” or “equal rights to marriage”. I will disagree with them all.
The core issue is defined in the answer to two questions:
How do what we say are our “rights” enter our constitions, state or federal? Who are the only legitimate authors of our Constitutions?
The answer to both questions is found in the opening lines of our national Constitution: “We the People”.
When the courts abrogate the concept that those words enshrine, defining from where our “rights” are given the force of law, they take upon themselves the most very basic power that we declared was ours and ours alone - the power that says we, acting through our democratic processes, not judges, write our Constitutions.
When judges take upon themselves the power to simply declare that certain “rights” now exist, when we the people have never acted to place those “rights” in our constitutions, they simultaneously take upon themselves the right to declare that the rights we have placed in our Constitutions are null and void, and they do.
That will be proven by history to be the core issue at stake here and the arguments framed pro and con as “gay” issues will be a distraction from correcting the fatal error that will fall upon the nation by leaving that core issue unsettled.
in addition
they could have added:
“Wuli for Governor”
please copy the revised “lead paragraph” above to all your other blogs and media contacts
And, to think dim wits like Sean Hannity actually went out of their way to pimp themselves for this guy and even attend fund raisers for him makes me sick. This is a perfect example of how failed the lesser of two evil strategy is.
That's the same thing many assumed would happen in Massachusetts. So, those in favor of traditional marriage need to work as hard as they ever have for anything to see that the issue is on the ballot and passes.
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.