Schwarzenegger says he will veto gay marriage bill

AP ^ | 9/7/5

[SmithL]

SACRAMENTO - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced Wednesday that he will veto a bill seeking to allow gay marriages in California.

Schwarzenegger said the legislation, given final approval Tuesday by lawmakers, would conflict with the intent of voters when they approved Proposition 22. That measure was put on the ballot in 2000 to prevent California from recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

"We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote," the governor's press secretary, Margita Thompson, said in a statement. "Out of respect for the will of the people, the governor will veto (the bill)."

Despite his promise to veto the bill, Schwarzenegger "believes gay couples are entitled to full protection under the law and should not be discriminated against based upon their relationship."

"He is proud that California provides the most rigorous protections in the nation for domestic partners," the statement said.

The Republican governor had indicated in previous statements that he would veto the bill, saying the debate over same-sex marriage should be decided by voters or the courts.

A state appeals court is weighing an appeal of a San Francisco judge's ruling striking down state laws barring gay marriages. Meanwhile, opponents of same-sex marriages are planning measures on the ballot next year that would place a ban on gay marriages in the state constitution.

The announcement dampened a celebratory mood among the bill's supporters, who only the night before cheered, hugged and kissed as the state Assembly narrowly sent the bill to the governor's desk.

Assemblyman Paul Koretz, D-West Hollywood, had called bans on gay marriage "the last frontier of bigotry and discrimination."

The bill passed the Legislature through the persistence of its sponsors, Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco. His original bill had failed in the Assembly by four votes in June, but he then amended it to another bill in the Senate, which voted to approve it last week.

It was that amended bill the Assembly passed by a bare majority on Tuesday. Four Democrats who did not vote on the bill in June provided the winning margin this week.

The vote made the California Legislature the first legislative body in the country to approve of same-sex marriage. Gay marriage licenses in Massachusetts and civil unions in Vermont were granted through court rulings.

[plewis1250]

I personally think he is hoping to lead a campaign to allow immigrants to run for office.

Which personally, I am FINE with, as long as they have been a citizen for 35 years (the President has to be 35 yrs old right now... so that makes sense to me...) and they have to renounce all citizenship from other nations. - plewis1250

[SierraWasp]

I had no doubt that Davis was going to sign the Sierra-Nevada CONservancy bill... but he vetoed it, so who the heck really knows???

[CyberAnt]

But .. you can't legislate the HEART! People can renounce all they want, but their heart can still remain loyal to another country or another religion .. does anybody really want a former Russian, or Islamic country to be in charge of America ..??

Not me!

[Just Lori]

"We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote,"

I wish it were that way in WA state.

[CyberAnt]

Possible. He did indicate the public's proposition against gay marriage was guiding him.

If that's true .. then kudos to him for making the right decision.

[CyberAnt]

Well .. I think it was a wise decision .. based on law (the people passed the proposition against gay marriage) and not on his personal opinion (which is not opposed to gay unions).

[plewis1250]

Even after 35 years?????
I hardly think that’s the case...
You need to choose your elected official on a case by case basis. You could have an American that was born American and have socialistic idea. I wouldn't want him elected as President. I just feel that if you have lived here for a LONG time, and have an obvious LOVE for this country, and pr-oven so with a longstanding citizenship, you should not be denied the right that every other citizen has. Period.

My great grandparents came here from Poland, and never had a chance of running for President, and to me, that is wrong. If you live here as a legal US citizen for 35+ years, I feel you should be able to run for the office of the President of the United States.

I suppose you and I just disagree on this issue, and that alright, no harm done!

- plewis1250

[My2Cents]

It does make me wonder what his position would be had Prop. 22 not been passed.

[CyberAnt]

I'm basing it on London's experience. The London bombers were home grown. They were in their own community - not assimilating with the UK.

[DM1]

well maybe this will prompt more CA voters to *GASP* vote Republican

[plewis1250]

I can HARDLY see someone WINNING office which has intent to be a suicide bomber... call me crazy.... but....
- plewis1250

[CyberAnt]

But .. people in their community had no idea that these guys were up to no good.

And .. the democrats are predisposed to saying what they think people want to hear - and not what is true or what they believe in.

[jw777]

AMEN! The legislature should have been at work on the budget, the border and education rather than an initiative to overturn the will of the people, a la Prop 187. Which I am still pissed about!

[plewis1250]

At the same time, the people in GB did not elect any of those men Prime Minister. I just am failing to see how the two are connected I guess? Just because you are allowed to run for office does not mean you win. I can think of at least 2 candidates who have not won their bids for office before... in fact, I would dare say that there really only one winner in EVERY election. The point is, if a person was born in another country but has proven their love for this country, they should be allowed to run for office. Like I said, that does not mean they will win. But they should at least have the same shot at running that you do. We could take this to extremes.
People are influenced by their ideology, so with that logic, if you hold a certain creed, you should not be allowed to run for office. Your priorities would lie with that creed, not with your country. So, therefore, you really should be only allowed to run for office if you hold no creed whatsoever. That logic is flawed. Just because someone is of a certain belief, from a certain nationality at birth, or from a certain race, should not disqualify them totally from running for office. If they have proven, either by being born in this country, or have been a citizen of this country for an extended period of time, and denounced all ties back to the nation of their birth, they should have every right, as you and I have, to run for office. Once again, this does not mean they will win. They may have radical thoughts. And what will happen, they will not get elected. You take the risk of someone having radical thoughts, be it if they are from Alaska, California, or Texas, they could have radical thoughts. That’s why we have ELECTIONS, to weed those out of the mix. - plewis1250

[youthgonewild]

Thank you very much. I'm not really as young as my name indicates, I'm actually a college student. My name is from a Skid Row song.

[CyberAnt]

Well .. our founding fathers were very smart in a lot of ways, and their belief that a person who is born here is a better candidate than a person who is not .. is just fine with me.

And .. a person born here can be from any ethinic or religious background.

Your attempt to paint me as some sort of racist isn't working.

[plewis1250]

Oh I'm not trying to do that at all. I was using race/religion as an EXTREME example. I wouldn't attack a fellow Freeper like that. Sorry if it came out like that.
I believe they were VERY smart for doing it the way they did, but they did not institute them as being "citizens", seeing how there was not country for them to be citizens of. And I understand your point, but I just feel that it is not right to not allow immigrants the same opportunities that we have, at least when they are legal, and if they have proven their loyalty to this country. - plewis1250

[Left Coast Refugee]

Actually, it is probably harder to raise a kid in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama today than in California.

It's how you raise your kids and interact with them, the Demorat legislature tries to have their way, but in the end they really cannot directly harm my kids.

[Mr. Silverback]

The Women of DU !

When I get my eyesight back, I'm going to sue you into poverty!

[DoughtyOne]

Schwarzenegger will do some things we'll like, and a number of things we'll detest. DoughtyOne Fall 2003