Posted on 09/09/2005 6:00:22 AM PDT by OESY
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was a profile in timidity this week when he vowed to veto a pioneering bill authorizing gay marriage in California. The bill, which both houses of the Legislature passed by narrow margins, would expand the definition of marriage to include a civil contract between two people, not exclusively a man and woman. This was an enlightened and fair-minded stand that made California's Legislature the first in the nation to approve same-sex marriages.
Too bad Mr. Schwarzenegger could not find the courage to sign the bill into law. Instead, even before receiving the bill, he announced a tortured rationale for vetoing it. For years, social conservatives have accused judges of deciding social issues that should be left to legislators. Now Mr. Schwarzenegger wants to ignore his Legislature and leave gay marriage to the courts or the voters at large to decide.
He relies on a fig leaf: five years ago, Californians voted overwhelmingly for a ballot measure that recognized only heterosexual marriages as valid. A statement by the governor's press office declared, "We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote."
That ignores the fact that five years is an eternity in the fast-moving arena of gay rights. Even though 61 percent of the voters approved the ballot measure, recent polls show that the electorate is now evenly split, with Democrats and independents favoring same-sex marriage and Republicans strongly opposed. The Legislature is hardly a renegade body if it roughly mirrors popular opinion.
Mr. Schwarzenegger also seems to have forgotten that this nation was founded as a republic, in which the citizens elect legislators to govern on their behalf. Such representative democracy is especially important when it comes to protecting the fundamental rights of minorities, who may face bigoted hostility from some....
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
If a ballot initiative is 'stale' after 5 years then I guess there should be no problem revisiting Roe v Wade, right?
If they think the people want SSM, let them have another ballot initiative and prove it.
NYT: "We're for whatever option gets us what we want."
Why isn't the Times asking where is Gov Blanco now? They are focusing on the wrong governor.
ROE was NEVER an initiative that the majority of Americans ever wanted - in fact prpbably over 75% of oral Americans felt then and still feel that abortion = MURDER.
Leave it to the NYT to think that saying yes takes courage.
Damneable fumble-fingers!
"...75% of oral Americans..." = "...75% of MORAL Americans..."
Do you know what's bad? - having the need to placate the whinny crybaby spelling police on this board and having to post "Mea Cuplpas"
Hombre,
Personally, I was wondering if that was some kind of Freudian slip ;-)
Seriously, with the 'moral' qualification included, your percentage that believe abortion is murder may well be low.
FReegards!
Reb
No kidding! I think vetoing the Gay Marriage Bill in CA takes incredible courage. To stand for the people?? To take a stand against the Gay Agenda, the Gay Lobby, the screaming 'I wanna's' and say, "This is not right." THAT is true courage. Go Arnold!!
If a ballot initiative is 'stale' after 5 years then I guess there should be no problem revisiting Roe v Wade, right?
Yeah, it looks the NYT has once again stepped in it. Leaky Leahy, Chucky and Fat Teddy will not be pleased.
oral vs moral ?
No Comment.
;>)
Arnie did just what I voted for him to do.
"That ignores the fact that five years is an eternity in the fast-moving arena of gay rights."
Ummm, OK.
"Even though 61 percent of the voters approved the ballot measure, recent polls show that the electorate is now evenly split, with Democrats and independents favoring same-sex marriage and Republicans strongly opposed."
Well then, why even bother with elections. Why not just conduct a poll? Preferably an NYT-sponsored poll?
"whinny crybaby spelling police"
Is that the spelling police that cries while sounding like a horse?
This country has thing bass ackwards. in a Republic, it is Majority rule, not protection of the minority.
Scharzenegger is ALL we have RIGHT NOW.
Some RINO, huh? I'll bet there was a ton of pressure on Arnold to let this sail through. And he didn't. Didn't even waffle or equivocate.
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.