It makes no sense from any perspective to not act on a principle out of concern for alienating 'gay voters'.
---
I would argue that point, for political reasons.;-)
Funny, no one has called my earlier comment that the Gub could just not sign it and let it become law, being as the people or the courts will decide what is to be in the end.
(California does not have a pocket veto option where a Gub can just let a bill die after it is submitted for signing or vetoing.)
This might have afforded the Gub some additonal support to come his way for his reform initiatives, now, even fewer voters will show show up on November, imo.
I hpe I am wrong, but if he has to appeal to his base by making decisions like this on social issues that are already more than likely already pre-destined to be rejected anyway, why even further alienate those who coild help put the initiatives over the top.
just some thoughts.
I still disagree with your rambling reasoning, or perhaps it's malproductive...because you still assert that it's best to "not alienate" "gay voters" while allowing this legislation to, what, pass? To pass based upon a faulty and offensive set of principles because a governor doesn't want "to offend" some voters? Who mostly don't/won't/haven't voted for him anyway?
It's a tough line to govern for everyone, even those you know revile you (I can imagine) but in the end, successful government either acknowledges constituents or it doesn't and wins or loses based upon that fine thing. I'm not suggesting any elected IGNORE the voters who don't agree with the politicians, respectively, I'm just saying again AS TO THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE, "gay voters" are already "alienated" about nearly any and all issues important to conservatives and while I don't consider Schwarzenegger to be a conservative, per se, I do think he's the closest thing in CA we have to one in government who'se managed to get elected.
However, his election was a tenuous experience, to my view and I DID read each and every voter breakdown afterward as to percentages of what percentages representing what and whom...and what Schwarzenegger and the GOP in CA did was get Schwarzenegger into the Governor's office by a minority of minority numbers of voters, not a majority as if Schwarzenegger had run in a usual and ordinary campaign. In effect, he received less votes for the Governor's office than Grey Davis did when he won the office earlier, prior to recall. SO, Schwarzenegger has about one choice as I see things now, if he is to win a reelection in the state in an open campaign against other candidates from the Democrats.
And that is to emphasize, recognize and campaign to his conservative voter supporters. His moderate record and even liberal record as to some issues has already cost him support from some of that slim minority who voted for him in the recall.
I'll vote for him again, however, I'm not pleased about having to do so, based upon the past two weeks with his office (other issue, not related to this one), BUT, the alternatives are worse. So, I consider a vote at this point for Schwarzenegger as a vote against a Democrat gubernatorial candidate. That's about it, unless Schwarzenegger makes a radical turn to the right in the next weeks. He really needs to, to a conservative right. His "I'm the Governor for all the people" thing isn't working too well but I do doubt that any one person can govern CA well by that standard. Even Reagan couldn't and he was reviled by the Democrats here and by all liberals of all sorts. And Pete Wilson was nearly ripped up by them.
So, Schwarzenegger's moderate positions have enabled him to moreorless stay where he is but I can't say it'll be sucessful for a re-election on an open and ordinary campaign statewide. And because of that, UNLESS Schwarzenegger comes clear in representing conservative voter interests and, yes, values, and tries to "not offend" the liberal voters, he's in trouble for a re-eletion.