"The Gubinor previously has left it up to the courts to decide and said he will abide by their decision. "
====
You omitted to mention that Arnold VETOED the homosexual marriage bill that the Legislature passed. What you said was part of the explanation he gave, but the bottom line is that he VETOED it, while Anglides promises to sign it. You also omitted to mention that Arnold said that the people of CA had voted on the issue and he is not about to overturn their will.
And the CA Legislature would pass another one, that Angelides would sign.
Arnold also said he will veto the homosexual education bill, mandating educating children about homosexuals.
California Gov Schwarzenegger Will Veto Bill Requiring Mandatory Gay Education in Schools
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/may/06052602.html
You omitted to mention that Arnold VETOED the homosexual marriage bill that the Legislature passed.
I knew you'd be thru..;-)
He said he would abide by the courts decision, once he is re-lected he is bound by no one to do so again.
Besides, he signed a pile of domestic partner legislation shortly thereafter.. or doesn't that count?
Omission is in the eye of the beholder, eh?
September 2005 - Governor's Veto Message
http://www.governor.ca.gov/govsite/pdf/vetoes_2005/AB_849_veto.pdf
To the Members of the California State Assembly:
I am returning Assembly Bill 849 without my signature because I do not believe the Legislature can reverse an initiative approved by the people of California.
I am proud California is a leader in recognizing and respecting domestic partnerships and the equal rights of domestic partners. I believe that lesbian and gay couples are entitled to full protection under the law and should not be discriminated against based upon their relationships. I support current domestic partnership rights and will continue to vigorously defend and enforce these rights and as such will not support any rollback.
California Family Code Section 308.5 was enacted by an initiative statute passed by the voters as Proposition 22 in 2000. Article II, section 10 of the California Constitution prohibits the Legislature from amending this initiative statute without a vote of the people. This bill does not provide for such a vote.
The ultimate issue regarding the constitutionality of section 308.5 and its prohibition against same-sex marriage is currently before the Court of Appeal in San Francisco and will likely be decided by the Supreme Court.
This bill simply adds confusion to a constitutional issue. If the ban of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, this bill is not necessary. If the ban is constitutional, this bill is ineffective.
Sincerely,
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Ah, but will he veto all the other GLBT bills, too, or just that one? Or will they be shuffled through quietly like all the pro-GLBT legislation that was lost last year below the headlines of the gay marriage veto?
Perhaps because it had already been mentioned? See Post #17.