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 ...
Then he picked B.
Must think CA voters are idiots.
No surprise, he’s a pu**ywhipped Kennedy clone.
Passing this initiative just took on new importance!
So much for the will of the people. Not the first time CA judges have screwed the voters. Coming soon to the Supreme Court.
Public education....
Toss the turkey OUT.
The Courts have no place is establishing law. And if a ban is added to the state constitution, it is NOT an unconstitutional act. Duh.
There is dissent and no closure on the issue because all of the advances on the homosexual agenda come through the courts, not the legislature or popular vote. The people don't approve of it. It is forced upon them by activist judges.
Which is the point. They don't want "marriage". They want to destroy marriage, and this is a perfect way to do it. If marriage can mean anything, then it means nothing.
The polygamists in this country are also cheering; because if there is nothing special about marriage being between one man and one woman; then, what is so damn special about the number two?
Adding all these dependents to worker’s benefits is certain to help their budget crisis not to mention encourage more businesses to move into the state, NOT.
RNC- RINO’s coming home to roost.
Is he conservative in any way whatsoever.
is there ANY Republican out there? I don’t recognize any.
Not to mention pedophile and bestial lovers. If marriage changed definitions from "Two people of the opposite sex of consenting age..." to "Two people of consenting age...", then "Two", "consenting age", and "people" are all up for grabs.
You know, Huckabee is actually pretty good on this issue...
/ducks
People, we can’t give up on this issue. Far too many have paid the ultimate price for our freedom. We cannot let these liberal, God-hating, socialists to continue to destroy this nation. We defeated Hitler. We defeated Communism. We put a man on the moon. We can defeat this filthy evil too.
You stated what I’ve thought all along. Wonder if Duncan Hunter could be drafted to run against the Gropinator?
He can't contest it; there is no higher court in the state than the state Supreme Court. Maybe there is some way he could appeal to a Federal court, but I doubt it; I just don't see how a Federal court would have standing on such a matter..
As far as I see, the only recourse is a state constitutional amendment. He could, of course, lobby and campaign for the amendment, and it's a big shame on him that he refuses. Nevertheless, I don't think that will be necessary for the amendment to pass.
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.
“is there ANY Republican out there? I donÂ’t recognize any”
There are plenty Republocrats but few Republicans.
Damn if this isn’t Gray Davis incarnate.
He sure lives down to his reputation.
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.
If suddenly white men being able to marry women of any color didn’t also mean they were allowed to marry, let’s say, ducks, I don’t know why saying they’re allowed to marry other men would have the same effect.
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.