Schwarzenegger Vows Gay Marriage Bill Veto

[Theodore]

The voters have spoken:


"Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will veto legislation that would have made California the first state in the country to enact legislation allowing gay marriages, his press secretary announced Wednesday.

Schwarzenegger, who has said in the past that he would accept same-sex marriage if voters and the courts embrace it, is leaving it to others to settle the issue."

http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/13533615p-14374262c.html
:jiggy::bounce:jam:

 

[Yerda]

The voters have spoken:

:jiggy::bounce:jam:

Does Schwarzenegger's veto kill the legislation?

 

[CaptainXeroid]

...Schwarzenegger, who has said in the past that he would accept same-sex marriage if voters and the courts embrace it...

Granted, the voters of California rejected SSM on the last state-wide referendum, but couldn't a vote in both houses of the legislature be considered the voters embracing it since they elected the representatives? If Arnold vetoes this bill, both the Senate and Assembly must vote to override the veto by a 2/3rds majority.Source. Here's a link to a Yahoo story for those of us who don't want to reigster at another site to read the news.

If this law goes into effect, it will certainly be challenged. Perhaps, that process will lead to the US Supreme Court decalring DOMA unconstitutional. We can hope.:bounce

 

[Theodore]

Does Schwarzenegger's veto kill the legislation?

yup.

 

[Yerda]

Granted, the voters of California rejected SSM on the last state-wide referendum

Did they? To hell with them.

If two people want to get married why should the state-wide electorate have any say?

Theodore, why is this good news?

 

[Theodore]

Did they? To hell with them.

If two people want to get married why should the state-wide electorate have any say?

Theodore, why is this good news?

Because I think Gay marriage would be a disaster.

 

[Ardent Listener]

If two people want to get married why should the state-wide electorate have any say?

QUOTE]

Demoracy

1: goverment by the people; esp : rule of the majority.

2: a goverment in which the supreme power is held by the people.

 

[Fire Empire]

Because I think Gay marriage would be a disaster.

Really? What would it ruin? The marriage institution (which is obviously SO sacred, right--just look at Britney and K-Fed)?

We live in the same state as you and have gay friends. They're people, p-e-o-p-l-e. They go on dates, fall in love, have fights, get broken hearts, shag each other, raise children. Why shouldn't they be allowed to marry?

 

[Green Gaia]

Because I think Gay marriage would be a disaster.

And heterosexual marriage is such an overwhelming success? What's the divorce rate up to now? What makes you think that gay marriage would be any more or less of a disaster that heterosexual marriage is?

Congratulations, you've preserved the sanctity of heterosexual divorce!

 

[CaptainXeroid]

Did they? To hell with them.

If two people want to get married why should the state-wide electorate have any say?...

Since America is a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy, the courts will have the final say as to whether bans on gay marriage are legal or not unless the Constitution is amended to outlaw SSM, and I submit that is highly unlikely

Because I think Gay marriage would be a disaster.

I disagree with you, but I will grant that some religions oppose gay relationships on scriptural ground. Other than those bases, please tell us why gay marriage would be a disaster.

 

[Jaymes]

Because I think Gay marriage would be a disaster.

I have a simple solution to all of this...

Don't like gay marriages?

Don't have a gay marriage.

End. Of. Story.

EDIT: I apologize for being short. I was ready to cry this morning when I heard this, along with the first step to allow people to vote on gay marriage in Mass. (which I'm sure won't end well). I can't understand how anyone can be happy over the pain of others.

 

[jonny]

Granted, the voters of California rejected SSM on the last state-wide referendum, but couldn't a vote in both houses of the legislature be considered the voters embracing it since they elected the representatives?

Since when have elected officials cared about what the voters who elected them want? They care more about what their party platform is than what the people have to say. If they are so sure that the voters want gay marriage why don't they put it on the ballot again?

If our elected officials can overturn our vote we might as well just stay home at the next election.

 

[Green Gaia]

I can't understand how anyone can be happy over the pain of others.

Easy. They don't look at us as equal human beings. Therefore it is easy for them to deny equal rights and then laugh and dance about it.

 

[Jaymes]

What does it take to show someone there's nothing inferior about how much I love my girlfriend? I don't want to molest kids, convert people, ruin the so-called sanctity of a system that has a failure rate of over 1/2 in the US...

Damn, what does it take?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If they are so sure that the voters want gay marriage why don't they put it on the ballot again?

Because some things should transcend the tyranny of the majority.

 

[Green Gaia]

Since when have elected officials cared about what the voters who elected them want? They care more about what their party platform is than what the people have to say. If they are so sure that the voters want gay marriage why don't they put it on the ballot again?

If our elected officials can overturn our vote we might as well just stay home at the next election.

In matters of equality and fairness it's not about majority rules. That's why we have the court system to ensure that the rights of minorities don't get trampled on by the majority.

For example, in 1954, when the Supreme Court said that blacks had the right to go to the same school as whites. Most whites (who were the majority) thought that was a horrible idea. Should the majority have won out then? What about when women wanted the right to vote? They didn't get from a majority vote (of men).

Sometimes the majority's opinion doesn't matter. It's about what right, equal and fair.

 

[Green Gaia]

What does it take to show someone there's nothing inferior about how much I love my girlfriend? I don't want to molest kids, convert people, ruin the so-called sanctity of a system that has a failure rate of over 1/2 in the US...

Damn, what does it take?

Time.....

 

[jonny]

In matters of equality and fairness it's not about majority rules. That's why we have the court system to ensure that the rights of minorities don't get trampled on by the majority.

For example, in 1954, when the Supreme Court said that blacks had the right to go to the same school as whites. Most whites (who were the majority) thought that was a horrible idea. Should the majority have won out then? What about when women wanted the right to vote? They didn't get from a majority vote (of men).

Sometimes the majority's opinion doesn't matter. It's about what right, equal and fair.

Then they should challenge the law that the people passed in court and let the courts decide - courts rule laws unconstitutional all the time.

 

[jonny]

Time.....

This is exactly what I think. Many people are very uncomfortable about the idea of homosexuality and don't like it thrust in their faces. This is what happened last year when all those mayors started allowing gay marriages which were not legal. The result - the people passed constitutional ammendments in many states which outlawed gay marriage.

Younger people are different - even religious ones. Many of them have friends who are homosexual. Homosexuality is becoming more accepted everywhere - even if people don't feel it is moral. A few more years and many of these laws will pass easily. The problem in many states now is that they will also have to ammend their constutions to pass such laws...

 

[Green Gaia]

Then they should challenge the law that the people passed in court and let the courts decide - courts rule laws unconstitutional all the time.

That's what happened in Massachusetts and the opponents of same sex marriage are scared to death that will start happening everywhere. That's why they're running around accusing judges of being activists and trying to get a federal ban on same sex marriage. It's not going to happen. Same sex marriage will be legal in every state - eventually. You cannot deny someone equal rights and protections and expect to be upheld by courts. We just have to wait and be vigilant.