Arnold Schwarzenegger | California | Gay Marriage | News

Schwarzenegger Planning Gay Marriage Veto Sequel

A bill from Assemblyman Mark Leno that would legalize gay marriage in California by defining it as a civil contract between two persons and allowing religions to opt out from performing ceremonies is set to be considered by the Assembly Judiciary Committee on Tuesday. The bill, which is identical to one floated in 2005, should be passed and arrive at Arnold Schwarzenegger's desk, where it will likely be vetoed, again. Unfortunately, the votes just aren't there to override a veto.

SchwarzeneggerAccording to the AP, "a spokeswoman for Schwarzenegger, Sabrina Lockhart, said the governor's position hasn't changed." They report that Schwarzenegger recently reiterated his opinion that the measure should instead be on the ballot, telling a group of high school students: "I don't want, as governor, to go against the will of the people."

Last week, California's Supreme Court received briefs challenging the constitutionality of the state's ban on same-sex marriage. That case is likely to be decided later this year, a decision that will likely impact any related legislation under consideration.

Governor vows to veto gay marriage bill again this year [press telegram]

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. I laugh each time Rethuglicans use phrases like, "I don't go against the will of the people" when justifying discrimination while at the same time "going against the will of the people" when it comes to things like wars in the Middle East.

    Posted by: Patrick W. | Apr 9, 2007 11:50:27 AM

  2. Coward.



    Posted by: nuflux | Apr 9, 2007 11:51:34 AM

  3. this robotron has no business being in ANY political office ANYwhere in this country for the simple fact that he is NOT a native son. he CAN however run for any political office he so desires back home where he belongs in austria. who gives a shit what they do over there. the people of cali are disillusioned when they voted this steroid-using, inarticulate, man-boobed, sexual predator of women, married to hypocrite maria with family ties to Nazi's into office. fools.

    Posted by: sean | Apr 9, 2007 12:29:01 PM

  4. Wow Sean that was a bit heavy but... I don't find fault in it yet lol.

    I personally feel that, like others have said, saying that he will veto only because he doesn't want to enact a bill that goes against the wishes of the people is just a lame ass cop out.

    Posted by: Nick | Apr 9, 2007 12:33:50 PM

  5. P.S. Arnold needs to grow a ball sack and either stand up for civil rights or declare that he is against it. Period.

    It is so annoying how some of these politicians ride the fence on the controversial issues. Man (or woman) up and take a stand on the issues!

    Posted by: Nick | Apr 9, 2007 12:38:21 PM

  6. Yeah, let's continue with tyranny by the majority by putting it up for a vote. You're right Nuflux; cowards are running the country.

    Posted by: Bill | Apr 9, 2007 12:51:37 PM

  7. Arnold and his supporters have been trying to amend Article II of the constitution that bars foreigners from becoming President. It's part of his ambition to be in the White House one day.

    But his past is shady at best. Last year Alec Baldwin narrated a documentary called "Running with Arnold," about his political ascension, and the film alluded to his ties with Third Reich's nazis. Alec tried to distance from the film later on, but it was already too late.

    Posted by: John | Apr 9, 2007 12:52:34 PM

  8. "Will of the people" my ass. Patrick you made an excellent point. We'll let a bunch of straight people decide whether gay people can have the same benefits but when it comes to war, we'll ignore what the majority wants as Americans continue to die in Iraq.

    Who's going to die if a bunch of gay couples can get married in California?

    What a Girlie Man. I'm tired of conservatives saying Arnold is not a Republican because he's a social liberal.

    Not from where I'm standing.

    Posted by: mark m | Apr 9, 2007 12:58:22 PM

  9. This is how Arnold gets his conservative cred by vetoing bills for LGBT people. He does it to satisfy his conservative base.

    My major problem with Californian and other border governors is their poor enforcement of the border. It's not some game where there are no consequences. My area has been designated one of the top six high crime areas in the country last year. Just ten years ago this place was a quite rural area. Now it's a dump. It is all due to the lack of enforcement.

    Contact Congress

    Sign a petition

    Posted by: Jack! | Apr 9, 2007 1:03:40 PM

  10. When Schwarzenegger's own pet initiatives were soundly defeated by the voters in 2005, he said he saw it as a sign that the people wanted the governor and legislators to do the jobs to which they were elected. Now he conveniently forgets that the state legislators are themselves elected by the people, and he pulls out a lame, all-purpose excuse that he could apply to any bill he doesn't like.

    Meanwhile, his openly gay chief of staff, Susan Kennedy, sits quietly (that is, if she's not the person actually constructing these excuses) waiting for Schwarzenegger to bump her salary from her current $143K to as much as $225K (as the L.A. Times reported Saturday). For shame.

    Posted by: Gianpiero | Apr 9, 2007 1:18:09 PM

  11. If it passes the Assembly, doesn't that mean that it represents the "will of the people"?

    Isn't that what it means to live in a representative, republican democracy?

    Just damn, y'all.

    Posted by: Jonathon | Apr 9, 2007 1:19:33 PM

  12. Arnold needs to clue into the fact that the California Legislature was elected by the people and is therefore representative of the will of the people. Every member of the California legislature has been elected since the last referendum on same sex marriage and thus the legislature is likely more representative of with current will of the people than that referendum.

    Moreover, the "will of the people" bit is crapola. If 50.01% of the people vote to have the other 49.99% of the people summarily executed, is that valid? It is the "will of the people," a majority. If the South wanted to reinstitute segregation laws and miscegention laws and were supported by over 50% of the people of those states, would those laws be acceptable? If 70% of Utahans voted to require every Utah be a member of the Morman church and attend church daily, could they do that?

    Ofcourse not. The will of the majority is far from absolute. We are not a pure democracy. We have a democratically elected constitutional republic that very purposefully constrains the will of the majority. Those constraints sometimes require our elected leaders to show some, *GASP* leadership, even when the issue is unpopular with a majority of the people or voters.(This applies to you Democratic candidates for President too. Hear me Hillary, Barack, Bill, John, et al? Find a cure for y'all's amoebic persistent spinelessness and ballslessness disorder and show some leadership on this.)

    Posted by: Craig | Apr 9, 2007 1:25:55 PM

  13. Excuses, excuses.

    When we put the case before the Supreme Courts of the country, we're told that we're circumventing the legislative process.

    When we put the case before the legislative bodies and, like here, they pass it, we're told that we're circumventing the will of the people.

    What are they going to say when a referendum finally allows gay marriage?

    Posted by: Jordan | Apr 9, 2007 3:19:37 PM

  14. Arnold is just a sad excuse for a human being and his wife Maria Shrivel isn't much better.

    Posted by: ShawnSF | Apr 9, 2007 4:27:09 PM

  15. I find the notion that human rights should be decided on the basis of a popular vote truly scary. It's good Kennedy didn't think that way.

    Posted by: Boobs | Apr 9, 2007 5:25:41 PM

  16. Whether the topic is same sex marriage, gun control, school uniforms, et al., I agree that Arnold is copping out. If he's against gay marriage (oxymoron) he should say so. I would hope he supports a civil union bill if it comes up.

    Posted by: Stephen | Apr 9, 2007 7:04:11 PM

  17. Wow - all you people can muster up are personal attacks. Gee ... there is an informed electorate. 61% of the voters put proposition 22 onto the books in California in 2000 and under a democratic (and disastrous) governship. The so called will of the people spoke. The prevailing theory is that even if the Governor signs this - it would be invalid because of Prop 22. Get off your asses and repeal Proposition 22.

    Posted by: yoshi | Apr 9, 2007 8:03:15 PM

  18. Woah, when did Schwarzenegger started to look like a monster creep?! He's frightening!

    Posted by: bunny | Apr 10, 2007 1:00:00 AM

  19. Actually Prop 22 only dealt with recognition of out of state marriages and does not prevent that state from creating same sex marriages. The section of California Code amended by Prop 22 was Section 308 dealing with recognition of marriages created elsewhere, not Section 300 that defined what a marriage is in the state of California. The Legislature cannot amend the referendumed §308.5, but it can alter §300. By the rules of construction for interpreting statutory law, §308.5 must be read within the context of §308 and its scope is limited to the section of code that it modifies.

    Posted by: Craig | Apr 10, 2007 3:20:02 AM

  20. governor schwarzeneggeris doing the job the people of California voted him to do.Frankly you sexualy twisted,spoiled,tantrum throwing individuals dont care about the law.The majority of the folks in the U.S know whats really happenig.You want special treatment and rights to dupe the government and insurance copanies out of money.

    Posted by: shawn d | Oct 17, 2010 5:44:02 AM

Post a comment


« «Lance Bass Hits Palm Springs for the White Party« «