Arnold Schwarzenegger | California | Gay Marriage | News

Schwarzenegger Gets Newly Approved California Gay Marriage Bill

Late on Friday, the California Senate agreed to Assembly amendments to a gay marriage bill by a 22-15 vote and sent the measure to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is expected to veto it, as he did a similar bill two years ago:

Schwarzenegger"Schwarzenegger has not taken a specific position on AB 43, although he vetoed a similar gay-marriage bill in 2005. His spokesman, Aaron McLear, said the governor will abide by the results of a ballot initiative in which 61.4 percent of voters said the state should restrict marriage to a union between a man and a woman."

This bill defines marriage as "a civil contract between two persons" according to the AP, and would "retain the right of religious institutions to refuse to sanction the unions."

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. sadly, non of us expected herr gropenator to sign this bill. he can conveniently hide behind prop 22 which, BTW, was passed nearly 7 years ago. times have changed but ahnold hasn't.

    Posted by: psgoodguy | Sep 10, 2007 11:13:20 AM

  2. Hm. So he's allowing the majority to deny rights to 1900s of him.

    Posted by: Michael W. | Sep 10, 2007 11:26:39 AM

  3. I encourage everyone who supports marriage equality for same-sex couples to avoid using the misleading and provocative term "gay marriage".

    We are not fighting for "gay" marriage. That gives the incorrect impression that we are seeking to create a new institution that is something "other", "special" or set aside. If by "gay marriage" you mean civil unions or domestic partnerships then the term is accurate; because that would be something "other", "special" and set aside (and less than).

    In reality most of asking for marriage equality are simply asking to be fully and equally included in the existing institution of marriage.

    The Lovings, an interracial couple fighting for the right to marry in Virginia in the 60's, didn't fight for "interracial marriage". They fought for the right, as an interracial couple, to join the existing institution of marriage. The resulting Supreme Court decision, in the case of Loving vs. Virginia (an uncannily appropriate name for the case), didn't establish "interracial" marriage, it simply ruled that interracial couples could not be excluded from the existing institution of marriage.

    We in the gay community need to be sure that we really understand what this struggle is about and we need to make sure that we understand how important it is that our words accurately reflect the problem, the struggle, the strategy and the goal of the marriage equality fight.

    I think it is especially important that gay bloggers and journalist understand the importance of using the term "marriage equality" instead of "gay marriage.

    I hope Andy will consider dropping the misnomer "gay marriage" in future postings.

    Posted by: Zeke | Sep 10, 2007 11:40:58 AM

  4. Like other Republicans with presidential aspirations, Schwarzenegger probably believes advocating or making any move to advance gay rights will be a setback to his own political career. It's too bad. Gay rights groups just need to pick a good time to place a new proposition in front of California voters.

    Posted by: Dan | Sep 10, 2007 11:42:07 AM

  5. Suffice to say, gay marriage is an oxymoron. There is no such thing.
    Civil unions, on the other hand, will afford homosexuals who are in a long-lasting relationship most of the benefits that married couples currently enjoy.
    Campaign for a civil union law and even Ahhhnold might sign it!

    Posted by: Stephen | Sep 10, 2007 12:11:08 PM

  6. And homosexuals only deserve most of the benefits that married couples currently enjoy because they aren't equal to straight people. Just like how women deserve to make less money than men because they're not worth as much.

    Posted by: Stephen | Sep 10, 2007 12:17:28 PM

  7. Dan, Arnold can never run for president, he is forbidden under the US Constitution.

    Zeke, while I agree with you in principle, ultimately it is still Gay Marriage or Same Sex Marriage. Changing the phrase is not going to matter much...especially changing the phrase after it's been widely used for four years. It is what it is.

    In some regard, calling it strictly "Marriage Equality" can open up a bigger can of worms, but suggesting that anyone and everyone should be allowed to marry...plural marriage, siblings, first cousins, uncles and neices, etc, etc. Whoever opposes any kind of marriage other than one man/one woman will exploit any phrase for their own agenda.

    Posted by: Patrick | Sep 10, 2007 12:24:52 PM

  8. I know that currently he can't run for President, but listen to him in interviews -- the man entertains the possibility that he can get the Constitution changed and make it happen. Either way, it's better for him to stay in the good books of his Republican base than go out on a limb and piss them off with a gay rights measure.

    Posted by: Dan | Sep 10, 2007 12:32:13 PM

  9. to label same-sex marriage as "gay" is misleading... marriage should need no qualifiers.... and should read as "marriage", plain and simple, open to any couple that loves each other. to attach "gay" to marriage somehow involves sex... and that's best left to the "gay-honeymoon".

    as for arnold, he's a pro bodybuilder... and they MUST position themselves as homophobic incase all the male muscle worship and thongs could be interpreted otherwise.

    Posted by: A.J | Sep 10, 2007 12:33:34 PM

  10. The 2nd post by STEPHEN was made NOT by STEPHEN but by someome who has their asshole located between their chin and their nose. Whoever it is must really get frosted when they hear or read the TRUTH.

    Hey ANDY, don't look now, bit your blogsite is rapidly becoming a laughingstock and a depository for shit spewed by impersonators.

    Posted by: Stephen | Sep 10, 2007 12:51:12 PM

  11. Just because I don't think faggots should be allowed to undermine the sacred institution of marriage doesn't mean I hate homosexuals. It just means that I, like the vast majority of Americans, believe that they should know their place in God's plan.

    Love the sinner, hate the sin.

    Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!

    Posted by: Stephen | Sep 10, 2007 1:00:03 PM

  12. Does he still not know yet that he can't run for president?? Is he hoping for the senate?

    Alas, marriage "equality" sounds like you are trying to force churches to open their doors to gay marriage, so it would be a PR disaster.

    Posted by: anon ( | Sep 10, 2007 1:00:26 PM

  13. Just because I don't think faggots should be allowed to undermine the sacred institution of marriage doesn't mean I hate homosexuals. It just means that I, like the vast majority of Americans, believe that they should know their place in God's plan.

    Love the sinner, hate the sin.

    Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!

    Posted by: Stephen | Sep 10, 2007 1:02:23 PM

  14. Sadly, while the fake Stephen is less polite than the real one he's saying pretty much the same thing--and he's just as repetitive.

    Posted by: db | Sep 10, 2007 1:21:14 PM

  15. God did make Steve, Stephen#2

    Who the fuck do you think did Eve's hair and make-up?

    Also, do y'all realize that the pronunciation of Governor Arnold's surname is almost a double insult to black people. I'm greatly offended, he ought to change his offensive last name. And he has the audacity to contaminate the Kennedy family with his presence.

    Posted by: Derrick from Phlly | Sep 10, 2007 1:30:32 PM

  16. all the stephens posting on this thread are demented.

    Posted by: nic | Sep 10, 2007 1:31:52 PM

  17. No one better understands the importance of word choice and its power as propaganda shorthand than the Repugs [just as the Nazis did]. In a fascinating and chilling PBS program, “The Persuaders,” Republican propaganda master Frank Luntz said,
    "[W]ords provide the emotions. [M]y job is to look for the words that trigger the emotion. Words alone can be found in a dictionary or a telephone book, but words with emotion can change destiny, can change life as we know it. We know it has changed history; we know it has changed behavior; we know that it can start a war or stop it. We know that words and emotion together are the most powerful force known to mankind.”

    The best example is "Right to Life" as shorthand for opposing a woman's right to control her own body. By definition that implies that anyone opposing them is supporting Death, and automatically sounds better than "Abortion Rights."

    Based on Luntz focus group studies, the Bush administration stopped using the term “global warming” and replaced it with “climate change.” Under him and other Orwellian mindfuckers,

    “Equal rights for gays” became “special rights.”

    “Gay rights movement” became “the homosexual agenda.”

    “Estate tax" became "death tax."

    “Creationism” became “intelligent design.”

    “Oil drilling became “energy exploration.”

    "Logging" became “the Healthy Forests Initiative."

    Sometimes our own naiveté and failure to consider potential unintended consequences has caused us to hurt ourselves. The term “sexual preference” implied that we all were attracted to both men and women but freely chose one over the other.

    THANK YOU, Zeke, for continuing to try to change the word choice! Yes, whatever it's called will be attacked but that's no excuse not to use the term that can withstand such attacks better than others and "marriage equality" brings that. Why should we make it easier for them?

    Posted by: Leland Frances | Sep 10, 2007 1:39:00 PM

  18. You guys are jerks.

    All I want is for somebody to love me.

    That's why I spend all day on the Internet going to places where I'm not wanted.

    Posted by: Stephen | Sep 10, 2007 1:41:11 PM

  19. "Alas, marriage "equality" sounds like you are trying to force churches to open their doors to gay marriage, so it would be a PR disaster." -- ANON

    Then use "civil marriage equality".

    Like Leland pointed out above, the people who coined the term "gay marriage" are the same people who coined the phrases "family values", "moral majority", "radical homosexual agenda" and "pro-life".

    We use THEIR carefully crafted terminology to our own peril.

    Posted by: Zeke | Sep 10, 2007 1:58:51 PM

  20. the original(?) STEPHEN is at ---

    the more obnoxious, surly, reactionary STEPHEN with the idiotic christian bromides is at ---

    wait, maybe they're one and the same after all? lol.

    Posted by: nic | Sep 10, 2007 2:02:07 PM

  21. I believe that the "more obnoxious, surly, reactionary" Stephen is actually spoofing the original Stephen. And I think it's brilliant!

    Posted by: crispy | Sep 10, 2007 2:27:45 PM

  22. Well the "real Stephen" said that he thought gay people were repulsive on another thread.
    I really think Andy should ban him even if making fun of him is a bit fun.

    Posted by: Adam | Sep 10, 2007 3:28:44 PM

  23. he won't be posting anymore as i have been diagnosed with schizophrenia and he won't let me post anymore because i won't let him allow me to post by him anymore when he keeps looking at me and i keep whispering in my ear that he won't let me post anymore because i told him he couldn't...

    Posted by: stephen | Sep 10, 2007 3:41:18 PM

  24. As far as I can tell the "second" STEPHEN is just a more honest version of the original.

    STEPHEN#2 is the translation of what STEPHEN#1 is really saying without the "compassionate conservative"/"love the sinner hate the sin" mask.


    Posted by: Zeke | Sep 10, 2007 3:57:06 PM

  25. Leland, I think you nailed it, or as the Brits might say, "spot on." We should not allow Luntz and his propaganda wordsmiths to change the language. Every time they do, we should correct them and expose what their trickery. They love to play the semantics game. Another mistake the Democrats constantly make is allowing the Republicans to frame the argument and define the Democratic candidate first. Kerry allowed this and he was never able to recover from it.

    It's not a "death tax" and never has been, it is an "estate tax" and it serves a valid purpose. Likewise all the other verbal revisions should be redirected and challenged instead of just accepted without correction. Sexual preference has always been one term that angers me and whenever I hear it I redirect the speaker to the more accurate sexual orientation. Perhaps if enough people resisted these verbal deceptions, Luntz and company wouldn't be so successful.

    Posted by: Bob R | Sep 10, 2007 6:07:27 PM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «Alums Sue American University Over Gay Newsletter Prank« «