Arnold Schwarzenegger | California | Gay Marriage | News

BigGayDeal.com

Schwarzenegger Vetoes Same-Sex Marriage Bill as Promised

Even as he proclaimed that "all Californians are entitled to full protection under the law 'and should not be discriminated against based upon their sexual orientation,'" California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger again vetoed a bill that would have lifted the state's ban on same-sex marriage.

ArnoldThe veto was expected but it was Schwarzenegger's language that hit a nerve for some.

Said Equality California executive director Geoff Kors: "We find it shocking for the governor to say he opposes discrimination based on sexual orientation and then veto a bill that would have ended discrimination based on sexual orientation."

Kors called it "hypocrisy at its worst."

According to the AP, "In his veto message, Schwarzenegger said voters and the state Supreme Court should decide the issue. The high court is likely to rule next year on whether California's ban on gay marriages violates the constitution. The governor said voters 'should then determine what, if any, statutory changes are needed in response to the court's ruling.'"

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. I fucking hate this son of a bitch and wish I could strangle him with my bare hands.

    Posted by: peterparker | Oct 15, 2007 8:08:11 AM


  2. During the 60's had the Negro (that is what African-Americans where called back then)depended on the voter for their rights, my feeling is they would still be riding the back of the bus and not eating at the same lunch counter as whites. It took politicians with courage and conscience to do the civilized thing and enact civil rights legislation. Lyndon Johnson knew at the time his action would cost the Democrats the "southern vote" for decades to come. Johnson did the right thing. Schwarzenegger has no courage and little civility. Once again he has done the wrong thing proving he's just another vulgar Republican political hack who hopes to one day be called Senator. I'd like to see him face recall or swept from the political stage for good.

    Posted by: Bob R | Oct 15, 2007 8:25:14 AM


  3. it's just very disappointing :(

    dave
    http://imdavevalk.blogspot.com

    Posted by: dave | Oct 15, 2007 8:49:29 AM


  4. Just another republican pig standing in the way of true equality and freedom. The United States and Cal-lee-forn-nia is not a pure democracy, but was instead formed as a constitutional republic in part to keep tyranny of the majority from usurping the rights of a minority. Wake up California (and America). Stop voting for hypocrites.

    Posted by: vinny | Oct 15, 2007 9:27:17 AM


  5. Leaders lead. Actors pretend.

    Posted by: David D. | Oct 15, 2007 10:17:05 AM


  6. Didn't this fool say the legislature should decide the issue a while back? What a stupid fuck.

    Posted by: Jason | Oct 15, 2007 10:19:01 AM


  7. Hey, ya ignorant girlie man!

    Thanks for the vetoslap across the face. I don't vote for pigs like you who insult my intelligence and my existence.

    Posted by: Rey | Oct 15, 2007 10:25:39 AM


  8. Tosser.

    Posted by: Gary | Oct 15, 2007 11:37:39 AM


  9. Bob R, you shouldn't just use a word (currently deemed outdated and possibly derogatory) just because "that's what they were called back then." The whole point of the Civil Rights movement, and progress in general, is to distance ourselves (as a country) from terms like that.

    If us African-Americans want to be called Negros, we'll let you know. Otherwise, I beseech you to use PC terms when appropriate...as in this case.

    Posted by: James | Oct 15, 2007 1:33:37 PM


  10. "In his veto message, Schwarzenegger said voters and the state Supreme Court should decide the issue."

    That's why I like the timing of the recently launched Let California Ring campaign that I saw a video for last week.

    http://www.letcaliforniaring.org

    California has about 43% support for marriage equality, and once we nudge that up just a little bit more the Gov. can no longer rely on the tired old line that the people aren't supportive of marriage. Check out the campaign @:

    http://www.letcaliforniaring.org

    Posted by: Brian | Oct 15, 2007 1:57:34 PM


  11. and this fascist wants to change the Constitution so that he can run for President....fuch him.

    Posted by: AngryCitizen | Oct 15, 2007 3:22:51 PM


  12. Signed by the governor in the same sitting and not mentioned by Andy:

    # SB 559 retroactively grants domestic partners exemptions from property tax reassessment after the death of a partner
    # SB 105 implements joint tax filing by domestic partners
    # AB 102 allows couples to take the last name of either partner at registration of their domestic partnership
    # AB 394 reinforces the anti-discrimination laws for LGBT youth in schools
    # SB 443 makes it possible for HIV positive men to have children through artificial insemination
    # AB 682 changes the process for patient permission to get an HIV/AIDS test.
    # AB 14 updates the anti-discrimination policies in several sections of the law
    # SB 777 reinforces anti-discrimination policies in the education code.

    Posted by: Mitch | Oct 15, 2007 3:31:37 PM


  13. So what's your point, Mitch? That allowing the legislature to pass those HUGELY controversial laws (I know I've seen hundreds of thousands of fundies marching in the streets against changing HIV test permission slips) shows that the governor has some balls?

    Go back to your Log Cabin meeting.

    Posted by: freddie | Oct 15, 2007 3:52:33 PM


  14. MITCH,

    Try explaining how gay friendly Governator Schwarzenegger is to the GLBT parent of a child who is having difficulty obtaining custody of their child because the heterosexual former husband/wife/boyfriend/girlfriend wants to block access to the child due to their former partner's homosexual orientation. Better yet, try explaining that to the child who is being denied a relationship with their parent.

    Try explaining how gay friendly Governator Schwarzenegger is to one half of any California GLBT couple who had to move out of their home when their partner died simply because they could not afford the estate taxes.
    When a married heterosexual person dies, they can bequeath their entire estate, regardless of its size, to their spouse without any tax consequences whatsoever. For gay couples, the IRS steps in and slaps a 50% tax on any estate exceeding $1,000,000 simply because we are unable to marry. Given that the median price of a home in California is $600,000, this tax affects MANY GLBT couples in Caliifornia. And some people lose not only their partner, but their home and their standard of living.

    Try explaining how gay friendly Governator Schwarzenegger is to GLBT couples who cannot access their partner's health insurance due to the fact that the company is not legally required to do so. (My understanding is that the majoirty of companies in the State of California are not required to provide benefits to the partners of GLBT employees...even if they are registered domestic partners.)

    And I agree with FREDDIE...you need to go back to your Log Cabin meeting.

    xo,
    peterparker

    Posted by: peterparker | Oct 15, 2007 4:34:37 PM


  15. oops...take 'of a child' out of my first sentence in the post above

    Posted by: peterparker | Oct 15, 2007 4:36:14 PM


  16. Peter, and don't forget to add that even if a company recognizes same-sex partners and allows the couple to BOTH be on the same insurance plan, our federal goverment will tax the insurance benefit as income! Ladies and gentlemen, "all men are created equal" my ass!

    Posted by: nyc | Oct 15, 2007 5:03:09 PM


  17. AssWipe Arnold STEROIDS and all..if he wasn't abusing drugs illegally then WHERE do you thionk he'd be now?

    I guess all the gays and lesbians that work for him and his ST$RAIGHT wife can feel real proud of this Austrian Ignorant Giant.

    Posted by: MCnNYC | Oct 15, 2007 7:33:40 PM


  18. But wait a minute MITCH, how can we still be passing laws (years after DP laws went into effect) to give domestic partners another one of the rights that automatically come with marriage when everyone is claiming that DP's and CU's and Registries and the like provide ALL the rights and benefits of marriage? Why would that be?

    How many more times will the DP law be revised to give rights and benefits of marriage that people claimed they already provided?

    Posted by: Zeke | Oct 16, 2007 12:00:11 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Oregon Gay Rights Foes Fail Again, This Time on Discrimination Law« «