Arnold Schwarzenegger | California | Gay Marriage | News

California High Court Preparing Pro-Gay Ruling on Marriage?


The Huffington Post's Ryan Davis, who with a coalition of gay leaders in late March flew to California to lobby Schwarzenegger to oppose the Family Research Council's anti-gay marriage ballot initiative, has heard some rumblings from within the California High Court. Schwarzenegger publicly opposed the measure that would ban same-sex marriage at the Log Cabin Republican convention over the weekend, and Davis believes it's because he knows what may happen next month.

SchwarzeneggerWrites Davis: "Sources wishing to remain anonymous in the California Court System indicate that the court, which has until June 2, 2008 to issue it's marriage ruling, is considering issuing it on Friday, May 23, 2008, with the decision being written by Chief Justice Ronald George. The Court is readying itself for a backlash that may follow the rumored and bold decision. There is talk that the Court will not simply strike down Proposition 22, but will move the State of California toward full marriage, if not even granting full marriage rights for gays and lesbians outright. Obviously aware of what's coming, Gov. Schwarzenegger came out swinging against the FRC's proposed amendment, 'I will always be there to fight against that,' he said to huge applause this weekend at a Log Cabin Republican Convention in San Diego. He went so far as to call the initiative a 'waste of time'" and acknowledge that the people of California are, 'much further along on that issue.' The latest Field Poll shows only 51% of Californians oppose full gay marriage, an 11 point drop since 2000. There seems little doubt that California is moving toward full gay marriage equality."

A seismic prediction, to be sure. We can hope.

Listen to Arnold Schwarzenegger's remarks from last week's LCR confab AFTER THE JUMP...

The Great California Gay Marriage Shift [huffington post]

Schwarzenegger Calls Gay Marriage Ban 'a Total Waste of Time' [tr]
California Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Same-Sex Marriage Case [tr]
CA Anti-Gay Groups Relaunch Effort to Ban Same-Sex Marriage [tr]

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Oh, just wrap the decision up in a big, red bow and have it delivered to McCain headquarters. He'll be delighted.

    Posted by: 24play | Apr 15, 2008 4:09:50 PM

  2. Sounds nice, hopefuly true.

    BUT the cynic in me wonders if this is in prep for the election. Something to put at least 1 of the 3 Gs out there as an issue. gays, guns, and god stir up the repubs where as they are disheartened by bush and have no love for McCain.

    Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Apr 15, 2008 4:24:36 PM

  3. "Sources" don't know what they are talking about. People "working within the California court system" are not privy as to how Supreme Court justices are going to rule.

    Frankly this sounds like a strategic move from the anti-gay forces trying to get that last minute scare tactic to get those last signatures before the deadline next week.

    If this report is actually from gay supportive people then they should be ashamed of themselves. There is NOTHING good that could come from releasing this information now. The only people who benefit from this spurious gossip are the anti-gay marriage groups.

    Sometimes I think gay people are the stupidist people on earth; at least when it comes to the way some people strategize politically.

    Posted by: Zeke | Apr 15, 2008 4:41:20 PM

  4. I might be a cynic, but at least I have a more hopeful outlook than the other posters. A ruling adopting gay marriage in the most populous state in the US is a GOOD THING no matter when it is.

    Everything can't be part of some grand political scheming to get the perfect political scenario. Thats not how change comes - it happens a little at a time.

    Since Goodridge v. Mass, things have good better. We have a successful gay marriage regime in Massachusetts and civil union have been adopted throughout the Northeast. Yes, constitutional bans have been adopted elsewhere, but come on, gays in North Dakota aren't "more barred" from marriage now than before Goodridge. In either time, marriage there was illegal.

    As for John McCain, he is many bad things (and I would criticize him as much as anyone) but he has always opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment, so I'm not really sure why the crazy anti-gays would support him. They aren't stupid, they know his positions better than most people.

    So please, lets try to be happy and hopeful, even if the leak means nothing.

    Posted by: ryan | Apr 15, 2008 5:01:36 PM

  5. Not to mention, it's no gift to McCain. He's not going to overrule this decision (if indeed it occurs). Most of the country looks at California as a separate country anyway, which is why I live here.

    Still, other states tend to follow California's lead. Call me a crazy optimist (though you never would in real life!).

    Posted by: Paul R | Apr 15, 2008 5:11:24 PM

  6. Americans hate California. They just really, really hate California.

    Once upon a time, New York was numero uno in the hierarchy of 'most hated.' But after the events of September 11, everyone in Middle America suddenly professed their undying love for New York again.

    Now, they've shifted most of their negative attention over to California.

    Posted by: John | Apr 15, 2008 5:25:10 PM

  7. I have a feeling that this is going to end up in the last so called place of justice,which is a bad joke now, the Supreme Court, and, if it does, they will say no way. The pattern has been for the past few years that we are all equal, and, no one needs anything else, except the rich.

    And McCain was for the anti-gay initiative thing in Arizona, and, anytime that is an issue on the ballot, hordes vote, usually the bigots and those who fall for fear tactics and lies about homosexuals.

    Posted by: Sebastian | Apr 15, 2008 6:02:38 PM

  8. 60-second Republican TV commercial to be shown nationwide in October:

    ANNOUNCER: Gay marriage is coming to California.

    [Touristy snapshots of obviously gay and lesbian couples arm-in-arm, hugging, etc. at CA tourist destinations (glamorous/decadent/gay locations in Hollywood, Palm Springs, and San Francisco)]

    ANNOUNCER: Thanks to activist judges on the California Supreme Court, homosexuals are one step away from once again being able to marry in our nation's most populous state.

    [Video of queers standing in line and being married in San Francisco in 2004, plus various shots of gay and lesbian couples in terrifying outfits (dykes in matching tuxedoes, bears in full leather) during commitment ceremonies]

    ANNOUNCER: Homosexual activists everywhere are overjoyed. Final victory is almost within their grasp.

    [Video of all the usual "outrageous" celebratory antics (drag, leather, nudity) from Pride parades taking place in identifiable cities.]

    ANNOUNCER: Once gay marriage is legal in California, how long will it be before your state is forced to recognize these sham marriages—or your clergy is forced to perform them?

    [Video of sad looking Christian families and Christina clergy members being arrested at various demonstrations. Another shot of a gay couple (preferably of disparate ages, maybe interracial) at a commitment ceremony, beaming and kissing]

    ANNOUNCER: Who do you want picking justices for the United States Supreme Court for the next four or, God forbid, eight years?

    [Still photos of, first, Barack Obama, then Hillary Clinton, flash and fade on screen. looking sinister, maybe surrounded by gay supporters]

    ANNOUNCER: To protect the sanctity of marriage,...

    [Stills of happy, smiling straight married couples, white and black (but not mixed!)]

    ANNOUNCER: to protect our children,...

    [Images of small groups of young children, especially boys, playing with no adults nearby]

    ANNOUNCER: Vote this November. Our families are depending on you.

    [More video of typical gay outrageousness— with a male couple pushing a child in a stroller through the midst of it.]


    See? Neither John McCain nor his positions will have anything to do with how this gets played.

    Posted by: 24play | Apr 15, 2008 6:03:16 PM

  9. Ryan and Paul R

    I want to be popping open the champagne over this. I really really do


    BUT, aye yae yae I'm going to be acting like a nervous hen thinking the sky is going to fall till a dem is sitting in the white house.

    On the McCain thing, I am not so sure he wouldn't publicly oppose such since he has been geneuflecting to the religous right. He has even stated he will NOT oppose the anti gay marriage amendment schtick that is part of the repub platform at the convention.

    I want to cheer

    I want to be happy

    I want to jump for joy............

    Maybe I just need a good F and a stiff drink to bury my cynical side for a while.


    Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Apr 15, 2008 6:10:59 PM

  10. Oops. Actually, by late October I certainly hope the Republican ad-makers will be able to include a still photo of EITHER Obama or Clinton, not BOTH, in any attack ads they might be assembling.

    Posted by: 24play | Apr 15, 2008 6:25:34 PM

  11. Attacks ads are only the tip of the iceberg, folks.

    Can you imagine the giddiness at FOX News if the SFPD (in typical California law enforcement stupidity) starts beating up on the Christian martyrs protesting unjust activist judges? It'll make the 1968 Democratic Convention look like a spring picnic.

    Posted by: John | Apr 15, 2008 6:41:42 PM

  12. 24Play, that was great, and, sadly, just the way it would play out.

    Posted by: Luke | Apr 15, 2008 6:56:27 PM

  13. Sounds like wishful thinking to me.

    Posted by: anon | Apr 15, 2008 8:06:38 PM

  14. 24PLAY, you seem to have experience writing this type of ad.

    Posted by: Zeke | Apr 15, 2008 8:40:36 PM

  15. How can anybody hate California? It's only the most diverse and beautiful state in the US of A and the GAYEST state. Between San Francisco,Los Angeles,San Diego,Laguna Beach and Palm Springs it is home to MILLIONS of gay folks. That is REALITY and if some of the other backwards/regressive states in this union are not comfortable with gay people/gay marriage then FUCK THEM! No one is forcing them to visit yet they come by the millions to enjoy all that is here. Considering it was just a few years ago that sodomy laws were finally taken off the books in quite a few of our backwards states it doesn't surprise me that gay marriage upsets the masses. They don't quite get the concept of "Liberty and Justice for ALL!!!!"

    Posted by: SFshawn | Apr 15, 2008 9:34:12 PM

  16. Remember, the last time courts and some elected officials started allowing gay marriages? Yeah, 2004. Remember how that worked for Democrats at the ballot box that year? Republicans are just hoping to have more images of same-sex couples getting marriage in time to spike their base to come out and vote come November and split the black vote in swing states.

    Posted by: Jake K | Apr 15, 2008 9:37:18 PM

  17. It all comes down to state rights. Yes, it was a mess in 2004, and many states passed laws banning same-sex marriage. At the time, many even blamed SF Mayor Newsom for the tidal wave of hate.

    I am most certainly not one to generally see the sunny side of things, but neither Obama or Clinton supports gay marriage---so they can remain neutral. California, though huge, is considered a fringe state by most of America (as noted in previous comments). I still don't think a ruling like this could turn the election. McCain is old, wants the war to continue forever (despite constantly rising opposition), and is (somewhat inexplicably, given how they tarred him in 2000) tied to the Bush regime. I just don't see how he can win.

    Of course, I have been wrong many times before, and the Supreme Court is a semi-nightmare at this point. But I have to stay positive.

    That said, 24Play pretty much wrote the script of what we can expect should this come to pass. My hope is that the crumbling economy, hatred of the war, and other bread and butter issues take prominence. In any way, this will take a while to reach the Supreme Court, and all the states with anti-gay marriage laws can rest comfortably until then. I really just hope we've made some progress in the past few years; who knows.

    In almost every presidential election (as in 1992), the state of the economy is the guiding factor in who gets elected. I don't see the economy improving in the short term, and the Republicans have lost fiscal prudence as their main selling point. So, fingers crossed.

    I also LOVE how Nader is getting zero attention this election. Finally, the liberal media is back to being liberal and not allowing that jackass to hijack a Democratic victory!

    Posted by: Paul R | Apr 15, 2008 10:51:08 PM

  18. Let's hope this is true and they don't chicken-out the way so many other state courts did. California should have been at the forefront of this issue years ago.

    Posted by: | Apr 16, 2008 12:14:01 AM

  19. Well, as a SF resident, it does appear that our fair city gets raked over the coals by the media and church going zealots all the time. Even the current dimwit in office never visited the city during his whole time in office, I guess he was afraid of the gays asking where that compassionate conservatism went when it comes to our basic civil rights!

    Posted by: Sebastian | Apr 16, 2008 12:39:46 AM

  20. Wouldn't it be ironic if the only two states that have marriage equality were states that came by it with Republican governors at the time? It would be pure coincidence, but I'll sure get a hoot out of it. Those poor, poor Republicans... they really suck at politics lately (lately being the operative word), don't they?

    Posted by: Ryan | Apr 16, 2008 2:07:01 AM

  21. I would urge caution in jumping to any conclusions based on such hearsay. Courts are notorious for defying expectations. As for the issue of backlash, Americans tire very quickly with social issues, and already signs can be seen to indicate this particular issue has lost much of its outrage potential. After all, what is more boring and conventional than marriage?

    Posted by: blue888 | Apr 16, 2008 2:24:58 AM

  22. Ryan you have a very perverted and selfish view of social progress.

    CA gay marriage in 2008 = President McCain.

    Take a couple lessons in realism, people, and think long and hard whether it's worth it. Seems awfully selfish to me.

    Posted by: NOOOOOOOOO | Apr 16, 2008 2:56:59 AM

  23. Sorry, NOOOOOOO, I desagree. This election will be based on the economy and the war. In 2000 and especially 2004 voters were lied to enough to make gay issues seem more important than they were. But now those voters are losing jobs and tired of having people they know suffer from war. Gay marriage, no matter how it turns out in ONE other state (CA), will not have the impact the GOP hopes.

    Posted by: Paul R | Apr 16, 2008 3:45:10 AM

  24. Well I Try to remain Optomistic...but IF, and I mean IF the American citizens ARE Stupid enough to vote McSame in...then the United Sates deserves EVERY bad thing that comes along with him!

    Posted by: Disgusted American | Apr 16, 2008 9:44:25 AM

  25. I think we have all seen that one election or one court ruling is not the end of the world. I'm sure that if he is elected we will survive McCain, and equality will continue its eventual march to victory.

    Posted by: blue888 | Apr 16, 2008 2:34:02 PM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «Towleroad Guide to the Tube #275« «