Schwarzenegger Promises Veto of Gay Marriage Bill



Governor Schwarzenegger just announced that he will veto the gay marriage bill that the California legislature passed yesterday.

I’m surprised. And impressed.

He gave precisely the right reason: the California people passed a Defense of Marriage bill defining marriage as one man and one woman just five years ago in a ballot initiative. Here’s the statement from his press secretary:

We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote. Out of respect for the will of the people, the governor will veto (the bill).

Even though some people were saying the pressure from his base would force him in this direction, I thought Schwarzenegger would cave in to pressure from his friends in Hollywood to be politically correct.

Nice to be wrong on that.


Blue Mass Group has more on homosexual marriage amendments.


You may also like...

9 Responses

  1. Pat Patterson says:

    Correcting the people’s vote in California has been a longtime odorous practice. What usually happens is that some popular issue catches support from the voters and the legislature puts up a similar measure either as an initiative or in some cases passes a bill in the legislature that “solves” the problem, without the uncouth citizenry being involved. Then after a decent interval, the legislature does the right thing and either repeals its own measure or simply passes a bill that supercedes the initiative, which is what has happened here. Even Castro argued that the people can make mistakes, and must be “guided”. I suspect that the Democrats in California face the same problem as its national party in that they are much more liberal than the people they promise to represent and must sometimes bow to its factional wings.

  2. Pat Patterson says:

    This was an easy call for the governor to make as the Democrats were simply not serious about this issue except to try to damage Schwarzebegger’s reelection chances. California’s legislature has a long history of trying to co-opt the initiative process. Usually by offering an alternative version of a popular measure as an initiative on the same ballot. Other times they will pass, in the legislature a similar bill, which after a decent period of time they will simply either replace or rescind. I think they may have overplayed their hands simply because this issue, gay marriage, is not on the ballot and is actually not very popular in the state.

  3. Sierra Faith says:

    Gay Marriage Terminator

    Gay Marriage Terminator speaks, and will veto….

  4. The Drill SGT says:

    Your analysis is good, but incomplete. Beyond the political calculations, the Law passed but vetoed violates the state constitution. California has an Initiative and Recall provision in the constitution. The voters passed an Initiative after the Mass Supreme Court ruling. The Initiative defined marriage as being 1 man, 1 woman. The California Constitution prohibits the legislature from modifying laws passed by Initiative. What the Dem’s should have done was to pass a bill putting their language up for a vote in the next election. That is the legal way to change the current law.

    — California Native trapped in Northern VA —

  5. Pat Patterson says:

    Sorry about the 2nd post I thought I hit preview so I rewrote it. When I wrote my piece I did not check to see if the original initiative was written to allow the legislature to repeal it. See Article 2 Sec 10c, so I made the dangerous assumption that the legislature was not grandstanding and could repeal the original measure banning same sex marriages. The text of the bill seems pretty straight forward does not say anything about whether the initiative can or cannot be repealed. Since I am not a lawyer I would gladly bow to a superior authority.

  6. Arnold Is No Girlie-Man!

    Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger proved he is no girlie-man and stood up to powerful pressure groups and proved he is still Mr. Olympian. He will veto a law that would legalize gay marriage, despite the fact that in 2000 the majority of California vote…

  7. Ken Bingham says:

    Thank you for the comment in my blog. I really

    appreciate it. Go Arnold The Real-Man!

  8. On Lawn says:

    Apparently the legislature tried to pretend that by amending section 300 (not Prop 22) they were not amending Prop 22 by allowing same-sex marriage. Fortunately Knight v Superior Court establishes that as an impossible conclusion.

    Some links to where I’ve been discussing it in depth can be found here. These threads seem to really run the gauntlet.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *