September 8, 2005

EFFECTIVELY ANNOUNCING HIS RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN:

Citing Prop. 22, Gov. Rejects Gay Marriage Bill (Michael Finnegan and Maura Dolan, September 8, 2005, LA Times)

A day after California's Legislature became the first in the nation to pass a bill to legalize same-sex marriage, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced through an aide Wednesday that he would veto the measure "out of respect for the will of the people."

In a careful statement, Schwarzenegger press secretary Margita Thompson invoked the voter approval in March 2000 of Proposition 22, which said: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

"The governor believes the matter should be determined not by legislative action — which would be unconstitutional — but by court decision or another vote of the people of our state," the statement said. "We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote."


Always nice for a politician when doing the right thing is politically expedient.

Posted by Orrin Judd at September 8, 2005 7:08 AM
Comments

In the last legislative session here in WA, the legislature threw out a voter approved initiative requiring a supermajority to raise new taxes with a simple majority vote. This was only possible because in the recent election the dems took control of the state senate and they retained the house and governorship. There was no possibility of a governor's veto of the bill. This shows where those who opposed Arnold for being too liberal were wrong. The electable moderate Republican is better than the unelectable conservative version.

Posted by: Patrick H at September 8, 2005 10:06 AM

priceless.

Editor's Note: please adopt a pseudonym of some kind so folks can address you when they address your points.

Posted by: at September 8, 2005 12:27 PM

I'm confused about the California constitution and the Governor's comments. How can a vote into law by the CA legislature be considered unconstitutional and how do referendums work in CA when they contradict existing laws or newly written laws? And the Gov. seems to be saying that a court deciding whether or not gay marriage is acceptable is more constitutional than the CA legislature deciding that? What does all this mean?

Posted by: Shelton at September 8, 2005 1:14 PM

Shelton

In theory (in THEORY mind you) the referendums become part of the CA constitution and thus overule the legislative acts. But like you I can't make heads or tails out of the present brouhaha, nor Schwarzenegger's remarks. Which means he's a talented politician.

Posted by: h-man at September 8, 2005 2:35 PM

Boo yah!

Of course, it makes no sense for state courts to overturn state referendums, except possibly on narrow procedural grounds, but that won't stop the California legal system.

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at September 8, 2005 3:32 PM

AOG wins first prize - maybe OJ should send you a book.

Posted by: Shelton at September 8, 2005 3:43 PM
« NO ONE CAN ANTICIPATE IT...: | Main | YET CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN STILL FIGHTS INFLATION: »