Arnold to veto same sex amendment

[Ed]

because it is contrary to a ballot initiative last year that defined marriage as being "between a man and a woman">

Interesting ... do the people decide or the whores that they elect.

(sorry...breaking news on the telly.. not on my usual sources yet....

 

[WildCat]

That's all...

 

[Suddenly]

because it is contrary to a ballot initiative last year that defined marriage as being "between a man and a woman">

Interesting ... do the people decide or the whores that they elect.

(sorry...breaking news on the telly.. not on my usual sources yet....

Right... has nothing to do with the fact that he still has ambitions of becoming President, and Constitutional Amendment or no if he signs that into law he has roughly the same chance at the GOP nod as Elliot Gould...

Nope... all about the will of the people....

 

[WildCat]

Here's the story.

eta: It wants registration from the above link, but for some reason you can see it from Google news...

 

[Ed]

Re: Re: Arnold to veto same sex amendment

Right... has nothing to do with the fact that he still has ambitions of becoming President, and Constitutional Amendment or no if he signs that into law he has roughly the same chance at the GOP nod as Elliot Gould...

Nope... all about the will of the people....

That is silly. He would not live long enough for an amendment to pass. Ain't gonna happen.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

Dear Governator Schwartzenegger:

Just a brief reminder: WE OWN YOU!

Sincerely,
The Republican National Commitee,
A "holy" owned subsidiary of the Christian Right (TM).

Ah-nold has often been cited as being "tolerant" toward gay and lesbian issues. However, despite the fact that this is Kali-fornia and the bible beaters tend not to have all that much sway as they do elsewhere, they still have the GOP by the ballots when it comes to cultural issues. If the approval polls are any indication, he's in enough trouble politically as is. When Ah-nold says he wants the courts to handle this issue, he doesn't want to sign legislation that he doesn't need to endanger his campaign coffers by hacking off the Anyone-But-A-Liberal-Democrat voters. He'll let the "liberal activist judges" take the heat.

 

[JenJen]

As much as I don't like the veto, and I was ready to disagree with it, I have had a change of heart on a technicality.

Foxnews.com

The Republican governor had indicated previously that he would veto the bill, saying the debate over same-sex marriage should be decided by voters or the courts.

This does seem to be an effort for legistlators to negate the voter's will. Prop 22 should be taken to court to get it determined unconstitutional (if it is) or take the issue back to the people. Otherwise the legistlators are just acting like the courts.


Jen

 

[Manny]

As much as I don't like the veto, and I was ready to disagree with it, I have had a change of heart on a technicality.

Foxnews.com

This does seem to be an effort for legistlators to negate the voter's will. Prop 22 should be taken to court to get it determined unconstitutional (if it is) or take the issue back to the people. Otherwise the legistlators are just acting like the courts.

See, I disagree. I know that California is initiative-happy but legislatures are supposed to represent the people and in a representative democracy they should be presumed to do so. So maybe the people have had a change of heart, or maybe they just want the legislature to do it, or maybe the legislature is wrong and the voters will want to throw them out for it. In any event, grow a pair and sign the thing, Arnold! Worst case scenario, the voters will like your redistricting initiative.

And the courts are exactly the wrong place to decide this issue, whatever the outcome is. Courts already decide too much.

 

[TragicMonkey]

And the courts are exactly the wrong place to decide this issue, whatever the outcome is. Courts already decide too much.

Not necessarily. In questions of "will of the majority" versus "individual rights of the minority", the courts are the natural place to settle things. Unlike legislatures and executives, the courts are not burdened with keeping themselves popular with the masses, but are charged with determing what is just under the constitution and the law. This is the traditional pattern of civil rights-- first there is a challenge to existing law, it is referred to the courts, the courts determine (or not) that the existing situation is discriminatory/unjust, the offending laws are ruled invalid, rights are secured, and after some time passing everyone gets used to it and wonders what the fuss was about.

In order to bypass the courts and use the other two branches, the majority would have to be in favor of it already, which is rarely the case when it comes to minority rights.

 

[JenJen]

See, I disagree. I know that California is initiative-happy but legislatures are supposed to represent the people and in a representative democracy they should be presumed to do so. So maybe the people have had a change of heart, or maybe they just want the legislature to do it, or maybe the legislature is wrong and the voters will want to throw them out for it. In any event, grow a pair and sign the thing, Arnold! Worst case scenario, the voters will like your redistricting initiative.

And the courts are exactly the wrong place to decide this issue, whatever the outcome is. Courts already decide too much.

I understand. Like you don't put slavery up for a vote - but that, actually, became a court issue. If the people change their mind, they can vote again but they spoke.

I lived in Oregon and voted for the "Right to Die" - the Feds fought us and then we voted for it again. Now, it's the law in Oregon but the Feds - they say it's illegal - threaten to prosecute any Dr. using Fed controlled substances.

Same type of battle with Medical Marijuana.

I really don't care much for legistlators interfering with the will of the people.

Jen

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

I lived in Oregon and voted for the "Right to Die" - the Feds fought us and then we voted for it again. Now, it's the law in Oregon but the Feds - they say it's illegal - threaten to prosecute any Dr. using Fed controlled substances.

Same type of battle with Medical Marijuana.

I really don't care much for legistlators interfering with the will of the people.

Jen

So much for "Federalism" and "States Rights," huh?

Memo to conservatives: Make up your mind guys. Either the states have the right to make their own decisions as they claim for issues like abortion and civil rights, or they beholden to the federal government like they claim for euthanasia and medical (or recreational ) marijuana.

 

[Luke T.]

See, I disagree. I know that California is initiative-happy but legislatures are supposed to represent the people

And so is the Governor.

 

[Luke T.]

So much for "Federalism" and "States Rights," huh?

Memo to conservatives: Make up your mind guys. Either the states have the right to make their own decisions as they claim for issues like abortion and civil rights, or they beholden to the federal government like they claim for euthanasia and medical (or recreational ) marijuana.

I am against euthansia (speaking very generally) and for medical marijuana. I'm pretty much for recreational marijuana, too. I am also a conservative. I think the federal government is wrong to override the states on both of these.

With gay marriage, however, being legally married by a state carries with it the demand for federal recognition for a number of legal purposes. Federal taxes, for example.

As for Arnold becoming President, it is impossible, and he knows it.

 

[Ed]

So much for "Federalism" and "States Rights," huh?

Memo to conservatives: Make up your mind guys. Either the states have the right to make their own decisions as they claim for issues like abortion and civil rights, or they beholden to the federal government like they claim for euthanasia and medical (or recreational ) marijuana.

You might want to rethink this post.

 

[Manny]

And so is the Governor.

Ah, crap. You're right, of course, as is JenJen. I was just hoping that an elected government would show some leadership, because I think that's where it's legitimate to do so.

TragicMonkey, I disagree with your post but I think that's for another thread.