Governor Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up
From the same L.A. Times article that included our All Saints press event today.
The governor expresses hope that Proposition 8 would be overturned as protesters continue to march outside churches across California.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today expressed hope that the California Supreme Court would overturn Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that outlawed same-sex marriage. He also predicted that the 18,000 gay and lesbian couples who have already married would not be affected by the initiative.
"It's unfortunate, obviously, but it's not the end," Schwarzenegger said in an interview on CNN this morning. "I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area."
With his favorable comments toward gay marriage, the governor's thinking appears to have evolved on the issue.In past statements, he has said he personally believes marriage should be between a man and a woman and has rejected legislation authorizing same-sex marriage. Yet he has also said he would not care if same-sex marriage were legal, saying he believed that such an important societal issue should be determined by the voters or the courts.
.
Following that position, he publicly opposed Proposition 8, which amends the state Constitution to declare that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Today, Schwarzenegger urged backers of gay marriage to follow the lesson he learned as a bodybuilder trying to lift weights that were too heavy for him at first. "I learned that you should never ever give up. . . . They should never give up. They should be on it and on it until they get it done."
19 comments:
It would seem that the supporters of same-sex marriage in California do not understand the polity of their own state. Proposition was submitted to the voters of California according to the proper procedures. The electorate has spoken, and all proper procedures were followed. Those who do not like the result should accept the results, even if they do not like them.
Wow! Good for him. And y'all. Maybe he can call his good friend Gov. Charlie Crist and have a little "talk".
Way to go Arnold! I guess an old Austrian can learn new tricks.
I do hope the California Court overturns the prop 8 process. If it does, and does so quickly relatively little harm will be done. Of course, there is a level of trust that will be permanently lost. If I were a gay living in California I would not look at my neighbors quite the same way after this fiasco.
FWIW
jimB
Yet he has also said he would not care if same-sex marriage were legal, saying he believed that such an important societal issue should be determined by the voters or the courts.
And so it has.
"Proposition was submitted to the voters of California according to the proper procedures. "
Hiram, read Sec. 18 of the California constitution before you go running off at the mouth about something you don't know jack about.
John, it is true that I live in New England, and so do not know the totality of the California constitution (although I did live near Sacramento and had 8th grade civics lessons there long ago). But if this measure is transparently against Section 18, it would not have made it to the ballot. I am sure that those who put Prop 8 forward had some very good lawyers to make sure it would be as legally sound as possible.
A change to the nature of the fundamental building block of all societies is not something to be made likely. I have heard or seen much about "How dare you outlaw my fundamental right!" when the case has not be shown that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right. The strength of your passion is not a measure of your correctness. There is no society in the world that would have even thought of giving legal standing to same-sex sexual relationship until the last few decades. It is far from obvious that same-sex relationships should have the name of marriage.
"John, it is true that I live in New England, and so do not know the totality of the California constitution (although I did live near Sacramento and had 8th grade civics lessons there long ago). But if this measure is transparently against Section 18, it would not have made it to the ballot."
And you have plainly forgotten what little you learned in that long-ago civics class. Sec. 18 provides, among other things, that while amendments to the state constitution may be placed directly on the ballot and approved by a simple majority of the voters, REVISIONS (which case law holds are more sweeping changes in the fundamental structure of CA government) must be approved by 2/3 of the legislature before being submitted to the voters. That is what the CA Supreme Court will be looking at - whether Prop. 8, which revokes fundamental rights of hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of Californians is a simple change to the Constitution or a sweeping one. The Court was asked to remove Prop. 8 from the ballot last summer, but simply declined to without explanation. That doesn't bind what the Court does now nor does it predict what the Court may do.
Fundamental rights are not subject to the approval of the voters in CA or anywhere else in this country as far as I'm aware and if you think I'm going to "accept" what a bunch of damned bigots did to my rights, you've got another think coming.
"A change to the nature of the fundamental building block of all societies is not something to be made likely."
Tell me, Hiram, how does it "change the nature of a fundamental building block of all societies" to encourage people to take advantage of it?
John, in your opinion (and for many opponents to Prop 8), Prop 8 was a revision. In the opinion of many other people, it was an amendment. I suppose that this will be decided by the courts. Prop 8 was put forward as an amendment, and it properly passed an amendment by initiative. It will be challenged. If it were transparently a revision and not an amendment, that point would have been clear much earlier in the process.
Again, simply asserting that one has a fundamental right is not the same as demonstrating that one has a fundamental right. In all cultures and societies (some of which tolerated or even celebrated same-sex sexual relationships), marriage has been inherently the union of male and female. That is the objective element of the nature of marriage - male and female. Since the Romantic Movement of a century and a half ago, the subjective element of life and relationships has become a larger and larger element in people's thinking - but you still need to make the case that marriage does not inherently mean a relationship of male and female.
“The strength of your passion is not a measure of your correctness.”
You got that right. If strength of passion were the criteria for “correctness” Fred Phelps would be the most “correct” authority on LGBT issues.
“There is no society in the world that would have even thought of giving legal standing to same-sex sexual relationship until the last few decades.”
The same could be said of mixed-race marriages, women’s suffrage, and the integration of the military.
“It is far from obvious that same-sex relationships should have the name of marriage.”
On the contrary, my faith community believes that it is painfully obvious that marriage should be equally available to all.
“The electorate has spoken, and all proper procedures were followed. Those who do not like the result should accept the results, even if they do not like them.”
Those in the AC who opposed the ordination of Bishop Robinson should follow this advice.
“I am sure that those who put Prop 8 forward had some very good lawyers to make sure it would be as legally sound as possible.”
The Bush administration hired some “very good lawyers” to make the case for the unitary executive, war and occupation, torture, rendition, signing statements, the erosion of civil liberties, and the stonewalling of congressional investigations. The legal (and moral) soundness of these positions is nonetheless subject to debate.
"Activist judges" overturned laws against inter-racial marriage and segregation, against the will of the voters.
And I am thankful that they did so, because if the bigotry of the US had been enshrined in law in the 1960s, a young inter-racial man named Barack Obama would never have risen to the presidency.
SO THREE CHEERS for activist judges, who protect the rights of the people against the pitchforks of the mob.
"John, in your opinion (and for many opponents to Prop 8), Prop 8 was a revision. In the opinion of many other people, it was an amendment. I suppose that this will be decided by the courts."
It will - no "suppose" about it - so why don't you wait before stating anything conclusively?
"In all cultures and societies (some of which tolerated or even celebrated same-sex sexual relationships), marriage has been inherently the union of male and female."
OK, and how, exactly, are male-female marriage affected by same-sex marriages? Or do you seriously believe people are going to start deciding which kind they want?
"but you still need to make the case that marriage does not inherently mean a relationship of male and female."
Twaddle. Some people find some people of the other gender sexually attractive and want to form life-long relationships with them (or possibly less than life-long, but call it a marriage anyway). I would rather have my teeth drilled.
Before the Primitives start plotting their next assault on those of us who are different, they should pause to consider the following. The only thing Prop. 8 did was "define" marriage in CA. It did nothing to reverse any of the other holdings of The Marriage Cases.
It is within the California Court's authority to determine whether the measure was properly placed on the ballot and passed. Presumably they will do so.
If they decide it was properly passed, a new effort to amend it out will likely begin immediately.
FWIW
jimB
California already has a civil unions law that grants (from what I understand) all the privileges and responsibilities of marriage. If that legal relationship is available to those who are sexually attracted to members of their own sex, then why strive for "marriage"? Is the name "marriage" that important? If it is, why is it so important?
Marriage has always been between male and female. To change it so that it is now based solely on affectional preferences is to change what marriage actually is. (Follow the link to my blog for a longer exposition of this idea)
"California already has a civil unions law that grants (from what I understand) all the privileges and responsibilities of marriage."
You understand incorrectly. CA's Civil Unions statute is arguably the most sweeping in the country, but it still does not make Civil Unions and marriages equivalent. Someone who's more familiar with the statute feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there are still differences in tax treatment and in inheritance of commonly held assets. Additionally, some in the private sector have already refused to recognize partners in Civil Unions as "spouses" arguing that "spouses" are only parties to a marriage.
Are you saying that the sole determining factor in marriage is the willingness to breed?
California civil unions technically provide nearly all the rights, but it has become apparent that these rights are frequently ignored or denied anyway.
For example are numerous cases where partners ahve been denied access to their loved one in a hospital regardless of "legal partnership". Little comfort tjat you can sue their ignorant asses after the fact.
Indeed our attorney told us specifically NOT to get a domestic partnership because the statute was so vague, and there was so little case law, that she was not confident that the benefits would be consistently upheld, and we still needed the trusts and powers of attorney anyway.
It would seem patently obvious to me that a $10 form you can notarize at Mailboxes etc is fundamentally different from the weight and meaning of a marriage license.
Separate is not equal.
Society has redefined marriage numerous times. Why, last I checked, women are not purchased by a bride price, there is no dowry, women can now keep their own property, and it is no longer legal to beat them with a stick the size of their husband's thumb! ALthough perhaps in Hiram's neck of the woods this hasn't changed.
The margin of victory was only 400000 votes out of 10 million cast, in a campaign from the proponents that was noted for its vicious mendacity. They lied. They lied knowingly, and cynically. All the major newspapers in the state, even conservative San Diego (which also endorsed McCain), opposed Prop8.
We will not be fooled again.
IT
"Separate is not equal."
Bingo!
The seats at the back of the bus get to the stop at he same time as the seats at the front. How many of us - HIRAM - would be happy being relegated to the back?
Post a Comment