Schwarzenegger says he will continue to veto same-sex marriage bill

AB-43, a bill re-introduced by Mark Leno, that would redefine marriage as a civil contract and passed by the state legislator last week, will be vetoed AGAIN by Gov. Schwarzenegger. Gubernator claims because of a previous 2000 ballot initiative (Prop 22) that defined marriage as between a man and a woman that was supported by 61% of voters. You know it is the “will of the people.”

“I don’t want, as the governor, to go against the will of the people,” Schwarzenegger said at an event put on by the YMCA, but added: “If it goes back on the ballot, the people can make the decision.”
The Legislature approved the bill Sept. 7, and the governor has until Oct. 14 to sign or veto the measure.
Foes of same-sex marriage argue, along with Schwarzenegger, that California voters made their decision in March 2000, when Proposition 22, the protection of marriage initiative, was approved by a landslide 61 to 39 percent. The 14-word measure, which conservative and religious groups placed on the ballot, said simply, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

Um, yeah, but a lot has changed in seven years. There are a lot of legislators that now support same-sex marriage. But these people just don’t stop.

Opponents of same-sex marriage say there’s a simpler reason for that reluctance: The issue is still a loser at the polls.
“It would be interesting for the same-sex marriage people to make their research public, since every survey we’ve done shows opposition well into the majority,” said Ron Prentice, executive director of the California Family Council, which is associated with James Dobson’s huge Focus on the Family Christian ministry.
Proponents of traditional marriage are so confident of their support that they are preparing ballot initiatives even stronger than Prop. 22. One or more of them could go before voters next year, either in June or November.

Scary. You can sign a petition urging him not to veto here. I am sick and tired (literally and of these anti same-sex marriage people), so I thought what better way to respond to this, but with Wanda Sykes views on same-sex marriage, in her special Sick and Tired.

and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

18 Comments

  1. Posted September 18, 2007 at 11:45 am | Permalink

    Another way to help is to donate to Let California Ring, a public education campaign put together by Equality California. It’s an awesome campaign (and a good friend of mine has been working for months on this campaign at Equality California- she’s amazing). Their work is ground-breaking, and I encourage everyone to donate money and/or time to EC. CA is setting the tone for the rest of the country- if marriage equality doesn’t go through CA, the rest of us are going to have a hell of a harder time getting everyone who wants to marry the 1,138 federal rights and privileges they are entitled to.
    and on a short rant: As a community, we need to stop saying same-sex marriage and start saying marriage equality. “Same-sex marriage” sounds like we are asking for something different, something special. “Marriage equality” is more honest- it lets people know that we are just asking for the same rights that everyone else already has.

  2. the frog queen
    Posted September 18, 2007 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

    I dunno how 61% is a “landslide” win…!?

  3. noname
    Posted September 18, 2007 at 12:26 pm | Permalink

    I’ve never understood the strident opposition to marriage equality (nod to azliza). Of course, I’ve never been down with the whole God thing, either, so there you go.

  4. Drwg
    Posted September 18, 2007 at 12:35 pm | Permalink

    I’m with Azliza (actually i went to a meeting for Let California Ring back in May). It is the exact same situation as gay rights vs. civil rights. It isn’t something special that gays/lesbians/women/minorities are asking for, it is access to the same institutions others have access too: marriage, buying homes, getting jobs, education, families, health care, etc.

  5. Posted September 18, 2007 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

    noname-
    I’m pretty sure it has to do with the “naughtiness” of gay sex. If being gay was openly accepted, how would closeted repub senators be able to get off cruising in public restrooms? It would be boring, not “taboo,” and therefore, not a turn on. It’s all about preserving dirty fantasties.

  6. Samhita
    Posted September 18, 2007 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

    Azliza-Seen on the rhetoric from same sex to equality. Amazing what a difference it makes. One is something to be added, the other recognizes what is missing from the current structure.
    Learn something new everyday!

  7. Posted September 18, 2007 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

    Well, it IS the vill of the people. And the vill musty, er…triumph….

  8. Posted September 18, 2007 at 1:35 pm | Permalink

    Well, it IS the vill of the people. And the vill must, er…triumph….

  9. noname
    Posted September 18, 2007 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

    azliza – I know what they say the problem is. I just can’t imagine spending my time trying to run other people’s sex lives. Unless you get off on it, why care who fucks who and how?

  10. MLEmac
    Posted September 18, 2007 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

    I always find it funny that “the will of the people” must be upheld when the issue of gay marriage comes up, but the “will of the people” means squat when it comes to issues like stem-cell research.

  11. Queen_Nerd
    Posted September 18, 2007 at 3:48 pm | Permalink

    Hypothetical situation. 61% of the people in my state want to outlaw interracial marriage. It’s the will of the people! We must respect it! We can’t allow our precious snow white daughters to be dirtied by Negroes! So no more interracial marriage.
    Fucking stupid. Just because a majority of people want to restrict the rights of the minority is no good reason to do so.

  12. werechick
    Posted September 18, 2007 at 5:59 pm | Permalink

    I was thinking about something.
    Homophobia, especially against gay men, comes from the straight guys’ fear of being sexually objectified in the same way, ironically enough, the straight man does to the woman. Ultimate double standard time.

  13. ponies and rainbows
    Posted September 18, 2007 at 7:39 pm | Permalink

    Queen Nerd, actually, your hypothetical situation occurred in history. From Religious Tolerance:
    -In 1948, about 90% of American Adults opposed interracial marriage when the Supreme Court of California legalized it.
    -In 1967, about 72% were opposed to interracial marriage. This was the year when the U.S. Supreme Court was legalized interracial marriage everywhere in the U.S.
    -In 1991, those adults opposed to interracial marriage became a minority. Opposition dropped at about -1 percentage point per year during this interval.
    Actually, that entire article is fascinating — right after the stats on interracial marriage, it recounts the story of a heterosexual couple who, in 1996, were forbidden to marry in the Roman Catholic church because the man was a paraplegic, and therefore they wouldn’t be able to consummate the marriage.
    And yeah, werechick, men’s fear of gay men basically stems from misogyny. It’s appalling to see how many straight men have killed gay men for coming on to them in the same way that straight guys feel they’re entitled to come on to women — although in most cases, the gay guys weren’t even a quarter as offensive as most straight guys are when approaching women.

  14. Rock Star
    Posted September 19, 2007 at 3:13 am | Permalink

    This reminds me of an idea I had for a t-shirt: “If you’re against gay marriage, don’t get gay married.” My (gay) best friend told me he thought it was a fucking stupid idea.

  15. Posted September 21, 2007 at 8:46 am | Permalink

    Fucking stupid. Just because a majority of people want to restrict the rights of the minority is no good reason to do so.
    I believe it’s known as “democracy” in the civilised world. I would never have suspected the readers of Feministing would have preferred a dictatorship with Arnie at its head over a democracy. But that’s life.

  16. kissmypineapple
    Posted September 21, 2007 at 8:55 am | Permalink

    Our constitution is set up specifically to protect the minority from the majority in cases where wanting to restrict rights has no basis (and it nearly always is baseless). No true democracy would ever actually work b/c it is like a dictatorship run by 51% of the population. In a true democracy, the majority to decide to make their country a sectarian state, and that would hold. We are a representative democracy with checks and balances in place specifically to prevent the majority from hijacking the country and stripping others of their rights just because it pleases them.
    Besides which, anti-choicers aren’t in the majority.

  17. kissmypineapple
    Posted September 21, 2007 at 8:57 am | Permalink

    Oops, thought I was in the Aurora thread.
    Well, whatever, it’s still true. Anti-gay people aren’t in majority either, and again, the majority isn’t allowed to strip the minority of their human/civil rights.

  18. twincats
    Posted September 21, 2007 at 6:19 pm | Permalink

    I call it just one more facet of the Myth of Values Voter. The Myth of the Values Voters is that “mainstream values� (sometimes called “traditional values�) are under attack and the only way to protect them is to remove the liberties of those they disagree with.
    I think that at least part of the reason that they advocate this myth is because they are projecting their own fears onto those who disagree with them and worry that they will have their liberties taken away if they don’t do it first.

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

180 queries. 0.462 seconds