# Schwarzenneger veteos marriage bill **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 30, 2005, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schwarzenneger-veteos-marriage-bill/324124 "2005-09-30T01:06:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![woodstockbirdybird](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/woodstockbirdybird/32/7905_2.png) [@woodstockbirdybird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/woodstockbirdybird)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2005, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schwarzenneger-veteos-marriage-bill/324124/21 "2005-09-30T02:52:08Z")
> [@astro](#): > > His acting abilities aside, I have long admired Arnold Schwarzenegger for the way he literally made a place in the world for himself with his hard work, focus and dedication. You may be right, but I always read his “hard work, focus and dedication” as “maniacal ambition to become famous”. In my eyes, you could say the same thing about Britney Spears, and I’d take her just as seriously as a gubernatorial candidate, no matter what party she was affiliated with. Obviously, Arnie has more political smarts than Britney, but, as his position on gay marriage shows, not _that_ much more. Did you even pay attention to his campaign? It was indistinguishable from him doing press for one of his shitty movies. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2005, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schwarzenneger-veteos-marriage-bill/324124/22 "2005-09-30T02:54:57Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > And they seriously want this jerk to run for President? Who wants Arnold to run for President? ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2005, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schwarzenneger-veteos-marriage-bill/324124/23 "2005-09-30T02:56:28Z")
> [@woodstockbirdybird](#): > > I didn’t vote for his bitch ass the first time. I’ve always wondered, for those that did: why? I’m not trying to be glib, but what, specifically, in his unspeakably retarded campaign spoke to you and made you pull that particular lever (or, more accurately, push that particular button)? Or was it just that there was basically no serious high-visibility competition? And why does this decision (gay marriage) surprise you at all? Because Grey Davis is an evil, evil man who was RUINING California!! That, and he’s more photogenic than the whiny assed bitch who initiated the recall in the first place. If the Republicans had actually gone with that wussy little girl, they never would’ve gotten the recall and they knew it. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2005, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schwarzenneger-veteos-marriage-bill/324124/24 "2005-09-30T03:08:37Z")
> [@Airman Doors](#): > > I’m disgusted about it because he sent it back to the courts. Haven’t we had enough of this nonsense in the courts? This was an opportunity to cement it into law. There would be no cries of judicial activism, it would be done, once and for all. But nooooo, that would make too much sense. Instead we have to have some judges decide it. > > Great. Thanks, Arnie. Yeah, it’s funny how a member of the party that’s always screaming about activist judges legislating from the bench on this issue instead of allowing the will of the people as embodied in their elected representatives to make the decision has now declared that it’s better for the judges to decide this since the elected representatives went against that particular party line. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2005, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schwarzenneger-veteos-marriage-bill/324124/25 "2005-09-30T03:19:16Z")
> [@Lord Ashtar](#): > > Who wants Arnold to run for President? There’s a movement to amend the Constitution to allow foreign-born citizens to hold the office of President. There’s some talk in the blogosphere that Arnie himself is behind at least one of the groups spearheading the effort. Whether Herr Gropenator is directly involved or not, he is frequently held up as someone who would be such a wonderful president if it weren’t for that gosh-darn Constitutional restriction. ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2005, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schwarzenneger-veteos-marriage-bill/324124/26 "2005-09-30T04:19:14Z")
Shit on a shingle, **Otto**. Care to come up with something more substantive than “some talk in the blogosphere”? And just how big is this movement? There’s a movement to have Zolton nominated for the next Senate elections, I’m sure. On the lighter side. Am I the only one that would love to be a fly on the wall at Christmas in the Kennedy Compound this year? ---
**Author:** ![dalej42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@dalej42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalej42)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2005, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schwarzenneger-veteos-marriage-bill/324124/27 "2005-09-30T05:11:54Z")
I hate the hypocrisy. If you’re a Republican, you have to suck the cock of the Religious Right. It isn’t about “activist judges” or “the will of the people.” It is about, “I need money from the fundies to win again.” Yet, Arnold could have been unique. He doesn’t need the job of Governor of California. He is already a millionaire. He could have signed the bill and not ran for reelection. I also wonder, in all honesty, if some members of the assembly would have voted for it knowing that Arnie would sign it into law. I’m under no illusion that same sex marriage is a winning issue for Democratic Hispanic legislators. ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2005, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schwarzenneger-veteos-marriage-bill/324124/28 "2005-09-30T05:41:00Z")
> [@](#): > > “This bill simply adds confusion to a constitutional issue,” Schwarzenegger wrote. “If the ban of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, this bill is not necessary. If the ban is constitutional, this bill is ineffective.” Step 1: California adopts a new state Constitution via Constitutional Convention with an equal protection clause in 1879 (they threw out the state Constitution of 1849). Step 2: California adopts the initiavtive process in the state constitution in 1911. The state constitution provides that the legislature has no power to amend or repeal an initiative, and the power to amend or repeal an initiative lies solely with the electorate. The public policy is essentially that the people should be allowed to bypass the legislature on a single issue, via an initiative, if the legislature does not reflect the will of the people. If the legislature could undo an initiative by legislative act, then the initiative process would be useless. Step 3: California electorate approves the Proposition 22 initiative in 2000. It states that only a marriage between a man and woman shall be valid or recognized in California. The legislature has no power to amend or repeal Prop. 22 (see Step 2). Step 4: SSM advocates challenge Prop. 22 in the courts. The cases are making their way up to the state Supreme Court. The argument is that Prop. 22 is unconatitutional in that it violates the equal protection clause in the state constitution (see Step 1). Step 5: California legislature adopts AB849, purportedly allowing SSM in California. However, AB849 arguably has the effect of repealing the Prop. 22 initiative, by an legislative act. Thus, AB849 is arguably unconstitutional (See Step 2). Therefore: 1. If Prop. 22 is unconstitutional, in that it violates the equal protection clause of the state constitution, then AB849 is unnecessary, as the state equal protection clause guarantees SSM. 2. If Prop. 22 is constitutional, then AB849 is unconstitutional as a legislative act that has the effect of repealing an initiative. ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2005, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schwarzenneger-veteos-marriage-bill/324124/29 "2005-09-30T05:47:43Z")
To put it more succinctly, AB849 is either redundant or unconstitutional. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2005, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schwarzenneger-veteos-marriage-bill/324124/30 "2005-09-30T05:52:06Z")
> [@Bearflag70](#): > > To put it more succinctly, AB849 is either redundant or unconstitutional. His reasoning makes sense; I got it without your good explanation. But it’s still not unreasonable to come to the conclusion that he just didn’t want to stick his thick, veiny neck out and this is his excuse. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2005, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schwarzenneger-veteos-marriage-bill/324124/31 "2005-09-30T06:45:35Z")
> [@Otto](#): > > He’s already gotten a number of "fuck you"s for saying he’d veto the bill, but he gets another one now that he’s actually [done it](http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050929/pl_nm/rights_california_gaymarriage_dc). You evidently disagree with him, but he’s evidently a man of his word, and for that you should respect him. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2005, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schwarzenneger-veteos-marriage-bill/324124/32 "2005-09-30T09:19:37Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > Like there was one running. > > Remember, we were in a “anybody but Grey Davis” mood. I promise, we’ll do better next time. Your claim would be much more credible if you had not elected Grey Davis in the first place. California’s track record is … not great, lately. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2005, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schwarzenneger-veteos-marriage-bill/324124/33 "2005-09-30T14:18:46Z")
Excellent post, **Bearflag**. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2005, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schwarzenneger-veteos-marriage-bill/324124/34 "2005-09-30T14:47:41Z")
> [@woodstockbirdybird](#): > > I didn’t vote for his bitch ass the first time. I’ve always wondered, for those that did: why? I’m not trying to be glib, but what, specifically, in his unspeakably retarded campaign spoke to you and made you pull that particular lever (or, more accurately, push that particular button)? Or was it just that there was basically no serious high-visibility competition? And why does this decision (gay marriage) surprise you at all? Like was already stated, we were in an Anyone But Davis mood. We had just started to recover from the Enron/rolling blackout/rate hike fiasco, there was the daily (damn near hourly) reporting of new corruption accusations in the news (payolas, kickbacks, contractors making big money to do nothing), favoritism in state government, billions of dollars missing (which “necessitated” fee/rate/tax hikes), no accountability, etc etc etc. California was your basic example of How To Flush Your State Down The Toilet. Then along came Arnold. He was NOT Gray Davis. Big point in his favor. He said the right words and made the right promises. Clean up Sacramento. Wipe out cronyism and corruption. Make government more efficient and more accountable. A carefully groomed image of being gay friendly, or at least gay tolerant. In short, he was NOT Davis and he made the right noises. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2005, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schwarzenneger-veteos-marriage-bill/324124/35 "2005-09-30T15:08:40Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > You evidently disagree with him, but he’s evidently a man of his word, and for that you should respect him. A governor who can promise to veto and bill and then veto it? Amazing! How does this veto jibe with his earlier words about his support for gays and civil unions, **Quartz**? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2005, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schwarzenneger-veteos-marriage-bill/324124/36 "2005-09-30T15:19:04Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > You evidently disagree with him, but he’s evidently a man of his word, and for that you should respect him. So, if I _say_ I’m going to kick you in the nuts, and then I go and actually _do_ it… you’d be okay with that? ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2005, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schwarzenneger-veteos-marriage-bill/324124/37 "2005-09-30T15:19:08Z")
> [@Bearflag70](#): > > Step 3: California electorate approves the Proposition 22 initiative in 2000. It states that only a marriage between a man and woman shall be valid or recognized in California. The legislature has no power to amend or repeal Prop. 22 (see Step 2). Your analysis is flawed at this point. Prop 22 amended Section 308 by adding Section 308.5. > [@](#): > > 1. A marriage contracted outside this state that would be valid > by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted > is valid in this state. > > 308.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or > recognized in California. Section 308 only deals with recognizing marriages from out of state. Section 300 actually defines marriage: > [@](#): > > 1. Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil > contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the > parties capable of making that contract is necessary. Consent alone > does not constitute marriage. Consent must be followed by the > issuance of a license and solemnization as authorized by this > division, except as provided by Section 425 and Part 4 (commencing > with Section 500). Therefore, if the legislature modifies 300, section 308.5 becomes incorrect and most likely unconsititutional without the Legislature even touching it. Even then, though, it only applies to out-of-state marriages. ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2005, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schwarzenneger-veteos-marriage-bill/324124/38 "2005-09-30T15:21:13Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > You evidently disagree with him, but he’s evidently a man of his word, and for that you should respect him. California teachers would disagree that he kept his word on the education budget. ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2005, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schwarzenneger-veteos-marriage-bill/324124/39 "2005-09-30T15:36:41Z")
Just like his latest movies–straight to veteo. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2005, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schwarzenneger-veteos-marriage-bill/324124/40 "2005-09-30T16:38:31Z")
> [@Arnold Winkelried](#): > > Maybe I don’t understand what he’s saying, but it sounds to me like he’s trying to reject responsibility for the decision by claiming that the issue is spelled out in the constitution. I take issue with the last sentence. “If the ban is constitutional” would mean to me “if the constitution would allow you to ban gay marriages”, not “if the constitution forbids gay marriages.” It would be very possible that the constitution doesn’t state a preference either way, and that the decision could properly be left up to the state legislators. Just because the constitution _allows_ a state to ban gay marriages doesn’t necessarily mean that the constitution says you _must_ ban gay marriages. > > Or am I all wet? No, you’re not. And I think Arnold was correct in vetoing the bill, for exactly the reasons he stated. I wish more politicians would think that clearly instead of simply kneejerking for votes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schwarzenneger-veteos-marriage-bill/324124.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schwarzenneger-veteos-marriage-bill/324124.md?page=3)