# 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:** 12\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2005, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schwarzenneger-veteos-marriage-bill/324124/41 "2005-09-30T16:39:28Z")
> [@duffer](#): > > 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. How about [this?](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6480958/) > [@](#): > > SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Californians will soon see advertisements urging them to help give Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and other foreign-born citizens the chance to run for president. > > The cable television ads, set to begin running Monday, are from a Silicon Valley-based group that wants to amend the U.S. Constitution, which limits the presidency to people born in the United States. Schwarzenegger was born in Austria but became a U.S. citizen in 1983. Or [this](http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/09/16/amend040916.html)? > [@](#): > > WASHINGTON - A United States politician has introduced a constitutional amendment in Congress that would allow foreign-born citizens to run for president. > > The proposal introduced in the House of Representatives by Republican congressman Dana Rohrabacher of California is seen as an effort to help his friend, state governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who was born in Austria. Or maybe you’d like to buy [a bumper sticker?](http://www.cafepress.com/310firststreet.23225543) ---
**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, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schwarzenneger-veteos-marriage-bill/324124/42 "2005-09-30T17:11:23Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > Section 308 only deals with recognizing marriages from out of state. Section 300 actually defines marriage: I’ve heard that before. That’s the position of the author of the bill, Mr. Leno. However, I’m not too impressed with that argument. The language of Prop. 22 is clear on its face that only a marriage between a man and woman shall be **valid** in California. The plain language of a statute should stand on its own and the courts should interpret it as it stands. Leno’s interpretation of Prop. 22 (aka Fam. Code 308.5) is overly narrow, and I don’t see the courts buying it. Family Code section 308.5, read generally, consists of generally applicable language that applies to all marriages without regard to where those marriages take place. The fact that the initiative was ultimately chaptered in such a way as to fit within the scheme for for interstate SSM is not very persuasive. Titles and title-headings of chaptered statutes are not part of the statute. The fact that Prop. 22 was drafted with the intent to stop recognition of interstate SSM is also not very persuasive. The Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution was passed in response to slavery of blacks in America, but the 14th Amendment was drafted with generally applicable language and should be interpreted to apply to everybody. It should not be read so narrowly as to apply only to former slaves and nobody else. Also, the canons of statutory construction state that if the language of a statute is clear on its face, then the courts will apply the plain meaning of the text, and the courts will not dig to find deeper meaining. Only if the language of a statute is vague will the courts begin to look legislative intent and other factors to interpret it. As I said above, the language of Prop. 22 is plain on its face. I think the courts would read Family Code sections 300 and 308.5 together and hold that Prop. 22 prohibits all SSM in California regardless of where the marriage takes place. > [@Homebrew](#): > > Therefore, if the legislature modifies 300, section 308.5 becomes incorrect and most likely unconsititutional without the Legislature even touching it. I don’t understand this. How does modifying section 300 make 308.5 “incorrect” or “unconstitutional?” > [@Homebrew](#): > > Even then, though, it only applies to out-of-state marriages. My heart hopes you’re right, but my brain says otherwise. PS: Please note the use of the words “argument” and “arguably” in Steps 4 and 5 of my original post on this issue. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2005, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schwarzenneger-veteos-marriage-bill/324124/43 "2005-09-30T17:32:15Z")
> [@Bearflag70](#): > > I’ve heard that before. That’s the position of the author of the bill, Mr. Leno. However, I’m not too impressed with that argument. The language of Prop. 22 is clear on its face that only a marriage between a man and woman shall be **valid** in California. The plain language of a statute should stand on its own and the courts should interpret it as it stands. Leno’s interpretation of Prop. 22 (aka Fam. Code 308.5) is overly narrow, and I don’t see the courts buying it. If The People really don’t want homersexuals Destroying Our Family, it shouldn’t be that hard to pass another initiative to put the statute in the proper place. After all, if the other side has to play by all the rules, they do too. ---
**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, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schwarzenneger-veteos-marriage-bill/324124/44 "2005-09-30T17:43:02Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > If The People really don’t want homersexuals Destroying Our Family, it shouldn’t be that hard to pass another initiative to put the statute in the proper place. After all, if the other side has to play by all the rules, they do too. Yes. The only way to get the state to legally recognize SSM, IMHO, is to do one of the following: 1. Have the courts declare Prop. 22 an unconstitutional violation of equal protection 2. Have the electorate repeal Prop. 22 with a new initiative AB849 is not the proper domain of the legislature. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2005, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schwarzenneger-veteos-marriage-bill/324124/45 "2005-09-30T17:47:40Z")
But, but, that would be JUDICAL ACTIVISM! :eek: ---
**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, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schwarzenneger-veteos-marriage-bill/324124/46 "2005-09-30T17:55:45Z")
> [@Scott Plaid](#): > > But, but, that would be JUDICAL ACTIVISM! :eek: I don’t think there’s much to worry about there. The California Supreme court is mostly Republican. Prop. 22 will likely withstand judicial scrutiny. (Although, I personally would love to see Prop. 22 declared unconstitutional, have SSM declared a fundamental right, and/or have homosexuals declared a suspect class.) ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2005, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schwarzenneger-veteos-marriage-bill/324124/47 "2005-09-30T18:15:00Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > 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. This argument makes no sense to me. The will of the people has already been directly applied with Prop 22. Claiming that “the will of the people as embodied in their elected representatives” should supersede this is simply a method of denying “the will of the people” on a particular issue. (Personally, I don’t see this as a “will of the people” issue, marriage is a fundamental right and should no more be denied to gay folks than jobs should be denied to women or education to black people, no matter how the electorate might vote on those issues, but the debate right now in this country over gay marriage is being held on a “will of the people” platform, and your argument fails on that basis.) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2005, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schwarzenneger-veteos-marriage-bill/324124/48 "2005-09-30T18:15:09Z")
> [@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. While I disagree with Arnold over his veto, had he signed the bill, it STILL would have gone to the courts. It would have been a statute overriding a referrendum (prop 22 from the 2000 election), which is not constitutional in CA. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2005, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schwarzenneger-veteos-marriage-bill/324124/49 "2005-09-30T18:18:48Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > Your analysis is flawed at this point. Prop 22 amended Section 308 by adding Section 308.5. > Section 308 only deals with recognizing marriages from out of state. Section 300 actually defines marriage: > > 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. But it still would’ve gone to the courts, and they could overturn the law. The law would still override prop 22 if only indirectly. It’s unclear how this would be decided in the courts. I still don’t think this justifies the veto. It’s not the governor’s job to determine if laws are constitutional or not. ---
**Author:** ![if6was9](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e47c2d/32.png) [@if6was9](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/if6was9)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2005, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schwarzenneger-veteos-marriage-bill/324124/50 "2005-09-30T19:02:15Z")
> [@ArchiveGuy](#): > > How about [this?](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6480958/)Or [this](http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/09/16/amend040916.html)? > Or maybe you’d like to buy [a bumper sticker?](http://www.cafepress.com/310firststreet.23225543) Well done, **Archive Guy**. Here are some more: [From CNN](http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/22/elec04.prez.schwarzenegger.ap/) [From CBS](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/28/60minutes/main652046.shtml) [SF Chronicle](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/02/27/MNG31BGDJ51.DTL&hw=arnold+president+amend&sn=005&sc=498) > [@](#): > > Meanwhile, supporters of California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, led by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Huntington Beach (Orange County), and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, quietly pressed ahead in Congress for a constitutional amendment that would extend eligibility for the presidency to immigrants who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years. The measure, if approved by Congress and at least 38 of the nation’s states, would enable the charismatic Austrian-born Hollywood star to seek the U.S. presidency. [Sacremento Union](http://www.sacunion.com/pages/california/articles/732) [An advocacy group.](http://www.amendforarnold.com/) See the commercials here. **Duffer** ’s perceived (or willful) ignorance, and screaming “CITE!!!” does not constitute fighting ignorance. In the end, it’s just ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2005, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schwarzenneger-veteos-marriage-bill/324124/51 "2005-09-30T19:02:49Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > While I disagree with Arnold over his veto, had he signed the bill, it STILL would have gone to the courts. It would have been a statute overriding a referrendum (prop 22 from the 2000 election), which is not constitutional in CA. OK, I didn’t know how that worked in California. We have no mechanism for referendum here in Pennsylvania. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2005, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schwarzenneger-veteos-marriage-bill/324124/52 "2005-09-30T20:52:50Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I still don’t think this justifies the veto. It’s not the governor’s job to determine if laws are constitutional or not. Huh? It is his job to act according to the state’s constitution. If it is his view that a proposed law (note that the bill’s not a law until either he signs it or his veto is overridden by the state legislature) does not pass muster, then he should veto it, per the constitution which gives him the power of veto. To assert that such a thing is not part of the governor’s job is naive at best. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schwarzenneger-veteos-marriage-bill/324124.md?page=2)