California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger says maybe we will undo Proposition 8 (banning gay marriage)

[Terminator]

SACRAMENTO, Nov. 9 (UPI) -- California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger Sunday said "we will ... maybe undo" a measure passed by voters Tuesday stripping same-sex couples of the right to marry. Proposition 8 amends the state constitution to declare that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." It came in reaction to a state Supreme Court ruling that laws prohibiting same-sex marriage violated the state constitution.
In an appearance Sunday on CNN, Schwarzenegger said the state Supreme Court might overturn Proposition 8, the Los Angeles Times reported. He also said it is likely Proposition 8 will have no effect on the estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages already recorded in California.
"It's unfortunate, obviously, but it's not the end," Schwarzenegger told CNN. "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."
The comments seem to represent a change in Schwarzenegger's thinking, the Times said. In the past he has said he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, but he has also said the matter should be decided by voters or the courts and he opposed Proposition 8.
He told backers of same-sex marriage they "should never give up."
"They should be on it and on it until they get it done," he said.

[IndianaFuzz]

I was very surprised to hear this from Arnold. Him being a republican, I wouldn't expect him to be pro gay marriage at all. It's good to see that Arnold is able to express how he feels about the issue without having to take the standard party line. It shows that not all republicans and anti-gay. Not all democrats are pro-gay.

I'm just curious, if Prop 8 made a constitutional amendment, then how can a court rule it unconstitutional. The vote just made it constitutional, right? I mean, I hope that marriage can become legal there once again, but I don't see how they accomplish that now, short of trying to pass another amendment that repeals the current one.

[Rhino]

I don't see the issue as "pro-gay" or "anti-gay". Hell, I'm anti-fat men in speedos, but it doesn't mean I think the government needs to step in and make them illegal.

I see this issue as "pro-freedom" or "anti-freedom".

[bayern]

In California, Red is Blue, Green is Black, Up is Down, Sideways is straight ahead; in Kalifornia whatever the courts say never made any sense and the State should merge with the St Andries Fault.

[dadyswat]

It's sad to see that the voter no longer counts. If the voter makes a change and the government or special interest group doesn't like it they just get a court to change it.

[Rhino]

It's sad to see that the voter no longer counts. If the voter makes a change and the government or special interest group doesn't like it they just get a court to change it.

So what you're saying is that the majority should rule?

[CTR man]

SACRAMENTO, Nov. 9 (UPI) -- California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger Sunday said "we will ... maybe undo" a measure passed by voters Tuesday stripping same-sex couples of the right to marry. Proposition 8 amends the state constitution to declare that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." It came in reaction to a state Supreme Court ruling that laws prohibiting same-sex marriage violated the state constitution.
In an appearance Sunday on CNN, Schwarzenegger said the state Supreme Court might overturn Proposition 8, the Los Angeles Times reported. He also said it is likely Proposition 8 will have no effect on the estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages already recorded in California.
"It's unfortunate, obviously, but it's not the end," Schwarzenegger told CNN. "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."
The comments seem to represent a change in Schwarzenegger's thinking, the Times said. In the past he has said he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, but he has also said the matter should be decided by voters or the courts and he opposed Proposition 8.
He told backers of same-sex marriage they "should never give up."
"They should be on it and on it until they get it done," he said.

Ahem Governor, I thought we had it done. Maybe we should recall you just like we did your predecessor. What is it Mr Governor, a wording issue? or are you caving to special interest groups?

In California, Red is Blue, Green is Black, Up is Down, Sideways is straight ahead; in Kalifornia whatever the courts say never made any sense and the State should merge with the St Andries Fault.

Welcome to the 9th Jerk-it court of Schlemiels. I have long said that this state needs to fall into the ocean at the San Andreas Fault line. Which means that we would lose SF and possibly parts of LA and then this state can get on with being proper again. Also, the state could divide at the Tehachapi Mountains (south of Bakersfield) and become North and South California. The Central Valley (where most of the farmland is) would be controlled by the North.

Contrary to popular belief there are conservatives in CA, we just keep getting drowned out by the population centers all the time. I am sick and tired of every time the idiots in SF and LA do something then it reflects upon the rest of the state. Maybe its time I move to Utah.

[213th]

So what you're saying is that the majority should rule?

If the majority of voters voted to make it illegal, then the court and the governor should not overrule that. Maybe in time the people will change their mind, but the government is there to enact the will of the people and until the people change their mind, this is the way they voted and that is the way it should be.

[CTR man]

+1

[deputysykes]

I don't see the issue as "pro-gay" or "anti-gay". Hell, I'm anti-fat men in speedos, but it doesn't mean I think the government needs to step in and make them illegal.

I see this issue as "pro-freedom" or "anti-freedom".

Yeah, but fat dudes in speedos don't get tax breaks.

"So what you're saying is that the majority should rule?"

Yes, I am. That's how every law in this country has been made and our rights were created.

[dadyswat]

So what you're saying is that the majority should rule?

No, what I'm saying is when voters pass a constitutional admendment that it should stick.

Are you saying that whatever a minority wants should be the rule?

[Ryan]

So what you're saying is that the majority should rule?

Absolutely, 100%, without a doubt in my mind: YES

The voters spoke, and their wishes should be honored. For someone who is so anti-government control, you sure do want to give them a ton of power.



Arnold said it should be decided by voters, they made their choice, and since he doesn't like it he is going to have it overturned. In my book that is complete Horseshit.

[Bob Loblaw]

Does anyone else see this as a civil rights issue?

[Willowdared]

Unconstitutional is, as unconstitutional does.

Dred Scott, anyone?

[Bob Loblaw]

Yeah, but fat dudes in speedos don't get tax breaks.

I was not aware that gay folks get tax breaks for being gay.

[Ryan]

They don't. But married people get tax breaks for being married. This was started as a way to help out couples who were going to reproduce and further our species, and the government decided they should give them a tax break for doing so.

You show me a gay couple who can reproduce, and I will concede they should receive the same rights (read:tax breaks) as a hetero married couple.

[Xiphos]

So what you're saying is that the majority should rule?

That's typically how elections work. The people of California voted to amend the constitution in their state with this and that should be that.

[Bob Loblaw]

You show me a gay couple who can reproduce, and I will concede they should receive the same rights (read:tax breaks) as a hetero married couple.

I can't show you a gay couple who can conceive, but I can show you a ton of same-sex couples who can raise well adjusted children. Same sex couples have a bunch of hurdles to jump in order to get custody of a child. It is never an accident. Most of the time, they've planned and planned and planned how they're going to raise children if they're ever allowed. But the people who keep having "mistake children" and "accidents" who can't afford their kids, can't raise them at all and don't give a crap about them? It's ok for them to have as many kids as they want? What about the millions in foster care who will never be adopted? The love and security of a same-sex household isn't good enough for them? But that is a different debate for a different day, I suppose.

Can you provide documentation that reproduction was the reason for giving married couples tax breaks? What about the millions of couples who don't have children?

Flame away, but this is tantamount to not allowing black folks or women the right to vote...

[Bob Loblaw]

That's typically how elections work. The people of California voted to amend the constitution in their state with this and that should be that.

that is a very good point, Xiphos. I've hijacked this thread away from its original intent: to discuss whether or not it's right for Arnold to defy the will of the people. Discuss.

[Ryan]

I never mentioned the raising of well rounded children, and I do believe they are capable. They can not conceive. I will look for the documentation online somewhere. It was in a social law class I took that I first heard about it and I sold the textbook back long ago.