Governor Says Law Permitting Gay Marriage Would Be 'Fine'

[ronnykmarshall]

<snip>

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said on national television Monday night that it would be "fine with me" if state law were changed to permit same-sex marriages.

In an interview with Jay Leno on NBC's "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno," Schwarzenegger also strongly rejected President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. "I think those issues should be left to the state, so I have no use for a constitutional amendment or change in that at all," he said.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-marry2mar02,1,1008314.story


This should tick off the RW in California.

[MsUnderstood]

1. Da Terminator has spoken

and his word was evil . . .to the christian conservatives. . .

Arnold has a good point--a law allowing gay marriages would be great--he is there to enforce the laws that the people pass.

I just wish he would read the California Constitution and see the FIRST law passed that prohibits discrimination.

[libview]

4. what about the law the people passed banning

same sex marriage? Should we only enforce laws that the people pass that democrats agree with?

[AZCat]

7. I think the first law (amendment?) is given priority

And regarding enforcement- currently we don't enforce the laws that the Republicans disagree with, by stripping funding for the SEC, EPA, NTSB, etc. IMHO there isn't equal enforcement for all laws right now.

Edit: Clarity

[Ediacara]

8. That law,

as the City of San Francisco is arguing at the state supreme court, is in violation of the State Constitution.

This would be akin to, say.... a law being passed to deny black women the right to vote, even though this is specifically outlawed in the Constitution. Would it then be preferential enforcement if some polling places refused to abide by that law and sued the state to reverse the law?

[rawtribe]

9. And people need to challenge unconstitutional laws.

The idea of "activist judges" is nonsense! The role of the judicial branch is to weigh a law against the constitution. It was settled in 1803 in Marbury v Madison.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument. The rule must be discharged. Source: 1 Cranch 137 (1803).


http://www.townhall.com/documents/courtcases/mvm.html

[tom_paine]

2. Raygun-Hair Gropenator just said the opposite 2 days ago

I don't think Gropehfuhrer Reagan-Hair has any principles worth speaking of except his admiration and desire for power.

When push comes to shove, he'll do 99.5% of what Pete Wilson and the rest of his Bushevik Thug Squad say. It was probably the familiar celebrity surroundings that lulled him into sayign what he really thinks.

Don't worry, Gropehfuhrer Reagan-Hair didn't mean it.

He meant to say "(Insert what Imperial Family wants me to Say so I can become Emperor)."

[wicket]

3. wait a sec...

Didn't he just commit that infamous gaffe a few months ago when he said that "Gay marriage should be between a man and a woman"?

Either way, I'm glad he's changed his mind!

[sonias]

5. Well I knew that was coming - Leno in Love with Arnie

"C'mon, admit it," the governor said. "All right, I admit," Leno said. "I'm in love with you."
---------------
No surprise there.

Sonia

[hippiechick]

6. But didn't he ORDER the state not to issues licenses ?

just a couple weeks ago ?

WTF ?? :wtf:


:hippie:

[cosmicdot]

10. there shouldn't be any law at all

we have inalienable and sovereign rights as bestowed and protected by the US (and California) Constitution -- life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness -- with privacy - safety - protection ... the 'non-corporate policies and procedures' of we the people, to be free without fear of retaliation or retribution



if laws can be changed today, they can be reversed tomorrow

having personally fought for my rights through litigation (which means 'and financially' - things were settled days before going to court), I concluded that We the People should not have to 'buy' our protection ... we constantly have to 'go to court', sue, etc. Employee Rights. Health Rights. I shouldn't have to sue to find out if a corporation has violated ERISA laws. The Dept of Labor's ERISA section told me that's what I'd have to do. Of course the EEOC wasn't interested in protecting my rights either. I had some battles with them. I was told when I filed the EEOC complaint I would be given an opportunity to present my case ... never happened. I'm just saying, I wouldn't put anyone in the position of having to argue and/or fight for one's inalienable rights ... all the community support systems I had always hoped would be there to help - weren't ...

I knew I had a case ... it would only be conjecture to think that my case might have provided precedent for others, and, in general, more protection in the workplace, etc.




does Maria S.S. have an opinion as first lady of CA? is she running the show? or is Ahhhnold torn between the White House and home ... Tonight on E!



CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.


SEC. 2. (a) Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or
her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of
this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or
press.

(b) A publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with
or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical
publication, or by a press association or wire service, or any person
who has been so connected or employed, shall not be adjudged in
contempt by a judicial, legislative, or administrative body, or any
other body having the power to issue subpoenas, for refusing to
disclose the source of any information procured while so connected or
employed for publication in a newspaper, magazine or other
periodical publication, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished
information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or
processing of information for communication to the public.

Nor shall a radio or television news reporter or other person
connected with or employed by a radio or television station, or any
person who has been so connected or employed, be so adjudged in
contempt for refusing to disclose the source of any information
procured while so connected or employed for news or news commentary
purposes on radio or television, or for refusing to disclose any
unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving
or processing of information for communication to the public.

As used in this subdivision, "unpublished information" includes
information not disseminated to the public by the person from whom
disclosure is sought, whether or not related information has been
disseminated and includes, but is not limited to, all notes,
outtakes, photographs, tapes or other data of whatever sort not
itself disseminated to the public through a medium of communication,
whether or not published information based upon or related to such
material has been disseminated.


SEC. 3. The people have the right to instruct their
representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and
assemble freely to consult for the common good.

~snip~

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1

[Rockholm]

11. He Only Did This So He Could Get Props Passed.

If Arnold gets his propositions passed, the Arnold will change his mind back. Just a little thought.

[cosmicdot]

12. good point