Governor announces veto

[drscott]

Quiet club night at ECR, three squares, Rich Reel calling. Rich is obviously happy to be named instructor for the upcoming year, and he tried out some odd moves on us. Nothing like a call from an illegal position to confuse things!

Lou C had the news that the governor had announced he would veto the same-sex marriage bill. I had to wait until I got home to hear the reasoning (and you won't get any kind of information about it from most news reports): he says he believes the bill is unconstitutional because it is inconsistent with Prop 22 of previous years, and laws passed by proposition cannot be amended by the Legislature. The Legislature is claiming Prop 22 only spoke to recognition of same-sex marriages from out of state, not entirely without reason, but the actual legalities are arguable: here's a good explication followed by many legal points of view in the comments. From the LA Times story:

A recent poll by the Public Policy Institute of California showed the potential risks and gains for the governor. Likely voters split 46% to 46% over same-sex marriage. But 56% of both Democrats and independents favored it, while 68% of Republicans were opposed.

...

The background: 61% of voters in 2000 passed an initiative (Proposition 22) to recognize only heterosexual marriages. That measure, say sponsors of the current bill, affected just people married out of state. The bill, by Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), would allow same-sex couples to be married inside California.

In a case that resulted from San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's allowing same-sex couples to marry, a Superior Court judge ruled that Prop. 22 is unconstitutional. The ruling is being appealed.

Schwarzenegger's veto announcement, by his press office, said the governor believes there's no more noble cause than civil rights, and "gay couples are entitled to full protection under the law."

But: "The people voted and the issue is now before the courts. The governor believes the matter should be determined not by legislative action (which would be unconstitutional) but by court decision or another vote of the people of our state. We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote."

The other problem is the two groups currently trying hard to bring to a vote a constitutional amendment not only outlawing same-sex marriage but removing domestic partnership rights. It's no victory if it will be immediately overturned by older voters in a form even more difficult to overturn. It would have taken a leadership effort by Schwarzenegger to move the people against that possibility, and while he has suggested he's fine with same-sex marriage if the people or courts create it, it's not something he'll work toward. Too bad, but no surprise.

Comments

[orange-groves.livejournal.com]

But in some respects, Governator comes out the good guy. Most liberals and gays won't be voting for him anyway, so he is only pleasing his base of conservatives and ultra-rightwing Nazis Christians.

The Governator's argument isn't unsound. Leno's legislation should have been considered and passed after Proposition 22 was declared unconstitutional. Right now, California law states that the Legislature cannot pass a law that conflicts with voter-approved initiatives.

[apparentparadox]

Actually, I think that Arnie's argument is completely hypocritical when "the people" also voted in that prop that guaranteed the schools so much a percentage of the general fund, and he just ignored that.

[orange-groves.livejournal.com]

Yes, that is indeed VERY true. And how he treats us public employees.