Also, you are correct that Prop 22 can’t be overturned by the legislature. But, of course, that IS the central question which is open to debate – whether Prop 22 is in direct conflict with legalizing gay marriage in CA. Arnold thinks it is – but that doesn’t make him “right.” A reasonable interpretation, including where the language of prop 22 has been placed in the statutes, is that Prop 22 merely bans recognizing out-of-state gay marriages, not banning in-state marriage. Whether that is constitutional problem or not is a whole separate question (and which may be decided by the Supreme Court as well).

Also, I strongly disagree with your view that if Schwarzenegger signed into law either gay marriage bill it would have had no impact. Had he signed the bill, presumptively, he would not have argued against the gay marriage case in the CA Supreme Court. Also, the Supreme Court would have had to consider in making its decision that not only had the legislature passed gay marriage twice, but that the executive branch supported it as well. In the face of that much support from both sides of the political fence, the Supremes would have a much more difficult time not granting full marriage benefits.

YOu need to read more closely.

He didn’t oppose an amendment “that gives equality to gays and lesbians”. He opposed one that would take away equality.

Jpin,

You could read more carefully as well. He didn’t “not support” the amendment but pledged to oppose it.

Further, those who think he vetoed marriage because of an anti-gay position need to go back and read his veto message. He believes that Prop 22 can’t be overturned by the legislature (and he’s actually right).

His signing the marriage bills would have done exactly nothing. Because it would have immediately been put on hold and included in the Supreme Court arguments – WHERE IT ALREADY IS – there would not have been one gay couple that would have benefitted.

Schwarzenegger has signed more pro-gay bills than any governor of any party in any state. But I guess it’s just easier to hate, you don’t have to actually think that way.

Sometimes I think you guys WANT to believe that you have enemies when you see friends. That’s really a screwed up way of looking at things.

I honestly expected more from him when he took office. You would think that a Hollywood insider and husband of a Kennedy would be more socially liberal, despite his party affiliation.

http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com

She has been really rank relative to where she was then: putting an attorney general in who believes in torture is a far cry from not wanting to watchpeople fuck on the street.

She was always opposed to same-sex marriage. I don’t why it would surprise anyone that she condemned the gay weddings in 2004. It is completely consistent with her record.

As Mayor of San Francisco, Fienstein told Life Magazine that she “sometimes find the homosexual lifestyle offensive.” She also ordered raids on gay establishments (not just bathhouses as her revisionist version of history implies) under the auspices of “protecting public health.” She also vetoed what would’ve been the nation’s first domestic partnership registry.

There’s homophobia and racism in California? No kidding.

Hollywood produces pro-California propaganda? Gee, thanks for the “news.”

Fienstein, Arnold, and Clinton are members of the “League of Evil”? Maybe, I’ll have to check with Mr. Burns.

In truth, Americans are pretty conservative about sexuality and racial integration across the board. If you think you’re going to find no bigtory in Chicago (Obama Country)…I invite to look up the bias-motivated crime statistics for that city. I doubt they’re faring much better than in the Golden State. I’d say bigotry is a fairly consistent and universal problem anywhere in this country.

Also a significant association (pal) is Jesse Ventura who was voted in by kids because of his socially liberal position, I’m not sure if they knew that as a libertarian he was fiscally conservative as well (or what that meant) He was trying to legalize prostitution and I think grass, at least.

The very best that could even be projected about this is that he supports a position kind of like Obamas’ around civil unions with all the rights but not the name of marriage.

I’m not sure that he’s a typical Bush conservative; maybe not even as bad as Feinstein. More like some Holywood version who doesn’t truely know if he’s for real .

Just an aside, but to emphzise the fact above there is plenty of documentation that the facts about Iraq were well know by all Middle East experts (besides Scott Ritter) and that Feinstein and Clinton (who voted for war ) were well aware that the country was being misled and that the war had nothing to do with WMD or 9/11.

Feinstein and Schwarzenegger may be in different parties but their politics are the same, which is common with Democrat and Republican politicians. Both are filthy rich and favor putting right wingers, who are usually bigoted against the GLBT communities, in the judiciary to protect the interests of the wealthy. In November 2007, Feinstein was one of only six Democrats to vote to confirm gaybasher Michael Mukasey as Attorney General. For the same reason both favor tax cuts for the rich, union busting measures like NAFTA and cuts in welfare and unemployment insurance. Both favor the war and its goal of capturing control of key resources like oil. Feinstein voted for the war and now, like Hillary Clinton, claims she was fooled by Bush. Both are lying. *

Just last August Feinstein joined Republicans to give the government broader powers to monitor the phone calls and email messages of American citizens and was the original Democratic cosponsor of a bill to extend the anti-constitutional USA PAYTRIOT Act.

* Hillary was in the White House when Bill Clinton was lying about WMD to justify denying food and medicine to Iraq, a policy which killed many children. Feinstein was specifically told that the WMD story was a fake by UN Arms inspector in Iraq Scott Ritter.

Schwarzenegger isn’t any more against same-sex marriage than Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are. Notice the body language from all three of these politicians. They aren’t passionate in the slightest about same-sex marriage either way. The fact that they have agonisingly convoluted and lame explanations for why they’re against the practice means they’re thinking way too hard about it. Their answers seem rehearsed, calculated, and measured because that’s precisely what they are.

But that’s how politics is played out. They have to express opposition to same-sex marriage because America is…well…uptight.

What confuses me most about his stance on gay marriage is his insistence that the Courts decide whether it should be legal (a position far from the mainstream conservative rally cry of “activist courts”). It makes him seem so neutral on the subject, when in fact, he had his own attorney (not the state AG) argue against gay marriage during the CA supreme Court hearings. That is far from being neutral on the subject.