don't stop believing

California AG Jerry Brown + Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger: Don’t Delay Prop 8’s Extermination

California Attorney General Jerry Brown and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger both asked the Ninth District Court not to issue a stay order and immediately abolish Prop 8, despite the defense team’s motion to hold off on the ruling taking effect until it exhausts appeals. The American Foundation for Equal Rights’ Chad Griffin agrees: “The time for the court’s ruling to go into effect is now. We welcome Governor Schwarzenegger’s and Attorney General Brown’s opposition to a stay after their thoughtful analysis of the evidence, the court’s ruling and the law.” All parties involved want the gay marriages to begin stat.

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #afer #americanfoundationforequalrights #arnoldschwarzenegger stories and more

10 Comments

  • L.

    Prop. 8 says (in a thick Austrian accent), “I won’t be back.”

    Wow.

  • Steve

    I’m telling ya, people are learning that it’s a bad idea to oppose the Terminator.

  • randy

    Uh, let’s not forget that this whole debacle is Arnold’s problem. The state legislature TWICE sent a marriage bill to the governator, and twice he refused to sign it into law. And that’s why a lawsuit was filed and got the CA Supreme Court to mandate SSM, until Prop 8 put an end to it.

    All this time and money wasted simply because Arnold wouldn’t sign the bill that passed both house of the CA legislature.

    It’s great that he now backs SSM, but it’s a dime short and a day late, in my book.

  • jeffree

    Unsaid in all this is that Arnold, a Republican, has changed his tune on SSM and Obama [who I voted for] has not.

    That could be because of state vs federal issues, religion, or I don’t why else, but it’s interesting no matter how you look at it!……

  • L.

    @randy: I agree he’s sort of late to the party, but late is still a bit better than never, isn’t it?

  • slobone

    There’s some kind of complicated thing about if the stay is lifted, the other side will appeal it to the Supreme Court, which has to respond right away (just to the stay, not to the whole case). And our guys don’t want the case to go there so soon, because it might force Kennedy to take a position before he’s ready to. Or something like that, I read it somewhere…

  • jason

    @randy: Honestly, I think we would be WORSE off if Schwarzenegger had signed a gay marriage bill. My reason being that the gay marriage bills changed the law as to the definition of marriage, but did not establish a RIGHT to get married. If Schwarzenegger had signed the bill, there still would have undoubtedly been a prop 8. Only then it would have been harder to overturn. A major portion of Vaughn Walker’s decision is based on the fact that voters can’t vote to take a right away (a right which was established by the California Supreme Court). If we had done this through legislation, there would not have been an established right.

    So yes, it sucks that Schwarzenegger vetoed the marriage bills, but the irony is it may have been beneficial to us in the long run.

  • Billy

    Now that California is broke, he supports gay marriages because it encourages economic activity and tourism dollars. What a screwy way to run a state.

  • PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS

    @Billy: 100% Co-Sign. Don’t really think Arnold is suddenly feelin the love for the Gays getting hitched as much as he is looking for the tax dollars Gay marriages will bring to Ca. Jerry Brown has always been on our side, so pretty sure his statements are sincere. If he reclaims the Governors mansion it can only bode well for us……..

  • B

    No. 7 ยท jason wrote, “If Schwarzenegger had signed the [same-sex marriage] bill, there still would have undoubtedly been a prop 8. Only then it would have been harder to overturn. A major portion of Vaughn Walker’s decision is based on the fact that voters can’t vote to take a right away (a right which was established by the California Supreme Court). If we had done this through legislation, there would not have been an established right.”

    I don’t think so: signing the bill would not have hurt. See Page 112 of the decision and what follows. The argument is not dependent on any previous action by the California Supreme Court or the state legislature.

Comments are closed.