Arnold Schwarzenegger’s the man of the gay news hour at the moment.
The Republican Governor of California caused a stir when he told the Log Cabin Republicans that he opposes an amendment banning gay marriage.
I will always be there to fight against that. I think we need a constitutional amendment so that a foreign-born (person) can run for president, but not against gay marriage. That would be a total waste of time.
Schwarzenegger has previously vetoes bills legalizing gay nuptials, which, of course, is in line with his Republican peers. Unlike other GOP members – like presidential candidate John McCain – Schwarzenegger says the Supreme Court should decide the legality of the situation.
The gays, of course, are thrilled about this turn of event. Equality California executive director Geoff Kors gushed, “This is extremely significant, and it’s an enormous event to have our Republican governor come out against this ballot measure, which is opposed by Democrats as well. It makes this opposition a bipartisan issue.” Social conservatives aren’t as enthusiastic, but that’s alright: society can evolve without them.
hells kitchen guy
As the governor of the nation’s by far largest and wealthiest state, he’s among the top 5 GOPers in the country, so good for him!
I still don’t get him though. His reason for the vetoes was that the people passed Prop 22 in 2000. According to one article yesterday, he said about the new petition drive something like, ‘Even if it makes the ballot, I don’t think it would ever pass because the people of California are so ahead on that issue.’ Well, if he believes the people of California are ahead on the issue, why veto the marriage legislation, saying basically that it was going against the people. He’s a little confused.
Merely because Schwartzenegger is CA’s governor does not make him among the top 5 GOPers in the country. He, like most CA republicans, is far from the Republican mainstream which makes him much less important to that party.
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.
It seems like Arnold is just doing as Romney did in Massachusetts. Courting the gay vote because it’s important in that state. There are over 1 million gays in California (according to Advocate’s 2008 election map), making them a very powerful constituency there. The fact he’s vetoed successful attempts to legalise gay marriage TWICE in California shows his opposition to the issue very clearly.
Read between the lines.
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.
i think Arnold is showing that he holds to the old conservatism; essentially what the repubs used to be before the defection of the southern democrats into their party. good for him!
I truly do not believe the senator had been trying to make it legal for a foreigner to become president for his own agenda. His record does not show he is in support of gay marriage. I feel he is just pandering to the GLBT community to gain there our support behind him. We had a our FLA State Governor Charlie Christ. Through all of his campaign included support for Gay Civil Unions. The night prior to the election he put out a statement that he does not support Civil Unions for gays and that what he really meant was that gay people can enter into legal contracts such as a Will, Home ownership, bank accounts and so on. What he said was that it was all just a misunderstanding and that he was not in support of Legal Civil Unions. The GLBT community and our supporters did not find out about this change until they cast there vote. Now they call him a viable candidate for Vice Pres. on the same ticket with John McCain. It’s just what we need for the next 4 years if ether of them are elected in Nov.
Is Der Gubernator eyeing Dianne Feinsteinâ€™s Senate seat? Sheâ€™ll be 78 when the next election rolls around.
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.
hells kitchen guy
JP in WeHo: He’s ex cathedra one of the top GOP in the country, as governor of California. It has nothing to do with his position in the party per se.
The comparison with Feinstein (above) is merited since despite some people’s beliefs, California has a deep vein of conservatism running through it despite San Fracisco. Many people, myself included feel deeply betrayed by Feinstein, who switched around like a vampire when she hit a larger voter base than San Fran.. Disgusting: she was also part of the committee who approved Mukasey, despite his appaling view on torture.
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.
ps: Ventura was Governor of Minnesota also in a lot of Schwartzneger movies.
M Shane, I’m not sure what your point is.
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.
As for Fienstein’s anti-gay positions, she has held those opinions for ages. It didn’t just happen after she became a U.S. Senator.
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.
John; I made several points, some which you only reiterated; others which you just missed. . I don’t know that that many people were really very interested in marriage when Feinstein was mayor. Re; the raids I think that everyone was acting in a panic, and knew little about AIDS, and then there was sex to be had on every corner at least. I don’t think that most people thought of her having a strident consevative line. I supect that your additude is retrospective.
BTW sexual puritainism is the least of the US’s problems, and that’s nothing new to anyone.
I fail to see any reason for you to scream at me, because you don’t understand minimally abstruse points. I did’nt say anything about Hollywood making films about Califormia. I was remarking that while he may be like Feinstein he may also be an excentric libertarian like his friend Ventura and be supportive of something like civil unions(with rights).
I don’t even know if you were around when Feinstein was mayor but the things which she
might find offensive were e.g. someone getting a blowjob on the street. Some gay people here even think that fistfucking is strange. She was not thought of as being an enemy of the gay people.
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.
hells kitchen guy
I thought this was about Ahnold? Who gives a flying fuck about Feinstein? When she was MAYOR??!??
HKG; Feistein was S.F. Mayor 78-88 ; it was a comparison related to Ca Politics & the poss. enthusiam by A.S for Feisteins Senate seat..
This got a little sidtracked. But as I recall it she was (given the standards at the time). By standards at the time., she was liked by gay people, when she got into state politics she got very right wing down to be a Bush lacky . Direction is that there may be a comparison between she and Arnold.
The issue is related to Arnolds attitude toward gays in State politics. and similarity towards hers.
hells kitchen guy
MShane: OK, I’ll accept that. If anything, she should be cricitized more than him, just because she’s a California Democrat. Since he’s a republican, anything pro-gay – even not anti-gay – is bucking his party.
HKG: The association of Arnold. with Ventura who is a close friend, may give him to be far more apt to take an independant ‘s stance with regards to social issues. I have a feeling about him that he may be less likely to warm up to the neocons even than she. I saw him one morning at a coffee shop in Venice alone dressed up in this faggy looking matching shirt and shorts outfit., hair all done up. Looked kind of like a Holywood queen out slumming.
convenient for him to want an amendment allowing him to run for president but not one that gives equality to gays and lesbians. what a dope.
QueerUnity – exactly! I think it’s ridiculous that the gay press is giving Arnold props for essentially “not supporting” a gay marriage ban. Wow, thanks Arnold. Given that such an all-out ban has a limited chance of passing in California (at least I hope it’s a limited chance), Arnold’s opposition is too easy. Personally, I’m glad he can’t run for President – his actions have shown that when he has the opportunity to stand for equal rights (twice!!), he takes the easy political road – a quality that I do not want in my president.
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.
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.
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.
Tim – I realize that Arnold has agreed to “oppose” any amendment – but, I feel that in reality his opposition is empty given his lack of support for gay marriage in the past. Just because he has signed into law many protections for gays recently does not mean we can’t criticize him for vetoing gay marriage. Personally, I don’t feel obligated to praise Schwarzenegger for giving me some, but not all, of my fundamental rights.
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.
OnATorrent…I think you are way more right about his motives. Also, I think that he is trying to appease two sides at the same time…the Republican minions and gays/lesbians…both of which hold a huge part of the key to helping pass any change that would allow citizens not born in the US to become POTUS. He is just trying to dance around the issue and he just isn’t as graceful as Fred or Ginger.
Aloanstar – “He is just trying to dance around the issue and he just isnâ€™t as graceful as Fred or Ginger.” Maybe Barak and Hillary would be a better example.
I’ve seen BO dance on Ellen, he is definitely no Fred…more like Barney Fife (no, I take it back Don Knotts had more rhythm).
Comments are closed.