The Veto

Arnold will veto the gay marriage bill. I am disappointed but I knew he would and his reasoning is sound.

“We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote,” the governor’s press secretary, Margita Thompson, said in a statement.

With Prop. 22 still on the books (it defines marriage as a union between a man and woman and passed by 61% in 2000) there really was little choice.

Even though opinion polls are showing a shift in sentiment on gay marriage, nothing has been done to change the law and this all would have ended up in court anyway. Mark Leno, the State Assemblyman that put together and got this passed, did a great thing - too early. Prop. 22 is before the courts now and he should have waited for the outcome. If the courts reaffirmed Prop. 22, then he should have put a ballot measure up repealing it. Had the court struck it down, it would have cleared the way for Arnold to sign the bill. Whether he would have is another question but he would have been hard-pressed to come up with a reason not to.

Doing things the right way is a major pain in the ass sometimes, but things worth doing are seldom easy.One good thing did come of this though. The California State Legislature passed a bill approving gay marriage. The first in the history of this nation and, I dare say, it will not be the last time either.

**UPDATE**

Of course, some people would prefer to take the easy way and just allow the legislature to say “f-off” to the people that put them there to do the people’s will.

6 Responses to “The Veto”


   September 8th, 2005 at 10:01 pm
Mark J Says:

Isn’t that the whole point of representative Democracy, though? The representatives are free to tell their constituents to screw off, and the constituents are free to make sure that they never serve in office again, if they feel slighted by it.

Also, popular opinion is changing quickly. It’s been 5 years since Prop 22 passed. Some of the newer polls are showing that the 61% majority might soon be a minority. It’s also worth noting that the people who show up to vote against gay rights aren’t necessarily the same people who normally show up and elect their representatives. I think that politicians tend to act in their own self interest. Any politician who willfully snubs the people who put him or her into office can’t really expect their political career to last much longer.

September 9th, 2005 at 7:21 am
Robert Says:

No doubt there are consequences for a politician that tells their constituents to screw off. I guess I just wish we had politicians that didn’t do it. I know, I know….dreamland.

As for how attitudes have changed, I agree, they have. What I would like to have seen was Mark Leno working to have the voters releap Prop. 22 - if successful, that would have provided the mandate the legislature needed and it would also have forced Arnold to sign the bill.

September 9th, 2005 at 10:56 am
Michael Says:

Robert: I deleted the trackback because originally, this post did not link to my site. I always delete TBs that don’t link. Feel free to re-track it. :-)

September 9th, 2005 at 11:34 am
Robert Says:

The lack of link was an oversight and not intentional. But thanks for responding to my email asking why you deleted it - because, you know, people that trackback without links usually email the person that deleted it to ask why.

September 9th, 2005 at 5:50 pm
Eva Young Says:

The legislature is elected. That’s why Arnold’s position doesn’t make much sense on the issue.

September 9th, 2005 at 5:58 pm
Robert Says:

Well, yeah, they are elected. And were Prop. 22 not on the books he probably would have signed the bill - at least I hope he would have.

But, and I will restate my point, when the voters enact a law through ballot measure, the mere act of voting people into office that happen to be against that law after the ballot measure passed by 61% doesn’t actually repeal the law.

The law has to be repealed by the method through which it was enacted in the State of California.