Scwarzenegger announces veto on Californian gay marriage bill

[arildno]

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/09/090705vetofollow.htm
Seems Scwarzenegger has found out he's a Republican politician, after all..

 

[cronxeh]

Heh I just voiced my opinion to my friend about this yesterday

Just wait and see - the House and Justices have been replaced and soon they'll try to amend the constitution to allow the naturalized citizens to run for President and he will run for President in 2008

 

[honestrosewater]

arildno, Do you know whether they're having any success in the courts?

 

[arildno]

Well, there was this ruling by a San Fransisco judge referred to in the article; beyond that, I'm not sure.
http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/03/031405CalMarr.htm

 

[pattylou]

Hi ratings are so low, no doubt he didn't want to lose his few supporters.

On the other hand, it was stupid decision - he could have easily gotten my support back and others (I'm sure) if he'd signed it.

 

[arildno]

Hi ratings are so low, no doubt he didn't want to lose his few supporters.

On the other hand, it was stupid decision - he could have easily gotten my support back and others (I'm sure) if he'd signed it.

I am not altogether certain that the analysis as presented in the article (that is, that Schwarzenegger did this because he wants to pander right-wing voters) is correct.
It might be that sufficient pressure has developed within the Republican Party so that Schwarzenegger wouldn't be re-elected as their candidate unless he vetoed the bill.
That is, he might have done this in order to avoid being ousted from the party rather than increase his chances of getting re-elected as governor by the people of California.

In my view then, he deferred to the party line on this issue, and thereby shows the primary quality of a traditional politician:
If you are to retain your rank in the party (or wish to rise), pay more heed to the majority view in the party even if that goes against your own, personal view.


This analysis, at least, seems consistent with the fact that as a Republican governor, there cannot have been much party pressure on Arnie to accept and push through several measures that have been hailed as "gay-friendly".
I.e, we might regard these actions as indicative of his own views, and that resentment over this has grown within the party over time.
It wouldn't be too surprising if the party finally set their foot down, and would refuse to acknowledge Scwarzenegger as a worthy Republican any longer if he continued to press his own views forth, at the expense of the party line.

 

[honestrosewater]

What is the issue here? Do the 'anti-gay' or 'pro-whatever' people not want equal protection, or do they not think equal protection applies to laws only allowing one class of people to marry? If the sole reason to only allow same-sex couples to marry is that it's always been that way, that's not a good enough reason. Seriously, I don't get it. There seem to be three options: a) let a couple get married, whatever their gender, b) don't let any couples get married, or c) strike equal protection from the Constitution.

 

[vanesch]

Seriously, I don't get it. There seem to be three options: a) let a couple get married, whatever their gender, b) don't let any couples get married, or c) strike equal protection from the Constitution.

The same reasoning then leads to the acceptance of bigamy too, no ?

 

[arildno]

The same reasoning then leads to the acceptance of bigamy too, no ?

No, by itself, it doesn't.
There aren't any reasons to accept any bigamic relationships unless you find empirical evidence (by testimonies, for example) that all partners in the bigamic relationship finds their union fulfilling, contributing to each person's sense of worth&happiness and so on..

This is actually how we distinguish between heterosexual relationships as well.
We regard any such relationship as "bad", if the above seems not be present.
However, we regard, prima facie, each such union as benificial, until the opposite is proven. That is a relatively rational stance in this case, but not in the case of bigamy, for example.

There exist more than enough evidence that gay relationships can, indeed, possess these positive qualities, that evidence is wanting in the case of bigamism.

So:
Unless you can amass evidence that bigamism has, within itself, these positive qualities there doesn't exist any reason whatsoever for an official recognition of such relationships.

Same goes for incestuous relationships.

In other words, relationships and practices that are known to be in general abusive shouldn't be officially sanctioned for that reason, even if there exist a theoretical possibility that a specific example might not be abusive.

The abuse level in gay relationships are not in any way higher than the abuse level in heterosexual relationships; the same cannot be said for bigamies, incestuous or pederastic relationships.

 

[vanesch]

No, by itself, it doesn't.
There aren't any reasons to accept any bigamic relationships unless you find empirical evidence (by testimonies, for example) that all partners in the bigamic relationship finds their union fulfilling, contributing to each person's sense of worth&happiness and so on..

Well, as long as mutual consent is required (amongst all the parties involved), there's no reason to *forbid* it because you'd reasonably expect that those consenting estimate that their union is more fullfulling than when not, so it would only occur in exactly those circumstances you think cannot be present. So or 1) you are right that bigamy is not fulfilling for all partners, in which case you can allow for it, because nobody will do so (they'll never mutually consent) or 2) there are (even only a few) cases where bigamy IS fulfilling, and then it is sad that it is against the law.
Note: by "bigamy" I understand simply a relationship involving more than 2 persons, no matter from what sex (which is not what the ethymology of the word stands for of course).

 

[arildno]

No, on basis of empirical evidence, you cannot REASONABLY expect a bigamist union (like that of Mormons) to be inherently worthwhile.

 

[pattylou]

I am not altogether certain that the analysis as presented in the article (that is, that Schwarzenegger did this because he wants to pander right-wing voters) is correct.
It might be that sufficient pressure has developed within the Republican Party so that Schwarzenegger wouldn't be re-elected as their candidate unless he vetoed the bill.
That is, he might have done this in order to avoid being ousted from the party rather than increase his chances of getting re-elected as governor by the people of California.

In my view then, he deferred to the party line on this issue, and thereby shows the primary quality of a traditional politician:
If you are to retain your rank in the party (or wish to rise), pay more heed to the majority view in the party even if that goes against your own, personal view.


This analysis, at least, seems consistent with the fact that as a Republican governor, there cannot have been much party pressure on Arnie to accept and push through several measures that have been hailed as "gay-friendly".
I.e, we might regard these actions as indicative of his own views, and that resentment over this has grown within the party over time.
It wouldn't be too surprising if the party finally set their foot down, and would refuse to acknowledge Scwarzenegger as a worthy Republican any longer if he continued to press his own views forth, at the expense of the party line.

Ousted from the party?

I'm not aware of that ever happening. Rising through the party due to other politicians' approval of you? I don't know how that would manifest either.

On the other hand....Playing it safe with the *voters?* Yeah, I see that all the time.

I'm still disappointed, I'd love it if California took the leadership on energy, gay rights, other.

And I didn't read your link. :tongue2: Maybe I will later.

 

[honestrosewater]

The same reasoning then leads to the acceptance of bigamy too, no ?

The state must have a 'good enough reason' to discriminate.

Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in activity yet denies other individuals the same right. There is no clear rule for deciding when a classification is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests depending on the type of classification and its effect on fundamental rights. Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose." (emphasis mine)
- http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/equal_protection.html

Gender and number of spouses are two different classifications. Preventing bigamy and preventing gay marriage are two separate issues, with their own set of reasons. Determining whether one set of reasons is good enough won't necessarily determine whether another set of reasons is good enough. In this case, no, I can't see how allowing gays to marry would allow bigamy.

And thinking up possible consequences doesn't address the argument. I specifically said couples, meaning two people, and I gave 3 not 2 options: a) let a couple get married, whatever their gender, b) don't let any couples get married, or c) strike equal protection from the Constitution.

If equal protection applies to gay marriage, you have to either allow gay marriage, allow no marriage, or get rid of equal protection. What part of that do you disagree with?

 

[Townsend]

The same reasoning then leads to the acceptance of bigamy too, no ?

Why shouldn't we accept bigamy? Why does a person's personal life have to be socially acceptable?

Gay couples don't harm me, heterosexual couples don't harm me, what people do with their personal lives should be up to them.

I say the government has NO business involving itself in the institution of marriage, what so ever. Why should two (or more) people need a license to get married?

Besides all of that, isn't marriage a religious institution? What business does the government have with the regulation of religious practices?

 

[DM]

Besides all of that, isn't marriage a religious institution? What business does the government have with the regulation of religious practices?

I think you've just answered your questions.

 

[Townsend]

In other words, relationships and practices that are known to be in general abusive shouldn't be officially sanctioned for that reason, even if there exist a theoretical possibility that a specific example might not be abusive.

Why not? Again, how is a person's private life the business of the government? What purpose does such a law serve?

Correct me if I am wrong arildno....

Whether the government officially sanctions the marriage of a gay couple or not, has no bearing on that relationship. Am I right? Or should I believe that if the government recognized a gay marriage that it would some how alter those two people and their relationship with each other? I don't buy it.....

 

[honestrosewater]

I think the bigamy issue is fallacious and it should just be dropped. Does anyone want to challenge me on this? It's an appeal to consequences, emotion, and tradition, and falsely equates two different issues.

 

[DM]

People will not be emancipated from marriage, bigamy, heterosexual and homosexual cases when there's an influence of religious principles on the government and the law.

 

[honestrosewater]

The government currently grants marriage rights to people. What other institutions or people do is irrelevant.

 

[Townsend]

I think the bigamy issue is fallacious and it should just be dropped. Does anyone want to challenge me on this? It's an appeal to consequences, emotion, and tradition, and falsely equates two different issues.

Fine....I personally don't care about bigamy any more than I care about homosexuality. Both are perfectly fine by me since I don't feel the need to impose my moral values on others. What I am concerned about is the government involving itself with marriages at all. Eliminate government involvement in a religious practice and this all becomes moot.

 

[DM]

The government grants marriage rights to people. What other institutions or people do is irrelevant.

The government clearly grants marriage rights to people under the influence of religious principles.

 

[Townsend]

The government grants marriage rights to people.

And clearly that is where the problem is...:grumpy:

 

[honestrosewater]

Okay, great, not letting any couples marry is an option. Anyway, I think I'm leaving to work on my new theory: PWA threads are like ex-boyfriends. You get involved with them again hoping they've changed, but...

 

[Pengwuino]

Okay, great, not letting any couples marry is an option. Anyway, I think I'm leaving to work on my new theory: PWA threads are like ex-boyfriends. You get involved with them again hoping they've changed, but...

And theres your problem. You women expect guys to change for you :tongue2: :tongue2:

I'm sure democrats will soon praise Arnold for this move. Supposedly, democrats love "what the people want" and California already passed a referendum defining marriage between a man and a woman so I'm sure they will point to the past democratic decision to defend Arnold.

 

[cronxeh]

How many gay people are there in the United States?
How many straight people are there in the United States?

http://www.newdirection.ca/a_10per.htm

Apparently not that many. So why should the government support the ~2% at all times - be they the filthy rich ones or the extremely homosexual ones?