News 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, possesses 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. 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...

 

[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 there's your problem. You women expect guys to change for you

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?

 

[TRCSF]

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?

There's about 300 million people in the United States. About 270 million consider themselves straight. About 30 million consider themselves gay.

Of course, that's a bit arbitrary. As human sexuality studies have shown, just about everybody is bisexual to one degree or another.

Homophobes included.

 

[cronxeh]

10% figure is wrong, besides its from the 40's

 

[Townsend]

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?

Well if you're suggesting that the government should not consider this an issue because it only affects a minority then I would have to disagree with you. The balance between liberalism and democracy should only tilt in favor of democracy when it is not an issue of discrimination.

 

[TRCSF]

10% figure is wrong, besides its from the 40's

If 10% were gay in the forties, just think of how many are gay now!

Actually, like I said, it's somewhat arbitrary. About 10% of people are exclusively homosexual.

Most everybody else is bisexual to one degree to another.

That explains why you enjoy gay porn. In case you were wondering.

BTW, you're getting your information from a bigoted fundamentalist site that claims homosexuality can be cured. Not exactly a reliable source of information.

 

[cronxeh]

Well if its an issue of discrimination then perhaps they should institute a civil union with same rights and tax codes as for marriages, but not call it a marriage

 

[cronxeh]

That explains why you enjoy gay porn. In case you were wondering.

Yes well when I need your opinion on anything I'll let you out of my closet and you can strap on that gimp costume that you enjoy so much

 

[Townsend]

Well if its an issue of discrimination then perhaps they should institute a civil union with same rights and tax codes as for marriages, but not call it a marriage

Not a bad idea...

Taking the religious aspect out of it is a good start.

 

[cronxeh]

Religion is the reason these laws even cause controversy in the first place. They don't belong in politics let alone in state affairs

 

[Townsend]

Religion is the reason these laws even cause controversy in the first place. They don't belong in politics let alone in state affairs

Exaclty...

 

[TRCSF]

Well if its an issue of discrimination then perhaps they should institute a civil union with same rights and tax codes as for marriages, but not call it a marriage

Seperate but equal? That didn't work.

Call it marriage, if it's the same legal thing you can call it the same thing.

If you don't like gay marriage, don't have one.

 

[cronxeh]

Exaclty...

Religion belongs in the Churches/etc, and to those who use it I have to say this: "go back to Church and don't come out until Jesus returns"

Seperate but equal? That didn't work.

Call it marriage, if it's the same legal thing you can call it the same thing.

If you don't like gay marriage, don't have one.

How do you not get this? I don't care what you think

 

[TRCSF]

Religion belongs in the Churches/etc, and to those who use it I have to say this: "go back to Church and don't come out until Jesus returns"

How do you not get this? I don't care what you think

What about churches that want to marry gays?

Oo, somebody's getting a little upset. I must have hit a nerve.

 

[Art]

Not a bad idea...

Taking the religious aspect out of it is a good start.

This has already been done long ago for those who want it. Many people these days get married in civil ceremonies which have nothing to do with religion.

The idea behind marriage is to create the basis of a secure family unit which is believed to be the best environment to raise children in.

Some folk question whether a same-sex union is a good environment for children and so the state is reluctant to grant official status / approval to such relationships. The consequences of this for people in 'unsanctioned' unions are that they have inferior inheritance rights, tax rights and adoption rights etc..

 

[vanesch]

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

Oh, but I didn't have anything a priori against bigamy either. The point is that the civil marriage gives certain rights to a group of (2 ?) people ; it is in fact the only reason to subscribe to a civil marriage.
They are essentially 2-fold:
1) financial aspects, like lower taxes on heritage when one of the partners dies
2) co-parentship when (one of the?) females in the couple gives birth.

Now, there's a long-standing tradition of 1 man and 1 woman as such a basic cell which doesn't even find its origin in religion but finds it in Darwinism: promote the chances of transfer of the genes to the future generation. The optimal team is then of course a man and a woman, because their kin has 50-50 gene content, so this man and this woman will optimize the transfer of their genetic material to the future (will care best for their kin).
All other combinations will do less good. In a situation of one male with several females, the females who didn't give birth to certain children will have of course all advantage to care more about their own children than of the children of the other spouses of their male ; on the other hand, the male would like to see ALL its children cared for (he has 50% of the genetic material in all of them). So this situation is only advantageous if the male is very dominant over the females. In fact, what males hate the most are unfaithful women because then they are caring about kin that has NOT their genetic material - hence the usually very harsh conditions that are put traditionally on adulterous women by a male-dominated society.
See, all tradition (cast into iron by religious traditions) have to do with optimal gene transfer to the next generation, and marriage is one of those traditions, and explains why those traditions have a strong preference for the 1man-1woman situation.
From the moment you leave that reason (such as gay marriages) you can relax in fact all conditions, and have a general kind of contract between members of a group.

 

[arildno]

The government currently grants marriage rights to people.

Correct, and that is the basic issue here.
The same rights that are granted couples married in a church are also granted to those couples who merely go to the public registrar (or whatever his title is).
So no, marriage between a man and a woman is NOT a solely religious matter.
What type of unions a religious sub-community chooses to celebrate, is basically their own affair.

The debate over whether or not the state ought to confer benefits (judicial&fiscal, mainly) to any particular union, or if all such benefits should be withdrawn, is another matter.

However:
By extending these rights to gay couples by no means reduce these rights to straight couples (i.e, the majority), so a woolly argument against "special" privileges to small groups simply doesn't hold.

 

[Townsend]

The idea behind marriage is to create the basis of a secure family unit which is believed to be the best environment to raise children in.

I don't think the government knows what is best for me or my kids...(I don't actually have any kids but if I did..)

So far the American government has not impressed me with their wisdom and I really don't care for their wisdom on how to best raise kids.

I think we can all agree that the governments job is not to micro manage people's personal lives.

 

[Smurf]

I completely agree Townsend. I don't trust the government to pave roads. Why would I trust them to raise my kids?

 

[TRCSF]

The issue really isn't about raising kids.

It's about pandering to homophobes.

People used to make the same argument about kids when interracial marriages were illegal. "Oh, all those poor kids are going to be so confused."

Baloney. Those people didn't want interracial marriages because they hated black people. Pure and simple. Arguments about kids were just a deflection. A phony excuse.

Same thing here.

 

[arildno]

The idea behind marriage is to create the basis of a secure family unit which is believed to be the best environment to raise children in.

Some folk question whether a same-sex union is a good environment for children and so the state is reluctant to grant official status / approval to such relationships. The consequences of this for people in 'unsanctioned' unions are that they have inferior inheritance rights, tax rights and adoption rights etc..

So why are these rights granted to heterosexual couples where the female is past her menopause at the time of the marriage ceremony, then?
(Tens of thousands such marriages happens every year in the US, if not hundreds of thousands, so this is no silly hypothetical example)
There won't be any children in these unions..

 

[arildno]

I completely agree Townsend. I don't trust the government to pave roads. Why would I trust them to raise my kids?

If they disappoint you; vote them out of office.

 

[Art]

I completely agree Townsend. I don't trust the government to pave roads. Why would I trust them to raise my kids?

There was a controversy in the UK a few years back when a left wing authority in a borough of London insisted the schools under it's control use readers for the very young with titles such as "Tom lives with Dick and John."

As the title suggests the book was intended to show children being brought up in a homosexual family unit as being a normal everyday event. Many parents with children at these schools were (in my view understandably) livid.

At christmas this same authority advertised for a black, lesbian Santa Claus.

The point being whilst homosexuality is fine and the vast majority of people have no problem whatsoever with what 2 (or more) consenting adults get up to together they still represent a small but very vocal minority of the population and most people would prefer if they were to stop forcing their sexuality onto everybody else.

 

[arildno]

The point being whilst homosexuality is fine and the vast majority of people have no problem whatsoever with what 2 (or more) consenting adults get up to together they still represent a small but very vocal minority of the population and most people would prefer if they were to stop forcing their sexuality onto everybody else.

And when did demanding the right to visit my dying lover in the hospital, irrespective the wishes of his blood-kin become forcing my sexuality down your throat?

 

[Skyhunter]

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?

Originally government involvement in the US was simply to record the marriage.

I agree with Townsend. If people want to be married, all they should need to do is commit to one another using whatever vows or church or rituals they deem appropriate. And there sex or numbers should be of no ones concern but the consenting adults. I do have a problem with arranged marriages, especially when they involve children.

The idea that society would be harmed by allowing gay couples to enjoy the same rights as hetero couples is ludicrous.

I didn't vote for Arnold. I was not happy with Davis, he seemed to spend more time fund raising than governing. I voted against the recall, and for the porn queen (don't remember her name). I did argue that we needed to support him because he took on a tough job and needs support to be effective. However he has shown himself to be just another pandering politician. This veto is just another example.

 

[Skyhunter]

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?

Extremely homosexual?

What does that mean?

I that like extremely pregnant?

 

[Skyhunter]

Well if its an issue of discrimination then perhaps they should institute a civil union with same rights and tax codes as for marriages, but not call it a marriage

This is my suggestion.

Classify all government sanctioned marrriages as civil unions. Let the Churchs or whatnot add other labels if they like.