Gay marriage in CA

[SonomaCat]

It will be interesting to see what Arnold does now that it is on his desk. With his potential reelection run upcoming, this will certainly be a watershed moment for him either way he goes.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... EJIR41.DTL

[Cat-theotherwhitemeat]

Arnold is a Republican. Translation.....Veto....No.....Nyet.....No Way....NATA......Not a chance

[SonomaCat]

You could be right ... but he is a California Republican, which outside of some megachuch enclaves in Orange County mostly means people who are more Libertarian leaning (fiscal conservative, but relatively social liberal) than the average Republican nationwide. He also needs a huge chunk of the independent voters to get elected in a slightly Democratic state.

I could see him going either way for political purposes. I get the impression from things he's said in the past that he'd probably just sign the bill if it was based on his personal feelings and not on politics.

We'll know the answer soon, I assume.

[Cat-theotherwhitemeat]

I get the impression from things he's said in the past that he'd probably just sign the bill if it was based on his personal feelings and not on politics..

This is a very public issue with the whole nation watching. More importantly to Arnold, half a nation of conservative republicans watching and he's got his eye on a cute little piece of property in D.C., 1600 Pennsylvania Ave to be precise. I think a non-veto on this bill will piss off an awful lot of old school, cigar smoking right handers and will hamper his way to the top.

You could be right ....

COULD?? I'm appalled.

[WYCAT]

I don't think Arnold can be President, can he? Don't you have to have been born in the States?

[Cat-theotherwhitemeat]

I don't think Arnold can be President, can he? Don't you have to have been born in the States?

Yes, but he is currently lobbying to have that rule, or Amendment in this case, changed.

[SonomaCat]

I don't think Arnold can be President, can he? Don't you have to have been born in the States?

There was talk awhile ago about amending the Constitution to allow foreign born people to run for President. It was stated explicitly, but a potential Arnold run was assumed to be the motivation for the talk. I haven't heard anything new on that front, so it might be dead in the water.

[SonomaCat]

COULD?? I'm appalled.

To appear to not be wavering in my words, I'll say yes, you COULD be right. I'll give you somewhere between a 1% and 99.99% chance of being right -- no more and no less.

[Cat-theotherwhitemeat]

Let this be a lesson....the big Meat is never wrong.
http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2005 ... g0j5o0.txt

[mslacat]

I don't think Arnold can be President, can he? Don't you have to have been born in the States?

You are correct, but my daughter thinks it is a stupid rule and has vowed to change it . She wants to be the first Chineese born female American citizen to be president . She has also told her brother that he can not become President becuase she thought of it first. Maybe after she is president.

[SonomaCat]

I am now a believer in the Big Meat!

EDIT: That didn't sound too gay, did it?

[Cat-theotherwhitemeat]

I am now a believer in the Big Meat!

EDIT: That didn't sound too gay, did it?

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[SonomaCat]

This opinion piece is probably right on the mark in terms of what the future holds. I've always been saying that 50 years from now, this issue will appear to them like what controversies over interracial marriage appear to us.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... ELMGH1.DTL

And yes, I'm stuck here at work and eagerly looking forward to the game starting so I can quit being so anxious about it!

['93HonoluluCat]

If this falls into the category of "a day late and a dollar short," forgive me:

I thought the voters in California voted last election to define marriage as between a man and a woman. If that's the case, why is the state government trying to pass this? I would think that the voters have spoken, and their mandate to their delegates in Sacremento would have been clear.

Unless, of course, the state delegates are trying to move forward their own agenda.
<Salcasm Mode: ON>
Politicians with their own agenda? That'll never happen!
<Salcasm Mode: OFF>

[SonomaCat]

That election was over five years ago. As we all know, opinions on stuff like this change over time, so as time passes, the majority in every state will eventually come to accept gay marriages. That was the thrust of the article I posted, anyway. Has that point come in CA? Only another election would answer that question. I think it would be really close right now.

And of course, the delgates are trying to forward their own agenda. That's how a representative democracy works.

In CA, however, the initiative process trumps the legislature, so unless the courts invalidate the initiative (which is likely under equal protection standards in the state constitution), the legislative action would have been symbolic only.

Arnold said that this should either be decided by the courts or by a general, which is a valid position for him to take (although it is a bit convenient, and probably more of a political stance than a philosophical stance -- in other words, it should be decided by anyone except someone he has veto power over and thus has accountability for). It will be interesting to see where it goes from here.

[Hell's Bells]

If this falls into the category of "a day late and a dollar short," forgive me:

I thought the voters in California voted last election to define marriage as between a man and a woman. If that's the case, why is the state government trying to pass this? I would think that the voters have spoken, and their mandate to their delegates in Sacremento would have been clear.

Unless, of course, the state delegates are trying to move forward their own agenda.
<Salcasm Mode: ON>
Politicians with their own agenda? That'll never happen!
<Salcasm Mode: OFF>

easy ill answer you

*sarcastic*

we - the elected representatves of california, know exactly what is best for you the underlin....errr citizen. Just because you might pass via citizen initative somthing, for example banning gay marriage or cutting taxes, we all know that we know what is best for you because, we walk on water.

*end sarcism*

[SonomaCat]

If this falls into the category of "a day late and a dollar short," forgive me:

I thought the voters in California voted last election to define marriage as between a man and a woman. If that's the case, why is the state government trying to pass this? I would think that the voters have spoken, and their mandate to their delegates in Sacremento would have been clear.

Unless, of course, the state delegates are trying to move forward their own agenda.
<Salcasm Mode: ON>
Politicians with their own agenda? That'll never happen!
<Salcasm Mode: OFF>

easy ill answer you

*sarcastic*

we - the elected representatves of california, know exactly what is best for you the underlin....errr citizen. Just because you might pass via citizen initative somthing, for example banning gay marriage or cutting taxes, we all know that we know what is best for you because, we walk on water.

*end sarcism*

Trust me, if you were really familiar with all of the initiatives that have been voted on by the public and passed in this state (most of which INCREASE taxes, by the way), you wouldn't be so supportive of the process. Having a largely uninformed electorate making decisions about state budgets is certainly not a good idea -- they just vote for whatever sounds good (which generally means humming the tune to "We care a lot" by Faith No More and voting to increase spending on everything).

Hence the wisdom of a representative democracy. Some decisions require a bit more knowledge than is possessed by the pissed off or overly charitable with other people's money man/woman on the street.

At least the representatives are publicly accountable for their votes. Individuals in the initiative process are not, and that leads to some problems.

And like I said, the last time CA voted on gay marriage was 5 years ago. Public opinion has moved a lot since then. Perhaps it will come up for a public vote again in the future, but if not, then the legislature is certainly appropriate to act as a proxy of the public (as they are elected by the public and will be voted out if they betray the public) in between the silly initiatives that find their way on to ballots.

['93HonoluluCat]

Trust me, if you were really familiar with all of the initiatives that have been voted on by the public and passed in this state (most of which INCREASE taxes, by the way), you wouldn't be so supportive of the process. Having a largely uninformed electorate making decisions about state budgets is certainly not a good idea -- they just vote for whatever sounds good (which generally means humming the tune to "We care a lot" by Faith No More and voting to increase spending on everything).

Hence the wisdom of a representative democracy. Some decisions require a bit more knowledge than is possessed by the pissed off or overly charitable with other people's money man/woman on the street.

I certainly do understand the benefits and implications of a representative democracy. A true democracy would be as unwieldy and obtrusive as true communism. My issue is not with representative democracy--my issue is with elected representatives (at state- and national-level) trying to forward their own agenda, regardless of the wishes of their constituency.

At least the representatives are publicly accountable for their votes. Individuals in the initiative process are not, and that leads to some problems.

I agree in part. The representatives are only accountable if their constituency cares enough to first examine the voting record, and then to take enough personal stake in the government to voice their opinion through communication and voting. I would bet that the vast majority of the public doesn't care what their representatives do or say in their name, until the 12 months prior to elections, when they are told what to think by both sides of the election.

And like I said, the last time CA voted on gay marriage was 5 years ago. Public opinion has moved a lot since then. Perhaps it will come up for a public vote again in the future, but if not, then the legislature is certainly appropriate to act as a proxy of the public (as they are elected by the public and will be voted out if they betray the public) in between the silly initiatives that find their way on to ballots.

I didn't think there was a shelf life on public opinion. If the public opinion has shifted that much in 5 years, then let's see the electorate gain support for an initiative and get that passed through a general election. At the very least, the representatives should refer the decision to the electorate. I think that's the least they could do, becuase the current opinion of the population--as shown by the past election--is against it.

[El_Gato]

93HC,

Love your new signature!

Greatest comedy of all time!

[GrizMania]

Help!
Help! I'm being repressed!