Posted by
Playful Walrus on Tuesday, April 15, 2008 12:20:40 PM
Columnist Daniel Weintraub of the Sacramento Bee writes about Governor Schwarzenegger’s stance on same-sex “marriage”. Recently, there was a lot of coverage that tried to portray recent comments from Schwarzenegger as a change in his position on changing marriage licensing in California. This is because he had vetoed, a while back, a bill by the legislature to change marriage licensing, but recently expressed his opinion that a proposition to add a “defense of marriage” amendment to the state constitution was a waste of time.
That is not necessary a change in position. When Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill, he cited that the people of California had passed a “defense of marriage” measure directly by ballot measure, and so it should be up to the people or the courts to decide, not the state legislature. I see no conflict with that position and opposing a ballot measure for an addition to the state constitution. Someone who wants a particular end may not approve of all methods of arriving at that end, especially when there are pending or looming court decisions that may make those efforts moot. It is possible for someone to have taken both of these actions and support defending the current legal definition of marriage, and, conversely, possible for someone to have taken these actions and want marriage licenses issued where one of the sexes is missing. (Remember - marriage is the only institution where Leftists support excluding one of the sexes.)
Based on everything he has said since he was first a candidate for governor, Schwarzenegger does not really seem to care whether California legalizes [same-sex] [“]marriage[“] or not, whatever his personal feelings on the subject might be.
The Republican governor has always said that he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman. But he has never been adamant about his stand.
Indeed. Marriage can only be between a man and a woman. Anything else is a counterfeit.
Schwarzenegger has supported state-sanctioned domestic partnerships that give [same sex couples*] almost all of the rights that married people have. And while he has said the state and local governments must abide by the voter-approved ban on [counterfeit] marriage known as Proposition 22, the governor also has said he would not be upset if the voters or the courts legalized [counterfeit] marriage in California.
In this case, he tends to favor the direct will of the people. *He wrote "gays", but gay people already have the same rights as straight people in this regard - to marry any willing, eligible person of the opposite sex.
If the Supreme Court does strike down Proposition 22 and the voters do not reinstate the ban, Schwarzenegger will be put in an uncomfortable position. The Democrat-controlled Legislature is sure to pass another measure legalizing gay marriage in the state, and the governor would no longer have the voters' will as a shield. He would have to either sign or veto the bill on its own merits.
Licensed marriage is not a right in the same sense as the right to free speech or the right to bear arms. You have those rights naturally, by birth. If licensed marriage was a natural right, you wouldn't need anyone else to do it for you; it is the people of California who issue that license, and they should have their say. True rights do not obligate others without their consent. The people of California choose to license marriages for the good of society. We are not obligated to license marriage at all.
You have a natural right to associate with whomever agrees to associate with you. Therefore, you can live together in your own home, make vows to each other, have ceremonies and celebrations – all of that. Nobody is stopping anyone from doing that. But you should not be able to force the state to issue you a marriage license against the will of the people.
There shouldn’t be a “need” for a constitutional amendment in the first place. Courts should not be able to force the people to issue marriage licenses where one of the components – a woman or a man – is missing. However, courts overreach their authority all of the time these days.