Of course!

[yesthattom]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/09/08/MNGFHEK4U61.DTL

Californians thought that during the campaign when Arnie said he’d support gay marriages that he’d keep his promise.

FOLLOW THE MONEY. LOOK AT WHO FUNDED HIM. I CAN’T BELIEVE ANYONE BELIEVED HIM.

Comments

[kimuchi.livejournal.com]

Obviously I grew up in Wisconsin and didn't take 4th grade civics in this state, but my understanding of how the laws work is that a normal bill passed through the legislature and signed by the governor like this might've been *can't* supercede a ballot initiative or the state constitution. He could've signed this, but properly it would've been struck down before long for conflicting with Prop. 22. This is one of my big complaints about the ballot iniative system: direct democracy is great, but sometimes it's nice for your normal elected government to have room to work as well.

It's weasely, but I really can't blame the Gubernator for not signing a law that can't be enacted. What's the point? It pisses off the loud-mouth wacko side of his support base for no lasting gain. If he campaigns for the loud-mouth wackos when the next round of ballot initiatives on this topic comes through I'll be a lot more pissed.

[qwrrty.livejournal.com]

I could have sworn that Schwarzenegger had said that the courts are not the place to take this fight, and he would support same-sex marriage if done through the legislature or by referendum. I could have sworn. But the only quotes from 2003-2004 that I can find now have him saying that the legislature is the wrong way to make this change and that he would support gay marriage if it went through the courts or from a popular vote. So it unfortunately appears to be consistent with his campaign promises (unless you have links that I have not been able to find).

I'm annoyed. I thought he was caught flat-footed on this one.

[sfo2lhr.livejournal.com]

He could've signed this, but properly it would've been struck down before long for conflicting with Prop. 22

No, that's not the case. Prop. 22 (which was a statutory initiative, not a Constitutional one) has been ruled unconstitutional by a court, and is not in effect. It is presently a legal nullity, although it could be revived on appeal.

Popular initiatives should be given some respect in a conflict between them and legislative enactments, but not where the initiative is, itself, unconstitutional.

[kimuchi.livejournal.com]

Oh! I didn't realize Prop. 22 was dead. Nevermind then.

The constitution itself still disagrees with this bill, though, yes?

[kimuchi.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I remember his position being reported as supporting action in the legislature as well.

[thefoxes.livejournal.com]

My understanding (if I've been following the legality of this correctly) is that the court ruling that would overturn prop 22 has been delayed until it can be reviewed by a higher court. The CA constitution curently doesn't ban same-sex marriage, although conservatives have started a signature petition to put such an amendment before voters. The legal limbo of prop 22 seems to be the sticking point for all of this. I can (sort of) understand Arnie's decision to veto it based on that, but I still feel that the bill's passage would have been an important symbolic victory. It's going to be up to the courts to decide prop 22's fate either way.

[barking-iguana.livejournal.com]

Who funded him? I thought it was mostly kleptocrats who couldn't give a shit one way or the other about gay marriage.

[kimuchi.livejournal.com]

I have read the California constitution (what a chore that is) and it does have "man and woman" verbage. What I don't understand is how that interacts with this bill.

[kimuchi.livejournal.com]

Or I could be a dumbass and confusing California code with the constitution on this topic...I need more sleep.

[thefoxes.livejournal.com]

A quick search for the California Constitution brought up this URL:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/const.html

A search of the text for the word "marriage" brought up 2 entries, neither of which specified a "man and woman", only a reference to "spouse." Just to be sure, I also searched for the word "woman," which produced no results.

I could be wrong about this. I didn't take the time to read the whole thing, but my guess, as you said, is that you probably read the CA code on it, which definitely does contain that verbage for the time being, and unfortunately will continue for at least a little while longer now.