Gay Marriage in California

09/08/05

Permalink 09:25:20 am, by Abba Zabba Email , 185 words, 69 views   English (US)
Categories: Democracy Doesn't Work

Gay Marriage in California

Over the last couple of days, California's legislature passed a law allowing gay marriage. That makes CA the first state to have passed such a law without being forced to by a court. Now, as you may recall, the Republicans are always complaining about "activist judges legislating from the bench." Especially in the case of gay marriage. But naturally, they couldn't object to the CA legislature allowing gay marriage. Right?

Wrong! Governor Schwarzenegger has said that he's going to veto the law. Why? "In a statement, Schwarzenegger's press secretary, Margita Thompson, said the governor opposes the legislation, passed Tuesday night by the California Assembly and last week by the state Senate, because he thinks the matter should be decided by California's courts or its voters."

So, when the courts say that gay marriage should be legal, the Republicans complain that judges aren't allowed to do that; it's the legislature's job. Now the legislature says that gay marriage should be legal, and Schwarzenegger complains that it's the court's job! Total bullshit. But I guess that's what happens when you elect Kindergarten Cop to run your state.

Comments, Pingbacks:

Comment from: u235 [Member] Email
What makes this even more amusing is the fact that the "voters" don't believe that he represents their best (or really any) interests any more. The recent polls show that he's extremely disliked by the people that elected him, and given the opportunity they'd boot him in a flash...
PermalinkPermalink 09/08/05 @ 10:38
Comment from: Roulette [Member] Email
It's not a judicial issue. It's a legislative one.

I actually agree with republicans on the inital thought. Judges shouldn't change things that way. You state legislature should write up the law, or modify an existing law.

From there, all the judiciary should do is ensure the law is followed, and make sure it's consitutional. Re-interpreting the law because you don't like it is bogus.

Here... he's got no excuse. As executive he can veto and that's fine as a check on the power of his legislature. But to claim this is a judicial function is bullshit.
PermalinkPermalink 09/08/05 @ 14:00
Comment from: enemyfc [Visitor]
I think he's referring to this:
http://www.marriagewatch.org/media/prop22.htm
PermalinkPermalink 09/08/05 @ 14:13

Leave a comment:

Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
Your URL will be displayed.

Allowed XHTML tags: <p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small>
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Set cookies for name, email and url)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will NOT be displayed.))

Abba Zabba

July 2008
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
 << <   > >>
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      

Search

Misc

XML Feeds

What is RSS?

Who's Online?

  • Guest Users: 41

powered by b2evolution free blog software