/* trackback code -- i added this */

Wednesday, September 07, 2005

Leigslatures....No, Courts....

Can't help but laugh at this text from today's NYT concerning the California legislature's voting to allow gay marriage:

A spokeswoman for Mr. Schwarzenegger, Margita Thompson, said after the vote that the governor believed that the issue of same-sex marriage should be settled by the courts, not legislators, but she did not indicate whether that meant he would veto the legislation. The bill did not pass with enough votes to override a veto.

"The governor will uphold whatever the court decides," Ms. Thompson said.

For who knows how long, Republicans (and no small number of Democrats) have suggested that Democrats should be embarrassed for pursuing their goals in courts rather than legislatures. Gay marriage was Exhibit A in recent arguments on this topic.

So what happens?
  • Democrats in the California legislature overcome the ugly bigotry of California Republicans who say things like
  • "Marriage should be between a man and a woman, end of story. Next issue," insisted Assemblyman Dennis Mountjoy (R-Monrovia). "It's not about civil rights or personal rights, it's about acceptance. They want to be accepted as normal. They are not normal." [From today's WaPo.]
  • Rebuplican Governor Schwarzenegger says he wants the courts to decide the issue. And that he will "uphold whatever the court decides." What on earth does that mean? The governor has a piece of legislation on his desk. The court doesn't have anything to decide! And governors who don't plan to "uphold whatever the court decides" should be impeached anyway.
Which is it, Republicans?


Anonymous Bu$h Ate My Baby said...

Assuming your question is not rhetorical, as the token Republican, my answer would be: the legislature or the "people" (in California I would assume that is popular referendum).

But in asking your question you assume that the Republican party must be a monolithic entity, each of the millions of members having the same view on an issue. That is a little bit silly. If one member (even a prominent member) of the party wanders off the reservation, that doesn't mean that Republicans as a whole are inconsistent on the issue or that the party's position on the issue isn't pretty straightforward.

That said, I would imagine that Arnold is being politically expedient here. He doesn't want to support gay marriage, and he's looking for an out. If he doesn't want to support it, he should have the balls to veto and face any resultant consequences.

9/07/2005 5:25 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home