Schwarzenegger To Veto Gay Marriage

The San Francisco Chronicle reports Governor Schwarzenegger will veto the gay marriage bill passed by the Democrat-led Legislature:

The Legislature’s action trampled over Proposition 22, an overwhelmingly popular 2000 initiative that banned same-sex marriage in California, said a spokeswoman for the governor.

"We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails the vote," said Margita Thompson, Schwarzenegger’s press secretary. "Out of respect for the will of the people, the governor will veto AB 849."

According to the Associated Press, gay rights advocates accused Schwarzenegger of betraying the bipartisan ideals that helped get him elected:

"Clearly he's pandering to an extreme right wing, which was not how he got elected," said Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, one of the bill's sponsors. "He got elected with record numbers of lesbian and gay voters who had not previously voted for a Republican, and he sold us out."

Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said she was not surprised by word of Schwarzenegger's pending veto.

"Any girlie man could have vetoed this legislation," she said.

Comments

[Matthew Shugart]

Re: the more recent "will" as expressed through elections to the sitting governor and legislature, compared to a more dated will expressed through a popular initiative...

I believe that Kip's argument would be valid in any state that has an initiative process other than California. There are 30-some states that allow popular initiatives, and among them only California constitutionally bars the legislature and governor from amending a law enacted by initiative without another vote of the people. (Exceptions can be made if the text of the initiative itself allows legislative amendment, as a few do.)

So, in California, an initiative passed at any time in the history of the state always takes precendence over acts of the legislature and governor that conflict with it.

Moreover, the "wills" expressed through the legislature and through the governor in this case are in direct conflict, which means (assuming there is no override of the veto) that the status quo prevails. The status quo is Prop 22.

(Note here that I am not entering into a debate about the merits of the claim that the bill passed by the legislature conflicts with Prop. 22. I'm assuming there is such a conflict, but I don't know if that is right. I am not an attorney, either.)

[California Yankee]

Kip, I'm not a California lawyer, but it seems to me that precedence should be given to a statute approved by a majority of citizens over a statute adopted lawmakers.

The California Constitution provides, at Article 2 Voting, Initiative And Referendum, And Recall:

Section 1. All political power is inherent in the people.
Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit,
and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good
may require.

[. . .]

Section 10. (c) The Legislature may amend or repeal referendum statutes. It
may amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that
becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the
initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their
approval.

[KipEsquire]

And why should legislators, or a governor, elected by "the will of the people" care about the "will of the people" who passed Prop. 22? Doesn't the more recent "will of the people" outweigh the more dated and therefore obsolete "will of the people"?

California is becoming, with cause, the laughingstock of the country.