So basically I reported it wrong. Fortunately I'm just a blogger and not a real reporter. Honestly, you folks can come to me for witty commentary if you want, but the best place to get one's news is not from me. I haven't the time to be a thorough reporter. Sorry, but even Dan Rather gets things wrong once in awhile right?
Oh, yeah, I should probably say what I got wrong. Turns out governor Schwarzenegger is not going to sign the gay marriage bill. This could have some potentially dangerous ramifications for Mr. Arnold, but it would appear he has mastered the game of politics by coming up with a very good reason for his veto.
Schwarzenegger said the legislation, given final approval Tuesday by lawmakers, would conflict with the intent of voters when they approved a ballot initiative five years ago. Proposition 22 prevents California from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries.
A fascinating idea governor. You mean to say that the citizens of a state should be free to decide what moral precepts they accept? The idea seems downright revolutionary.
As a short aside, the founders set up a republic because of their fear and distrust of the people. However, on a state level, this fear is substantially less founded. As discussed yesterday, the ability of people to move acts as a buffer against tyranny. At the very least, the whole thing is a bit curious. The "representatives" apparently disagree with the people they are supposed to be representing. No system is perfect.
And then, just when I think that old Arnold has finally done something that I can agree with, he goes and says something stupid. These things happen.
The Republican governor had indicated previously that he would veto the bill, saying the debate over same-sex marriage should be decided by voters or the courts.
Not the courts, in the name of everything that is sacred and holy, not the courts. This is so absurd it hardly merits my attention. If the voters vote something in, it should stand. I don't see how a ban on gay marriage is counter to the California constitution, but then again, crazier things have happened--such as making up a right to privacy and taking away property rights. The decision, Arnold, belong with the people, not the courts. Half right.
Kudos to the man anyway for throwing down the gauntlet and using the veto. I'll take right for slightly wrong reasons. It is Arnold after all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment