Arnold Schwarzenegger is a Sissy MAN

What a "sissy man." Since he became the Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger on two occasions he has vetoed bills allowing gay marriages. His reason was that the will of the people should not be overruled. Now that the citizens of California have passed a constitutional amendment that a marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman, Schwarzenegger is telling people that the California Supreme Court SHOULD over rule the will of the people. Talk about Not having guts. Read more below:



No Guts Arnold Schwarzenegger takes buck-passing to a new level.
By JAMES TARANTO

"Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Sunday expressed hope that the California Supreme Court would overturn Proposition 8," the Los Angeles Times reports. That is the ballot initiative that made the traditional definition of marriage part of the California Constitution, in response to the state Supreme Court's holding that the newfangled unisex definition was already part of the constitution. The Times story continues:

"It's unfortunate, obviously, but it's not the end," Schwarzenegger said in an interview Sunday on CNN. "I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area."

With his favorable comments toward gay marriage, the governor's thinking appears to have evolved on the issue.

In past statements, he has said he believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman and has rejected legislation authorizing same-sex marriage. Yet he has also said he would not care if same-sex marriage were legal, saying he believed that such an important societal issue should be determined by the voters or the courts.

There are two separate questions here: substantive (should same-sex marriage be legalized?) and procedural (who should decide?). To our mind, the procedural question is of greater importance. In a democratic regime, decisions on social policy should be made not by judges interposing their own values into the constitution, but by the people, either via their elected representatives or directly at the ballot box. Thus if you are the governor of a state and you favor same-sex marriage, you ought to call on the legislature to send you a bill legalizing it.

Leaving such matters to the democratic process spares the country from the bitter and divisive politics that have arisen over abortion since Roe v. Wade. It allows the contending sides to find compromises tailored to local conditions rather than impose a one-size-fits-all judicial resolution. And it allows the side that does not prevail to remain involved in the process, giving it an incentive to find arguments that are more persuasive to the public.

To some people, substance trumps process. In this view, to a proponent of same-sex marriage, the traditional definition is so unjust that it must be overturned as quickly as possible and by any means necessary.

Schwarzenegger, however, has less credibility in making this argument than anyone else in the world. In 2005 and again in 2007, the California Legislature passed bills to legalize same-sex marriage. In both cases he vetoed the bill. As the Associated Press reported last year:

"It would be wrong for the people to vote for something and for me to then overturn it," Schwarzenegger said in September, referring to voters' approval of Proposition 22 in 2000. "So they can send this bill down as many times as they want, I won't do it."

Proposition 22 was intended to prevent California from recognizing gay marriages performed in other states or countries.

Schwarzenegger had an opportunity to enact same-sex marriage the right way--the democratic way. The veto was defensible as a bow to the will of the voters, but how could that possibly be consistent with his position now, which is that the courts should overrule the voters' will as expressed in the constitution?

You may be wonder how the state Supreme Court could overturn a constitutional amendment. As Dale Carpenter, a Minnesota law professor who favors same-sex marriage, explains, the question is whether this amendment is actually a "revision" to the constitution. Although California voters can "amend" the constitution through a ballot measure alone, a "revision" must receive a two-thirds vote of the Legislature before being put before the voters.

Let's suppose the California Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8. Will Schwarzenegger then be willing to sign legislation legalizing same-sex marriage? It doesn't matter! Such leglsiation is now unconstitutional under Proposition 8.

Schwarzenegger seems to be a strong proponent of same-sex marriage. But he is even stronger in his opposition to any expectation that he as governor should take responsibilty for the question. He might have married into the Kennedy family, but he'll never win a Profile in Courage award.