Skip Nav
Summer
34 of the Most Romantic Films on Netflix This Month
Women
Surprising Qualities of Your Zodiac Sign That You Don't Already Know
Women's Health
This Powerful Post Proves That "Periods Are Not Just For Women"

Arnold Schwarzenegger Supports Gay Marriage Ruling

Now that the California Supreme Court overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage, the real question is whether the ruling will stick. California's Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has twice vetoed same-sex marriage legislation, has decided he will be one less person standing in the way of gay couples joyously planning their nuptials.

Arnold said he supports the ruling, which overturned an unconstitutional voter-approved ban, despite his personal view that "marriage is between a man and a woman." He told the SF Chronicle:

When the people vote, people are not legal experts, constitutional experts or any of that. I think that's why we have the courts. People may vote with good intentions, but then the court says, "This is not constitutional. It's not that the court interferes with the will of the people. But the court says, "You voted for something, but it's not constitutionally right, so let's rework this.'"

But the governator's support doesn't stop the battle. To see what's next,

.

This November, voters most likely will face a ballot initiative that amends California's constitution to include an opposite-sex only definition of marriage. If it passes, same-sex marriage will be unconstitutional.

Why is Arnold accepting the court's ruling, when he has stood in the way of a legislative path to same-sex marriage? Perhaps he has determined that this is the will of Californians. Or perhaps he respects the court's legal reasoning, and its role of addressing constitutional issues and minority rights. I guess we'll all find out the will of the people this November.

Source

Join The Conversation
milosmommy milosmommy 9 years
This is the best statement I've heard on here yet: "for all religious people, myself included, why not stop judging people and just let God be the judge of people?? let there be love." Thanks Sun. I'm a christian who believes that same-sex marriage should be legalized. Which to some is totally contradictory. But in my opinion I think the judging should be left up to God. I don't feel I get the right to tell people how to live their lives because of how I choose to live mine.
Sun_Sun Sun_Sun 9 years
this new ruling had nothing to do with religion. yes (most) religions do not approve of gay marriage. therefore their respective church/mosque/synagogue etc. shouldnt bless these marriages. nor should their devoted followers get involved in homosexual marriages. but we are not talking about religion here. this is the constitution. and if 2 people want to get married, they should be allowed to. for all religious people, myself included, why not stop judging people and just let God be the judge of people?? let there be love.
janneth janneth 9 years
Look at Arn's face in the photo. He looks like a wax figure. He supports the court's ruling, good job.
Alesse Alesse 9 years
I'm new to the convo, but I thought I'd add my two cents ;) . As far as same sex marriages are concerned, I've never understood legally why two people of the same sex couldn't be married. I understand (even though I don't agree with) churches denying homosexual couples the ability to get married. If the religion says that same sex marriage is wrong, then that's the religion's prerogative, you don't have to be a member. But to say that same sex couples can't go a courthouse and get married by a judge is just wrong to me. Personally, I believe the faults many people find with same sex marriages are religious ones, and with the separation of church and state, that's not reason enough to deny homosexual couples the same rights as everyone else. Just my thoughts on the subject...
hausfrau hausfrau 9 years
hmmm interesting! you always have such good points! :)
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 9 years
Personally I would never choose to get married I just don't see the need for it unless you're dead set on getting that tax break one way or another. This is the thing marriage to a religious/spiritual homosexual is just as important as marriage to a religious/spiritual heterosexual. When they say thay want to share in the joy and benefits of a legal marriage this is where the joy part comes in. You can give us equal benefits and even more benefits but if the joy is lost it's just not the same. This may surprise you but in my opinion respective religions that are against same sex marriage should be allowed to sit this one out. After all the same argument can be turned around with the separation of church and state. If the government wants to marry and give equal rights to homosexuals as they should....Is the church expected to be held responsible for the same recognition? Where is the separation of church and state here? The church should not be allowed to impose religious tradition on government and the government should not be allowed to manipulate religious freedom. Is this fair to those who are gay and Christian no that is why they have to make a choice. To stay in the church and crusade for change of leave the church and find a friendlier environment.
hausfrau hausfrau 9 years
That is FASCINATING cine! Great convo guys! Hyno - Since you're representing today, can I ask you, would you have a problem if there were just civil unions with all the benefits of marriage or do you need it to be called marriage? Just curious! :)
cine_lover cine_lover 9 years
Hypno, I guess until semi-recently Santa was skinny, (think old Saint Nick looking) and then coca cola had a Christmas campaign to make Santa look like a fat cherub, and it stuck. And that is how we got the modern day looking Santa.
Jillness Jillness 9 years
No matter how "popular" some ideas are, if they violate the Constitution then they should not be made into law. I think preventing 2 consenting adults from marrying and not getting the Federal and State benefits and protections that come from that is completely unConstitutional.
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 9 years
The image? or the image and modern day idea of Santa? Makes sense. I actually just bought a coca~cola memorabilia book the other day. I'll have to adventure threw it and see.
cine_lover cine_lover 9 years
On a side note Hypno, did you know the modern day version of Santa was created by Coke? Cola that is ;)
cine_lover cine_lover 9 years
You don't think, maybe Christians get more attention because there are more of them in this country then say people who are Jewish? I know you are pro-choice, you know there are pro-life Jewish groups right? Most of the "scientific discourse" you are referring to, are theories. Fact in Science change all the time with different advancements in technology, and in discovery. You may take Science as fact, I take science as theory (for the most part). Just like you take Christians beliefs as unfounded theories. ( I am not a creationist by the way, but I do not see anything wrong with people believing in it) "Who attempt to pass legislation barring people from their rights because of biblical doctrine and who continually use their tax free money to pay for public candidates who will then enforce their beliefs on the population." These people have the same rights as you and I do. I think it is unfair to them to discount them because they come from a religious point of view.
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 9 years
I disagree it's not about unfounded theories ricinnarone it's about strong held beliefs and yes I agree that those beliefs should be tempered when it comes to interpreting government doctrine. I here you cine but I guess my point is it's a raw deal for the Christians to have their holy holiday used the way it is. I gaurantee that if Wall St. wasn't making bank the picture would be different.
cine_lover cine_lover 9 years
They also moved Christmas well before the USA was ever around, so I don't know that they took into consideration what the US government would be doing. And yes, so people celebrate winter solstice, but most people have NO idea that Christmas was moved into a pagan holiday, nor do they know the celebration of Winter Solstice. They do however celebrate Santa who is based off of a Catholic saint.
raciccarone raciccarone 9 years
Cine, I think you're misreading my statement, or my intended statement. My feelings in this matter are more directed to Christians who continually attempt to incorporate their unfounded theories into our scientific discourse. Who attempt to pass legislation barring people from their rights because of biblical doctrine and who continually use their tax free money to pay for public candidates who will then enforce their beliefs on the population. I am comfortable singling out Christians until we can find examples of Muslims or Jews who exercise this sort of abuse.
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 9 years
I agree raciccarone there should not be any religious symbols on public property. In all fairness though it is the Churches fault to begin with. They inadvertently created their own headache. Way back when the church decided to move the holy celebration to coincide with Winter Solstice festivities in hopes that they could get some converts. They did not take into consideration though that Winter Solstice would swallow Christmas and not the other way around. Today the majority of us at least here in the U.S. celebrate in Winter Solstice fasion but call it Christmas. The two have blended so much the lines are a lovely shade of grey, unless you are a true Christian who takes the holiday for its spiritual intent.
cine_lover cine_lover 9 years
What do you mean "why do Christians continually encroach upon public domains?" How is it if they put a Menorah and a sign saying "Merry Christmas" forcing a relgion on people? They are not saying you must be Christian or you must be Jewish. They are acknowledging a holiday is in progress and wishing the people that celebrate, a joyous time. Just like allowing people to pray in school is not saying all must pray, but saying it is okay to celebrate your faith, whatever that may be. The original intent of the First Amendment was to ensure that no official religion be established, not "no religion should be practiced". How is acknowledgment of religion establishing a religion?
MarinerMandy MarinerMandy 9 years
Here's my two cents on gay marriage: I don't understand why it is anyone's business if two consenting adults wish to legally bind themselves to each other. I know, taxes, benefits, blah, blah, blah. But in a country where we bemoan the loss of family values and regard for the family structure, shouldn't the making of families be encouraged? As far as the courts "legislating" from the bench, public opinion can be wrong and it has been wrong on many many issues. If we had to amend the Constitution to say the seperate is inherently unequal, we would still have legal segregation today. We claim that we should hold our elected leaders to a higher standard, but we expect them to follow us rank and file. That's not leadership. Marriage is a state issue. In some states you can marry your cousin and in some states you cannot. Granted there are probably far more same sex couples who wish to marry than cousins who wish to marry, but I think it's an apt comparison.
raciccarone raciccarone 9 years
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." I realize this has been debated by much wiser legal minds than myself, but I honestly feel the intention was that any public area (courts, parks, public schools) should be free of any religious doctrine whatsoever, otherwise isn't that a tacit respect of religion? The government isn't prohibiting anyone's right to pray, so why do Christians continually encroach upon public domains?
harmonyfrance harmonyfrance 9 years
:grinch:
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 9 years
Oh Lord don't get me started on Christmas. This one issue where I will gladly come to an opinionated defense of Christians. I think it is seriously F'd up how capitalism has for all intents and purposes raped a holy holiday for all it's worth, striped it of it's meaning and then has the audacity to tell the people who's holiday it is we're going to celebrate it our way now and still exploit your religion. Nice.
cine_lover cine_lover 9 years
Sure it is there right to complain about a menorah, or a sign that says Merry Christmas, but they are the minority who are bothered by these signs, not the majority. It bothers me because a person with no religious affiliation rights seem to supersede people who do have a religious connection or just like to say Merry Christmas. The Seperation of Church and State came from keeping the government from forcing one particular religion on their people, and now people are taking it too far in my opinion. Not to mention the fact it is not written in the Constitution but in a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote I do not think Jefferson would be proud with what we have turned his words into.
raciccarone raciccarone 9 years
Why shouldn't we put the Quoran or the Torah on the steps of our courtrooms?
harmonyfrance harmonyfrance 9 years
I don't understand why this is an issue AT ALL.
popgoestheworld popgoestheworld 9 years
Well I guess banning crosses and Merry Christmas signs on public land and whatnot would fall under a separation of church and state. As for Christmas trees being named Holiday trees, well I think that's silly, but it's certainly within their rights, no? I don't mind seeing Christmas stuff up during the holidays. But obviously it bugs certain people and they've complained and rules were made accordingly. However, I still think that the idea that the country is trying to obliterate all traces of Christianity is just silliness. I guess I don't see how removing a cross from public land affects individual's personal relationships with God and Jesus, or prevents them from worshipping. Plus, I think language like that in reference to silly small law suits in Wisconsin does a disservice to people who are living in countries where there is true religious intolerance, and people really can be obliterated by believing in a certain God.
Qualities Every Relationship Should Have
Arnold Schwarzenegger Attends Oktoberfest With Son Joseph
Arnold Schwarzenegger Response to Special Olympics Post 2017
Courthouse Wedding
From Our Partners
Latest Love
All the Latest From Ryan Reynolds