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, read more.
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.
on Yahoo! |
From the AP - "The most recent polls, conducted in 2006 and 2007, found that 51 percent and 49 percent of survey respondents opposed making gay marriage legal, while 43 percent and 45 percent endorsed the idea."
So isn't gay marriage NOT the will of Californians?