Schwarzenegger and gay marriageThis letter is foolish for several reasons. First, the governor is obligated to veto an unconstitutional law. The constitution says that only a referendum can repeal another referendum. Second, Schwarzenegger has bet his career that the popular vote of Californians can do better than the legislature, so he must support popular referenda of the past. Third, Schwarzenegger is a Republican, and so he is going to support other Republicans. Fourth, Bush's first term expired, and he could very well be the best candidate on the ballot in 2004 even if he was not the best in 2000. Fifth, Bush won Ohio, so Schwarnegger was supporting the will of the people there.
So Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (Page 5B, Sept. 25) says he has ``never really felt that strong one way or another'' about gay marriage. But he is supposedly vetoing the bill legalizing such marriages because of a 2000 vote on a California ballot initiative.
In that same election, however, the people of California clearly also indicated that their ``will'' was not to have George W. Bush in the White House. So then what was the governor's rationale for campaigning for him in 2004 in Ohio?
Same-sex marriage is likely to be on the ballot again in California next year. If Janice Hough and the other leftist Bush-hater really believed these silly consistency arguments, then they would vote against same-sex marriage so that opposite-sex marriage will be affirmed again.