The reason he says he's vetoing the bill is because it would conflict with a previous mandate from voters, which required that California not recognize same-sex marriages from other states. That fact is being overlooked quite a bit in the media right now (except for on Fox), since the opposition will do a knee-jerk spout-off about how Arnie's suddenly anti-gay. Turns out, California "already gives same-sex couples many of the rights and duties of marriage if they register with the state as domestic partners." So what's the big deal?

Regardless of whether one believes that same-sex marriage is right or wrong, we have to respect his rationale. If the voters decide something, it's a good politician who doesn't go off and allow legislation that contradicts their decision. We (the States) are supposed to be a representative democracy, after all.

What surprises me is that voters in California, of all places, decided what they did.

Why do I have to respect his rationale? <p>Just note please that I mean this from only a procedural angle - not on the substance of the case. I do not know anything about the obligation of the legislature to follow a referendum and specifically this referendum any more that I know the obligation of the executive to do that. We clearly have the legislature and the executive interpretnig that obligation in opposite terms. Why do we not say that the legislature - the appointed representatives of the people at a far more local level than Arnie - is misinterpreting when we accept Arnie is not?

He may well be, but he has the discretion to do so, as governor.

If people don't like it, they can elect a new one.

Personally, I suspect that Schwarzenegger is closer to popular opinions on this one than the legislature, but I still would have preferred that he sign the bill.

Interestingly, too, the referendum results themselves appear to be the subject of court proceedings and there is a move to change the state constitutions so there are few avenues of governance being left untrod in the matter.

...and just to be a little clearer - just because Arne had the discretion to exercise the veto does not mean we have to respect that exercise of the veto. His use of the veto is actually an attack on whiggery - that keystone of the representative side of democracy.

So it is a contest between what is the aristocratic supported by the mob against the whiggy middling class...if this was 1795 Pennsylvania, that is.

"<i>Why do we not say that the legislature - the appointed representatives of the people at a far more local level than Arnie - is misinterpreting when we accept Arnie is not?</i>"

The local represetatives aren't necessarily respresenting, and acting in accordance with, the will of the people. Of course, this all depends - like you said - on interpretation... But from what I've read, it seems fairly straight forward: The voters said that same-sex marriages from other states should not be recognized by California.

Why then would the state legislature try to legalize same-sex marriage? ...especially when same-sex couples already have tons of rights & privileges in the state? Are they okay with same-sex marriage taking place in their state, but don't want gay married couples coming in from other states? That doesn't make much sense.

Also, It's not that we should respect his use of the veto across the board. But I think we should respect his desire to listen to the people.

The veto is helpful, though, in our system of checks and balances. It's just one of many mechanisms that keep one branch of government from having too much power. Besides, all they need is a two-thirds majority to over-ride it.

Ben wrote: "<i>Personally, I suspect that Schwarzenegger is closer to popular opinions on this one than the legislature, but I still would have preferred that he sign the bill.</i>"

Why? You'd prefer that he ignore the will of the people (and perhaps his conscience)?

Maybe he's the antithesis to Plato, who believed that the common people weren't competent to decide things for themselves. I'd like to think the public can decide issues like this, since we all have to be grown-ups in order to vote. Unfortunately, knowing people like I do, there are MANY folks I wouldn't want making any important decisions. :)

See - I know you, too, are studying pre-1865 US history so I can trust you.<p>So the referendum was not even on point? Maybe they do not want all them other folk to show them up. Even though the topic of the referendum and the topic of the legislation is closely related they are not the same. Each state has a constitution and, as exemplified in Mass., some do not have any barr to same-sex marriage. Clarifying that it is California constitutional law that should govern the issue (which is what the referendum outcome could mean) is different from saying same sex marriage is never to occur in California (which is also what the referendum outcome could mean). Reading into a referendum and making a discretionary executive veto based on it is a very singlar thing especially when the legislature has spoken specifically on the exact point.<p>

I know so little on US government structure but it is so complex that I really enjoy trying to figure out the process.

Alan --

Nonsense. Bill Clinton used the veto on numerous occasions during his presidency, because the Republican majorities in the House and in the Senate passed bills that he -- and, arguably, a majority of the country -- did not agree with. And good for him.

If Californians don't like his use of the veto, they can elect a different governor in 2006.

On your Plato point - that is one that the whigs in 1787 would have pointed out. The executive and the judiciary are both distant from the people and represent the gentry. The legislature is the best repository of the will of the people and the more local the better. A referendum can give general guidance of the will of the people but will is different from legislation. It is beyond the capacity of each of us to legislate except through representation.

Ben - what makes this unique is the "rights of man" aspect of it. The use of the veto is common, you are right, but vetoing spending allocation is a lot different than the recognition of rights.

ALan, you're a bit off on prop 22 not being on point. It was a reaction to the Vermont civil unions but it was also more. This whole 'law to not respect out of state gay marriages' is a totally new spin on something nearly 5 years old--I was in state at the time at UC Davis.
Google California and proposition 22 and you'll get the actual text of the amendment to the state constitution(after some sifting).
This current bill, the state congressional one being vetoed, has been 4 years in the making. It's an attempted end run on the state constitution. Maybe you think it's wrong(prop 22), but the conditions set by prop 22 are what the people of CA voted for by a nearly 2/3 to 1/3 margin.
The Plebians have spoken.

What all did they say?

Brian --

Yes, I would have preferred that he sign the bill <i><b>because it was the right thing to do</i></b>. Obviously, Governor Schwarzenegger and I have different views on the definition of marriage (though it wouldn't stop me voting for him when he stands for re-election, if I lived in CA instead of MA).

The reason that I support extending civil marriage to same-sex couples -- and no, Alan, it isn't a right just yet -- is that it's the right thing to do.

I'm not a populist, I'm a civil libertarian. When choosing between what is popular and what advances individual liberties, I'll pick the latter.

That said, the governor had every right to do what he did, and he'll be judged accordingly at the next gubernatorial election.

Unfortunately, the "right thing to do" differs from person to person. In Arnie's eyes, vetoing the bill <i>is</i> the right thing to do. And like I said before, civil liberties are already in place for gay couples in California. They just don't call it "marriage" ...and I guess that's the rub.

Personally, I don't think married people of any persuasion should have any more rights than single people. I've felt that way since before I was married, and I still believe it now. When I was single, I used to hate when married people would get a "married couple" discount on car insurance. Yeah, maybe I'm a hypocrite now that I get the discount. But why not give everyone the same discount? But alas, I delve into a whole other bucket of worms.

The only think I quibble with Ben is the idea of "a right just yet". All natural rights are pre-existing and it is only the failure inherent in the state that they are not all recognized yet. You can't have a living tree without a state of nature and vice versa. You can't be a libertarian and believe the state is the font of rights. I know I made an excellent post about this a year ago but can't find it. This one is not quite it but it helps.

I'm not a very good libertarian -- more of a classical liberal or an Old Whig, if I must self-describe.

My issue with your take, Alan, is that marriage is a social construction. Now, I could go with taking the state out of those altogether or changing its civil definition (as we are in the process of doing). But I'll say that those do indeed evolve over time.

When I'm your age (fifteen years ahead?), I bet that same-sex marriage will be considered a right, inherent in what we see as a "marriage". But we're not there yet. And so, though I do think that changing civil definitions is the right thing to do, I don't think that bringing the rights discourse to bear on those who don't agree is very fair at this point in time.

Social constructions like marriages, ethnicities, and those sorts of things are not very conducive to natural rights discourse, IMHO, except in that the participants are necessarily rights-bearing individuals.

Oh yes, and one other thing:

Brian --

You asked why <i><b>I</i></b> would have preferred that Governor Schwarzenegger had signed the bill. That's why -- because I saw it as the right thing to do.

As for his opinion -- he obviously didn't think so.

If we're going to have a state-sanctioned civil marriage status -- and there's no way that the state is pulling out of that -- then we're going to have to recognize same-sex partnerships in a way that is fully equal. I don't see how it can be done in a way that does not involve expanding the definition of civil marriage.

We can do it quickly and easily, or we can draw out the fight over a long time. It isn't as yet an issue that I consider important enough to decide my vote, as there are more pressing matters, but if the other side pulls its socks up, it may become a bigger problem for the parties I should otherwise want to support, north and south of the border, as time passes and it remains unresolved.

Marriage is not a social construction, it is a behaviour inherent in being human - a classic natural right. Natural rights are those that are inherent in the dignity of being human. It predates just about anything but beer and bongos. There is no community in time that lacks them monogomous relationships or bonding and plenty allow(ed) gay ones. Not a legal construct at all. What law created marriage? Sure it regulated it but create?

I'm calling you on this one, Alan.

1. Which civilizations recognized same-sex marriages?
2. Were any of them part of what we would refer to as Western Civilization?

Actually the Celts were all over this. You get mucho in this nature in the tales which were rewritten as brother tales. We had all our pre-Christian Gods pretty much written out of history so this renaming is not ficitive. Scots also were big no marriage as a natural order as there were four ways to be married historically - church, banns, something I never recall and the declaration. Useful when you lived in the mountains.

I'd be checking out ancient Greco-Roman practices too, on this point but know little.

I'm skeptical, but intrigued.

You have that tatooed on your forehead! ;-)

"<i>I'm skeptical, but intrigued</i>."
That's good... can I use it?? :)

This is liberty hall. Go forth!