Breaking: Gov. Schwarzenegger Announces He Opposes Limits On Marriage Initiative
by: Autumn Sandeen
Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 18:43:00 PM EDT
http://pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=724E3EBE916547457CBD8ED2577A4948?diaryId=5050 (http://pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=724E3EBE916547457CBD8ED2577A4948?diaryId=5050)
For those who aren't aware, there is a "limits on marriage" petition circulating in California to put a constitutional amendment to the California Constitution:
Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Proof that there ARE some good republicans. :)
After his failed ballot initiatives of a couple years ago, he's really changed by doing more to respect the will of the people in his state rather than his party. He (with other governors, including some other Republicans) has taken the White House to task for dragging its feet on approving state-specific environmental laws. I suppose it'd be interesting to see to what extent he agrees with his overall shift in policy is to be in-tune with his own beliefs, or whether it is more to be an advocate for his constituents, but him not being bound by party ideology is a healthy thing to see in government.
Got to keep the in-laws happy. ;0)
Well that's good to hear. But what is he doing to ensure marriage rights for all? Regardless of gender/sex? And regardless of how many people someone is married to?
Not being sarcastic here, or trying to start a flamewar, as a future resident of California, I'd really like to know.
I do agree with Melissa;
Republican != Evil,
But I also believe that;
Democrat != Good.
Hey, I've been here through the entire Arnold reign, and on the whole, he hasn't been as bad as everyone thought he would be. He has opposed gay marriage up to this point, but he seems to be changing. He has to move to the left if he is going to hope to run for Senate if either Boxer or DiFi retires. Not likely. But, to tell the truth, that gay marriage deal is not a huge issue here, people tend to think its going to happen sooner rather than later, and most likely its going to come from the court case, and everyone's just been watching that. Except the Right, which is trying for a ballot deal, which is what this is about. But the Ballot deal in Cali is a whole different topic.
Quote from: Kirsa on April 14, 2008, 09:05:57 PMAnd regardless of how many people someone is married to?
There are a number of laws in terms of sharing of benefits and parental rights that become problematic when you expand beyond exclusive pairs. Generalizing the concept of man-woman to person-person is largely a trivial matter, but going beyond that is quite complicated, as certain benefits normally extended to just one other person can become prohibitively complicated (or expensive) when two or more others may be sharing the rights to make decisions or will draw on resources.
This is not to say that we can't have some kind of union for larger groups or that would allow multiple pairings in order to grant some rights, but there are certain logistics of marriage currently that can't be extended to more complicated arrangements.