Blogcabin California

To the Member of the California State Assembly

I am returning Assembly Bill 43 without my signature.

As I stated in vetoing similar legislation in 2005, I am proud California is a leader in recognizing and respecting domestic partnerships.  I believe that all Californians are entitled to full protection under the law and should not be discriminated against based upon sexual orientation.  I support current domestic partnership rights and will continue to vigorously defend and enforce these rights.

In 2000, voters approved Proposition 22, a challenge to which is currently pending before the California Supreme Court.  I maintain my position that the appropriate resolution is to allow the Court to rule on Proposition 22.  The people of California should then determine  what, if any, statutory changes are needed in response to the Court’s ruling.

Sincerely,

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Well, as a research attorney and not as a gay man, I legally understand the Governor’s position.  Emotionally, I am, . . well. . ., emotions should not rule law.  D&%$ It!  I logically understand it.  The Supreme Court of California had even asked for further briefing on the specific issue of Proposition 22.  The Court ultimately interprets the law and not the legislative nor executive branches.

And with that in mind, I will respectfully wait for the Supreme Court of California, in California, my home, to rule whether I can legally marry my high school sweetheart.  And when it does, I carry the hope within me that I will be getting married because as a research attorney in the largest Court system in the world, I know what the problems are with Proposition 22.  Simply put, it was passed with emotions running high but the wording, in my own opinion, fails, and it also violates the rights and gays and lesbians the right to petition the legislature to secure the right to marry.  I believe that right to petition will be restored to us someday and when it is, well, you will read about it.