Is the Governor doing a flip-flop-flip on Gay Marriage?

While proponents of yet another anti-Gay marriage initiative work for your signature while you try to enter Target to pick up some socks, the folks over at the Flash Report are having a coniption fit over Governor Schwarzenegger’s possible flip-flop-flip on gay marriage.

As a private citizen, Arnold the actor basically had no position on gay marriage.  As governor, he has vetoed two bills that would legalize Gay marriage in the state and indicated his support for Prop. 22 whichstates marriage could only be between a man and a woman.  Now, it appears, he’s not so high on the new proposed legislation. 

More after the flip:

Flash Report blogger Ray Hayes had a post over the weekend that wouldn’t hold up to a basic fact check.

Ray writes:

I have to admit.  I agree with Governor Schwarzenegger that fighting over gay marriage is a waste of time.  The whole idea is foolish.  There is no such thing as a marriage between two men or two women.  You can call it many things, but marriage it is not.  The whole purpose of a family is to raise children, and, the studies prove (as confirmed by 5000 years of accumulated human experience), children are best raised in a family consisting of a married man and woman.  It doesn’t always work out that every child gets that chance, but the fact that it doesn’t work out for everybody doesn’t mean that government should go out of its way to screw things up.

The whole concept of  “gay” marriage is nonsensical.  Our homosexual friends want  the “benefits” of marriage, they say, so that their relationship can be co-equal to a heterosexual relationship.  However, society has granted the benefits it has to married couples because it wants to encourage a strong marital relationship for the purpose of providing a stable home for children, not for the purpose of encouraging people to engage in sex.  Sex is, indeed, a part of life (a very necessary part to sustain life), but it is not the purpose of a relationship.  When the importance of a relationship is defined by the sexual practices of those who participate in the relationship, both the relationship and the sex, are cheapened.


Let’s start with Ray’s premise that straight couples are the best suited to raise children.  Not true.  The fact of the matter is kids raised by gays and lesbians are no better and no worse than kids raised in straight households. In fact, 40 percent of the kids born in America today are to couples who are not married; that’s a greater percentage than registered Republicans in California!  There are 800,000 references to this on Google Ray. You cite studies that prove otherwise; how about attaching a real title to one that suppots your point of view?

“The whole purpose of a family is to raise children”  So by this reasoning, infertile and eldery couples should be denied the right to marry since they can’t have children.  So no more heartwarming stories of nusing home weddings in the Register I guess.

However, society has granted the benefits it has to married couples because it wants to encourage a strong marital relationship for the purpose of providing a stable home for children, not for the purpose of encouraging people to engage in sex.

Perhaps you should take Mrs. Hayes out to dinner once in a while, but seriously society has nothing to do with it.  According to a story in the 11-26-2007 edition of the New York Times, for most of Western history, marriage was an agreement between two families (not the church nor the state) and it was all about property. 

By the 1920s, 38 states had laws on the books that prohibited whites from marrying all other races.  Should we roll back the clock so whites can’t marry Asians (what would Shawn Steel and Mike Schroeder say to that?).  Contrast this today, Ray, with the fact convicted felons can still legally marry; someone who has been divorced multiple times can still legally marry.  But gays and lesbians cannot. 

The comment on 5,000 years of human experience with marriage isn’t true either. And neither is the notion that gays and lesbians are only in a relationship for the sex.  A new study finds the gay and lesbian couples are just as committed to each other as straight couples.

From a pure liberty and freedom perspective, isn’t denying someone the right to do something while allowing other members of society to do the same thing strike you are contrary to Republican claims as being the ideal for freedom and liberty?  If the Catholic Church still wants to deny the sacrament of marriage to gays and lesbians, that’s fine.  But if the state is in the business of marriage, it should be unconstitutional to deny gays and lesbians the right to enter into a legal contract of marriage no matter what Prop 22 says. 

  33 comments for “Is the Governor doing a flip-flop-flip on Gay Marriage?

  1. RHackett
    April 14, 2008 at 11:57 am

    Once again the crowd that bellyaches about the intrusion of government upon one’s personal life shows its true colors. Apparently there are limits to
    their beliefs on individual liberty.

    To answer the Meredith Turney question in the comments section.

    It might be because Arnold thinks the state GOP conventions are a waste of time.

  2. Dan Chmielewski
    April 14, 2008 at 2:05 pm

    I saw one mre thing in Ray’s post. I have friends who are tall, short, young and old. Some are white, black, red, yellow and mocha. Some are gay; some are straight. Do we really have to say “our homosexual friends?” Could we just say “our friends who are gay?”

    I would love to hear how allowing Gay marriage is going to hurt the instituion of marriage?

  3. April 14, 2008 at 2:52 pm

    Dan – Irony? Republicans want to cut taxes but gay couples have to pay more because they don’t benefit from the same tax breaks as married straight couples. Why can’t we just argue it’s an unfair tax increase!

    As for referring to the lovely people in my life who happen to be gay or lesbian, um, well, that’s how I refer to them!

  4. April 14, 2008 at 3:35 pm

    That thing about government intrusion has an aspect they don’t mention: the government won’t intrude into your personal life so long as your personal life comports with whatever definition is promulgated by the no-intrusion folks. The clear implication – and practice – is if you are at all different in any way, we going to intrude upon you big time.

    And as Whoopi Goldberg has said, If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t marry one.

  5. Dan Chmielewski
    April 14, 2008 at 3:48 pm

    Heather – Brilliant; if we call it a tax increase, they will vote for gay marriage because its a tax loophole. It worked for luxury boat owners, right

    I call my friends, “friends.”

  6. April 14, 2008 at 4:03 pm

    Dan – Yes, I do too. I meant it as, one’s sexual orientation is not a defining factor to who they are, it’s just part of it.

    I thought of it because I saw an article on CNN – Gay couples face higher tax bills
    -Gay couples face higher taxes, denied marriage deduction
    -Couples can file jointly in states where civil unions are recognized
    -But federal taxes must be filed separately, doubling paperwork

  7. Bob
    April 15, 2008 at 10:59 am

    Dear Lib Friends:

    By what rational would the state deny me and my brother from marrying each other?

    “That’s not the same thing” “That’s a stupid comparison” “That’s an offensive comment” “No one wants to marry their sibling” “That’s sick” bla bla bla yeah I know what you’re going to say.

    My question, for anyone who has the guts or honesty to answer; What cause can be given by the government to deny us, two adults who love eachother, from joining in marriage?

  8. April 15, 2008 at 1:35 pm

    Bob, It is not the same damn thing and you know it. This is where it becomes absurd, when marriage between siblings, you know, incest, is compared to homosexuality. And the problem is, you don’t see why it’s wrong to make the comparison.

  9. April 15, 2008 at 1:40 pm

    My question, for anyone who has the guts or honesty to answer; What cause can be given by the government to deny us, two adults who love each other, from joining in marriage?

    If that were being proposed I would be glad to discuss it. But it’s not being proposed.

  10. April 15, 2008 at 2:37 pm

    As far as I know, in most states Bob would not be allowed to marry his sister, mother, daughter or other immediate female family member, despite the “correct” gender balance (1 man, 1 woman) in each of those examples.
    So the idea that allowing gay folks to marry would result in brother-brother marriages is absolutely absurd.
    If Bob wishes to change the laws to allow parent/child or sibling/sibling marriages, he’s welcome to give it a try.

  11. Dan Chmielewski
    April 15, 2008 at 2:46 pm

    Bob —
    Amnesty International is working on some International marriage standard by which you could marry anyone provided that they are: not related to you by blood; no married to anyone else; and of age (which varies by nation). Of course, if you’re being married in the Catholic Church,you would have to follow their rules for marriage.

  12. Equality of Opportunity
    April 15, 2008 at 5:04 pm

    Supporters of gay marraige need to work on public opinion.

    From the non-partisan Pew Research Center:

    “It’s just not fair” is not having an effect on public opinion.

  13. Dan Chmielewski
    April 15, 2008 at 5:34 pm

    It’s really not a matter of whether its supported broadly but whether or not its constitutional. How can you deny rights to one set of individuals that another set of individuals enjoy? Remember, a majority of Californias were against Inter-racial marriage too; does that mean we should ban interracial marriage? What would Mike Schroeder and Shawn Steel do? Both are married to Asian women; and that would have been illegal in the 1920s.

  14. Bob
    April 15, 2008 at 5:48 pm

    i”s absolutely absurd.”

    Dear Lib Friends:

    I stated that it was different and the only objection you came up with is that its “absurd”

    That’s the standard for who gets to have their marrage recongnized? I can live with that standard if that’s what you think it should be.

    Try again, what interest does the government have in preventing two men who have the same mother from getting married? Where is the harm to the public? Two people who love eachother – zero chance of inbreading complilcations. Exactly why should the government not sanction this marrage??/??? Becasue you think its gross and silly?

  15. April 15, 2008 at 6:13 pm

    Bob is merely engaging in the Chewbacca defense. It’s a sign that he knows he has lost the argument on gay marriage itself, so he’s gotta try and change the subject. Pretty weak if you ask me.

  16. Not an Obama Supporter
    April 15, 2008 at 6:14 pm

    To Dan C
    From Wikipedia:
    Baker v. Nelson was a case in which the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota law limited marriage to opposite-sex couples, and that this limitation did not violate the United States Constitution.

    The plaintiffs appealed, and the United States Supreme Court dismissed the appeal “for want of [a] substantial federal question”.

    That dismissal by the Supreme Court of the United States constituted a decision on the merits, and established Baker v. Nelson as the controlling precedent on the issue of same-sex marriage. – (in the US)

    From Will in MD: Constitutional rights don’t create themselves.

    In a democracy the majority CREATES the constitutional rights and that same majority can LIMIT those same constitutional rights that the majority itself CREATED — or in the case of gay marriage, the majority can choose NOT to CREATE it as a constitutional right in the first place.

    Dan C – Public opinion is very important to any cause.

  17. Bob
    April 15, 2008 at 7:17 pm

    Robert –

    No, I’m using a Yoda argument.

    Its no wonder that none of you Libs dared to state the EXACT reason why two men, who happen to be brothers, should not be allowed to be married.

    The ONLY reason is becasue it would harm society as a whole and threaten the institution of marrage. There is absolutly no harm imposed on anyone if this marrage was sactioned by the state. The exact same feelings that Dan, Heather Hacky and Bill object to the brothers being married are held by a majority of the public who oppose recongnizing same sex marrage by the state. I’m glad were all on the same page.

  18. April 15, 2008 at 7:32 pm

    Bob: I do not appreciate being addressed as “you libs.” It is obviously intended to be dismissive. If you wish to discuss something with the people who read this blog, please have the decency to come here with a modicum of respect.

    I have never heard of two brothers who wanted to be married. If there are such people, I would like to hear their reason for wanting it. I’m not talking about what you think their reason might be, I want to hear their actual reason.

    If a cogent argument can be made, I would consider the reasoning behind it. But absent such argument all I can say is that it’s not under consideration.

    On the other hand, gay men and women have given cogent arguments for wanting to be married or have the benefit of civil unions. I have considered the reasoning behind these arguments and I consider them sound.

    That is why I believe gay men and women should be allowed to marry. Absent any argument why two brothers should be allowed to marry, I can’t say the same for their situation.

  19. April 15, 2008 at 7:48 pm

    The Pew study cited above is a broad NATIONAL survey.
    Since marriage law in this country is state by state and this thread is about the Governor’s change of opinion, I think the results for CALIFORNIANS would be most informative.
    I thought it was fascinating to see the differences among age groups. Looks like the folks against gay marriage need to hurry and codify discrimination before they die off and are replaced by voters who think quite differently.

  20. April 15, 2008 at 7:48 pm

    Heather Hacky? Why was I the only one who got a derogatory name?

    And I have to agree with Gila on this one. Usually one avoids marriage between siblings because of the implications for the children, that being a higher risk for birth defects etc. It’s not safe. The argument then doesn’t fit for brothers though and until you have so many brothers that decide they want to marry, it might be time to revisit your argument.

  21. Bob
    April 15, 2008 at 8:03 pm

    Dear Liberal minded thinker who posts on the Liberal OC.

    “I would like to hear their reason for wanting it.” “If a cogent argument can be made, I would consider the reasoning behind it. ”

    Why does anyone want to get married? They are in love and want to spend the rest of their lives together. That should be the ONLY reason correct? What is the special other reason gay (non brothers) give that is different that you accept as valid?

    So given that love is the reason without any harm brought to anyone else they can and should be allowed to be married?


    Becasue there aren’t a significant number of brothers doesn’t seem like a reason why its wrong and shouldn’t be permitted. When there’re proper numbers you’re on board?

    It was Heather AND HAcky Rhacket

  22. April 15, 2008 at 10:10 pm

    “Why does anyone want to get married? They are in love and want to spend the rest of their lives together. That should be the ONLY reason correct?”

    Absolutely not. Many people get married in order to be able to avail themselves of the benefits of marriage.

    “What is the special other reason gay (non brothers) give that is different that you accept as valid?”

    I believe gays should be able to have the same benefits of marriage that I have. (Most of those benefits are already available to persons who are related by blood.)

  23. Bob
    April 16, 2008 at 8:57 am


    The last word on this. You just can bring yourself to say the only objection to two men who have the same mother from getting married is that you find it morally offensive. There is no other reason. In fact you tried to flip it and say that brothers had to provide an argument you that they are worthy of having the state recognize their marriage. I said love and all even add your ‘other reason’ “in order to be able to avail themselves of the benefits of marriage.”

    There is no physical threat to anyone if they got married. Do you believe they threaten your marriage?

    Obviously you feel that the state has a broad role in defining marriage. The public interest in having the state objection to relatives (adults) getting married is birth defects. Take that out of the equation and your left with society’s desire to preserve traditional marriage.

    You can’t have it both ways. Your criteria can’t simply be that its “absurd.” Fess up! your imposing your morality and views about traditional marriage on others. – But that’s okay with me.

  24. April 16, 2008 at 9:40 am

    Bob is obviously an honor student at the Rick Santorum school of debate by distraction. The discussion is a narrow one: two otherwise unrelated people, same sex, seeking to be married. It’s not a discussion about siblings or other blood relatives; neither is it a discussion of people and animals or trees or anything else.

    By the way, Bob, in your comment of yesterday evening, you characterized my feelings about brothers being married. Actually, that’s pure conjecture on your part. Nowhere, including in this comment, have I indicated or implied any thoughts or feelings about same-sex siblings being married. For the record, I have none on the subject; I’ve never considered the idea and presently don’t care to because it’s irrelevant to this discussion.

  25. Bob
    April 16, 2008 at 10:54 am

    Bill –

    I agree “The discussion is a narrow one..”

    One man – one woman.

    I’m glad we have the same logic reguarding the state and marriage.

  26. Dan Chmielewski
    April 16, 2008 at 12:00 pm

    Bob — Thanks for the reference on Wiki; I will read the case, but I believe the of the “want of a federal question” will be addressed. Remember, the Supreme Court itself once upheld slavery as constitutional. Its all about what the definitions and intrepretations mean.

    As far as brothers marrying, I think you’re stretching to solve a problem that isn’t there. And it it the while Rick Santorum “man-on-dog” case logic that simply doesn’t apply.

    I am taking gay marriage down to an issue of rights. And what is federally legal under the constitution is legal in states.

  27. Bob
    April 16, 2008 at 12:50 pm


    I didn’t even hit at people marrying animals – that would be silly.

    You’re bringing up the issues of rights and harm? Asking the tough questions.

    I am asking about two consenting human adults who are in love and pose no future complications relating to reproduction. Why do they not have a ‘right’ to get married and what is the harm to them, you or the general public if they are allowed to be married?

    Again you brought up ‘harm’ show me the harm.

    I’m not stretching – there have been stories galore about siblings getting married and the threat it poses on reproduction. Take out the component of reproduction and the ONLY objection you have with members of the same sex who happen to share the same birth mother is that you find it morally offensive.

    I’m OKAY with your opposition on moral grounds, please allow the majority of Americans to use your same logic/system in trying to preserve traditional marriage.

    Don’t throw at me “it’s different” or “rare” or not comparable about same sex members of a family getting married – those are all the terms I use when opposing same sex marriage. Show me the harm…

  28. Dan Chmielewski
    April 16, 2008 at 1:41 pm

    Bob — I am aware of one story of siblings marrying and both were separated at birth and adopted by other families. And in that case, it was a man and a woman. So I’d challnege you to offer “stories galore” on sibling romances.

    Tell you what, if gay marriage becomes the law of the land, we’ll revisit the question of brothers marrying. Because the only other person to bring up intra-family marriages was Chuck DeVore and it was for the purpose of saving on the estate taxes. But if you hold a gun to my head, brothers love each other and derive many of the benefits of married couples through the concept of next of kin.

  29. April 16, 2008 at 2:19 pm

    Bob – again you read meaning into words I have not written. In fact, you have fictionalized what I did say. And you thought no one would notice? Here’s the full sentence. “The discussion is a narrow one: two otherwise unrelated people, same sex, seeking to be married. ” That you were able to impute any other meaning is a contortion worthy of Cirque du Soleil.

  30. April 16, 2008 at 2:29 pm

    Bill – I do believe the word “narrow” is a perfect way to describe Bob though.

  31. Bob
    April 16, 2008 at 3:15 pm

    “Straight” and narrow??? ho ho ho hardy har har snicker snicker Oh Heather you’re such a card.

    As I check my tusty legal pad that charts a point by point win/loss during a debate I WON!!!

    Dang that was fun.

    Tommorow let’s chat about Obama cavorting with Communist Terrorists and Persons fond of sadistic murder. A hearty “fork salute” to my Liberal Friends.

  32. April 16, 2008 at 3:21 pm

    Bob – See, that’s where you are wrong. It’s not about “Winning”, it’s about doing the right thing and supporting issues based on their merit.

  33. Dan Chmielewski
    April 16, 2008 at 4:20 pm

    “Persons fond of sadistic murder” I had no idea that Obama hangs with Dick Cheney and Condi. Who knew?

Comments are closed.