SAN DIEGO - California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says that if an initiative to ban gay marriage qualifies for the November ballot, he's prepared to fight it.

California's governor spoke Friday in San Diego at the convention of the Log Cabin Republicans, the nation's largest gay Republican group.

He has previously vetoed bills that would have legalized gay marriage. A Schwarzenegger spokeswoman did not say what prompted the governor to shift his position.

Schwarzenegger shifts gay marriage stand - Yahoo! News
----

Progress...

Looks like Arnold is finally coming around.

Good timing, since the gay marriage issue is in front of the CA state Supreme Court right now.

I don't think that it's much of a shift. He hasn't been a supporter of banning gay marriage. There is a difference between being complicit and explicit in a cause.

__________________

If the Governor feels the need to fight it, he should...

But I wouldn't use the term "Progress"...In fact, I find it quite hypocritical...

In most issues involving Bush, the "company line" from the Liberal sphere is that he shouldn't go against "the will of the people."...Time and time again we hear things like "The majority of the people are against blah blah blah, so the president should do whatever the majority says he should do instead of doing what he thinks is right."...

I see the opposite happening here...

Using that very same logic, instead of saying "progress", one would think the same applies...That Arnie should listen to "the will of the people" and sign whatever the majority says...

But that would be consistant...can't have that...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

There is a huge difference between supporting gay marriage - or even being against it - and supporting a constitutional amendment.

These wackjob zealots throw around amending the constitution as if it didn't make any difference that it's the fucking CONSTITUTION!!!!!!!

No, it's not much of a shift, but it's a shift. It marks the first time that he has said he will fight any attempt to ban gay marriage constitutionally.

That means that there won't be two levels of legal work to do in order to legalize gay marriage there (throwing out the amendment as unconstitutional, followed by passing a law to enact gay marriage)... there will be just one step to take, which should make the process go faster.

In fact, if the CA state Supreme Court gives the Constitution any thought during its current deliberations on the topic, that single step should be in place by midsummer.

i wasn't talking about a Constitution amendment...I was talking about ANY issue that comes down the pike...

Whenever Bush wants to do "A" and the majority of the public want "B", the excuse from the Left is that Bush should do "B" because that's what the people want...

Why isn't that being said here?...Why can't anyone use the EXACT SAME LOGIC and say "If the initiative gets passed, then we should respect the will of the people?"...

Of course, the correct answer is because "the will of the people" theory only works for one side but if it's the other way, then the majority is a bunch of stupid, poopypants...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

That sounds like putting the cart before the horse...

If the Supreme would rule on it NOW, then there might not even be an iniative to present to the public in the first...

"Let's see if the people want this, and if they do, THEN afterward we'll find out if it's legal or not."...

Sounds dumb to me...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Redd, you have a valid point here.

But I hope you will join me in acknowledging that both sides play that game.

Both sides play ALL games...

But the Left has a knack for making it sound like it's NOT them...

Culture of corruption?...

Republican Duke Cunningham resigns from office in disgrace...

Democrat William Jefferson is still in office and actually was thrown off one committee only to get a seat on another one by the Democratc Congresssional leadership...

Earmarks?...

The "Road to Nowhere" is the most popular term because of an Alaskan Republican but the media doesn't seem to notice the Pennsylvanian Democrat who has received over $2 billion in earmarks...some to a company that doesn't exist...

Sex scandals?...

Spitzer gets the headline with nary a mention of his Democratic status in the articles whereas Larry Craig, someone who, unlike Spitzer, used no fraudulant financial transfers for his actions, gets the big "GOP" front and center as a reminder to the public who they want the "bad guys" to be...

Religious approval from haters?...

John McCain gets calls to denounce a guy with whom he's never even been to his church because he said something about Catholics, but Snob-ama...to this day...doesn't have to do the same...only say his pastor "said some bad things but overall he's a nice guy" and the response is "Oh...OK"...

I will agree until I am blue in the face that both sides are either exactly alike or close enough to where the margin of error is insignificant...

The TREATMENT of their actions are so one sided it makes me want to puke...

And the point of mine you've called valid is just another example...

When the Liberals want something done and the majority agrees, they say "Look!...the MAJORITY wants it so it MUST be done."...

But if this initiative passes with a MAJORITY, the vary same people will say "F*CK the majority...Do what's right!!"...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd