Advanced Search

Schwarzenegger: No to Marriage Amendment

By
Allison Hoffman
Associated Press Writer
Sat, Apr. 12 2008 07:26 AM ET
[-]Text[+]
E-mail Print RSS More on Topic AddThis Button

SAN DIEGO (AP) - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Friday that he would fight an initiative to amend the California Constitution to ban same-sex ''marriage'' if it qualifies for the November ballot.

Schwarzenegger has vetoed bills that would allow gay marriage but said he opposes the sort of amendments that are being proposed by two competing groups. Such amendments are already on the books in 26 states, but the governor said it would be a "waste of time" to pursue one in California.

"I will always be there to fight against that," Schwarzenegger said, prompting loud cheers and a standing ovation from about 200 people at the annual convention of the Log Cabin Republicans, the nation's largest gay Republican group.

The Austrian-born governor immediately cracked that he wished activists would instead focus on passing an amendment to allow naturalized citizens to run for president.

Both proposed initiatives would limit marriage to heterosexuals, and one measure would revoke the spousal rights and tax benefits currently extended to same-sex couples under state laws.

Schwarzenegger supports the current benefits for same-sex couples. In vetoing bills that would have legalized gay marriage, he has said he thinks the question should be up to voters or the courts, not lawmakers.

Geoffrey Kors, executive director of the gay rights group Equality California, said Schwarzenegger's opposition could help defeat a marriage ban or even prevent it from getting enough signatures to qualify for the ballot.

"We were thrilled. We have been asking him to do this," said Kors, whose group's volunteers have been working to persuade people not to sign petitions for the proposed initiative. "The governor's support to defeat it is critical."

Kors said Schwarzenegger's stand has precedent. In 1978, former Republican Gov. Ronald Reagan came out against a ballot initiative that would have made it illegal for gay men and lesbians to work as teachers in California public schools, an act that "made gay rights issues nonpartisan," Kors said.

Proponents of the initiatives said Schwarzenegger is risking the ire of conservative voters.

"He says he'll veto legislation redefining marriage but now he says he'll fight a ballot measure protecting marriage," said Randy Thomasson, of VoteYesMarriage.com, whose amendment would revoke domestic-partnership benefits including hospital visitation, community property and child support. "He's pandering to this group."

Andrew Pugno, a lawyer for ProtectMarriage.com, said the intention of his group's less far-reaching amendment was simply to keep the existing definition of marriage approved by the Legislature from being overturned by the courts.

Both groups have until April 28 to gather signatures from 694,354 voters to qualify the measures for the November election.

Schwarzenegger is a defendant in a group of lawsuits brought by same-sex couples seeking to overturn the state's longtime statutory ban on gay marriage. A ruling in the case is expected soon from the California Supreme Court.

Associated Press writer Lisa Leff in San Francisco contributed to this report.

Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

BACK TO TOP Print E-mail More on Topic AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Comments

Most recent comments
TerryH
  • Wed Apr 16, 2008 5:26 pm
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
Free to Think,
Very well said. Thanks.
FreeToThink
  • Wed Apr 16, 2008 12:18 pm
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
TerryH,

If you read what I wrote again you'll see that I didn't suggest that the passage had nothing to do with marriage. In fact, I said that (paraphrasing) it is largely a directive to husbands and wives. I was only asking you to provide some explanation of how that section is relevant to discussion of the news story.

I find it difficult to imagine that interpretations without relevant support are not being adversely affected by the biases of the one doing the interpreting. I find this passage instructional in my own life - particularly verse 6 as it relates to the temptation to interpret passages in whatever manner I see fit.

1 Corinthians 4:4-6 (New International Version)
4 My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me.
5 Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.
6 Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.

Also, along those same lines:

James 4:11-12 (New International Version)

11 Brothers, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against his brother or judges him speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it.
12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor?
TerryH
  • Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:50 am
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
Free to Think,
As you request,
Definition: Reprove
Reprove
Verb
1. Take to task; "He admonished the child for his bad behavior".
As a synonym: Synonyms within Context: Reprehend, chide, admonish; berate, betongue; bring to account, call to account, call over the coals, rake over the coals, call to order; take to task, reprove, lecture, bring to book; read a lesson, read a lecture to; rebuke, correct
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/reprove

Synonym: Two words that can be interchanged in a context are said to be synonymous relative to that context.

When used in the context of information: Word or group of words having a different form but exactly or nearly the same meaning as another word or group of words.
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/Synonym

I do not see how you can conclude that the scripture passages I posted have anything to do with or mention marriage. It has to do with sin and having fellowship with those who practice sin. If you read the scriptures before and after the ones I posted you may find different areas the scriptures I posted deal with.

Ephesians 5:10-12 (King James Version)
10Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.
11And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
12For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.

When you read these verses as my response to the persons post I was addressing you will see that they are relevant to the post. Please read in full the issue before correcting or attempting to correct someone and then apply your scriptures as you see fit. However, take your own advice and be sure the scriptures you use are directly related to the issue and not an assumption on your part.

Galatians 6:3 For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.
FreeToThink
  • Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:04 pm
  • : 0
  • : 2
  • Flag
TerryH,let me provide a bit of friendly "reproof" to your post:

First, here is the actual definition of the term
reprove:
transitive verb
1: to scold or correct usually gently or with kindly intent
2: to express disapproval of
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reprove)

When posting quotes from other sources (even definitions), please provide a link or reference so that we can see where you're getting your information from. Lacking your source, it appears to me that you are not providing the actual definition of the word but synonyms instead. I'll spare you the english lesson and just say that synonyms are similiar words but don't neccessarily have the "same" meaning.

Second, if you are going to post scripture to support your opinion and the verses you post are not directly relevant and/or open to interpretation, please provide us with the logical reaoning and assumtions you are making so that we can understand you point better. The passages that you excerpted are largely concerned with the directive of husbands loving their wives (and vice versa) and how to go about that. The specific verse that you started with (Ephesians 5:10) is not even related to the following two as it is a continuation of verses Ephesians 5:8-9:

8: For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:
9: (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)
10: Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.

If we assume (which is not obvious) that the verses you posted are relevant, and you are helpfully providing a (correct) definition of the action we should take when the bible tells us to "reprove" the unfruitful works of darkness, the literal interpretation of that passage would have us gently or kindly correct the people who are the subject of this article. There is nothing in there about passing laws that deny them equal rights. However, as you are attempting to put a spin on the interpretation by ussing inexact language, the only assumption that we can make is that you are in fact attempting to decieve us by putting a biased spin on that passage. I thank you for the suggested reading though, I find this passage to be especially relevant:

Ephesians 5:6-7
6: Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.
7: Be not ye therefore partakers with them.

vain:
1: having no real value : idle, worthless
2: marked by futility or ineffectualness : unsuccessful, useless
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vain)
Knight
  • Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:53 am
  • : 1
  • : 0
  • Flag
All those surprised by this???

*sound of crickets chirping*

Good, you shouldn't be. Just because Arnold has an "R" in his title does not make him friendly to the traditional family.
TerryH
  • Mon Apr 14, 2008 4:43 am
  • : 4
  • : 2
  • Flag
Dongard wrote:
i am confident that californians will accept and welcome their gay neighbors as equals in rejecting these bigoted and hateful attempts to impose a narrow religious test on us all. rejecting hospital visitation rights. this is not just cruel, it is immoral.

You seem to have a knack for using the terms hatred and bigoted in your posts, rather loosely I might add. Are you sure you know what a bigot is? And yes there is hatred, we as Christians are called to hate sin and homosexuality is sin. Christians are also called to reprove sin.
Ephesians 5:10-12 (King James Version)
10Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.
11And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
12For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.
Bigot:
A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own.

Opposing homosexuality is not something we Christians do out of our opinion but based on the standard of God’s law.

Reprove:
Reprehend, chide, admonish; berate, betongue; bring to account, call to account, call over the coals, rake over the coals, call to order; take to task, reprove, lecture, bring to book; read a lesson, read a lecture to; rebuke, correct.

Before you call a Christian a bigot, you may want to consider whether they are speaking from personal opinion or God’s divine law. Just because someone disagrees with you and attempts to correct you doesn’t mean they hate you.
dgnymn
  • Sun Apr 13, 2008 9:25 pm
  • : 3
  • : 0
  • Flag
Arnold???? Well....what about this "hateful and bigoted" attempt to define marriage as one man and one woman??? Hey, pal, have you ever read the Scriptures? Jesus Christ affirmed the marriage between one man and one woman!!! Got it!!!! California is SO out of touch with the rest of the country, it ain't funny!!!!

As far as focusing our attempts on trying to get naturalized citizens elected President, what....does Arnie think he ever had a chance??!!?? NOT!!! The founders of this nation were on guard against people like Arnold !!!!! He would never get elected in this nation's highest office.

He's not a Republican...more like a political chameleon!!! Don't EVER trust him!!!!

REPENT, ARNIE, FOR THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN IS AT HAND!!!!
ifeelfine72
  • Sun Apr 13, 2008 6:18 pm
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
SqueakyWheel: Go back and read the article - Arnold said that he opposes any kind of amendment defining marriage whether it be one man one woman or other options.
John5796
  • Sun Apr 13, 2008 1:05 pm
  • : 13
  • : 3
  • Flag
Immoral? LOL. But 2 sodomites practicing their unnatural filth is not I suppose? According to Webster (which is a dictionary):

Im*mor"al\, a. [Pref. im- not + moral: cf. F. immoral.] Not moral; inconsistent with rectitude, purity, or good morals; contrary to conscience or the divine law; wicked; unjust; dishonest; vicious; licentious; as, an immoral man; an immoral deed.
dongard
  • Sun Apr 13, 2008 7:14 am
  • : 5
  • : 15
  • Flag
i am confident that californians will accept and welcome their gay neighbors as equals in rejecting these bigoted and hateful attempts to impose a narrow religious test on us all. rejecting hospital visitation rights. this is not just cruel, it is immoral.
Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging Abusive, Spam, Offensive, Illegal, Racist or Libellous Posts.

Comment on this story

ID Password
Submit Don't have a Christian Post ID?Signing up is easy. Click Here