4 posts tagged “arnold schwarzenegger”

Finally, I have read the judgement from California about gay marriage. It may be prudent to post a comment from an earlier post, in response to a commenter, Madonna. I should note that I am not part of a conspiracy behind an ‘anti-gay industry’ or ‘“ex-gay” head cases’. I’ll also refrain from saying ‘You’re not bright,’ as you did to another Voxer, but I will begin with your own words, ‘Let me educate you.’ One proviso: I have read fewer Californian cases than, obviously, someone trained in an American law school. I have written based on what I have observed with Californian and American cases.
   It may also be instructive to read the below in conjunction with the previous post, also a response by me to a commenter who was considerably more civilized, in where I deal with Perez v. Lippold in more depth.

After having read the majority opinion, I remain unconvinced. While I agree the article is biased, I have to come to the same conclusion as Justice Baxter, principally for many of the reasons I outlined above.
   This may be time, now, to address Madonna’s points.
   First, Madonna, your attack on another commenter is unwarranted, and it’s a shame you would deny her her opinion from the outset without putting your reasoning first. It would not be unfair to dismiss anything that came afterward from you.
   I can equally attack you with your words:

No rational person can criticize the Court's decision here without having at least a basic understanding of the governing California precedents. Anyone who condemns this ruling without having that understanding will be demonstrating a profound ignorance of -- and contempt for -- how the law works.

Precedents do not govern, they persuade. And if you do look back at Californian decisions, regardless of whether the issues are as controversial or not, they show a gradual, progressive moving forward of the law, catching up to public opinion in many cases. I believe you are ignorant of this basic fact of how the law has worked in California and, indeed, your own country, based on this very general, sweeping proposition. Indeed, Perez itself shows this, and I find the lead judgement in particular to be very, very clever.
   These precedents which I have at least enquired into do show some persuasiveness but none of them get around the problem California has with the Governor’s vetoes. The fact that the ‘a man and a woman’ definition has been placed in really do not help supporters of gay marriage. So we are essentially stuck with the position that I stated in my comment to the Gay Curmudgeon.
   Effectively I believe that the law has been circumvented, and not very cleverly, the majority judges trying to bury the core issue with legalese.
   Your bill argument is unconvincing. If the Governor’s position is so dead wrong, then vote the man out. I come back to the basic idea: the judge’s role is to interpret the law. And a bill is not law.
   As are your arguments, from a legal standpoint, about polls (not really a consideration generally for courts, though they are slightly persuasive), while another state’s court ruling is based on the legislation of that state.
It is also irrelevant which party appointed the judges.
   The position I had in the above post, then, is the one I must take. Perez shows how a clever court gets around restrictive legislation. You obviously believe that the law is restrictive and unfair here and perhaps even offends public policy. I respect your view. Common law precedents are littered with cases where the court has got around such law. The court in this latest case has not done its job and I would say that if the majority had an agenda to accept marriage for same-sex couples, then it has done it in a clumsy way that opens the case for future attacks.
   Even if I were on your side totally—and I am not saying I am totally against you, either—I would advise you both to continue campaigning for your cause, because this judgement is weak when compared with others that have, let’s say, pushed the law in a certain direction.
   Your battle is far from over though given current trends in the California, you may yet win. However, I will guarantee you now that it won’t be on this decision.

Death row. Twelve prisoners. One grant of clemency by Governor Schwarzenegger.
   This seems less bad taste than the transplant one where a dying woman would decide whom to grant her kidney to. Well, OK, that show never happened. It was just reported as having happened. (When revealed as a hoax, not as many media outlets were willing to report that.)
   Each week, the Governor chooses who will be electrocuted, after a round where the prisoners are judged on various labour tasks that they may find out of the ordinary (e.g. baby photographer, maître d’hôtel) and attempts to escape are dealt with by immediate dismissal from the show, also by electrocution.
   The show is best known for the Governor saying, ‘You’re fried.’

I know Gov Schwarzenegger divides opinions, but I was interested to read this in the Mercury today:

Schwarzenegger recently proposed distilling the state GOP platform—the party's statement of core values—into as little as a single page focusing on lowering taxes, limiting the size of government and building a strong national defense. That proposal, in a letter to party members, made no mention of abortion, gay marriage or other social issues that often divide party members.

   Taking politics aside, a one-page summary of the brand’s core values makes sense. In fact, a one-sentence summary makes even better sense. How else can a disparate group of people be united under a banner?
   Starting with what an organization agrees on and building from there is one of the wisest things that a CEO seeking to transform it can do.
   Reading through the Mercury report, it seems that this routine matter is too darn hard for those in the political process. The leader says one thing, the people beneath him take ten times longer than any corporation, probably due to selfishness and an absence of generosity.
   What those stalling such processes, and they are rather minor in the grand scheme of things, fail to realize is that news of divisiveness makes the GOP even harder to fathom as a party with any direction.
   And since the liberal media are widespread, similar divisions in the Democrats—and I am sure they exist, perhaps more so—won’t be exposed as they champion Clinton and Obama. Even conservative media following the dollar might want sufficient scandal for sensationalism’s sake.

Now that Fred Thompson is hinting at a bid for the presidency, and the Al Gore rumours won’t go away, I am getting the impression that a movie or TV career is necessary for the position. Thompson stands a good chance as he has actually played the President on film, which even Ronald Reagan didn’t do. In which case, if Art. II, s. 1 of the Constitution is ever changed, the Governator will make a bid. You need to change the age and 14-year residency requirement as well as that birth thing. And I will run. I have more hair, anyway, and in such circumstances, only Dwight D. Eisenhower could have beaten me.