Arnold: no mo marriage because it's an imposition

According to the LA Times, the Governator will veto SSM because [emphasis added]

Gay marriage has been foisted on an unsuspecting public by a) liberal activist judges; b) liberal activist lawmakers; c) liberal activists. When given the opportunity, as they were in California in 2000 and in 11 other states in 2004, voters opposed state-sanctioned gay marriage. Even if they favor gay marriage personally — as Schwarzenegger is said to — politicians are wrong, so goes the theory, to get too far ahead of public opinion.

How horrible for the public to be shocked into the reality that gay people not only engage in long-term monogamous relationships (how dare they when we've always been told how promiscuous they are) but actually desire the same financial & emotional stability we straight folks get out of a marriage. Worse yet, if we were to allow those people to marry, well they'll be trying to impose gay marriages on us by a) coercing straight folks to marry someone of the same sex; b) inviting us to the wedding; c) possibly embarass conservative Christians by having a lower divorce rate. Yes, I see Ahnuld's rationale here - it's much more important to capitulate to a temper tantrum instead of doing what's right.

If you're from California, please take some time to ensure rights and protections are applied to all Californians equally.

Tags: gay marriage; politics; religion; something being imposed on the public; something else being imposed on the public; that code word for gay or Jew or whoever the fundies are hating on this week

Sphere: Related Content