Pennsylvania Family Law Blog

In an apparent shift in position, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger says that he will oppose any attempt to impose a ban on gay marriage in California. From today’s San Francisco Chronicle:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger told a group of gay Republicans on Friday that an attempt to ban same-sex marriage by changing the state Constitution is a “total waste of time” and promised to oppose such an initiative if it qualifies for the state ballot.

Backers of the measure criticized the governor as a liberal despite his Republican Party affiliation, while supporters of same-sex marriage applauded Schwarzenegger.

Schwarzenegger’s staff said the governor, who has vetoed legislation to legalize same-sex marriage in recent years, has not changed his stance on the issue but simply wants the state Supreme Court to decide the legality of current state law.

Schwarzenegger said Friday he is opposed to amending the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

“I will always be there to fight against that,” the governor said in San Diego at the annual convention of the Log Cabin Republicans, the nation’s largest gay Republican group, as the attendees erupted in loud applause.

The Austrian-born governor drew laughs from the crowd when he added:

“I think we need a constitutional amendment so that a foreign-born (person) can run for president, but not against gay marriage. That would be a total waste of time.”

He made the comments during a brief question-and-answer session with Log Cabin President Patrick Sammon, who asked the governor where he stands on the proposed ballot measure whose proponents are gathering signatures for the November ballot.

That effort continues as the state Supreme Court considers the legality of Proposition 22, an initiative approved by state voters in 2000 that reaffirmed marriage as being between a man and a woman. The justices are expected to rule by early June.

In recent years, Schwarzenegger used Prop. 22 as the basis for vetoing a pair of bills that would have legalized same-sex marriage, arguing he would support the will of the voters. But Julie Soderlund, a spokeswoman for Schwarzenegger, said the governor’s comments on Friday are not inconsistent with his vetoes.

“He has said many times … that people have spoken on the issue. However, if the Supreme Court would overturn the decision, he would enforce the law, and he would not support a constitutional amendment to ban” same-sex marriage, she said.

Although Friday was the first time Schwarzenegger has publicly stated his opposition to the proposed ballot measure to amend the Constitution, he has held that view for a while, Soderlund said.

Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute, a conservative pro-family group in Sacramento, said Schwarzenegger’s latest statement “confirms what we have known all along.”

“He really didn’t support Prop. 22. … He’s always shown to be a liberal … and it’s disappointing,” she said.

England acknowledged that Schwarzenegger’s opposition to the ballot measure is a strike against the campaign to ban same-sex marriage.

“You never want someone with high-profile, movie-star quality against you,” she said. “But it won’t change the fact that Californians want marriage to be between a man and a woman.”

Proponents of same-sex marriage applauded Schwarzenegger’s stand.

“This is extremely significant, and it’s an enormous event to have our Republican governor come out against this ballot measure, which is opposed by Democrats as well. It makes this opposition a bipartisan issue,” said Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, a gay rights group.

Equality California has been actively lobbying the governor to oppose the ballot measure, he said. While Kors hoped that Schwarzenegger would take a public stand on the measure, he said he was pleasantly surprised to hear the governor say the measure “is a waste of time and that he will stand with us in fighting this if it qualifies.”

Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, who wrote the same-sex marriage bills that Schwarzenegger vetoed, said the governor is “without a doubt showing leadership, and he should be applauded for it.”

“What the governor has pointed out is that even though he has not supported our marriage equality bills, one could still oppose a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage,” Leno said.

The opinion, all 224 pages, can be found here.

From the New York Times:

BOSTON, Feb. 21 — The Rhode Island attorney general said Wednesday that same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts, the sole state where they are legal, should be recognized in Rhode Island.

Responding to a request for a legal opinion from the commissioner of the Rhode Island Board of Governors for Higher Education, Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch said the state prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation and did not explicitly prohibit same-sex marriage.

“Rhode Island will recognize same-sex marriages lawfully performed in Massachusetts as marriages in Rhode Island,” the seven-page opinion said.

Mr. Lynch said his interpretation permitted recognition of the marriages, although he acknowledged that it was just an opinion and did not have the force of law.

“This is about Rhode Island citizens who entered into a valid, legally recognized same-sex marriage and returned here to live and work,” Mr. Lynch, a Democrat, said in an interview. “There is no way, no law, no constitutional provision and, in my estimation, no right to allow the denial of basic human rights.”

A spokesman for Gov. Donald L. Carcieri, a Republican who opposes same-sex marriage, said Mr. Carcieri and his legal counsel were studying the opinion.

The request from the board, which oversees the state’s three public colleges, went to Mr. Lynch on Feb. 1 after three employees who had same-sex marriages in Massachusetts asked that their personnel files be changed to reflect that they were married, said Steven Maurano, a spokesman for the board. Mr. Maurano said the board would abide by the attorney general’s opinion.

“We asked for the opinion,” he said. “So now that we have the opinion it’s probably incumbent for us to follow it.”

Mr. Lynch said businesses and state agencies could choose whether to abide by the opinion.

“Perhaps litigation will flow from it,” he added.

Bills to allow and to bar same-sex marriage, as well as one to create civil unions, were filed this year in the General Assembly. Previous bills on the subject died.

In September, a judge in Massachusetts ruled that Rhode Island couples could marry in Massachusetts because Rhode Island did not have a law barring same-sex marriage.

At the time, Mr. Lynch said that the ruling did “not mean that Rhode Island will recognize a same-sex marriage performed in Massachusetts.”

Mr. Lynch said Wednesday that the statement applied because a Massachusetts judge could not determine the course of Rhode Island law.

Michele Granda, a staff lawyer with Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, who argued the Massachusetts suit for two Rhode Island women, applauded Mr. Lynch’s opinion, saying that it “brings peace of mind to married couples and clear direction to their employers.”

Source: The  New York Times