A short lived victory for gay marriage

I had heard rumors that the California State Senate would pass a bill authorizing gay marriage, but I thought that their timing was a bit off. Taking on a controversial bill such as this one only months before Arnold follows through with his multi-million dollar waste of a special election may not be the best political move for Democrats in state to make. But I guess it's nice to see the Senators who voted "yea" standing up for something they believe in.

Oh, and if this is the best Republican spokespersons can do, it wouldn't be that bad:

Sen. Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks) said that "marriage is fundamentally different from a civil contract. It's the way we bring new life into the world." He called it a "natural institution," which "we've done a lot to undermine."

Uh, Tom, I'm not sure if you've heard this or not, but people can bring new life into the world without marriage. Clearly that is not the purpose of marriage, or at least it is not anymore. You can argue whether or not it's a good thing somewhere else, but that ship has sailed, and there is little to be done to bring it back in vogue.

Margita Thompson, a spokeswoman for Schwarzenegger, said the governor believes "the issue should be decided by the ballot box or the courts," and would not comment on whether he would sign or veto the bill if it passes.

If that's true, Margita, then not only should the state legislature disband and let the people vote on every issue that affects them tangentially, but Arnold should pull back on his initiatives that have already been voted down by voters year ago. But that's not going to happen, is it.

There is no doubt that Arnold vetoes this. How successfully he wields the issue in the face of the special election is still up in the air. I just pray it does not backfire on the Democratic party.