Daniel Weintraub: Governor is not a true believer on marriage issue

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's announcement last week that he would oppose a ballot measure reaffirming California's ban on same-sex marriage delighted gay-rights activists and infuriated social conservatives, who accused him of flip-flopping on the issue.

But Schwarzenegger's stand appears to reflect his long-standing ambivalence over an issue on which so many people in politics feel so strongly. Based on everything he has said since he was first a candidate for governor, Schwarzenegger does not really seem to care whether California legalizes gay marriage or not, whatever his personal feelings on the subject might be.

The Republican governor has always said that he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman. But he has never been adamant about his stand.

It is simply not an issue on which he chooses to try to lead.

Schwarzenegger has supported state-sanctioned domestic partnerships that give gays almost all of the rights that married people have. And while he has said the state and local governments must abide by the voter-approved ban on gay marriage known as Proposition 22, the governor also has said he would not be upset if the voters or the courts legalized same-sex marriage in California.

Last week, Schwarzenegger prompted an uproar when he told a group of gay Republicans meeting in San Diego that he would oppose a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, which could appear on the November ballot.

"I will always be there to fight against that because it should never happen," Schwarzenegger said.

His comments drew a standing ovation. The director of the Log Cabin Republicans of California called the governor's statement "historic." But Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families, accused Schwarzenegger of betraying his supporters on the issue.

"Arnold Schwarzenegger is saying one thing and doing another," Thomasson said. "When he first ran for governor, he said he believed marriage was only for a man and a woman. He promised to veto every bill legalizing same-sex marriage. He even said marriage is up to the courts or the voters to decide. Now he's flip-flopped and betrayed average voters by pledging to 'fight against' protecting marriage licenses for a man and a woman in the California State Constitution."

Thomasson's group is circulating petitions for a constitutional ban on gay marriage in California in anticipation of a state Supreme Court ruling on the issue. Proposition 22, which California voters passed in 2000, bans gay marriage in state law but is not part of the state constitution. The court could rule that the law violates the constitution. The ballot measure planned for November would put a new prohibition into the constitution.

Schwarzenegger's opposition to that idea is consistent with his previous statements against a similar proposal: a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. But it's easy to see why people might be confused about where he stands.

When he first ran for governor, Schwarzenegger said he believed marriage should be "between a man and a woman." In 2005, he said "I don't believe in gay marriage." He has vetoed two bills that sought to legalize same-sex marriage in California. And he was harshly critical of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom when Newsom, in 2004, ordered the city to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

But the governor has said that his vetoes reflect his view that, since the voters have prohibited gay marriage in California, he and the Legislature have no right to legalize it. Instead, he has said, lawmakers must wait until either the courts or the voters reverse the ban. And as early as 2004, Schwarzenegger said in a nationally televised interview that it would be "fine with me" if the voters reversed themselves.

His criticism of Newsom, meanwhile, was based more on the rule of law than the issue of gay marriage. Schwarzenegger said at the time that mayors could not simply take matters into their own hands every time they believed a law was unconstitutional. If they did, state law would be meaningless as mayors in different cities applied it as they saw fit.

If the Supreme Court does strike down Proposition 22 and the voters do not reinstate the ban, Schwarzenegger will be put in an uncomfortable position. The Democrat-controlled Legislature is sure to pass another measure legalizing gay marriage in the state, and the governor would no longer have the voters' will as a shield. He would have to either sign or veto the bill on its own merits.

And there is some reason to believe that Schwarzenegger, if finally forced to confront the issue, might then change his long-stated position.

Two of the governor's top aides are gay, and both are in long-term, committed relationships. And he has noted in the past that, as time goes on, he thought that people would "be feeling more comfortable with the idea of domestic partnership and also marriage."

Is he feeling more comfortable with the idea?

"I have always been much more open-minded about all of those things than maybe other people have," he told interviewer Chris Matthews in 2005.

Schwarzenegger's open-minded stance on the issue is exactly what seems to bother people on both sides.

About the writer:

• Call The Bee's Daniel Weintraub, (916) 321-1914. Readers can read his California Insider political blog at CapitolAlert.com.