I support same sex marriage, but Arnold does have a basis for his veto, given the recent vote cited in the article.
Meanwhile: Legislators in California voted to legalize same race marriages in that state. Opponents argued that same race marriage will encourage racism. "People of the same racial makeup getting married only fosters racism and other immoral behaviour," stated state representative Jose Schwartz (R - SF). Liberal members of the legislature successful countered that racial segregation is a personal choice that must be supported by a free and open society.

I agree with John. I support his decision since it was in line with his state's most recent referendum. The state can always have another referendum, and if public opinion shifts on the matter, Arnold can switch his position then.

I'd be way more upset if the situation were reversed. Say the referendum supported same-sex marriages, but Arnold decided against the will of the people. That's big time bad.

Jose Schwartz....*snorty chortle*

I don't think the will of the people should take rights away from select groups. The will of the people used to say I couldn't marry my first husband.

Jose Schwartz was a friend of mine in jr. high. He was the Juan Epstein of my youth (before Welcome Back Kotter)

And Susan, you are right. If denying gay marriage is an infringement of basic rights, the will of the people is irrelevant.

And that is where the argument starts. :) Depends on whether people believe gender should matter when people pick a life partner. And I guess the country will never agree 100% on that. But my opinion is, when in doubt err on the side that allows the most freedom without harming others. And no matter what anyone says I'll never believe allowing gays to marry hurts any heterosexual marriages. Please!

abolish legal recognition of the word marriage and adopt a new term that encompasses everyone. like, say, civil union. :)

I couldn't agree more.