Published September 9, 2006, on WorldNetDaily.com
Just over one week after signing a sweeping pro-homosexual bill into law, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger showed textbook duplicity by vetoing a bill designed to outlaw public school materials from “reflecting adversely” upon persons because of their sexual orientation. Sidestepping the core moral questions raised by the legislation, Schwarzenegger rejected SB1437 for attempting “to offer vague protection when current law already provides clear protection against discrimination in our schools based on sexual orientation.”
Perhaps mystified by Schwarzenegger’s apparent reticence to sign this bill into law, state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, herself a lesbian and the primary sponsor of the bill, expressed disappointment in a press release, chiding the governor for responding “to a small, shrill group of right-wing extremists rather than a fair-minded majority of Californians who support this reasonable measure.”
The veto might have had something to do with the massive influx of calls the governor’s office has recently received in response to Schwarzenegger’s approval of SB1441 Aug. 28. That measure, also sponsored by Kuehl, discriminates against any entity receiving public funding for speaking out against the homosexual lifestyle. This includes religious organizations that firmly believe in the sanctity of marriage and traditional views of sexuality.
On Sept. 5, the California-based Campaign for Children and Families conducted a rally attended by hundreds of citizens. According to a CCF press release, “the surging crowd signed petitions and called the governor’s office on their cell phones, demanding he veto all three bills that sexually indoctrinate schoolchildren.”
Could it be that by signing one bill one week and then vetoing another bill the next, Arnold is feeling the pressure of morality-loving Americans? Or is he simply straddling the political fence in an attempt to have it both ways on such hot-button social issues as homosexual rights?
My answer: Neither.
No honest observer can claim that Schwarzenegger’s move this week reflects any appreciable pro-family sympathy. Many conservative organizations are understandably grateful for this token veto that appears to hint at a traditional understanding of morality on the part of the governor. The sad truth, however, is that it does not.
Don’t get me wrong. Conservatives should always be grateful for small favors, especially when they relate to protecting young minds from instruction in sexual depravity. But in this particular case, the devil is in the details. Just look at Schwarzenegger’s specific rationale for vetoing the bill. The action was not done out of respect for religious freedom or a desire to protect the minds of impressionable young children. Rather, it was based on a technicality, glossing over the central issue of so-called homosexual rights versus the free speech and religious freedom rights of Americans inherent in the Constitution.
In the governor’s own words, the bill was rejected “because the vagueness of the term ‘reflects adversely’ would not strengthen this important area of legal protection from bias based on sexual orientation.” For the pro-family community, that motivation is hardly something worth celebrating.
No one denies that Schwarzenegger is anything but a social conservative. What many don’t realize is that he is the exact opposite. For evidence, take the issue of same-sex marriage. Even though polls consistently show that an overwhelming majority of Americans believe marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman, the California governor has been reticent to clearly articulate his support for this cornerstone institution. Even after vetoing a dangerous bill in 2005 that would have legalized same-sex unions statewide, the California governor side-stepped taking a firm stand on the issue by arguing that the definition of marriage should be decided by California’s courts or voters and not the Legislature.
Such rationale is far from traditional, conservative belief. In fact, it flirts dangerously with outright liberalism.
So, what does this mean for conservatism in California? Oddly enough, it could be a good thing. Immediately following Schwarzenegger’s election, many conservatives unwisely hailed the victory as an indication of a swing toward conservative principles in California. Yet throughout the governor’s term, he has consistently displayed antipathy toward conservative beliefs on a variety of social issues. He has shown the voting population that liberalism sometimes comes under the guise of conservatism.
How is that a good thing? While the poll numbers of moderates like Schwarzenegger continue to plummet, true conservatives will have a unique opportunity to make a positive dent in the California political scene. Traditional values will never win in California unless candidates become faithful to the core morality they espouse. Any other strategy put forth with the goal of restoring conservative principles in the Golden State is nothing more than California dreamin’.