Fourteen words that justify a veto

PROPOSITION 22 may have provided a convenient excuse for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to veto gay-marriage legislation, but it also provided a valid one.

The initiative, passed in 2000, prevents the state from recognizing same-sex marriage. Regrettable as that is, as the direct will of the voters it would -- or should -- take precedence over a bill to legalize such marriages passed by the Legislature earlier this month.

Schwarzenegger was right to vow a veto on those grounds.

Many of the bill’s supporters, including this page (“Marriage for All,” Sept. 8), argued that Proposition 22 was intended only to prevent California from recognizing gay marriages performed in other states. Gay marriage was already against California law at the time, they point out, but the state still recognized all out-of-state marriages.

These arguments ring hollow when you read the full text of the proposition, which consists entirely of 14 words: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

The ballot arguments against Proposition 22 never mentioned out-of-state marriage. Instead, they noted that gay marriage was already illegal in California, even pointing out that voters needn’t support gay marriage to oppose the proposition. At the same time, they decried the initiative as an attack on gays and accused its supporters of “spreading fear and hatred.”

Supporters of gay marriage can’t have it both ways. Either Proposition 22 was redundant (because it banned something already illegal) or it was a dangerous new form of prejudice (their ballot argument said it “singles out one group for attack”).

True, supporters of the initiative were also disingenuous; although they argued that it was meant only to prevent California from recognizing gay marriages performed in other states, they worded it much more broadly. And from their wording, it was clear that they considered all gay marriage unacceptable.

So let’s agree that both sides were misleading, if not dishonest, and that the campaign over Proposition 22 was not a proud moment in California democracy. We are still left with those 14 words.

On the face of it, they justify a veto from the governor.

I say this as someone who believes that gay marriage should be legal -- and that it almost certainly will be eventually. Polls show a strong majority of younger voters think it should be lawful; if the courts don’t make it legal, demographic change will make it acceptable.

I also believe the California Supreme Court should nullify Proposition 22 because it unfairly limits the rights of gays and lesbians. But until it does, it must be respected.

Simply ignoring a clearly worded ballot proposition passed by a majority of Californians five years ago is no way to make law.

Karin Klein