http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/nation/12585791.htm

One of the many articles about the upcoming gay-marriage veto in California. Without getting into my personal views on the laws themselves, Schwarzenegger claims he's vetoing the bill on legal grounds -- a state referendum passed a conflicting law and he thinks that the referendum trumps the state legislature. Whether he's kowtowing to the bible-thumpers or supporting the voting rights of the people may never be really known, but it's quite a bit of statesmanship either way and politicking at its finest. His reasoning appears entirely valid to me, but it's an awfully convenient out for him.

Anyone more familiar with the political climate out west care to comment?

From what I've read, this is the situation:

In 2000, CA passed Prop22, stating that, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." However, CA already defined marriage as being between a man and a woman; Prop22's purpose was to limit recognition of marriages performed in other states -- that is, if it's not male & female, the out of state marriage doesn't count.

Also, Prop22 was passed as a statutory initiative, not a constitutional initiative, so might be found by the courts to violate the state constitution's equal protection and privacy clauses.

There are three other anti-gay-marriage initiatives also circulating: one banning domestic partnerships, one banning domestic partnership rights, and a constitutional initiative to make same-sex marriage illegal.

I can't give first-hand knowledge of the political climate in CA, but Arnold's tanking in the polls. His evident desire to thwart the legislature and leave the decision to the courts strikes me as political necessity -- signing off on this measure would leave him without any constituents at all.