Gov. Jim Douglas said Wednesday he will veto a gay-marriage proposal if it passes the Legislature, the first time he has signaled such an intent before final legislative action on a bill.You know you can't keep track without a scorecard these days, can you? I'm confused, is it okay when the courts say yes or no? What about the legislature?
If courts approve gay marriage (as in MA, CA, or NJ) = activist judges = bad, should let the legistlature decide
But if courts deny gay marriage (as may yet happen in CA) = good judges, who are not being activist.
If the legislature approves gay marriage (MA, CA, VT) = upending moral values = bad, let's hope the judges overturn it (in which case they aren't activists)
But if legislature denies gay marriage (eg., VA) = people's representatives doing the right thing and their decision should stand.
Governor vetoes legislature (VT) = good even though it's one person overturning the people's representatives , so much for representative democracy
Governor vetoes (CA last year) a legislative bill that's pro gay marriage because he's waiting for a court decision = good, let the process work (as long as it works to disallow gay marriage!)
Governor supports gay marriage (MA) = bad, he should overturn the people's representatives, with the courts if necessary.
Is it just me or is there no consistency to the conservative's arguments except "Gay = Icky"?