I've researched and written a long post about the tribulations of Susan Kennedy, but cannot conclude it without an answer to this question: What Should Arnold "The Governator" Schwarzenegger do?
It might seem like a simple answer, but the conflict between California's referendum-based law and the will of the legislature is non-trivial.
The bind can be expressed this way, all of which is true:
Schwarzenegger said he would leave the contentious issue of same-sex marriage to voters and the courts. "I do not believe the legislature can reverse an initiative approved by the people of California," he said in a written statement. [that's true, based on my reading]
"If the ban of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, this bill is not necessary. If the ban is constitutional, this bill is ineffective."
"If the ban of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, this bill is not necessary. If the ban is constitutional, this bill is ineffective."
WHO CARES, IT WOULD JUST BE A ROUND TRIP, RIGHT?
If Schwarzenegger signed the bill, opponents would immediately seek injunctive relief, in all probability, which the court would probably grant, following the appellate decisions from the 2nd and 3rd districts.
One might use that to say that it doesn't matter what Schwarzenegger does, since the issue will either be decided favorably by the courts or sent back to the LGBT activist groups to get a repeal initiative on the next ballot.
The only issue remaining, then, would be a matter of timing, as a favorable ruling, either on an injunction or on the cases pending, would likely cause conservative groups to rush to get a Constitutional Amendment in the works, which would be especially harmful if super-majorities are involved and in reach. [At this time, I don't know the ins-and-outs of CA's amendment process, although it is critical - see below.]
If one doesn't believe that they can defeat a Constitutional Amendment at the ballot box, then the "minimize regret" or "slow-go" approach is not to press the issue, until such time as one cannot be "punished" for failing (or if you want to 'buy time' until you can get a favorable polling result).
Planta Rei
On the other hand, if you guesstimate, as I do, that the issue is headed for referendum repeal at some point, then Schwarzenegger should be expected to take a stand of his own on the issue, and let it go on to the courts and the people, post facto, even if it involves the messy process of an injunction, etc.
On this reading, the courts will make their determination, eventually, no matter how Schwarzenegger decides, now. Therefore, he should not continue tacitly endorsing a status quo when something better is available. The timeline of the courts should not be the timeline for the Governor.
If it has to go back to the populace for another chance, so be it. Opinion is moving more rapidly in California than in some other states, even if it may not yet be at 50% favorable. The only drawback would be if there is some cumulative effect of having to put the issue before the electorate more than once or twice (such a as a 'consistency bias', people who voted "no" last time vote "no" again, so as not to admit they were 'wrong' the first time).
