Below is the transcript, courtesy of Gov. Schwarzenegger's office, of an exchange he had with a questioner during a press conference Tuesday at the Environmental Defense Fund in San Francisco. The press event was about the environment and energy, but press questions went in a different direction. Schwarzenegger explains his public position on the anti-gay marriage initiative that appears headed to the November ballot. This shows the straddle the governor is doing on the issue, and offers a smart argument that the campaign against the initiative (that is, the campaign to preserve the newly elaborated right for gay couples to marry) might adopt. He's essentially saying that even if your own personal position is against gay marriage, you may not want to enshrine that in the state constitution. And that people may need to consider that there's an equal protection problem in denying the right to marry to gay couples. Bottom line: it's more coercive to ban gay marriage than to permit it, even if you don't like it. I suspect that may just be a winning political argument in California. It's an adult, nuanced position, and a responsible way for someone who wants to represent all the people to talk about it.

GOVERNOR:                                                 Yes?

QUESTION:                                                    My name is Bill Wilson. My partner of 22 years and I have already made an appointment on June 16th for a wedding ceremony at San Francisco City Hall.

GOVERNOR:                                                  Congratulations.

QUESTION:                                                    Thank you. And you're invited. (Laughter)

GOVERNOR:                                                  Thank you.

QUESTION:                                                    My question is basically, could you tell us your position on the proposed ballot initiative, and explain (Inaudible) Thank you.

GOVERNOR:                                                  Well, first of all, I respect the court's opinion, which I think was very important, to not just look at it from a point, do I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman or not, but that it looks at the constitutionality of the whole issue. And constitutionally they said it was not right to tell people you can't do that. Everyone should be treated equally. I think this is a very good way of approaching it, and it's the fairest way of approaching it, and that's why I said I respect their opinion. And, you know, I'm wishing everyone good luck with their marriages, and I hope that California's economy is booming because everyone is going to come here and get married. (Applause) I think all of this is great.

And I think -- and I'm against changing the Constitution. I’m against the ballot initiative that some are trying to put on the ballot. (Applause) Because it's unnecessary. I think that we have rules in place and after the decision was made to then change the rules because you're not happy with the outcome, I don't believe that's the right way to go. So I think that -- and may I remind you, I have said in the past -- you know, I see a marriage between a man and a woman. But that's my opinion. I don't want to force that opinion on anyone. So I respect that opinion, and I think we should live with that and everyone should move forward in the right way.