Question for Conservatives.

Recently the California legislature passed a law allowing gay marriage in California. This follows on the heels of one of California's ubiquitous Propositions wherein marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman. This Prop has been legally challenged and is in the courts.

However, Gov. Arnold has announced he will veto this law. He has said he wants to both 1) wait until the courts decide the Prop question, and 2) wants to let the people decide, i.e. either he's relying on the challenged Prop or wants a new Prop or other popular vote California constitutional amendment.

However, when courts have found that a ban on gay marriage is in violation of their state's constitution (most prominent example is Massachusetts), many of my conservative friends said the proper way to decide this question was in the state legislature, as the true voice of the people. Federalism, states' rights, and separation of powers demanded that such a decision come from the legislature and not from elsewhere, according to them.

My question is this: is the Governor's rationale for his veto valid, in your eyes? I concede that a veto still lies within the legislative process, so that measure, in and of itself, does not fly in the face of states' rights/federalism/Republican traditional anti-gay marriage governmental reasoning. But do you agree with the Governor RATIONALE, i.e., waiting for the courts or stopping the legislature in favor of a ballot initiative as being somehow MORE legitimite on this question.