CA Gay Marriage bill second time around

[sjbouza]

California Assembly for second time adopts gay marriage bill
By SAMANTHA YOUNG Associated Press Writer
Article Launched: 06/05/2007 07:16:46 PM PDT

SACRAMENTO—The state Assembly on Tuesday voted to allow gay couples to marry in a challenge to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has said he would veto the bill if it passes the full Legislature.

Lawmakers approved the measure on a party-line vote, with the majority saying the Legislature should not to wait for the state Supreme Court to act on the issue. It passed 42-34.

"This does in fact provide equal marriage rights for all citizens of California," bill author Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, said as he began what marked the lengthiest debate so far this year on the Assembly floor.

"By denying a group of individuals the right to marry, we denigrate that entire group and deny them citizenship."

The bill now goes to the Senate, which adopted a similar measure in 2005. In his veto at that time, Schwarzenegger wrote that a gay marriage bill would violate Proposition 22, an initiative passed by California voters in 2000 that bars the state from recognizing out-of-state, same-sex marriages.

In February, the Republican governor told a group of high school students that he would veto Leno's bill again. Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear said Tuesday that the governor had not taken a position on the bill, but "his position on the issue has been consistent—he supports the will of the people who voted on this."

Republican lawmakers agreed with the governor's concerns during the 90-minute debate.

"The will of the people has been spoken," said Assemblyman Anthony Adams, R-Hesperia. "We run the dangerous path of this vehicle becoming a precedent-setting opportunity to undermine the initiative process. We have a responsibility to honor Proposition 22."

Supporters disagreed with that interpretation. The 14-word initiative covers only marriages outside California and does not apply to marriages performed in the state, Leno said.

Although most of the debate rested on the legal arguments, both Republicans and Democrats said the issue came down to morality and the institution of marriage.

Several Republicans said their Christian faith required them to reject homosexuality as immoral and as a personal choice of gays and lesbians. Democrats said marriage should be open to everyone as matter of fairness.

"There ought to be a few standards that stand the test of time, marriage being one of them," said Assemblyman Doug La Malfa, R-Chico. "An institution that has lasted thousands of years in one form, that we would change it in the Legislature is pretty arrogant of us."

Tuesday's debate remained civil, without the kind of name-calling and animosity that characterized previous votes on similar bills. Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles, said the tone illustrated how times have changed.

In 2003, California recognized domestic partners, creating a registry that affords same-sex couples many of the rights given to married couples. Domestic partners do not qualify for a host of financial federal benefits, however, including income tax breaks, Social Security beneficiary rules and veterans benefits.

They also do not have clear legal rights to make medical decisions for their partners—an experience recounted on the floor by Assemblyman John Laird, D-Santa Cruz, a gay lawmaker who said his place was questioned when his partner was seriously ill.

"We here in the Legislature talk a lot about fairness, equality and doing the right thing," said Assemblywoman Patty Berg, D-Eureka. "Now we have the opportunity to do it."

Massachusetts is the only state that allows same-sex couples to marry. Connecticut, Vermont, California, New Jersey, Maine and Washington have laws allowing either civil unions or domestic partnerships, with New Hampshire and Oregon set to join that group in January. Hawaii extends certain spousal rights to same-sex couples and cohabiting heterosexual pairs.

Lawmakers said it was time for California to follow Massachusetts.

"What we have here is the need to overcome fear, fear of change, fear of that what is different from us," said Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Sherman Oaks.

The debate over California's one man-one woman marriage law, which was codified in state law in 1977, is likely to be decided later this year or early next year by the state Supreme Court.

Two Orange County men have challenged the state's ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional because it violates equal protection, privacy and free expression rights.

[sjbouza]

I cant even see how Arnie got to be governor in the first place. I dont believe that anyone that is not a natural born citizen of the Untied States should be allowed to hold any public office. I mean he cant run for President, so how the hell can he be allowed to run a state? No, he should have never been allowed to become governor of CA.

He, I am sure, will veto the bill again. Sorry CA, I feel for you. I do agree that they should wait for either the Supreme Court to decide or just wait until he gets voted out. I dont see him making it another term. I have read Prop 22 and it deals solely with marriages that are outside of CA. He is just trying to double talk the issue to look good for the Republican party. He knows he has no true ground to stand on so he is just trying to play the smoke and mirrors game with this issue

Get real, gay marriage will happen. It is coming and going to be here nation wide no matter how hard the Christian right tries to fight it. It is inevitable. When you look at the issue, I mean really look at it, there is no LEGAL argument against gay marriage. You can quote scripture all you want, that doesnt make a bit of difference. The Bible has NOTHING to do with making laws in this nation. You can say that marriage has been the way it is for hundreds of years so it is "traditional". Well, slavery, women/children as property, segregation, not allowing inter-racial marriage, etc was "tradition" for hundreds of years too, but that changed. Just because something is "traditional" means nothing. A tradition is only held by those who choose to abide by that tradition. So saying that marriage between a man and a women is tradition is surmount to forcing your beliefs upon others. I am sorry but in this country, NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO DO THAT!!!! If you dont agree with gay marriage then dont marry someone that is gay. It is that simple. Just because someone personally, for what ever reason, doesnt believe in gay marriage doesnt mean that anything is going to be forced upon them. Churches wont be forced to marry gay couples. They are allowed to deny marriage to anyone they choose for what ever reason, there is no law that says a minister has to marry two people whether they are gay or straight.

Get over it people, gay marriage is going to happen no matter how hard you try to fight it. So you had just better get use to it. Because we are here and we want the rights as are granted to us by the Constitution of the United States. We are just as much of a citizen as the hetero crowd. All we are asking is that we be given the same rights as everyone else in this country. It isnt asking for something "special" is it demanding what is rightfully ours to begin with.

[tdogg]

Yes Scott, it's true. Arnold has once again vowed to veto the bill. Sadly, he just caves in to his republican cronies. On the premise that 'the people decided in 2000, and the courts will have to decide this one." BLAH! That bill did quite well, passing through the house and senate fairly quickly. This year it is pretty much sailing. But I don't see it getting past Arnold's desk, and he isn't one to really listen to anyone once he's made his mind up, unless his ideas fail.

I was surprised he was voted in. However, the only real competition for governor was Phil Angelides, and he's not exactly one to grab the spotlight. Had my vote, but unfortunately it wasn't enough! We actually have it better than most states. But better isn't good enough. We MUST achieve full equality.

[tpdncr4christ]

Originally Posted by sjbouza

I cant even see how Arnie got to be governor in the first place. I dont believe that anyone that is not a natural born citizen of the Untied States should be allowed to hold any public office. I mean he cant run for President, so how the hell can he be allowed to run a state? No, he should have never been allowed to become governor of CA.

He got elected because like 46% voted for the old guy, but he didn't get more than half, which was what he was supposed to get to stay in office, so Arnold, who got like 36% or something was voted in. He won't make it another round.

And did you know, he's got lobbyists trying to change that whole, you have to be an American to be an American president... wonder what he's planning, eh?

[pnggrad79]

I hope that California votes The Terminator out of office. I agree, gay marriage is coming. I hope it happens sooner than later. IT isn't asking for special rights, it is asking for what is rightfully ours in the first place. Very good points made, and I hope that California gets gay marriage this time. It isn't going away and I hope the gay people of California keep hammering away at it, until it becomes a reality. Maybe if California becomes gay marriage friendly, then Texas will be next. Arizona and New Mexico have thus far refused to allow bans on gay marriage, which in my mind, leaves the door wide open for them to allow it. I am hoping this "peer" pressure has the same effect on Texas.

Fundamentalist Churches can keep their ceremonies. Most of us won't darken their doorsteps anyway, we have our own churches that WILL marry us. The state has no right to ban anyone from marrying if they choose to do so. Gay marriage does not weaken straight marriage. It is no threat.

Go California!

[tdogg]

Californians love Arnold - at least the majority of those who get off their butts and vote. This is probably it for him (can he even run again?). I believe he is hoping for a presidential run in the future. He has learned a lot in office however. At first, he was hell bent on attacking state workers (be careful, I am a state worker!). Our contracts were getting ready to expire and he decided to try and take a lot away from us, never mind giving anything (including a COLA which we hadn't had in years). In the end, state employees actions, our union (not the best but effective this time around) and many legislators 'changed' his mind about that. We got a decent contract, although our health care costs went up a bit. We at least got some COLAs.

I do not believe he personally has anything against gay marriage. He has indicated that isn't a problem for him opinion-wise. He is just not going to stand up against those who would be possible supporters for a run for the White House. He's got to leave. If Angelides had been voted in, this marriage bill definitely would have passed. He promised it to us. Unfortunately, he didn't get enough votes. The only city he won I think was LA.

God only knows who wll be running next time (and it's a long time before next time).

[sjbouza]

Yea, I remember he was at the first Republican debate and all the incumbents were asked by him if they would support an amendment to the Constitution to allow him ot run for President. They all said NO!!! That is what it would take is an amendment to the Constitution for anyone that was not a natural born US citizen to run/become President. I agree, there is no way anyone that is not born here should be allowed to hold Presidential office. Truthfully, as I stated above, I dont think that they should be allowed to hold any public office at all.

I know it is a long time, 2010 isnt it, until Arnie gets voted out...hopefully!? But yes, gay marriage is coming. It is inevitable. As pnggrad79 said, the Fundie Christians can have their cerimonies and choose not to marry a gay couple. That is their right under the separation of church and state. You know they will be crying "separation...separation" when gay marriages do come to pass. I see it more and more. The crap is just getting so deep I need to get longer waders.

I had a discussion with my aunt, a devout fundie, about prayer in schools. She was under the misguided notion that kids cannot pray in school. I showed her proof that isnt the way the courts put it. They just said that it cannot be lead or organized by the school or any of its faculty. If the kids wanted to pray in school, get together with others and pray then they still had that right. She kept saying, "but Dr Dobson said..." I about wanted to scream. I showed her about the hate crimes bill also. She was spouting the same things that she hears Dobson say. I printed off the bill for her and asked her to show me where it said that free speech would be considered a hate crime. She read through it and was dumbfounded. I asked her to read Section 8, she didnt say anything. Then I asked her if she ever really listened to what Dobson and his like said. Do they ever point out the facts of exactly what they are talking about or do they just make statements? That is one thing I have been noticing. They make all these statements but offer nothing to back it up. The hate crimes bill is a perfect example. They say that ministers can be prosecuted for saying preaching against homosexuality. But they stop there. They dont site specifics of the bill that say that or that may be interpreted that way. They just make the statements and millions of people believe it. Are we that stupid?

Sorry I got off on a tangents there. I just has that on my mind and needed to vent a little. But yes, I feel for you CA. If it wasnt for him trying to make nice so he might get the chance to become President some day I think he would pass the bill when it came across his desk. He is just so much more worried about himself than the people that he serves. Oh wait, well then he is a perfect politician, self serving and non-committal. Thanks for listening anyway ya'll

Love to you all,
Scott

[Emproph]

http://pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4676

There's some live audio and video links at Pam's, but they might be busy.

[Edit] Never mind, it's over. I guess it's sit and wait time now though.

[tdogg]

Daniel Weintraub had a pretty great write-up about the hearings in the Sac Bee today. It sounds like the hearing went a little better for those in favor of same sex marriage than opposed. Even the more conservative justices were having a hard time swallowing the opposing arguments.

I'll have to re-read the article when I get home and post some tidbits. Some of the justice's comments were pretty funny! I don't see them ruling against or for, just reverting the issue back to the legislators and voting public. It might be a good idea to get the issue back on the ballot to repeal that 2000 decision by the voters to define marriage as just between a man and a woman, things have changed significantly in this state in the last 8 years.

[pnggrad79]

It is amazing to me why Arnold can't see that the second time around that IT IS THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, if the Assembly votes for it. Hell, repeal the damn proposition. Obviously, the elected officials think and feel that the voters do want it. It is knocking at the door! Let it in!

[Emproph]

All separated by speaker: Audio: West Coast oral

For the record, I guess we've got about 90 days to wait now.

I only caught the tail end of the live feed, but it was enought to be privy to Mat Staver "argument."

As Good As You says about Mat Staver:

In this one, one of marriage equality's biggest foes, Mat Staver, tries his best to present a rational case. We are admittedly biased on the subject, but we totally think he failed:

A portion of his failure as transcribed by me:

JUDGE: But you’re not suggesting that the 32 percent of lesbian couples mentioned in that survey of a few years ago are per se, unfit parents?

MAT STAVER: No, no we’re not, we’re not saying that at all, it’s not part of our argument. But we are saying that the state has a compelling interest in -- what happens differently in opposite sex relations vs. same sex relations, is the offspring of children. That is inevitably a difference that no matter whether we have artificial or reproductive assistance, we can’t get around. The state has a compelling interest to be able to channel that into responsible procreation, to channel that into having these children protected in a way that, same sex relations would not produce. Same-sex relations will not accidentally, unintentionally, in an unplanned fashion, produce children. But opposite sex relations, does have that as an incident of the natural relationship between a man and a woman.

I'm not even sure where to begin to make fun of that...

[tdogg]

I believe one of the justices responded by asking if he felt that heterosexual couples that do not pro-create should be precluded from marriage.

They also had a problem with the old argument that same sex couples can get married, they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Of course, the argument of same-sex marriage having a detrimental affect on 'traditional heterosexual marriage' was met with discussion of divorce statistics.

The opposition certainly didn't seem to make any logical arguments, not that they ever do! But it will come down to whether or not the justices want to make any ruling on this or shoot it back down to the legislators and possibly another public vote.