PDA

View Full Version : California Approves Gay Marriage


Isaac
09-01-2005, 11:23 PM
California Senate approves bill allowing gay marriage
SACRAMENTO (AP) —

Handing gay rights advocates a major victory, the California Senate approved legislation Thursday that would legalize same-sex marriages in the nation's most populous state.

Sen. Liz Figueroa: 'When I leave this Legislature, I want to be able to tell my grandchildren I stood up for dignity and rights for all.'
By Rich Pedroncelli, AP

The 21-15 vote made the Senate the first legislative chamber in the country to approve a gay marriage bill. It sets the stage for a showdown in the state Assembly, which narrowly rejected a gay marriage bill in June.

"Equality is equality, period," said one of the bill's supporters, Sen. Liz Figueroa, D-Sunol. "When I leave this Legislature, I want to be able to tell my grandchildren I stood up for dignity and rights for all."

But Sen. Dennis Hollingsworth, R-La Mesa, suggested that "higher power" opposed the legislation.

"This is not the right thing to do," he said. "We should protect traditional marriage and uphold all of those values and institutions that have made our society and keep our society together today."

But Sen. Debra Bowen, D-Redondo Beach, said a number of churches supported the bill: "I don't think anyone should claim God as being on their side in this debate," she said.

California already confers many of the rights and duties of marriage on gay couples, who can register as domestic partners. Massachusetts became the first state to recognize gay marriages when the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex weddings there in 2003.

Several senators equated the struggle for gay marriage to other civil rights movements. They said arguments against the bill were similar to earlier arguments in support of slavery and opposing interracial marriage.

"This is probably the most profound civil rights movement of our generation, without q doubt," said Sen. Jackie Speier, D-Hillsborough.

Gay rights advocates called Thursday's California vote historic.

"It will make all California families safer and more secure if it becomes law," said Seth Kilbourn, director of the Human Rights Campaign Marriage Project in New York. "The fact they debated and voted on this relatively quickly today sends a message that there is momentum for this bill."

Senate approval gave the bill's author, Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, another chance to send the legislation to the desk of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The Legislature is expected to adjourn its 2005 session next week.

Leno said he planned to bring up the bill on Tuesday in the Assembly and predicted that the Senate vote would help sway undecided lawmakers in his house.

"We are so very close," he said in an interview after the Senate vote. "It would be very disappointing for this body not to be able to stand up for civil rights."

After the Assembly rejected his bill in June by four votes, Leno amended the measure's provisions into another one of his bills that had already passed the Assembly and was awaiting action in the Senate. That's the bill the Senate approved Thursday and sent back to the Assembly for a vote on Senate amendments.

Schwarzenegger spokeswoman Margita Thompson said the office would not comment about how the governor would act if the bill is sent to his desk.

"The governor believes that the people spoke when they passed Pr position 22, and now it went to the courts and that's where it should be," she said. "The governor will abide by what the courts rule."

She added that Schwarzenegger does support domestic partnerships.

Proposition 22 was approved by California voters in 2000. The initiative added a section to the state Family Code stating that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

It was put on the ballot when it appeared that Hawaii might legalize gay marriages and was intended to prevent California from recognizing gay marriages performed elsewhere.

Leno's bill would amend a separate section of state law that bars the state from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in California.

Sen. Sheila Kuehl, one of six gay members of the state Legislature, told the chamber that gay couples have the same hopes for their relationships as heterosexual couples.

"Gay and lesbian people fall in love. We settle down. We commit our lives to one another. We raise our children. We protect them. We try to be good citizens," said Kuehl, D-Santa Monica. "This is a bill whose time has come."

Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, agreed that gay couples are entitled to certain rights but not the right to marry.

"Can't you see that marriage is a fundamentally different institution?" he said. "Marriage is the institution by which we propagate our species and inculcate our young."

The vote came as a state appellate court is considering appeals of a San Francisco judge's ruling that overturned California laws banning recognition of gay marriages. At the same time, opponents of same-sex marriage are trying to qualify initiatives for the 2006 ballot that would place a ban on gay marriages in the state Constitution.

Andrew Pugno, legal adviser to one of the two groups trying to qualify such an amendment, called the Senate vote an insult to the majority of California voters who approved Proposition 22.

"The people can speak once and for all by elevating the definition of marriage to the state Constitution, he said.

:)

Cadaverous Pallor
09-02-2005, 09:30 AM
:)

Here's hopin'

Not Afraid
09-02-2005, 10:23 AM
Well, it was done without most of the Republicans present. If the House can pull off the same kind of stunt, we'll have a victory. Somehow, I think all House members will be present and accounted for for this vote. But, we can only hope.

SzczerbiakManiac
09-02-2005, 10:36 AM
As happy as I am about this step, I think your title is misleading. The state Senate approved the bill, but it still need to pass through the House and be signed by the Governator.

scaeagles
09-07-2005, 07:17 PM
He's gonna veto it. Came out with a statement saying he wouldn't sign the law because it conflicted with prop 22. Says it needs to be decided in the CA court system.

innerSpaceman
09-07-2005, 09:00 PM
Yeah, it's really gonna be fun to be able to quote Republican Arnie when future charges of judicial activism are raised. Hahaha, can't wait. Governator is playing right into our hands.

Kevy Baby
09-08-2005, 01:08 PM
While I don't like the net outcome, I applaud the Governor respecting the will of the people as voted years back via Prop 22.

Don't get me wrong - I strongly believe that this should be voted into law - Gay Marriage should be legal. But I don't want it done via shady back-door politics. This action, to me, puts the Dems in a very bad light!

Morrigoon
09-08-2005, 02:39 PM
Whoa, points on both sides here. Kevy has a point about not blatantly violating the recently declared will of the public (damn them), but I also agree that sometimes it takes a strong statesman to vote his conscience, the will of the public be damned, if they're morally in the wrong.

innerSpaceman
09-08-2005, 03:29 PM
The will of the people be damned. That's called MOB RULE. I despise the entire system which allows citizens to legislate through ballot initiatives. I understand it's necessary when legislatures become unresponsive to the citizens, but there's got to be a limit on such mob power.

One of the limits I would propose would be - no ballot initiatives on matters of civil liberties - lest blacks, latinos, homos, et al. get shafted by the mob of the majority voters.

It's the legislature's job to legislate, and I don't see anything unconsitutional with them checking and balancing the people's power to legislate directly through ballot initiatives. Certainly the court has such power, as initiatives are often found to be unconstitutional or otherwise illegal in result. And if anyone wants to take away such check and balance power from the legislature, lets not hear from them about courts having to legislate from the bench. There'll be even more of that if the legislature has to give up on it.

(Heheh, most law comes from the courts anyway, and always has. Cracks me up when I hear about judicial activism and legislating from the bench ... the precise thing the judicial system is designed to do ... and does for the protection of all our rights that the legislature couldn't give a damn about.)

Name
09-08-2005, 03:33 PM
Sounds to me like Ah'nold doesn't want to take the backlash of not signing this, and instead blaming a veto on the "will of the people" based on a past initiative. Come on Ah'nold, if your against it, stand up and say your against it like a man.... stop being a girly man and passing the buck.

SzczerbiakManiac
09-08-2005, 04:41 PM
I wonder if anyone would notice if the Governator signed this bill into law at Midnight on a Saturday—the same way Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law... :rolleyes:

Kevy Baby
09-08-2005, 06:40 PM
Sounds to me like Ah'nold doesn't want to take the backlash of not signing this, and instead blaming a veto on the "will of the people" based on a past initiative. Come on Ah'nold, if your against it, stand up and say your against it like a man.... stop being a girly man and passing the buck.This measure was not about Gay Rights. It was about a shady back-room move by the Dems to make the Republican Governor look bad. No matter which way he went, he was screwed: if he vetos (as he did) then we get the backlash we have seen. If he approves, he gets condemned for ignoring the vote of the people.

Eliza Hodgkins 1812
09-08-2005, 07:59 PM
Yes, now even happy gay people can look forward to unhappy, un-gay gay marriages in CA! Now even gay people will have to deal with their parent's needling them at Thanksgiving dinners...."So, when are YOU two going to get hitched?" "When should WE expect the big day?!"

I loved John Waters' stance on the gay marriage debate, which was, and I paraphrase: Not having to get married is one of the benefits of being gay!

That cracked me up. Kind of like Roseanne Barr's stance on feminism, which for her boiled down to having to lift heavy things. She'd much rather sit back and let the mend do the heavy lifting.

In seriousness, it should be legal. Of course it should. Personally, the idea of standing up in front of a bunch of people and A) declaring my love, B) making a bunch of promises I'll never be certain I'm capable of keeping, C)actually having to talk/perform in front of a room full of people and D) lovingly gaze into my husband-to-be's eyes without totally cracking up becuase loving gazes make me feel completely ridiculous, just makes me want to crawl up into a fetal ball. So if there was a law against EH1812 getting married, I probably wouldn't object.

But, you know, it's the principal of the thing. I have no problem with the government telling me I'm vile, wrong, and going to hell for being me. I do have a problem with my government telling gay people they cannot marry, citing those same reasons.

Still, the pressure is now on you, CA Rainbow People. When are YOU going to get married and give us grandbabies, huh?!

Cadaverous Pallor
09-08-2005, 08:05 PM
This measure was not about Gay Rights. It was about a shady back-room move by the Dems to make the Republican Governor look bad. No matter which way he went, he was screwed: if he vetos (as he did) then we get the backlash we have seen. If he approves, he gets condemned for ignoring the vote of the people.Let me get this straight - you're claiming that the sole reason this bill exists is to make Arnold look bad? That seems ridiculous to me.

When it comes to freedoms I do not trust the voters. The government has had to force the issue before. Citizens in the south never would have let blacks into the white schools if the federal government hadn't forced them into it in the 60's.

Name
09-08-2005, 08:47 PM
This measure was not about Gay Rights. It was about a shady back-room move by the Dems to make the Republican Governor look bad. No matter which way he went, he was screwed: if he vetos (as he did) then we get the backlash we have seen. If he approves, he gets condemned for ignoring the vote of the people.
Why of course it was.

I'm still looking for that tin foil hat smiley.

I don't understand why EVERYTHING has to be a big frickin issue, dems and repubs, back room shenanigans, backstabbing, bickering, blaming, finger pointing, bah, sickening.

ENOUGH!!


We now return you to your regularly scheduled programing.

Morrigoon
09-08-2005, 10:21 PM
I've already posted this on the other board, but I know not everyone reads both, so here's the outline of a presentation I once did on the legal justification for the approval of gay marriage rights. (The top paragraph was an explanation of the presentation)

What I did was I set up the case showing that marriage was considered a fundamental right in the eyes of the courts, showed how that opinion was used to enforce interracial marriage as protected by the 14th amendment, showed how the 14th amendment protection had been used to prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation, and then referred to a recent case where homosexual relations was declared protected by the 14th amendment (2003, Lawrence v. Texas), and drew the conclusion that since marriage is a fundamental right, and cannot be denied people on the basis of racial discrimination because of the 14th amendment, and since the 14th amendment has been used to prevent discrimination against gays as well, that it could soon be declared that denying marriage licenses to gays was in violation of their 14th amendment rights.

Quote:
I. Intro – The issues cover many areas of law, such as family law, contract law, and constitutional law/civil rights.
a. Civil Rights / Constitutional Law – Main topic in gay marriage discussion
b. Legislative and judicial branches are still deciding upon this issue.

II. The fundamental right to marry
Meyer v. Nebraska –
“The liberty guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” and that, “The liberty protected by the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution may not be interfered with, under the guise of protecting the public interests, by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the state to effect.”

III. Equal Protection
14th Amendment, section 1 – “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Romer v. Evans – shows that the intent of the 14th amendment (preventing racial discrimination), also applies to preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Decision: Colorado state constitutional amendment, effectively repealing state and local provisions that barred discrimination on basis of sexual orientation, held to violate equal protection clause of Federal Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment.

Lawrence v. Texas – held “The fact that the governing majority in a state has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; for example, neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from attack under the Federal Constitution. In reviewing such a law, the United States Supreme Court's obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate the court's own moral code.” and that, “Individual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of "liberty" protected by the due process clause of the Federal Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment. This protection extends to intimate choices by unmarried as well as married persons.”

IV. A comparison to interracial marriage
In Loving v. Virginia, the Court expressly recognized that the right to marry is one of the fundamental liberties embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision by Warren also specified, “The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”

V. Conclusion
The decision of Meyer v. Nebraska establishes that marriage and the establishment of a home are fundamental rights protected under the 14th amendment. Loving v. Virginia establishes an individual’s right to determine whom they will marry as a right protected by the same amendment, and establishes that racial discrimination is an unsupportable basis on which to justify denial of these rights. In Romer v. Evans, the 14th amendment has been applied to the prevention of discrimination against homosexuals, further backed by the 2003 decision of Lawrence v. Texas, which establishes homosexuals’ rights to conduct intimate relations. With this history, it could soon be established that denial of marriage licenses to homosexuals intending to marry members of the same sex, is in violation of the 14th amendment.

Kevy Baby
09-09-2005, 10:07 PM
Let me get this straight - you're claiming that the sole reason this bill exists is to make Arnold look bad? That seems ridiculous to me.Well, maybe only 50%.

The other 50% was the Dems trying to look good to their liberal constituancy without having to take much heat because they knew it would get vetoed.

I'm not even bringing this up "in favor of the Republicans." Has nothing to do with that. The Repubs are fully capable and willing to pull the same kind of shenanigans. Did anybody believe that this last minute, 11th-hour Hail-Mary would pass? I certainly didn't (although I would have loved it if it did!).

It was petty politics, pure and simple.

Kevy Baby
09-09-2005, 10:09 PM
I don't understand why EVERYTHING has to be a big frickin issue, dems and repubs, back room shenanigans, backstabbing, bickering, blaming, finger pointing, bah, sickening.

ENOUGH!!
Believe it or not, I agree with you 100%. Sadly, much of politics right now is about all this BS. Sad but true (IMHO).

Name
09-10-2005, 12:06 PM
I believe you Kevy. my little rant wasnt really about what you were saying, but more a little about the truth that I saw in what you were saying.

Another interesting* rant from screenwriter John August's blog.
http://johnaugust.com/archives/2005/dear-governor-schwarzenegger-marry-me

*Not meant to infer that my rant was in any way interesting

Cadaverous Pallor
09-10-2005, 05:47 PM
Did anybody believe that this last minute, 11th-hour Hail-Mary would pass? I certainly didn't (although I would have loved it if it did!).It did pass. Arnold will veto it. One person standing in the way. Sigh.

PanTheMan
09-13-2005, 08:40 PM
What a COWARD Arnie is. He is a pathetic little "Girly Man" who's Roids have rotted his brain.

His Uncle-in-laws John and Robert were real men of bravery. His Uncle John Decided to begin the process of ending segregation, even though it wasn't What the people of Mississippi wanted. (or the entire south for that matter) If ALL Politicians ever, only did the "Popular" thing. We would still have slaves, and children worked to death in poor houses.

STEP UP AND BE A MAN ARNIE, YOU WORM.