California Legalizing Gay Marrages

GenMarshall

High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
Joined
Jun 17, 2002
Messages
44,228
Location
Night Haven, Vekta, United Systems of Korpulu
By STEVE LAWRENCE said:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced Wednesday he will veto a bill that would have made California the first state to legalize same-sex marriage through its elected lawmakers.

Schwarzenegger said the legislation, given final approval Tuesday by lawmakers, would conflict with the intent of voters when they approved an initiative five years ago. Proposition 22 was placed on the ballot to prevent California from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries.

"We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote," the governor's press secretary, Margita Thompson, said in a statement. "Out of respect for the will of the people, the governor will veto (the bill)."

Proposition 22 stated that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The bill to be vetoed by Schwarzenegger would have defined marriage as a civil contract between "two persons."

In Massachusetts, recognition of gay marriages came through a court ruling.

Gay rights advocates accused Schwarzenegger of betraying the bipartisan ideals that helped get him elected in the 2003 recall.

"Clearly he's pandering to an extreme right wing, which was not how he got elected," said Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, one of the bill's sponsors. "He got elected with record numbers of lesbian and gay voters who had not previously voted for a Republican, and he sold us out."

Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said she was not surprised by word of Schwarzenegger's pending veto.

"Any girlie man could have vetoed this legislation," she said, referring to a term Schwarzenegger used previously to mock Democratic legislators. "A real man demonstrating real leadership as governor of the most populous state in the nation would have chosen a different course of action."

The governor has until Oct. 9 to issue the veto. Despite his promise to do so, Schwarzenegger "believes gay couples are entitled to full protection under the law and should not be discriminated against based upon their relationship," Thompson's statement said. "He is proud that California provides the most rigorous protections in the nation for domestic partners."

The Republican governor had indicated previously that he would veto the bill, saying the debate over same-sex marriage should be decided by voters or the courts.

A state appeals court is considering appeals of a lower court ruling earlier this year that overturned Proposition 22 and a 1978 law that first formally defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Meanwhile, opponents of same-sex marriages are planning measures on the ballot next year that would place a ban on gay marriages in the state Constitution.

Schwarzenegger's announcement dampened a celebratory mood among the bill's supporters, who only the night before cheered, hugged and kissed as the state Assembly narrowly sent the bill to the governor's desk.

Democratic Assemblyman Paul Koretz had called bans on gay marriage "the last frontier of bigotry and discrimination."

The bill passed the Legislature through the persistence of its main sponsor, Assemblyman Mark Leno, a San Francisco Democrat and one of six openly gay members in the California Legislature.

Leno's original bill failed in the Assembly by four votes in June, but he then linked it to another bill in the Senate, which voted to approve the measure last week.

The Assembly passed the amended bill Tuesday by a bare majority, with the winning margin provided by four Democrats who did not vote on the measure in June.

The vote made the California Legislature the first legislative body in the country to approve same-sex marriage. As in Massachusetts, civil unions in Vermont were granted through court rulings.

"I'm encouraged that the governor is going to stop the runaway Legislature, and he's going to represent the people," said Karen England of the Capitol Resource Institute, a Sacramento group that lobbied against the bill.

"I think Assembly member Leno wanted to rally everyone on his side and he's done exactly the opposite. He's forced his agenda on the rest of us," she said. "But in California the votes of the people do matter."

Source: Yahoo News

Man, the more gay topics appear in OT. The more the news will cover it :p.
 
Arnold's blown his last chance to reconcile with the Californian people. Even though Reagan was elected governor by rallying around the flag of tradition, our state has changed a lot since then. Him approving this bill would help him with modernists far more than it would hurt him with traditionalists, as they would still vote for him in the next election even if he were to approve this bill.
 
By Jason Szep said:
Gay rights advocates suffered a setback in Massachusetts on Wednesday when the state's attorney general approved a ballot initiative that would give voters a chance to overturn a court decision legalizing gay marriage.

The decision -- just over a year after Massachusetts became the first U.S. state to allow gay couples to marry -- paves the way for conservative and Christian groups to start a campaign to put the issue before voters in 2008.

Attorney General Thomas Reilly, a Democrat who is likely to run for governor in 2006, said his approval did not mean he personally backed the initiative but that it met the constitutional requirements needed to allow voters to overturn court decisions.

The Massachusetts Family Institute and other conservative groups seeking to ban gay marriage in Massachusetts must now gather at least 65,825 signatures by December 7 before state lawmakers will consider putting the question on a ballot.

It then would need further approval by 25 percent of the 200-member state Legislature over two straight sittings -- one in 2006 and the other in 2007 -- before being put to voters as a constitutional amendment in 2008.

"We feel like Reilly put the entire gay community in front of a bus today," said Arline Isaacson, co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay & Lesbian Political Caucus, which plans to challenge the Wednesday's decision in court.

"We don't for a moment doubt they will get the signatures, and then once they get the signatures our side is going to sue" to prevent the initiative from appearing on the ballot, she said.

BACKED BY ROMNEY

The state's Republican governor, Mitt Romney, had recently urged Reilly to approve the petition.

Romney, who has recently staked out conservative positions on sensitive social issues ahead of a likely presidential bid, said in a letter to Reilly that "citizens should not be excluded from a decision as fundamental to society as the legal definition of marriage."

Massachusetts' highest court ruled in 2003 that it was unconstitutional to ban gay marriage, paving the way for America's first same-sex marriages in May the following year.

The latest initiative, if passed, would overturn that decision and ban both gay marriage and same-sex civil unions. It does not seek to annul about 6,500 marriage licenses already issued to same-sex couples in Massachusetts.

It is separate to another legal challenge by opponents of same-sex marriage that had been seeking a state referendum in 2006 on an amendment that would have banned gay marriage but allowed same-sex civil unions.

That proposal is widely expected to fall short after failing to gather support from either side -- many gay rights activists oppose civil unions which lack some of the federal benefits of a legal marriage while many conservative groups wanted a full ban on both marriages and civil unions.

Wednesday's decision comes a day after California's state Assembly passed a bill that would allow same-sex couples to marry -- the first time a state legislature in the United States has endorsed gay marriage.

Source: Yahoo News

Apperently, there are also some people in Mass who want to overturn the desision to ban gay marrages.
 
Karen England of the Capitol Resource Institute said:
I think Assembly member Leno wanted to rally everyone on his side and he's done exactly the opposite. He's forced his agenda on the rest of us," she said. "But in California the votes of the people do matter.

No one is being forced to marry people of the same sex. Legalizing gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone, but keeping it outlawed hurts gays by preventing them from getting married. Furthermore, is it the government's right to control families? Is that not worse than a welfare state preventing someone from getting rich through overtaxation? For how long have the Republicans been the party of Big Government? What would Reagan and other alleged Small Government advocates say?
 
Sims2789 said:
Arnold's blown his last chance to reconcile with the Californian people. Even though Reagan was elected governor by rallying around the flag of tradition, our state has changed a lot since then. Him approving this bill would help him with modernists far more than it would hurt him with traditionalists, as they would still vote for him in the next election even if he were to approve this bill.
Hes going with the voters' decision.
 
blindside said:
Hes going with the voter's decision.

The people against gay marriage would vote for him regardless of whether or not he vetoes this bill. However, if he approves it, he may draw a few liberals and moderates who are still disgruntled with Davis to his side.
 
I don't know how it works, but if indeed there was a direct vote from people that indicated that the majority of population are against gay marriage, than I'll support Schwarzenegger's call. I do think it is an asinine direction, but democracy is about following the majority vote. And five years is not that long ago.

Nevertheless, could someone explain me what is that initiative he refers to, how it works and how long it exert effects, ,so I can refine my opinion?

Regards :).
 
FredLC said:
I don't know how it works, but if indeed there was a direct vote from people that indicated that the majority of population are against gay marriage, than I'll support Schwarzenegger's call. I do think it is an asinine direction, but democracy is about following the majority vote. And five years is not that long ago.

Nevertheless, could someone explain me what is that initiative he refers to, how it works and how long it exert effects, ,so I can refine my opinion?

Regards :).

In California, propositions are like laws but they are voted on by the people, not the legislature, and do not need executive approval. In 1999 a majority of Californians voted on Proposition 22, which officially banned gay marriages, though they had never been allowed.

Why are you in favor of Schwarzenegger's decision? Is democracy the right of the majority to oppress the minority?
 
SonicX said:
What is this obsession with gays lately
Apperently its grabing the attention of the news media and politics ;).
 
Arnold's lost the libertarian vote, I can guarantee that much right now.
 
SonicX said:
Why, this doesn't even concern 97 % of all libertarians ...

He's still limiting a civil liberty for a specific group. Don't libertarians believe in civil liberties for all?
 
As if there aren't more 2-3 % groups who are not given equal chances ...
Muslims, Spanish speakers, people that got sick or lost a limb, people with lower IQ's, people with no wealthy ancestry, ...
Why all this fixation on gays ... why blow this thing so out of proportion while in fact, it doesn't even make a real difference ?
 
Sims2789:

No, but it is the right to make the best translation of public wishes valid.

I won't dwelve into technicalities, both for the sake of concision and because they may be technically different in the USA from what they are here (obviously they are, considering that "proposition" thing).

[note] we have an alike thing here - "plebiscitos" - which are direct consults to the population before a certain law/measure is taken by the government. They, however, are about principles, not law making. For example, there will be one this year to ask the people of Brazil wheter firearms possession should be banned or not... but while any decision the people make will have to be carried out by the congress, still the congress is needed for making the law trhough regular processes (they just won't have a say in the merit of that decision)[/note]

Therefore, as authorities (both legislative and executive) are representatives, IMHO any opinion of the kind should be overruled by any form of direct consult of the people - because there, the public voice spoke directily, without necessity of the representation.

To overrule such command, only a new rule of the kind - another proposition, directly from the people - or a decision of the unconstitutionality of the matter by the higher courts - would be feaseable.

Of course the issue is touchy when it comes to minority rights (as a consult of equal standing would probably always get same results); but for that, there is always the route of the "declaration of inconstitutionality" when majority rule violates personal garantees. Only that, AFAIK, that is not the fundament of the "law to-be-rejected-by-terminator" in this case. Here, there is just an attemp of the legislative to speak louder than the voice of people.

As I said, while I applaud the intention of the legislative houses of California and agree 100% with both your arguments and their decision, I also feel that a representative should never overrule a direct decision from the represented, under pain of becoming illegitimate.

And while I do believe that Schwarzenegger is taking advantage of that to enforce his opinion (much more than being warried about the will of people, for I don't think he would be that considering if roles were reversed), he is in a flawless position to do so.

Regards :).
 
SonicX said:
As if there aren't more 2-3 % groups who are not given equal chances ...
Muslims, Spanish speakers, people that got sick or lost a limb, people with lower IQ's, people with no wealthy ancestry, ...
Why all this fixation on gays ... why blow this thing so out of proportion while in fact, it doesn't even make a real difference ?

Why don't you just stop reading the threads about homosexuals, then?
 
Top Bottom