California Legislature OKs Gay Marriage Bill

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
nbcrusader said:
"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)."



the will of the people, shame
on Arnold and the Republicans



In 1964, the California Association of Realtors sponsored Proposition 14 to counteract the effects the Rumford Fair Housing Act.

The proposition was to add an amendment to the constitution of California. This amendment would provide, in part, as follows:

"Neither the State nor any subdivision or agency thereof shall deny, limit or abridge, directly or indirectly, the right of any person, who is willing or desires to sell, lease or rent any part or all of his real property, to decline to sell, lease or rent such property to such person or persons as he, in his absolute discretion, chooses."

Following much publicity the proposition gained the endorsement of many large conservative political groups, including the John Birch Society and the California Republican Assembly. As these and other groups endorsed the proposal it became increasingly more popular and the initial petition to have the proposition added to the ballot garnered over one million signatures. This was more than twice the 480,000 signatures that were required. Such overwhelming support for the proposition proved to be consistent as it was passed by a two-thirds majority vote in the 1964 California elections.

It is believed that this amendment helped to fuel racial tensions which erupted during the Watts Riots of 1965.

Three years later, in 1967, the amendment was declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in the case of Reitman Vs. Mulhey. The Supreme Court ruled that the amendment was in violation of the 14th Amendment to the constitution of the United States. This decision was hailed as a major victory for many groups seeking equal rights in California.
 
Maybe that's what the gay community needs to do: riot. After all, no one seems to listen to peaceful demonstrations.

Melon
 
part of the statement issued

"In Governor Schwarzenegger's personal life and work in public service, he has considered no undertaking to be more noble than the cause of civil rights. He believes that gay couples are entitled to full protection under the law and should not be discriminated against based upon their relationship. He is proud that California provides the most rigorous protections in the nation for domestic partners"

blahblah..
 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9247775/

"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.”
 
melon said:
Maybe that's what the gay community needs to do: riot. After all, no one seems to listen to peaceful demonstrations.

Melon



i am giggling at the thought of a gay riot.
 
nbcrusader said:


For the blue state of California, that makes absolutely no sense.



it makes sense if Arnold has national ambitions.

which, given his current popularity, i don't see how he could have.
 
Like I said, "moderate Republicans" are cowards. Remember this the next time they try and woo you with tough sounding rhetoric and a flashy "independent" image in 2008. Because they will betray you the first chance they get.

Say "no" to McCain or Giuliani in 2008.

Melon
 
With all due respect, Melon, Republicans do not have a corner on selling out the gay vote.

Exhibit A: The "Defense of Marriage" Act. :mad:
 
pax said:
With all due respect, Melon, Republicans do not have a corner on selling out the gay vote.

Exhibit A: The "Defense of Marriage" Act. :mad:

That's because Clinton was sucking up to the Republican Party. More specifically, the conservative wing of the Republican Party. See, it's at a point here where all roads lead to the same place.

They're disgraceful cowards. All of them. When conservative Republicans were happy with segregation, the Democrats led the charge against their blatant bigotry. Now where are they? Probably regretting the fact that they ever led the charge with civil rights, because then they lost the South, and now they think they've "learned from their mistakes" and are happy discriminating against homosexuals, as long as it wins them votes.

Both political parties can rot in hell, but the Republican Party gets a special circle of hell all its own.

Melon
 
here's what's going on in MA

Reilly OK's 2008 initiative on ban of gay marriage


By Raphael Lewis, Globe Staff September 8, 2005

Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly gave the go-ahead yesterday to a proposed 2008 ballot question on banning gay marriage, clearing the way for backers of the initiative to collect signatures this fall to place it before the Legislature and, eventually, the voters.


Reilly, a Democrat who is seeking his party's nomination for governor next year, said he personally opposes the proposed ban on same-sex marriage, but his reading of the state constitution and state law ''has led me to the decisions that I've made" to formally certify the ballot initiative.

I think you'll have to sign up to read the article..

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...y_oks_2008_initiative_on_ban_of_gay_marriage/
 
EDITORIALS
Marriage for all

September 8, 2005

CALIFORNIANS CAN TAKE PRIDE in the fact that their Legislature is the first in the nation to pass a law expanding the right to marry to gay couples. It's in keeping with the state's progressive heritage, and the American West's respect for individual freedom, to take government out of the business of passing judgment on the lifestyle choices of its citizens. If the state of California, as opposed to a church, is going to award licenses to couples who make a commitment to each other, it should do so on a nondiscriminatory basis.

Alas, Californians' pride will be fleeting because Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced Wednesday afternoon that he will veto the bill. The governor is disingenuously claiming that the Legislature has overturned the intent of voters who, in 2000, passed Proposition 22. That measure had to do with recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states.

Schwarzenegger has also indicated that this is an issue best left to voters and the courts, not mere lawmakers. Does he not believe in the American system of representative democracy?

Among opponents of gay marriage, there are two basic strains of argument: Some people don't like gays, and some don't like gay marriage. The argument against gays is best exemplified by Assemblyman Dennis Mountjoy (R-Monrovia), who told the Washington Post that gays do not deserve the right to marry because "they are not normal." Reduced to its essence, this is a rationale for bigotry.

To his credit, Schwarzenegger rejects this reasoning. Instead, he favors a more respectable but less coherent argument: Gay marriage has been foisted on an unsuspecting public by
a) liberal activist judges;
b) liberal activist lawmakers;
c) liberal activists. When given the opportunity, as they were in California in 2000 and in 11 other states in 2004, voters opposed state-sanctioned gay marriage. Even if they favor gay marriage personally — as Schwarzenegger is said to — politicians are wrong, so goes the theory, to get too far ahead of public opinion.

The notion that gay marriage is being foisted on anyone is dubious; until early Wednesday morning, in fact, opponents were fond of pointing out that no legislature had ever approved same-sex marriage. California has now taken that argument away from them, and so they are reduced, like the governor himself, to demanding the intervention of those same courts that just a few days ago were supposedly stacked with liberal activists.

In reality, no one branch of government has "final say" on an issue. Legal decisions can be overruled (or rendered meaningless, in some cases, by a new law). Laws can be vetoed or declared unconstitutional. Vetoes can be overridden. Even the majority, as the founders recognized, must be prevented from tyrannizing the minority; just because most voters agree on something doesn't mean it's right.
(see bigoted GOP sponsored prop 14 1964, passed by a two-thirds majority vote, in my previous post)

Which brings us back to the role of judges in resolving this debate. Separate from the Legislature's move this week, California courts are considering challenges under the equal protection clause of the state constitution to any ban on same-sex marriage. So Schwarzenegger will get his forum, though probably not the outcome he wants. The outcome here is inevitable; it's only a question of timing.

And once the highest court does order the state to stop discriminating, it will be harder for critics to complain about activist judges getting ahead of the political process. In this case, judges will be reaffirming the Legislature's intent.


 
Sully posts this:



WHEN CALIFORNIA'S COURT RULES: The Los Angeles Times makes an important point about the historic fact of a state legislature passing marriage rights for gay couples:

[O]nce the highest court does order the state to stop discriminating, it will be harder for critics to complain about activist judges getting ahead of the political process. In this case, judges will be reaffirming the Legislature's intent.


And the social right will then say ... what? They'll blame "legislative activism"? As to what gay couples, their friends, families and supporters should do ... use this as another opportunity to make the case for responsibility, equality, and family for everyone. Polls in California show that an initiative backing marriage rights has a chance of winning. Support this organization. Talk to every non-gay person you know and explain why everyone deserves the chance to have a family protected by law. Make the case. Now more than ever.
 
nbcrusader said:
Is representative democracy better than direct democracy?


the legislative branch is to make and repeal laws

the initiative process, if that is what you are referring to as direct democracy, has failed CA voters more than once.

I realize you were not living in CA in 63-64

I was 8-9 years old at the time and remember vividly how my father worked within the GOP to get Prop 14 passed.

I remember his asking me if it was right,
that if he wanted to sell our home to our neighbor for $1000 less than someone from out of the neighborhood, it was not the liberal governments business interfere, that it was unAmerican, Communistic, sure got me riled up!

Well, 2/3 of a direct democracy? agreed.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9247775/

"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.”

I have ZERO fucking sympathy for anyone who voted for that idiot and now somehow feels "sold out." They believed his bullshit? :rolleyes:
 
what i'm finding most encouraging is the fact that it's rather clear where public opinion is headed, both in California and nationwide on this subject. yes, 2004 was depressing, however there's no question that, the younger the demographic polled, the more support is found for gay marriage and civil unions.

what gay marriage opponents are desperate to do is write anti-gay provisions into as many state constitutions as possible -- and maybe even into the federal Constitution -- before the people invested in the hilariously titled "defense of marriage" camp all die off.
 
If this issue was approached as the need to recognize, and grant rights and protections to the many unmarried couples living together, civil union legislation would be passed without much fuss.
 
nbcrusader said:
If this issue was approached as the need to recognize, and grant rights and protections to the many unmarried couples living together, civil union legislation would be passed without much fuss.


you've hit upon something very interesting.

some proponants of gay marriage argue that civil unions are precisely the wrong way to go if the concern is to protect the "sanctity" of marriage.

if we want to hold marriage as an ideal, and not create a sort of "marriage lite" alternative, then civil unions, a pseudomarital institution, designed specifically for gay couples, that would include most, even all, of the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage but avoid the word itself, would probably do more to alter the meaning of marriage than opening it up to all Americans regardless of sexual orientation.

in fact, setting up a civil unions vs. marriage dichotomy would do much to further stigmatize gay people. if anything, this is a truly "separate but equal" situation.

intellectually and morally, i think that making marriage, and all it's responsibilities, more inclusive is the right thing to do.

however, i'm more of a pragmatist. if the public will only accept civil unions, and a civil unions will allow gay people to adopt each other's children, visit the other in the hospital, make life-or-death decisions, prevent spiteful parents from stealing a deceased partner's assets from the widow/er, and most importantly *protect* the children of the gay couple, then we need civil unions now to protect families.
 
Civil unions for straight couples is bullshit. Get married or not. Make the committment. (or however the hell you spell it)

Civil unions for gay couples is bullshit as well. But it's all the religious nuts can handle. And then just barely.
 
Funny how all the Bible toters don't practice all the other forms of marriage permitted in the Bible.

1. The standard nuclear family: Genesis 2:24 describes how a man leaves his family of origin, joins with a woman, consummates the marriage and lives as a couple. There were quite a few differences between the customs and laws of contemporary North Americans and of ancient Israelites. In ancient Israel:

--Inter-faith marriages were theoretically forbidden. However, they were sometimes formed.
--Children of inter-faith marriages were considered illegitimate.
--Marriages were generally arranged by family or friends; they did not result from a gradually evolving, loving relationship that developed during a period of courtship.
--A bride who had been presented as a virgin and who could not be proven to be one was stoned to death by the men of her village. (Deuteronomy 22:13-21) There appears to have been no similar penalty for men who engaged in consensual pre-marital sexual activity.

2. Polygyny marriage: A man would leave his family of origin and join with his first wife. Then, as finances allowed, he would marry as many additional women as he desired. The new wives would join the man and his other wives in an already established household. Polygyny was practiced by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Mormons, until the practice was suspended, a least temporarily, in the late 19th century. It is still practiced by separated fundamentalist Mormon groups which have been excommunicated from the main church.

There are many references to polygynous marriages in the Bible:

--Lamech, in Genesis 4:19, became the first known polygynist. He had two wives.
--Subsequent men in polygynous relationships included:
Esau with 3 wives;
Jacob: 2;
Ashur: 2;
Gideon: many;
Elkanah: 2;
David: many;
Solomon had 700 wives of royal birth;
Rehaboam: 3;
Abijah: 14.
Jehoram, Joash, Ahab, Jeholachin and Belshazzar also had multiple wives.
From the historical record, it is known that Herod the Great (73 to 4 BCE) had nine wives.

We have been unable to find references to polyandrous marriages in the Bible -- unions involving one woman and more than one man. It is unlikely that many existed because of the distinctly inferior status given to women; they were often treated as property in the Hebrew Scriptures.

3. Levirate Marriage: The name of this type of marriage is derived from the Latin word "levir," which means "brother-in-law." This involved a woman who was widowed without having borne a son. She would be required to leave her home, marry her brother-in-law, live with him, and engage in sexual relations. If there were feelings of attraction and love between the woman and her new husband, this arrangement could be quite agreeable to both. Otherwise, the woman would have to endure what was essentially serial rapes with her former brother-in-law as perpetrator. Their first-born son was considered to be sired by the deceased husband. In Genesis 38:6-10, Tamar's husband Er was killed by God for unspecified sinful behavior. Er's brother, Onan, was then required by custom to marry Tamar. Not wanting to have a child who would not be consider his, he engaged in an elementary (and quite unreliable) method of birth control: coitis interruptus. God appears to have given a very high priority to the levirate marriage obligation. Being very displeased with Onan's behavior, God killed him as well. Ruth 4 reveals that a man would be required to enter into a levirate marriage not only with his late brother's widow, but with a widow to whom he was the closest living relative.

4. A man, a woman and her property -- a female slave: As described in Genesis 16, Sarah and Abram were infertile. Sarah owned Hagar, a female slave who apparently had been purchased earlier in Egypt. Because Hagar was Sarah's property, she could dispose of her as she wished. Sarah gave Hagar to Abram as a type of wife, so that Abram would have an heir. Presumably, the arrangement to marry and engage in sexual activity was done without the consent of Hagar, who had such a low status in the society of the day that she was required to submit to what she probably felt were serial rapes by Abram. Hagar conceived and bore a son, Ishmael. This type of marriage had some points of similarity to polygamous marriage, as described above. However, Hagar's status as a human slave in a plural marriage with two free individuals makes it sufficiently different to warrant separate treatment here.

5. A man, one or more wives, and some concubines: A man could keep numerous concubines, in addition to one or more wives. These women held an even lower status than a wife. As implied in Genesis 21:10, a concubine could be dismissed when no longer wanted. According to Smith's Bible Dictionary, "A concubine would generally be either (1) a Hebrew girl bought...[from] her father; (2) a Gentile captive taken in war; (3) a foreign slave bought; or (4) a Canaanitish woman, bond or free." 1 They would probably be brought into an already-established household. Abraham had two concubines; Gideon: at least 1; Nahor: 1; Jacob: 1; Eliphaz: 1; Gideon: 1; Caleb: 2; Manassah: 1; Saul: 1; David: at least 10; Rehoboam: 60; Solomon: 300!; an unidentified Levite: 1; Belshazzar: more than 1.

6. A male soldier and a female prisoner of war: Numbers 31:1-18 describes how army of the ancient Israelites killed every adult Midianite male in battle. Moses then ordered the slaughter in cold blood of most of the captives, including all of the male children who numbered about 32,000. Only the lives of 32,000 women - all virgins -- were spared. Some of the latter were given to the priests as slaves. Most were taken by the Israeli soldiers as captives of war. Deuteronomy 21:11-14 describes how each captive woman would shave her head, pare her nails, be left alone to mourn the loss of her families, friends, and freedom. After a full month has passed, they would be required to submit to their owners sexually, as a wife. It is conceivable that in a few cases, a love bond might have formed between the soldier and his captive(s). However, in most cases we can assume that the woman had to submit sexually against her will; that is, she was raped.

7. A male rapist and his victim: Deuteronomy 22:28-29 requires that a female virgin who is not engaged to be married and who has been raped must marry her attacker, no matter what her feelings were towards the rapist. A man could become married by simply sexually attacking a woman that appealed to him, and paying his father-in-law 50 shekels of silver. There is one disadvantage of this approach: he was not allowed to subsequently divorce her.

8. A male and female slave: Exodus 21:4 indicates that a slave owner could assign one of his female slaves to one of his male slaves as a wife. There is no indication that women were consulted during this type of transaction. The arrangement would probably involve rape in most cases. In the times of the Hebrew Scriptures, Israelite women who were sold into slavery by their fathers were slaves forever. Men, and women who became slaves by another route, were limited to serving as slaves for seven years. When a male slave left his owner, the marriage would normally be terminated; his wife would stay behind, with any children that she had. He could elect to stay a slave if he wished.

I especially love the one about the rapist marrying his victim.

Melon
 
Along those lines, Melon, I find it interesting that Christians will follow one part of the Old Testement and not the other parts. It's easy to bitch about those gays wanting to get married while you eat your shrimp and cheeseburgers -- both of which are not kosher and therefore against the Old Testement law. I guess a cheeseburger is just easier to swallow than two men kissing.
 
What amuses me more is that Christians invented some arbitrary line where they expect enforcement of some part of the Mosaic Law and not others.

If we invalidated the purity codes, as according to Christian tradition, then the anti-gay prohibitions are in there too and equally invalidated.

Melon
 
Irvine511 said:




however, i'm more of a pragmatist. if the public will only accept civil unions, and a civil unions will allow gay people to adopt each other's children, visit the other in the hospital, make life-or-death decisions, prevent spiteful parents from stealing a deceased partner's assets from the widow/er, and most importantly *protect* the children of the gay couple, then we need civil unions now to protect families.


I think all marriages done at county buildings/ courthouses, etc
should be civil unions with the same impact as marriage laws.


let the religious bigots exclude whom ever they want from their services/ practices.
 
deep said:



I think all marriages done at county buildings/ courthouses, etc
should be civil unions with the same impact as marriage laws.


let the religious bigots exclude whom ever they want from their services/ practices.



i think you've accurately predicted the future.
 
Irvine511 said:




i think you've accurately predicted the future.

Alan Dershowitz wrote a very sensible piece about that very thing at least a year ago. To me, it makes perfect sense. In fact, other countries (Mexico, Thailand, India, many African countries) already do it this way and have done it for a while--that religious/cultural/social ceremonies are not deemed legally valid until the couple has a separate civil ceremony, performed and registered by a judge or other official.
 
pax said:


Alan Dershowitz wrote a very sensible piece about that very thing at least a year ago. To me, it makes perfect sense. In fact, other countries (Mexico, Thailand, India, many African countries) already do it this way and have done it for a while--that religious/cultural/social ceremonies are not deemed legally valid until the couple has a separate civil ceremony, performed and registered by a judge or other official.


totally.

which is why people crowing on about the "sanctity" of marriage are full of poo. marriage is only sacred in the eyes of the church and perhaps of the participants; there is *nothing* sacred about a legal and financial arrangement between two people.

heck, where do you think the word "in-law" comes from?
 
Back
Top Bottom