California Legislature OKs Gay Marriage Bill - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-07-2005, 11:08 PM   #31
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 10:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
"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.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 09-07-2005, 11:17 PM   #32
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 01:03 PM
Maybe that's what the gay community needs to do: riot. After all, no one seems to listen to peaceful demonstrations.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 09-08-2005, 05:14 AM   #33
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 01:03 PM
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..
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 09-08-2005, 09:41 AM   #34
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 01:03 PM
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.”
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 09-08-2005, 09:45 AM   #35
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:03 AM
Quote:
Clearly he’s pandering to an extreme right wing, which was not how he got elected
For the blue state of California, that makes absolutely no sense.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-08-2005, 09:47 AM   #36
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 01:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
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.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 09-08-2005, 09:48 AM   #37
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 01:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


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.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 09-08-2005, 09:49 AM   #38
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 01:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


it makes sense if Arnold has national ambitions.
Like his twin on the opposite coast, Mitt Romney the 08 flip flopper
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 09-08-2005, 10:13 AM   #39
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 01:03 PM
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
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 09-08-2005, 10:19 AM   #40
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 02:03 PM
With all due respect, Melon, Republicans do not have a corner on selling out the gay vote.

Exhibit A: The "Defense of Marriage" Act.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 09-08-2005, 10:28 AM   #41
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 01:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by pax
With all due respect, Melon, Republicans do not have a corner on selling out the gay vote.

Exhibit A: The "Defense of Marriage" Act.
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
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 09-08-2005, 10:30 AM   #42
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 01:03 PM
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/mas..._gay_marriage/
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 09-08-2005, 11:19 AM   #43
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 11:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



i am giggling at the thought of a gay riot.
Bring on the leather gear.
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 09-08-2005, 02:14 PM   #44
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 10:03 AM
Quote:
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.

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 09-08-2005, 02:34 PM   #45
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:03 AM
Is representative democracy better than direct democracy?
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com