|
|
|
|
Not everything that is happening in USA at the moment is sheer gloom:
Assembly Passes Calif. Gay Marriage Bill
by Mark Worrall 365Gay.com San Francisco Bureau
Posted: September 6, 2005 10:30 pm ET
Updated: 12:01 am ET
(Sacramento, California) Second time a charm. The California Assembly passed legislation Tuesday night to allow same-sex couples to marry.
Gay and lesbian couples crowded into the legislature early this morning to see the historic vote. It was put off twice during the day when backers did not think they had enough votes. Finally, late Tuesday evening, when it looked as though it could pass the measure was put forward.
The bill passed by the slimmest of margins - one vote. But, it made California the first state in the nation to have a same-sex marriage law passed by the legislature. In Massachusetts, where gay marriage has been legal for more than a year, the decision was made by the courts.
The Senate passed the bill on a 21 to 15 vote last Thursday. (story)
The measure failed by four votes in the Assembly earlier this year when a quarter of the Democrats voted with Republicans to reject it and a handful abstained from voting. (story)
At that time the legislation was considered dead - at least for the rest of this session. But, Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) - the bill's author and one of six openly gay members of the Legislature - refused to give up.
In a surprise move Leno attached the measure as an amendment to a marine bill that was already in committee in the Senate.
Once the bill and its marriage amendment passed the Senate it was back in play in the Assembly.
"Do what we know is in our hearts," he said. "Make sure all California families will have the same protection under the law," Leno implored the Assembly during the debate.
Assemblyman Paul Koretz, D-West Hollywood, called bans on gay marriage "the last frontier of bigotry and discrimination, and it's time we put an end to it."
Assemblyman Tom Umberg, a Santa Ana Democrat who abstained when another gay marriage bill fell four votes short in June, said he was concerned about what his three children would think of him if he didn't join those "who sought to take a leadership role in terms of tolerance, equality and fairness."
Republicans who spoke against the bill said that voters rejected gay marriage when they Passed Proposition 22 in 2000. They said traditional heterosexual marriages are best for children
``We are rolling the dice and taking a huge gamble'' with the lives of children, said Assemblyman Ray Haynes, R-Temecula.
Called the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, the bill would require local clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples but allow people opposed to gay marriage to refuse to conduct weddings.
"Today in California, love conquered fear, principle conquered politics and equality conquered injustice," said Geoffrey Kors, Executive Director of Equality California following the vote.
"For the first time in our nation's history, the people's elected representatives have taken a stand to protect all families and ensure equality for all. We are counting on Governor Schwarzenegger to lift the burden of discrimination from hundreds of thousands of California families by becoming the first governor in the nation to sign legislation ending discrimination against same-sex couples obtaining a civil marriage license. His legacy will in large part be based on whether he signs or vetoes this historic civil rights legislation."
Following the vote, Margita Thompson, Schwarzenegger's press secretary, would not say whether Schwarzenegger would sign the gay-marriage bill, noting that he supports the state's current domestic partnership law.
``The governor believes that the people spoke when they voted in Proposition 22,'' which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, Thompson said. ``It's now before the courts, which is where the governor believes it belongs. He will uphold whatever the court decides.''
Last year in a Tonight Show appearance Schwarzenegger said gay marriage would be "fine with me" if it were enshrined in state law or ruled legal by the courts. (story)
The issue of same-sex marriage is slowly heading toward the California Supreme Court. In March a San San Francisco judge ruled that state laws preventing gay marriage are illegal. (story) The case is currently under appeal.
Meanwhile, a conservative group called the "Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Initiative" has begun collecting signatures to have a proposed amendment to the California Constitution banning same-sex marriage placed on the 2006 ballot. (story) If approved by voters it would not only bar gays and lesbians from marrying but also void the state's landmark domestic partner law.
A new poll, released on the weekend, shows that California voters are equally divided on the issue of same-sex marriage. The Public Policy Institute poll shows that 46 percent are in favor of allowing same-sex couples to marry and 46 percent are opposed.
The result is a slight increase in the number supporting gay marriage over the last poll on the issue, but has given Equality California reason to believe that if the proposed amendment makes it to voters a majority would reject it.
©365Gay.com 2005
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Schwarzenegger Vows Gay Marriage Bill Veto
By STEVE LAWRENCE
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced Wednesday he will veto a bill that would have made California the first state to legalize same-sex marriage through legislative action.
Schwarzenegger said the legislation, given final approval Tuesday by lawmakers, would conflict with the intent of voters when they approved a ballot initiative five years ago. Proposition 22 prevents 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, gay marriages are recognized, but the state's stance came through a court ruling.
Gay rights advocates reacted harshly, accusing 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."
Despite his promised veto, 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 weighing an appeal of a San Francisco judge's ruling striking down state laws barring gay marriages. 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."
Copyright 2005 Associated Press
(\\__/) And if you don't believe The sun will rise
(='.'=) Stand alone and greet The coming night
(")_(") In the last remaining light. (C. Cornell)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
a governor can stop a bill?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy wrote:
> a governor can stop a bill?
Apparently, Presidents and Governors have inherited their powers from the 18th century British monarchy. Today it is different. I would like to see Queen Elizabeth write at the end of a law passed by both houses "La reine s'avisera" - which boils down to a veto. I think that would be the end of the monarchy.
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13446337,00.html
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... that Governor Schwarzenegger, nothwithstanding considerable lobbying of his office after it was announced he would most certainly veto the bill if passed by the State Legislature (and an extension granted by his office after the passage of the bill, which in effect delayed that veto by more than 2-weeks in order to hear those opposed to his veto), that his position on this piece of legislation has always been a foregone conclusion.
Apparently this bill attempts to circumvent (and therefore contravenes) an amendment made to the State Constitution some years earlier when the topic of Gay Marriage (and it's related issues) were added to state-wide balloting during a prior election. During that balloting an overwhealming number of California voters indicated their desire to dissent from the then State's proposed granting of Gay Matrimonial and other benegfits. As a result of that referendum balloting (known as a "Proposition" in California, and elsewhere in the U. S.) the Calronia Contitution was amended to effectively bar provision of such facilites by State Authorities.
The Governor's office in announcing that he would veto the recently passed legislation clearly stipulated it would be vetoed because IT WAS DRAFTED AND VOTED UPON by only the State Legislature and its' elected representatives, AND NOT DIRECTLY by the people of California, as the earlier Constitutional admendment had been, presenting an awkward "legal" conundrum which may, or may not be, subject to future Court Challenge had it been allowed to stand (and not have been vetoed) until, or unless, a new state-wide "Proposition" is held to repeal the earlier amendment.
Clearly the ball is once again in the hands of all Californian's. The resolution here is quite strait forward: take the issue state-wide through a new "Proposition" which would in effect repeal the earlier amendment to the Constitution, thereby opening the way for the Governor to then sign (and make Law) the bill he recently vetoed.
Warren C. E. Austin
Toronto, Canada
"... comme recherché qu'un délice callipygian"
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Dimming the light a bit 
