Same Sex Marriage Legalized in CA
Sep. 7th, 2005 10:38 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
minxyIt was close, it was partisan, but I'm still proud. I haven't felt this proud of my country or state or anything in a long time, people. Hope it sticks. Oregon only managed it for a little while... maybe having it in the legislature rather than the courts will be a good thing for California.
The New York Times
September 7, 2005
Same Sex Marriage Wins Vote in California
By DEAN E. MURPHY
SAN FRANCISCO, Sept. 6 - California lawmakers on Tuesday became the first in the country to legalize same-sex marriage, with the State Assembly narrowly approving a bill that defines marriage as between "two persons" instead of between a man and a woman.
Unlike Massachusetts, where gay men and lesbians are permitted to marry because of court rulings, the legislators in California voted to amend the state's family code without the threat of legal action.
"Do what we know is in our hearts," Assemblyman Mark Leno, an openly gay Democrat from San Francisco who sponsored the bill, said Tuesday night in a debate on the bill. "Make sure all Californians, all California's children and families, will have equal protection under the law."
Opponents of the measure warned that lawmakers were venturing into uncharted and potentially dangerous territory.
"Engaging in social experimentation with our children is not the role of the legislature," said Assemblyman Ray Haynes, a Republican from Southern California. "We are throwing the dice and taking a huge gamble, and we are gambling with the lives and future of generations not yet born."
The measure now goes to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, who has supported domestic partnership legislation in the past but has not taken a public position on the marriage bill.
A spokeswoman for Mr. Schwarzenegger, Margita Thompson, said after the vote that the governor believed that the issue of same-sex marriage should be settled by the courts, not legislators, but she did not indicate whether that meant he would veto the legislation. The bill did not pass with enough votes to override a veto.
"The governor will uphold whatever the court decides," Ms. Thompson said.
Californians voted overwhelmingly in 2000 for a ballot measure, Proposition 22, that defined marriage as between a man and a woman, but the legality of that law is now being fought over in the courts.
In a case stemming from a decision last year by Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco to allow gay men and lesbians to marry, a San Francisco Superior Court judge ruled that the state law was unconstitutional but the ruling is being appealed.
The 41-to-35 vote in the 80-member Assembly, which is controlled by Democrats, was along party lines, with no Republicans supporting the bill.
It follows a similar lopsided partisan vote last week in the State Senate, which approved it by the smallest possible margin.
Assemblyman Leno, among six openly gay lawmakers in Sacramento, revived the bill through a controversial parliamentary maneuver known as "gut and amend" after the bill failed to pass the Assembly in June.
Mr. Leno essentially inserted the marriage bill's contents into another bill regarding marine fisheries that was pending in the Senate and stripped of its content. When the bill passed the Senate, Mr. Leno and his allies then persuaded three Democratic members of the Assembly who had abstained in June to vote for the new version.
One of them, Thomas J. Umberg of Anaheim, said during the debate Tuesday that he had been "cajoled, harassed, harangued and threatened" by both sides of the issue, but ultimately decided to support the measure because of his children.
"This is one of those times when history looks upon us to be in the lead," Mr. Umberg said. "The constituency I'm concerned about is a very small one, that is the constituency of my three children should they decide to look back on my record."
But several Republicans derided the parliamentary maneuver to resuscitate the bill and said Democrats who represented districts where voters approved Proposition 22 had no moral authority to subvert that vote.
"We damage the moral fabric of our society, that's what's damaged here," said Assemblyman Dennis L. Mountjoy, a Republican from Southern California.
Assemblyman Jay La Suer, a San Diego Republican, chided his colleagues for sending the wrong message about same-sex marriage, saying that no matter "how you candy coat it," it is wrong.
"You are not leading, you have gone astray," Mr. La Suer said. "History will record that you betrayed your constituents, and their moral and ethical values."
The New York Times
September 7, 2005
Same Sex Marriage Wins Vote in California
By DEAN E. MURPHY
SAN FRANCISCO, Sept. 6 - California lawmakers on Tuesday became the first in the country to legalize same-sex marriage, with the State Assembly narrowly approving a bill that defines marriage as between "two persons" instead of between a man and a woman.
Unlike Massachusetts, where gay men and lesbians are permitted to marry because of court rulings, the legislators in California voted to amend the state's family code without the threat of legal action.
"Do what we know is in our hearts," Assemblyman Mark Leno, an openly gay Democrat from San Francisco who sponsored the bill, said Tuesday night in a debate on the bill. "Make sure all Californians, all California's children and families, will have equal protection under the law."
Opponents of the measure warned that lawmakers were venturing into uncharted and potentially dangerous territory.
"Engaging in social experimentation with our children is not the role of the legislature," said Assemblyman Ray Haynes, a Republican from Southern California. "We are throwing the dice and taking a huge gamble, and we are gambling with the lives and future of generations not yet born."
The measure now goes to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, who has supported domestic partnership legislation in the past but has not taken a public position on the marriage bill.
A spokeswoman for Mr. Schwarzenegger, Margita Thompson, said after the vote that the governor believed that the issue of same-sex marriage should be settled by the courts, not legislators, but she did not indicate whether that meant he would veto the legislation. The bill did not pass with enough votes to override a veto.
"The governor will uphold whatever the court decides," Ms. Thompson said.
Californians voted overwhelmingly in 2000 for a ballot measure, Proposition 22, that defined marriage as between a man and a woman, but the legality of that law is now being fought over in the courts.
In a case stemming from a decision last year by Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco to allow gay men and lesbians to marry, a San Francisco Superior Court judge ruled that the state law was unconstitutional but the ruling is being appealed.
The 41-to-35 vote in the 80-member Assembly, which is controlled by Democrats, was along party lines, with no Republicans supporting the bill.
It follows a similar lopsided partisan vote last week in the State Senate, which approved it by the smallest possible margin.
Assemblyman Leno, among six openly gay lawmakers in Sacramento, revived the bill through a controversial parliamentary maneuver known as "gut and amend" after the bill failed to pass the Assembly in June.
Mr. Leno essentially inserted the marriage bill's contents into another bill regarding marine fisheries that was pending in the Senate and stripped of its content. When the bill passed the Senate, Mr. Leno and his allies then persuaded three Democratic members of the Assembly who had abstained in June to vote for the new version.
One of them, Thomas J. Umberg of Anaheim, said during the debate Tuesday that he had been "cajoled, harassed, harangued and threatened" by both sides of the issue, but ultimately decided to support the measure because of his children.
"This is one of those times when history looks upon us to be in the lead," Mr. Umberg said. "The constituency I'm concerned about is a very small one, that is the constituency of my three children should they decide to look back on my record."
But several Republicans derided the parliamentary maneuver to resuscitate the bill and said Democrats who represented districts where voters approved Proposition 22 had no moral authority to subvert that vote.
"We damage the moral fabric of our society, that's what's damaged here," said Assemblyman Dennis L. Mountjoy, a Republican from Southern California.
Assemblyman Jay La Suer, a San Diego Republican, chided his colleagues for sending the wrong message about same-sex marriage, saying that no matter "how you candy coat it," it is wrong.
"You are not leading, you have gone astray," Mr. La Suer said. "History will record that you betrayed your constituents, and their moral and ethical values."
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-09-07 06:39 pm (UTC)Now if they can finally do something about 'don't ask, don't tell' then perhaps... perhaps!
no subject
Date: 2005-09-07 08:57 pm (UTC)OOOOOHHH!!!! Don't get me STARTED! :D Huh, what were we talking about? Oh yeah. "Don't Ask" is the stupidest regulation ever, but it actually was an improvement, sadly. *sigh*
no subject
Date: 2005-09-08 12:54 pm (UTC)I know that my american flisters are all disgusted by events and doing everything they can but... you voted for this guy?! I know all politicians are morons (and I include Blair in this) but this guy takes the biccie!
Perhaps you aren't getting the same coverage that we are (gotta love the BBC - Doctor Who and relatively unbiased news coverage!) but... it's a disgrace. Can't you impeach him/the lot of 'em or owt?!
As for 'Don't ask, don't tell' - the US is the only NATO signatory still banning gays from their forces. Does this make the Canadian/British/French/German etc forces weaker than the US... Don't think so!
no subject
Date: 2005-09-08 05:45 pm (UTC)"...my (usually good) estimation of America has taken a battering"
I have shame, seriously. But it's looking like those of us who do are belatedly acting, so... I guess that's something.
"You voted for this guy?!"
HELL. NO. And the first time, neither did most of us. W never should have been given office, he didn't fucking win the first election, and yes, I'm still bitter, but the whole impeaching thing is tainted for me after Clinton. Misuse of the impeachment process that, and look how Americans use the power of suing people who've wronged them? Yeah, that situation could rapidly get out of hand if we start impeaching all our presidents who make mistakes. And, for the record, I didn't vote for Ahnold either. Not that that changes a damn thing.
Now, in terms of our Presidents who are lazy idiots, I vote for never electing them again in the first place.
Benjamin Franklin said "You get the government you deserve." Yup.
Shame.
Bitter too!
Date: 2005-09-09 03:10 am (UTC)I'm for a 6 year term. Can't run again. Get in.. get it done and GET OUT.
I saw a bumper sticker back last summer ... it said
"Republican's for Voldemort!"
At first I was confused.. then after the blonde moment passed I was totally amused.
Re: Bitter too!
Date: 2005-09-09 05:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-07 10:19 pm (UTC)Maybe I'm not surrounded by bigoted assholes. :-$
no subject
Date: 2005-09-07 10:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-09 05:57 pm (UTC)It's out there, though, and the more people realize that the issue has been right in front of their faces without massive moral decline I think the more people will stop being so afraid of it. Dayum that was a run on sentence. Sorry.
It's a start!
Date: 2005-09-09 03:06 am (UTC)