This is inexplicable:
The California Senate voted Thursday to allow homosexuals to marry, becoming the first legislative body in the United States to embrace the idea and setting off a scramble for three votes needed for passage in the Assembly.
Almost completely along party lines, the Democrat-controlled Senate approved the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, which would allow marriage between two people rather than only between a man and a woman.
The measure passed by the minimum number of necessary votes, 21-15, after a sometimes personal debate in which both sides acknowledged the momentous nature of the vote.
Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica), one of six openly gay legislators in Sacramento, said that allowing homosexuals to marry “unchains a community that has participated in this state since its inception.”
With only a week left before lawmakers adjourn for the year, the measure faces a tough fight in the Assembly, which defeated it in June. Signaling a likely veto if it does pass, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s spokeswoman said he preferred to let judges sort out the legality of gay marriage; such a case is moving toward the state Supreme Court.
I thought we DIDN’T want judges sorting this shit out…
BinkyBoy
I thought the Supreme Court had already decided that they won’t hear these cases?
Matt
John, Eurasia has ALWAYS been at war with Eastasia.
KC
As a Californian, I’m honestly shocked the governor would do something like that. Most Californians are pretty tolerant of gays I think. Maybe he’s planning on whipping up some anti-gay sentiments before the wasteful special election he’s called in November? Though I don’t really think he’s as bad as a lot of people, I can say he’s very unpopular in this state with folks of all political stripes. Getting the anti-gay thing going may be the best shot he has got at getting his propositions passed and getting reelected in 2006.
Matt
Rather, WE have always been at war with Eastasia.
My snarky digs would likely be more effective if I got them right the first time.
DougJ
Gay marriage? YAWNNNNNN…
Darrell
Didn’t 60% of Californians vote against legalizing gay marriage not that long ago? kind of puts your “anti-gay” accusation in perspective, doesn’t it?
Davebo
Geez John I thought you knew Ahnold was a RINO?
Veeshir
Didn’t Californians vote for Proposition (some number) that made marriage between a man and a woman? Isn’t that what the California Supreme Court is deciding the constitutionality of? Pro-gay-marriage activists involved the courts. Not conservatives.
If this is approved by the legislature, isn’t that against the will of the people considering that they just voted against it?
Saying that, I try not to think about what California is doing. It rarely makes any sense to me.
StupidityRules
Where’s Pat Robertson? Shouldn’t he pray to God to stop this? Any chance God will send a major earthquake to make the entire state of California disappear into the Pacific Ocean?
neil
I can’t wait for Legislature Sunday, when everybody explains to us why we need to replace our godless senators with new ones, and in the meantime trust the writing of laws to sober, thoughtful judges.
TheocracyIsComing
If Robertson now calls for earthquakes in Cali (remember he’s prayed for more Supreme Court appointments and called for the open assasination of a democractically elected foreign leader) will that jeoparadize his #2 rank on the Fed’s “where to send hurricane aid” list?
salvage
Schwarzenegger: “I’ll be passing the buck”.
jobiuspublius
Just keep your grubby paws off myasia.
jobiuspublius
Do we now see what BS it is for Dear Leaders friends to complain about judicial activism?
The judges are doing there job and getting blamed for it.
If our congress critters knew what the hell was being written for them to rubber stamp, then, the judges wouldn’t have to make sense out of it.
Ben
visheer,
That is an extroidinarily weak argument… there are 10 states that have approved, via initiative, the use of medicinal marijuana only to have the federal gov’t intervene. None of the Repubs complain when that happens. If you are going to make a states rights argument, then social conservatives need to be consistent and principled regarding states rights… not just when it is convenient. There are no relevant arguments against gay marriage.
jobiuspublius
And, now, ladies and germs, for your judicial edification, a warm round of applause, LET HERE IS FOR JUDGE ROBERTS WOO HOO YEAH …..
Jack Roy
Nice catch! Funnily, the Governator not too recently was saying, “in San Francisco, the courts are dropping the ball.” Huh.
yet another jeff
TheocracyIsComing, Pat’s been bumped to number three.
jobiuspublius
But, then they can’t play the shell game. states rights … christian nation … rule of law … private sector … democracy …
Mike in SLO
Veeshir:
Did you forget basic American History from High School?
We live in a representative democracy. We elect representatives to legislate for us. If we don’t like what they legislate, we can vote them out at the next election. The courts decide the constitutionality of laws when there is a question about them. Many, many propositions that the people have voted directly for are overturned by the courts or the legislature. Medical Marijuana and the ability to vote in any party primary being two prime examples. The Proposition system in California has been taken over by special interests on all sides. Don’t like what the legislature does? Get a Proposition on our ballot. We have so many mandated programs in California that our budget can barely be touched. Schwarzenegger promised to be a man of the people and ignore special interests. Instead, he calls expensive special elections and fills them with Propositions that he couldn’t get through the legislature. People are easily fooled–that’s why our founding fathers prefered representative rather than direct democracy. The issue of Gay marriage will ultimately end up in the courts, as it should. Do not assume “activist” judges are all liberal. I seem to remember one named Judge Roy Moore who was quite the activist. Please keep trying not to pay attention to California. We Californians would prefer you stay where you are anyway, there’s too many people here.
h0mi
Not exactly.
Prop 22 was voted on by Californians, and the state of California may vote to recognize marriages that go against Prop 22.
This isn’t an issue of federalism, which Medical marijuana is.
I wish we could discard “states rights” claims. It’s not and never has been and never should be about “states rights”. It’s about “states powers” and what powers they have, the federal government has, and the rights people have.
Axien
Actually, Prop 22, if read exactly, only speaks about out of state marriages, not ones done by the state. Now, you may be claiming that the spirt of Prop 22 was to prevent gay marriages (or domestic partnership benifits), but that does not change the wording of the law.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t our Republican administration want to make same-sex marriage a federal issue?
CalDevil
It’s actually a pretty smart political move by the Dems.
If they succeed in getting this to the Gov’s desk, he’ll be in a very difficult position as a veto will be just one more log on the fire to paint him as a right wing extremist, and signing the bill could cause a big portion of his base to sit out both the referendums in November and the election in 06.
Frankly, as one of the minority in the state who supports gay marriage, I hope he signs.
Veeshir
As for state’s rights, notice that Arnold was talking about the California Supreme Court, not the US Supreme Court.
Reading comprehension is your friend.
I wasn’t advocating either side, I was just noting that the voters of CA had just voted on just such a matter and the legislature was voting to overturn the will of the people.
As I finished, I couldn’t care less what CA does. Don’t worry about me moving there, I did once and loved the weather and didn’t like the sanctimonious, overbearing, intrusive, ignorant, PC nitwits I had to deal with while there.
As for gay marriage, I don’t think it’s the government’s job to decide who I can and can’t marry. It’s absolutely none of their business. I think Mormons should be able to marry as often as they like (just not as early as they sometimes seem to do it), I think 60s, hippy communes should be able to have group marriages of 1,000 if they want. I think that a woman should be able to marry 6 guys if she and they so desire, I only draw the line at children and animals. Unless you can convince me that dolphin really wants to marry you.
In closing, to the nitwit types who attack, attack, attack, how about you listen to the advice given to Leahy by Cheney.
goonie bird
It just figures that these west coast jackasses are so wanting to appease the gay freaks they will doa nthing frankly i hope some of the people remeber this and vote the rats out
Ben
vasheer,
and your mother too!
Steve
Actually this is pretty consistent with the ideology of the Republican party.
It’s not that they don’t want judges deciding things, it’s that they don’t want judges deciding things that they don’t want decided.
So in this case, Arnold is stuck because he really doesn’t want to sign this bill, as it’ll doom his prospects of getting invited to all the really cool parties. So he’s trying to pass the buck, toss the potato to the next guy.
Not surprising. Republicans aren’t concerned with doing the right thing… just getting invited to the cool kids table.
Veeshir
Ben, I liked the visheer spelling the best, I’ve often wished I could be the Grand Visheer for some ancient ruler. That would be cool.
I wish I could defend the Republican Party against what Steve just said, but I can’t. A year ago I would have, and would have been wrong. The memory of Terri Schiavo is still too fresh for me to do it honestly. I will defend many small (l) libertarians who currently vote Republican because they are the least bad option. The Dems are too scary and the big (L) Libertarians have too many nutcases.
h0mi
The Bush administration wants to have marriage defined at the federal level as being between a man and a woman. Clearly what is defined as “marriage” is important for the Feds, since there are federal benefits regulations that are affected by the condition of marriage (taxes primarily, social security, etc.) so this isn’t just a matter of the Feds sticking their nose in where it doesn’t belong. (The benefits conferred to married people vice single people is a seperate issue altogether; passage or failure of this amendment won’t change this.)
The issue of the California legislature voting to enact a law that goes against a recent proposition has nothing to do with Federalism.
http://primary2000.ss.ca.gov/VoterGuide/Propositions/22text.htm
It’s clear that the legislature is going against the proposition; not “the spirit” but the actual proposition itself.
Except this state isn’t 60% right wing extremists, so this could backfire, or otherwise demonstrate how out of touch advocates for this are.