First in the nation:
The California Assembly voted Tuesday to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry, making the state’s legislature the first in the nation to deliberately approve same-sex marriages and handing a political hot potato to an already beleaguered Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R).
After a vehement floor debate in which legislators quoted the Pledge of Allegiance and accused each other of abusing moral principles, the state Assembly passed the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, which recasts the definition of marriage as between “two persons,” not between a man and a woman. The state Senate passed the bill last week.
“There are moments in the history of any movement when the corner is turned,” said Geoff Kors, the executive director of Equality California, a gay rights group. “This is it. This is the tipping point.”
Advocates of the bill, including Christine Chavez-Delgado, granddaughter of Cesar Chavez and an organizer of the United Farm Workers of America, and Willie L. Brown, former mayor of San Francisco, argued that the bill fit into California’s sense of itself as a trendsetter for the rest of the country. In 1948, California’s Supreme Court became the first state court to strike down a law prohibiting interracial marriage. And California in 1976 was among the first states to repeal sodomy statues.
But opponents, including conservative Republicans, have argued that the law must be stopped in the nation’s most populous state because it constitutes another assault on the sanctity of the family. Californians passed a defense-of-marriage act defining marriage as between a man and a woman in 2000, and the state, which mixes freewheeling Marin County with culturally conservative Orange County, has emerged as a front line in the battle over the bedroom ever since.
“Marriage should be between a man and a woman, end of story. Next issue,” insisted Assemblyman Dennis Mountjoy (R-Monrovia). “It’s not about civil rights or personal rights, it’s about acceptance. They want to be accepted as normal. They are not normal.”
Sometimes you just want to punch these people. The article goes on to discuss what a bind this is for Schwarzanalphabet, who will probably veto the bill.
Michael D.
So, is Governor Schwarzenegger is saying that no law passed by the legislature is a valid law until it has been put to a popular vote by the people??
http://gayorbit.net/index.php?p=2977
Jay C
Well, however you parse it,except for his last sentence, Assembly Mountjoy hits the nail on the head- have always felt that the fundamental issue involved in any debate about “gay rights” in this country (and the marriage issue is just the most glaring example) has little to do with the Constitutional minutiae of legislation-vs-legalism or State/Federal regulation as it sometimes framed: “acceptance” is the key point at stake. For whatever reason, whether religious obsessionism, misplaced machismo, or warped notions of social roles (and as Mr. Mountjoy is a Republican politician, it is probably a combination of all three) – there are a large number of folks (who are, of course, voters) out there who just can’t get their heads around the idea of a society that does not officially and specifically condemn homosexuality (and its practitioners). Official “acceptance” is the nightmare scenario for these homophobes, and it will be interesting to see how this California legislation will be spun by the fag-bashers on the Right, who have made a big fetish about gay marriage being something that should be enacted only by the Legislatures, not the courts. Now that a Legislature has done so, I wonder what excuses they will have to come up with?
Accountability is a dirty word
Why is Ahnold such a chicken shit?
http://tinyurl.com/aeorr
After the vote, Schwarzenegger spokeswoman Margita Thompson said: “The people spoke when they passed Proposition 22. The issue subsequently went to the courts. The governor believes the courts are the correct venue for this decision to be made. He will uphold whatever decision the court renders.”
goonie bird
Dont just want to kick those stupid jackasses right in their backsides i mean they cant pass a good budgets but they jump right in with this idiotic gay,lesbian marrage idea what with these jerks anyway?
Jay C
PS:
I have no idea why my 9:01 post went up with those lines struck-out. Please read it as part of the post.
Vlad
It amuses me that these “girly men” might help overthrow the Governator.
Brad R.
“It’s not about civil rights or personal rights, it’s about acceptance. They want to be accepted as normal. They are not normal.”
Hey, I think the same thing about the Christian Right, but I’m still gonna let them get married…
Anderson
As Brad R. said. Are gay people “normal”? No. Most people aren’t gay. Then again, are most people in America white? Baptist? assholes like Mountjoy? But we let them get married anyway.
croatoan
The governator supports legislating from the bench?
Gay marriage will ultimately win out due to Equal Protection:
capelza
Oh god, that’s great..can I steal it?
As for Arnold vetoing it, because it belongs in the courts???
Words fail me…seriously.
I have started asking people who hates gays when they “chose” to be the heterosexual lifestyle…it does stop a few of them, at least for a few minutes..
Don
Cap, I’m sure a decent percentage of them choose it over and over through great force of will. Listen to how so many of them go on and on about the temptation, how it’s forbidden, etc. No slight to my brother who leans that way but I haven’t been tempted by man-parts for even a nanosecond in my life. (though in fairness I do enjoy my own)
David
“California Legislature passes Homosexual Marriage”
1. This shows how arrogant the politicians are. After Prop. 22 passed by the majority of Californias defining the marriage between 1 man and 1 woman, the politicians spit on the electorate.
2. The reason they can spit on the constituents, is the GERRYMANDERING which assures each incumbent a re-election. Thus, the Democrats, whose primaries are dominated by the leftist/socialist/liberals, elect the most left-wing politicos. (Same goes for the Republicans in the other direction) In fact, during 2004, NO, I repeat, NO seat in California changed hands from one party to another. Grr….did someon say “democracy?” The best thing that can happen is to end gerrymandering Ted Costas is running the campaign -Fair Districts
3. Well, maybe this same-sex marriage is good. Now we can export it to the Middle East and bring a civil war in Islam. Hmmm…Naaah, they already have their own homosexual marriage.
“FIRST MUSLIM HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE IN THE MIDDLE EAST, CAIRO, EGYPT”
Excerpt-“The wedding between two Kuwaiti male lovers took place in Hilton Ramses Hotel in Cairo”
You can’t believe it unless you see the site of the arab satellite TV – Al-Arabiya – that originally broadcast the story. The site also has hundreds of comments – some in English and many in Arabic.
Stranger things have happened before.
jobiuspublius
What’s a person?
BinkyBoy
If something is unconstitutional, the people can vote on it all they want, but in the end it will be struck down. Its not for the people to decide constitutionality, its for the courts.
Keep fighting against gay marriage and soon there will be no governmental bonus to marriages, something I will definately cheer for.
chadwig
Why can’t these tiny-minded faux-conservative “Christians” (who don’t have a real clue what Jesus was about) keep their heads out from under everyone else’s covers?
BIGOTRY
Tell me David, what did Jesus say about Homos?
Doug
Jesus said a whole lot about taking care of the poor, but somehow the fundies translate that into “hate fags.”
Otto Man
Let me get this straight:
When the courts rule in favor of homosexual marriage, it’s wrong because they’re legislating from the bench?
And when the legislature votes for homosexual marriage, it’s wrong because they’re superceding the courts?
I’m reminded of the line that Republicans complain that government doesn’t work and then get elected to prove it.
jobiuspublius
Can’t you fucktards answer a question? WHAT THE FUCKING HELL IS A PERSON?!?!?!?
Is partisan pissing and name calling the only thing you shits are capable of? STOP CRAPPING ALL OVER EACH AND EVERY FUCKING THREAD IM GETTING TIRED OF HAVING TO WADE THRU ALL UR SHIT TO READ HALF A LICK OF SENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
CalDevil
As much is it pains me to say it, I don’t think this has put AS in as much of a bind as the Dems (or I) initially thought. CA voters are still strongly against gay marriage. I don’t know for sure, but I’d venture to guess that those against are more likely to vote.
If Arnie vetoes, he could get some short term bounce in approval at a time when he’s fighting for the state’s life with his budget/finance/electoral referenda.
I would prefer for him to sign the bill, but I don’t see him doing so.
SeesThroughIt
Ditto. He’s floundering something awful right now and needs something–anything–that’ll give him a temporary boost. I certainly applaud the state legislature (of course minus stupid assholes like Dennis Mountjoy, whose name sounds rather gay porn starish) for correctly interpreting the meaning of the word “equality,” but homophobia, as the last “acceptable” form of bigotry, is the GOP’s key wedge issue. Arnie can’t just sign it away like that.
Krista
Are you being facetious?
docG
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
This is a resource for you to use.
Jim Caputo
Are you going to punch them before or after you vote for them (or the candidates they support)
?
Krista
Unbelievable, when you think of it. California has probably had more 5-minute marriages between heteros than you could count. And yet, somehow, letting gays marry would somehow “destroy the sanctity of marriage.” ? If they want to pin the destruction of the sanctity of marriage on someone, they’ll have to build a time machine and go back and yell at Henry VIII. :)
Steve
What does ‘sanctity of marriage’ mean, anyway?
Conservatives seem to have this view that sanctity should be protected by ignoring spousal abuse. I keep going back to that Jack Ryan guy who was running for Senate in Illinois trying to force his ex-wife into group sex clubs.
And then there was that Dr. Hager who Bush appointted to the FDA Reproductive Health who had a history of forced sodomy on his ex-wife.
And then that Republican Mayor of Spokane who was trolling for little boys on the internet.
This reminds me of when I was back in college. There was a wingnut on my dorm floor who was always going off on homosexuality. Then I’m reading the paper during summer session, and there’s his name… arrested for propositioning guys in the mens’ restroom at the library.
Are Republicans just more prone to being mentally unstable?
Krista
Just the ones who yell the loudest. :)
No, you’re right about the sanctity thing. Marriage has evolved and changed so much over the years. For most of history, it was basically a business transaction, used to cement alliances, and had not a sweet damned thing to do with religion. And like you said, if the people hollering about the sanctity of marriage were taking steps to prevent spousal abuse, I’d give them more credit. But it’s all about appearances. “Keep smiling, darling, don’t let anybody see your bruises or your misery. That’s all stuff that we can hide away, like proper WASPs.” But you can’t hide two men getting married. And I think that’s what’s pissing them off so much.
Vlad
“Oh god, that’s great..can I steal it?”
Steal away.
jobiuspublius
Are my little nephews persons?
CalDevil
Color me cynical, but I don’t believe for one minute that the Dems are on the side of the angels here.
What I believe is occurring is that the Dem leadership has gotten the back benchers to sign on to a high risk / high reward politcial gambit designed to further weaken the Guv as we head into a special election on some of the most critical questions ever to confron this state. I’m fairly certain that several of the Dems have gone along certain that the Gov would veto the measure and get the off the hook with their constituents.
The GOP doesn’t look any better here as I would expect more than one Republican to have enough of a libertarian or socially liberal sense to buck the conservative leadership and vote his or her conscience. I’m sure that unwillingness to play accomplice to the Dem tactics plays some part, but I don’t see much commitment from any Republican in this state that, politics aside, this is the right thing to do.
jobiuspublius
Good question and what does it have to do with the government? Is it in the constitution? I suspect the workings of an active imagination.
h0mi
I’m curious wnat the reaction of voters to this proposal will be, since 60% of Californians did vote for prop 22.
Krista
Are your nephews persons? In that they are individuals protected by the laws, absolutely. In that they can marry? Nope…I presume they’re not the age of majority. Can they marry each other? Nope…law against incest. When they’re of age, if one of them falls in love with a nice young man who loves them and treats them well, should he be able to marry? Why not?
Vlad
Since I think I can see where you’re going with this…
The question of consent is key, and in almost all conceivable atypical sexual practices, consent on the part of both parties is impossible. Children are incapable of giving informed consent, since they are not considered mentally competent to make decisions of that sort. Neither are animals, or trees, or corpses, etc.
Homosexual adults, on the other hand, are perfectly capable of giving consent in a contract of this nature, and they should be permitted to do so.
BadTux
My personal thoughts: I am disgusted by the notion of gay sex. And yes, I don’t think homosexuality is “normal”. But what business is it of mine what these people do with their lives? If they want to get married, how does that harm me and mine? It isn’t my job — or the job of government — to play Big Brother and tell people how to live their lives. I can respect the views of those who believe homosexuality is immoral up until the point where they then state that government should be used to enforce their morality upon people who aren’t harming anybody.
I mean, come on. Has anybody ever starved to death because a couple of gay dudes had some hot anal sex? Has anybody ever died because a couple of gay dudes held hands in public? No? Then what business does government — which exists for one reason and one reason only, to protect me and mine from those who would harm me and provide whatever other services are necessary for life and limb that aren’t being provided for some reason by the marketplace — what business does government have in telling these people they can’t do what they feel like doing? If it is immoral and they are going to hell, that’s THEIR business, not mine!
– Badtux the Libertarian Penguin
jobiuspublius
I wasn’t going anywhere with this. I was just taking baby steps. The “problem” was worded in undefined terms.
jobiuspublius
Homosexuality may not be common, but, that doesn’t automatically make it not normal. Sexuality is a form of adult bonding, not simply procreation. I know of no reason why it is gender restricted when apparently homosexuals bond just as well as heterosexuals. To ban homosexuality, one would have to ban non-procreative sex. Good luck.
jobiuspublius
And I can apply a similar argument to marriage.
Steve S
Naw. I think they’re pissed off.
I know last year I could care less about Gay Marriage or anything of the sort. Just wasn’t important to me. Actually still isn’t. Just generally apathetic. If two people want to get married, go for it… doesn’t matter to me. I wasn’t willing to fight for it, because I thought antagonizing people was probably a bad idea.
But busy bodies piss me off, and Bushie using this as a campaign stump item despite his obvious unwillingness to actually do anything other than rile people up… well that pissed me off.
So I’m all for gay marriage now. If it’ll piss off a redneck Republican, then go for it. I want to encourage a lot more gay marriage, just so their veins pop out and their heads explode.
And I suspect that is exactly what is going through the minds of the California legislature. And idiots claiming gays aren’t real humans just fuels the flames.
jobiuspublius
I’m not sure that is the way politicians think. With them it’s votes and campaign money.
The roots of racism
Program on the emergence of civilization.
“14 species of large animals capable of domesitcation in the history of mankind.
13 from Europe, Asia and northern Africa.
None from the sub-Saharan African continent. ”
Favor.
And disfavor.
They point out Africans’ failed attempts to domesticate the elephant and zebra, the latter being an animal they illustrate that had utmost importance for it’s applicability in transformation from a hunting/gathering to agrarian-based civilization.
The roots of racism are not of this earth.
Austrailia, aboriginals:::No domesticable animals.
The North American continent had none. Now 99% of that population is gone.
AIDS in Africa.
Organizational Heirarchy
Heirarchical order, from top to bottom:
1. MUCK – perhaps have experienced multiple universal contractions (have seen multiple big bangs), creator of the artificial intelligence humans ignorantly refer to as “god”
2. Perhaps some mid-level alien management
3. Mafia (evil) aliens – runs day-to-day operations here and perhaps elsewhere (“On planets where they approved evil.”)
Terrestrial management:
4. Chinese/egyptians – this may be separated into the eastern and western worlds
5. Romans – they answer to the egyptians
6. Mafia – the real-world interface that constantly turns over generationally so as to reinforce the widely-held notion of mortality
7. Jews, corporation, women, politician – Evidence exisits to suggest mafia management over all these groups.
Survival of the favored.
Movies foreshadowing catastrophy
1985 James Bond View to a Kill 1989 San Fransisco Loma Prieta earthquake.