CA Passes Marriage Law – Reaction Roundup
Log Cabin Republicans praise…. (full news release here)
(Sacramento, CA) – “Log Cabin applauds the California legislature for this historic vote in favor of basic fairness for gay and lesbian families,” said Patrick Guerriero, President of Log Cabin Republicans. The California Assembly followed the California State Senate in passing the historic legislation authored by Mark Leno, which provides civil marriage equality to all couples who want to commit their lives to each other.
“Now that the people of California have spoken through their elected representatives, we call on the Governor to respect this decision and the legislative process, and allow this legislation to become law,” continued Guerriero. “Governor Schwarzenegger has been a committed ally of LGBT equality and we thank him for his support in the fight for basic fairness for our families.”
….while the folks at the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force were overheard to be saying…. “Well, at least Californians that are put in Bush’s gay concentration camps can get married.”
And at the Human Rights Campaign rumors spread that “If John Roberts becomes Chief Justice… same-sex sex will be banned! Happy Hour at JRs tonight!”
My only comment is…. I’m torn between the will of the people and the will of the elected representatives. I think this is an important step. But what do the 61% of Californians who voted against same sex marriage in the Year 2000 think about their elected representatives? I don’t know. I admit I struggle with it.
Of course I still don’t get how gay marriage=equal rights…and none of the GayLefties have fully explained it either (except saying it is George Bush’s fault, of course).
Here’s a round-up of different reactions across the spectrum to the CA legislative decision.
A History Lesson on Gay Rights in California – BoiFromTroy
Schwarznegger May Veto Marriage Bill – GayOrbit
Sign It, Arnold – The Malcontent
Cali Lawmakers Pave Way to ‘Mo Marriage – GoodAsYou
Historic OK For Gay Vows - Observations of a Gay Conservative
California Legislature Passes Gay Marriage Bill – Right Side of the Rainbow
Lack of Strateragy – PoliPundit
Golden State Blesses Gay Marriage – Wonkette
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
29 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I’m a little ambivalent about this, mainly because I’ve written off California as the wacky state and have never made any attempt whatsoever to discern just what exactly passes for law down there.
How does a referendum reconcile with a law passed by the legislature? Which takes precedence?
I’m generally for gay marriage, if only for child protection issues, but I’m firmly of the mind that we shouldn’t wreck government in order to obtain it.
So, my ignorance of the government in this case leaves me a little indecisive about whether or not this latest development is a good thing.
*whacks his Ted Kennedy pinata several dozen times*
I feel better already.
Comment by Robbie — September 7, 2005 @ 4:24 pm - September 7, 2005
Robbie-
Did you have to enlarge your house in order to hang that pinata?
Comment by GayPatriot — September 7, 2005 @ 4:32 pm - September 7, 2005
California lets the Legislature and the voters (Initiative process) override each other until one of them finally pulls the trump card, a CA constitutional amendment.
What was a 61% majority against gay marriage 5 years ago, may well be only a 50% majority today. Polls say that CA voter support for gay marriage has risen some. Events of the last 5 years have made gay marriage much more “thinkable” than it used to be.
Having said that, I would feel much better if the Legislature was acting on majority support – which they aren’t.
I fear their move is an overreach – one that will be repudiated at the polls (Initiative process). It was a purely symbolic, unnecessary move because they already passed strong civil unions last year.
Led by Democrats, they did it basically to say “screw you” to conservatives (and California voters) who don’t like gay marriage. I would rather they hadn’t done it at this time. I say this as a longtime supporter of gay marriage. Most of society (in your State) has to be on board with you, for the new law or institution to work.
I do think gay marriage == equal rights. Or close to it. For me, “gay rights” means formal equality: being legally able to have relationships, form families, serve in the military, etc. – in other words, being legally able to live a life as normal as you want to make it (other than the biographical fact of one’s homosexual orientation). Having said that, I am willing to take “civil unions” while the rest of society gets used to these concepts.
Comment by joe — September 7, 2005 @ 4:39 pm - September 7, 2005
Joe is right about which form of legislation has precedence, although I suppose in this case “precedence ” is exactly backwards.
Remember not to try to assess what the public thinks from an election vote. Ane election vote settles and issue legally, but it represents the opinion of only those people who bothered to vote. So it’s totally valid as law, but not too much of an indicator as to what the public feels or is likely to do unless there was a good turnout.
Since most (straight) people truly don’t give a rip about this issue, they will probably see that Arnold vetoes it, and since they are getting more and more disgusted with him these days, side against him with the Assembly, to the extent they think about it at all.
Comment by Jim — September 7, 2005 @ 4:49 pm - September 7, 2005
Nah, I keep it in the wine cellar. I feel it lends a certain authenticity and ambiance.
Comment by Robbie — September 7, 2005 @ 4:56 pm - September 7, 2005
But what do the 61% of Californians who voted against same sex marriage in the Year 2000 think about their elected representatives?
It doesn’t matter. California is so gerrymandered, the Assembly could pass a bill requiring illegal immigrants to hit native-born Americans with ball peen hammers twice-a-day and there would be no political fall-out.
Comment by V the K — September 7, 2005 @ 4:59 pm - September 7, 2005
I suppose I can see how gay rights=equal rights because it is the pinnacle. Once we hit that level, IMHO everything else would be cake. Marriage is the ultimate hurdle for gay people to make it over. Once we are there, the other things will fall into place, or will have already fallen into place. But I do often ask myself if we as a nation are ready for this. For example, here in Michigan while being a “blue” state and supporting Kerry in 2004, the state also passed an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment. But poll after poll (here in Michigan) showed that the general public was in favor of granting rights to gays, including civil unions – but just don’t call it MARRIAGE. I don’t know why we can’t go a step at a time. why is it that it has to be all or nothing – and right now. This must be G.W.’s fault – lol
Comment by Mike — September 7, 2005 @ 5:04 pm - September 7, 2005
#7 – Mike, exactly. I used to be a hard-liner on gay MARRIAGE, but I eventually figured out that others get a vote, and it doesn’t really matter if it’s called “civil unions” for 30 years.
Comment by joe — September 7, 2005 @ 5:11 pm - September 7, 2005
Of course I still don’t get how gay marriage=equal rights
Equal rights requires that gay people would have the same rights to selecting their families as any other individual. This would include dependent/health care righs, the right to file tax returns jointly, inheritance rights, the right to make medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse, etc, etc.
What about this do you not understand? And who says it’s Bush’s fault (some quotes, please)?
If marriage rights aren’t required for equal rights, then I assume you also would have left laws against interracial marriage to the states? Are you implying that blacks/hispanics/etc could still have equal rights even if they were denied marriage rights (or intercultural marriage rights)?
I used to be a hard-liner on gay MARRIAGE, but I eventually figured out that others get a vote, and it doesn’t really matter if it’s called “civil unions” for 30 years.
Tell that to couples who own a home and one of them dies and has to pay 50% taxes on his/her inheritance wheras the same married straight couple inherits the home and belongings tax-free. I wouldn’t object to semantics as long as any couple has the same rights as far as the government is concerned.
Comment by BUSH RULEZ! — September 7, 2005 @ 5:38 pm - September 7, 2005
BTW, didn’t the US Congress pass “Terri’s Law” despite an overwhelming majority of US citizens being against government interference? The majority of the US is also pro-choice, but many legislatures have passed pro-life legislation. In both cases, I think the representatives are trying to take a moral stand, just like gay marriage. Aren’t the representatives still accountable to the people in that they may elect them out od office if they disagree with their legislative actions?
Comment by BUSH RULEZ! — September 7, 2005 @ 5:42 pm - September 7, 2005
My, BR, aren’t you precious?
Because your strident comment about my comment adds precisely nothing to my comment, as your comment is essentially what my comment said already.
Comment by joe — September 7, 2005 @ 6:02 pm - September 7, 2005
And that’s referring to #8 and second half of #9.
Whatever you’re trying to get at in #10, I can’t make heads nor tails of. I don’t know how Terry Schiavo got into this. Good one.
Comment by joe — September 7, 2005 @ 6:20 pm - September 7, 2005
To me, it’s all about fairness. I have no problem with being granted a civil union instead of marriage. The moniker which is applied to it means nothing to me. What does matter to me is eventually being able to bear the rights and obligations which a recognized union brings to the two people involved (and yes, I put the “TWO” in there because I do not want to see some factional LDS idiots getting plural marriages recognized nor do I want to see one of these so-called “families” of gay guys in mass sexual relationships getting recognized as legitimate either.) Ultimately, guys and gals, it comes down to incrementalism. If too much is pushed for too quickly, then there will be a backlash which could possibly hinder the GLBT’s efforts even further. I think that’s already been seen to a significant degree with so many states passing constitutional amendments.
On one hand, I’m glad that this was decided by the elected officials and not the courts. Cramming a revision to such an age old institution such as marriage down the throats of the populous on causes a further widening of the gap between those on both sides of this argument. On the other hand, however, this is supposed to be the rule of the majority. Then again, I suppose if the voters of CA don’t like what their elected officials have done, they can always use the democratic process to elect new people into office who will turn the legislative tide in another direction.
Comment by ARCountryBoy — September 7, 2005 @ 8:53 pm - September 7, 2005
P.S. Robbie, I thought about getting the Ted Kennedy pinata myself, but instead opted to get the Barney Frank love doll. It was a better deal than the pinata since it came as a 2-for-1 deal – had its own prostitute love doll with it ya know. After having been screwed by the Dems so many times, I thought it’d be good to do a little screwing to them myself. I just remembered- I don’t know where my bicycle pump is…..oh well….the instructions said it only takes hot air anyway.
Comment by ARCountryBoy — September 7, 2005 @ 8:58 pm - September 7, 2005
Tell that to couples who own a home and one of them dies and has to pay 50% taxes on his/her inheritance wheras the same married straight couple inherits the home and belongings tax-free.
That’s what Living Trust Funds are for.
Some libertarian straights, who do not believe that the state has any business in personal relationships, also use Limited Liability Companies or Partnership Contracts in place of marriage.
Not everyone thinks state-recognized marriages are that great – one big minus is that you are also liable for your spouse’s debts.
Comment by Born Again Redneck/PatC — September 7, 2005 @ 9:27 pm - September 7, 2005
Hey guys. How’s it going?
Comment by mependulous — September 7, 2005 @ 9:40 pm - September 7, 2005
The majority of the US is also pro-choice, but many legislatures have passed pro-life legislation.
The problem is, Bush Rulez, what you consider “pro-life” is putting any limitations whatsoever on abortion, including such things as partial-birth abortions and parental notification.
If marriage rights aren’t required for equal rights, then I assume you also would have left laws against interracial marriage to the states? Are you implying that blacks/hispanics/etc could still have equal rights even if they were denied marriage rights (or intercultural marriage rights)?
Let us not forget, Bush Rulez, what you consider to be “promoting gay rights”, as I’ve previously outlined.
In short, you have no problem with banning gay marriage. You have no problem with “separate but unequal”. Indeed, you call that “promoting gay rights”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 7, 2005 @ 10:57 pm - September 7, 2005
Bush Rulez, the blameing of Bush is a joke – see the lol at the end of my post further up the page – of course now that I have had to explain it – it’s no longer funny – or maybe it wasn’t to begin with? lol
Comment by Mike — September 7, 2005 @ 11:52 pm - September 7, 2005
The argument concerning estate and gift taxation is valid and it’s one that I have made on several occassions. However, two things: one, we need to be honest and admit that it is a convenience argument and two, that’s only really applicable in an argument for federal recognition of marriage. Regardless of whether a state recognizes a the relationship is immaterial on the federal level since that level of government will not give the recognition. Additionally, remember that there is currently a $1.5 million exemption (going up to $3.5 million in 2007) given on conveyances of possessions after death and only after that is exceeded will the 48% estate tax kick in play.
Comment by ARCountryBoy — September 8, 2005 @ 8:52 am - September 8, 2005
Let us not forget, Bush Rulez, what you consider to be “promoting gay rights”, as I’ve previously outlined.
In short, you have no problem with banning gay marriage. You have no problem with “separate but unequal”. Indeed, you call that “promoting gay rights”.
Where the hell did you get this idea, NDT? Just because I found John Kerry the lesser of two evils in terms of gay rights you claim that I said he’s “promoting gay rights”? At least he does not support enshrining bigotry in the US Constitution.
The problem as I see it is that Dems willingly say they support “civil unions” but stop stort of endorsing equal rights. While this is preferable to the Republicans outright hostility towards gay relationships, I wish they would grow some balls and stand up for what’s right. The Democrats are so afraid of alienating what the Republicans have defined as “value voters” (ie pro-life, anti-gay marriage) that they are nearly indistinguishable from Republicans!
I think Dems should stand up for freedom for all. I think most Americans would understand and respect that position regardless of how they personally feel about gay marriage. Even though most Americans were opposed to interracial marriages when the courts struck down laws against it, they knew it was the right thing to do.
I’m not at all inconsistent, NDT. Rather, it is those who say they support equal rights but still vote for Republicans, most of whom are downright hostile towards gay rights, who are being duplicitous.
Comment by BUSH RULEZ! — September 8, 2005 @ 10:57 am - September 8, 2005
My, BR, aren’t you precious? Because your strident comment about my comment adds precisely nothing to my comment, as your comment is essentially what my comment said already.
Sorry if I came across as strident, but your post did not make it explicitly clear what was defined as a “civil union”. Most politicians who talk of “civil unions” are Democrats who don’t have the balls to support full equal rights under both state and Federal law.
We obviously agree on this issue- I did not mean to offend you, but just to clarify what sort of “civil union” is acceptable to me.
Comment by BUSH RULEZ! — September 8, 2005 @ 11:02 am - September 8, 2005
Where the hell did you get this idea, NDT? Just because I found John Kerry the lesser of two evils in terms of gay rights you claim that I said he’s “promoting gay rights”?
Right here, when you outlined what liberals are promoting. I quote:
Ummm, Gay Rights, Tolerance…..
There you go.
The problem as I see it is that Dems willingly say they support “civil unions” but stop stort of endorsing equal rights.
No, the problem is that Dems say in their party platform that they support “full inclusion” and “equality”, but practice neither. That’s duplicitous, and your trying to spin otherwise is worse.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 8, 2005 @ 1:11 pm - September 8, 2005
Exactly. The problem with the Dems is that they exploit our hopes for money, then sell us out at the first opportunity.
The reason the Republicans’ standard treatment of us is low, is because the Democrats are right there with them – the Democrats set the bar low for them.
Bill Clinton invented the FMA first, only it was 1996 and he called it DOMA. He said he didn’t think a Constitutional amendment was necessary yet (and he was right – no State had done gay marriage yet), but he would support one when the time came.
John Kerry, third Presidential debate, “President Bush and I have the exact same position on this issue [equal rights for gays]….the exact…..same…. position.” (emphasis Kerry’s)
Comment by joe — September 8, 2005 @ 1:21 pm - September 8, 2005
Man ya’ll got some talk going here. Dont you white boys ever shut the up and just cruisse? This boy Joe, I likes him. He’s always talking and that means the boy knows how to move the mouth. Youre frinedly black gay republican appreciates that.
Comment by mependulous — September 8, 2005 @ 9:07 pm - September 8, 2005
No, the problem is that Dems say in their party platform that they support “full inclusion” and “equality”, but practice neither. That’s duplicitous, and your trying to spin otherwise is worse.
Maybe you should look at the Republican platform which supports outright discrimination against gays. Perhaps the Dems believe in incrementalism, like Republicans with their “Pro-Life” platform (laughable considering how little they seem to care for human life), don’t “practice” their pro-life agenda.
Right here, when you outlined what liberals are promoting. I quote:
Ummm, Gay Rights, Tolerance…..
That doesn’t really say anything about John Kerry, though. As an example, just because Bush is Republican doesn’t mean he supports fiscal discipline or small government. Undoubtedly, Kerry -while by no means perfect- was far preferable to Bush in terms of Gay Rights. But you take things out of context and twist his position. Suffice it to say, the vast majority of gays/lesbians voted for Kerry while the vast majority of homophobes voted for Bush.
It’s unbelievable to me how brainwashed some of you are here! You are worse hack apologists for the incompetance of this administration than the majority of conservatives. Even when I disagree with individuals, I have respect for them when they exercise independent thought- something which is severely lacking around here.
Your talking points are tiresome and make you indistinguishable from the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, FauxNews, etc.
Comment by BUSH RULEZ! — September 9, 2005 @ 12:47 pm - September 9, 2005
Did someone say “Faux News”?
He probably thinks it’s pronounced “fawks”.
Oh well… my brother was heard telling Dan Quayle jokes as late as 1998.
Comment by Frank IBC — September 9, 2005 @ 5:08 pm - September 9, 2005
Oh well… my brother was heard telling Dan Quayle jokes as late as 1998.
To all who hate the French it is undoubtedly pronouced “Fox”. I also notice some using the term “Moron.org” and are still telling Clinton BJ jokes.
Comment by BUSH RULEZ! — September 10, 2005 @ 10:31 am - September 10, 2005
Maybe you should look at the Republican platform which supports outright discrimination against gays. Perhaps the Dems believe in incrementalism, like Republicans with their “Pro-Life” platform (laughable considering how little they seem to care for human life), don’t “practice” their pro-life agenda.
Maybe you should quit trying to redefine “full inclusion” and “equality” to mean “incrementalism” or “banning gay marriage”.
This is why it is impossible to believe that you stand up for gay rights., Bush Rulez, when you cover for your massa’s lies. Why not just admit that the Democrats don’t MEAN full inclusion and equality?
I really enjoyed your spin here:
But you take things out of context and twist his position.
There’s nothing to twist. John Kerry wants the state of Massachusetts to ban gay marriage. John Kerry supported the state of Missouri banning gay marriage. John Kerry opposes gay marriage and does not believe that gays should have marriage equality for religious reasons.
I must admit, your technique of covering up your apologetics by arguing that Kerry, Dean, Hillary and Bill Clinton, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and others who oppose gay marriage are not liberals is rather unique — but completely pointless.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 12, 2005 @ 11:44 am - September 12, 2005
Mom Blogs – Blogs for Moms…
…
Trackback by Anonymous — February 23, 2009 @ 4:32 pm - February 23, 2009