Gay Marriage Bill in California

“http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050907/pl_nm/rights_california_marriage_dc

Interestingly, Gov. Arnold says that the decision is best left up to the courts.”

“Well that's bullchit coming from someone who wants everything put before the people.”

“Didn't the people of California already vote this issue down?”

“With half the movie producers being gay, Arnold has to be careful who he pisses off.”

“Yeah, with both houses passing the bill, Arnold is in a very tough spot. Looks like he feels he has to veto or he loses the Republican nomination for Gov or anything he runs for, but he wants to avoid being seen as anti-marriage or else he'll never win California or get big Hollywood donations. That can be the only reason he's coming out for "judicial activism." (but why not call for a statewide referenda?)”

“(but why not call for a statewide referenda?)

They voted on this last year I think. The people voted it down.”

“wheres s-rge when you need a thread made 3000 posts long?”

“Son't say that out loud Crash! It's been nice and qyuiet around here lately. Let's not spoil it.”

“You have a point Nigal, California passed something limiting recognition of same sex couples - I forget the details. But then why didn't Arnold just say, "The people have spoken - let's respect that."”

“I still think the government should just regulate the legal rights and responsibilities people who want to become life partners have for each other and not even address whether or not they are shtupping each other - let religious and irreligious groups decide for themselves what marriage is.

Why should the government pick sides at all in this debate?”

“"But then why didn't Arnold just say, "The people have spoken - let's respect that."”

Because I think he really doesn't want to take a stand on it. I believe he probably is for gay marraige as he seems to be a social moderate.

I am for gay marraige. But I'm also for democracy and once the people have spoken democracy has been done. Bring it up every year for a vote if ya like.”

“I agree. Some losing candidate, I forget who (I think it was someone like Pat Paulson who was a joke candidate to be honest) said after the election, "The people have spoken, the bass-turds." I think that's the right attitude, no point in hiding that you think they done wrong - but once they've voted don't try to go around their back.”

“Finally, someone willing to stand up for the will of the people! GO ARNY!
--------------------------------

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced Wednesday he will veto a bill that would have made California the first state to legalize same-sex marriage through its elected lawmakers.

Schwarzenegger said the legislation, given final approval Tuesday by lawmakers, would conflict with the intent of voters when they approved an initiative five years ago. Proposition 22 was placed on the ballot to prevent 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)."

---------------------------

Check out this ridiculous statement in the article:

"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."

--------------------

Pandering to the "right wing"? Ha ha! Since when is the overwhelming majority of Californians who don't WANT gay marriage considered pandering to the right wing? Oh man! The libs are SO out of touch with reality and the will of the people, it's absolutely hilarious! I guess the majority of "America", even "California" is "right wing" to them! I LOVE IT!

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/07/D8CFPOB00.html
last edited: 9/07/05 10:34:01 PM”

“Back in the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand:
---------------------------

California Proposition 22

On March 7, 2000, the people of California voted on Proposition 22, a proposal to enact a state "Defense of Marriage Act" as an initiative statute. The text of Prop 22 reads:

“Only marriage between a man and a woman
is valid or recognized in California.”

Proposition 22 was ratified by an overwhelming majority of California voters, prevailing by a 23-point margin. Statewide, 4,618,673 votes were cast in favor of the proposition, comprising 61.4% of the total vote. Opponents garnered 2,909,370 votes, for 38.6% of the vote.

Final vote counts revealed that Proposition 22 won in 52 of California's 58 counties, including all of the major metropolitan areas except for San Francisco. The six counties which did not approve Prop. 22 were all in the immediate San Francisco Bay area, including: Alameda county, Marin county, San Francisco county, Santa Cruz county, Sonoma county, and Yolo county.

----------------

"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." <--- HA HA HA HA HA!!!”

“well, buck, as you so clearly pointed out in the intelligent design thread, what the majority believes isnt always right”

“CB, that comment would sound logical if ID was saying, "current evolutionary thought is wrong and should be banned and ID should hold a unilateral monopoly on thought in public schools, period". But that's not the case. They seek side-by-side analysis, a "marriage", if you will.

Also, the "majority" of Americans DO think ID should be taught along with current evolutionary teachings in public schools. Check out the polls, they're easy to find.

Thirdly, this is a "voting" issue and ID vs. current evolutionary thought isn't even brought before the people to vote on.

HUGE differences in comparison. But I agree, the "majority" is not always necessarily right, but when it comes to voting on issues and the majority votes overwhelmingly one way, and then the opposition states it's the "extreme right wing" who voted overwhelmingly to make a majority, someone is definitely out of touch with, ummm, reality. Plain and simple.”

“They seek side-by-side analysis, a "marriage", if you will.

if you believe that, i have a bridge to sell you. and some dry land in NO.

the "majority" of Americans DO think ID should be taught along with current evolutionary teachings in public schools.

however, the majority of scientists dont think it is science.”

“Arnie is making more sense to me at this point. The article I read only gave half the story. It sounds like Arnold is saying: unless there is a constitutional issue - the will of the majority should stand. It's not up to the legislature to over-rule the will of the people that they are supposed to represent. Basically he's standing up for the way American Democracy is supposed to work.

When you'eright your right and it looks to me like Arnold is right on this one.

Buck has a point as well, I'm dead said against the government defining marriage - but if I was govenor I wouldn't sign a bill overturning a recent popular vote by a large majority. Either the referednum was unconstitutional and the courts will over-rule it, or I'd work to persuade the majority they were wrong.

In our Democracy, the are certain constraints on the will of the majority that exist in our federal constituion and in the State constitutions. Beyond that, if you feel the majority is wrong, you need to take your case to them and change minds.”

“According to what I read in my newspaper and this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_22_(2000) , Proposition 22 only barred the recognition of same sex marriages performed in other states. The wikipedia entry states that same sex marriage performed in California was already against the law.

Isn't the role of the Legislature to write and amend laws?”

“Violin, the amendment did contain the phrase "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Since the public overwhelming supported that language, I think their intent is clear. Furthermore, if they wanted to break with tradition and not recognize gay marriages performed in other states - one would think they were even more adamant about not creating new gay marriages. The way to test this would be to put a new initiative before the people of California.

I agree that the legislature is supposed to change laws and make new ones, but this would be going directly against the vote of a substantial majority. I'd say its too soon to side-step that. If I was in California, I would a petition for an initiative to give same sex marriages equal legal status and I'd vote for one.

I actually have serious qualms about governing by initiative, but that's an issue that should be tackled head on.”

“Buck: What polls give you the idea that a majority thinks ID should be given equal (side by side) status with evolution in the schools? It's one thing to teach it and another to give it equal status.”

“Hi pedxing! I'm busy at work right now, can only peruse the page, but if you do a Google search on evolution/intelligent design polls for public schools, there's all kinds of them, even from Newsweek and USA Today and Gallop and most major polling orgs. Also, what's interesting, is that if you use "creation" with evolution instead of intelligent design, most Americans (by large margins) wish the creation story to be taught along with evolution, which I disagree with but it's still interesting. The vast majority of people believe in God (most of them the Christian God, it's a big part of our heritage) and thus they obviously believe God had something to do with what we see, so it's natural to see the polls so overwhelmingly in flavor of teaching both. They don't necessarily want evolution pulled, they just overwhelmingly vote BOTH should be taught. If you have difficulty finding poll data on this I'll check back later and see if I can help, but it shouldn't be tough to find. And yes, I type reeeeeeeeally fast. Adios, my friend!”

“peruse

v : examine or consider with attention and in detail; "Please peruse this report at your leisure"”

“Apparently I need to peruse the dictionary more frequently! :^D”

“Even if a majority is against gay marriage it is Tyranny Of The Majority.

Jim Crow "laws" in the south were democratic, but were an example of Tyranny of the Majority.

This is a matter of equal rights for all.

And if one of you rednecks says anything about marrying a goat, I'm gonna run yer sheep off!!

Yeah, then you'll be sorry!!!”

“Minority rights cannot be decided by the majority.”

“What he said!!!”

“Cool, then you think abortion should be outlawed, since it is tyranny against the minority! Oh wait, YOU are the ones who get to decide each issue, not the populace. I see how you are.”

“That was decided by the Supreme Court, BuckO.”

“Hmmm, NAMBLA is a minority in this country. Should it be made legal to screw little boys simply because they are a minority?

Necrophilia is a minority too. Screwing dead people is a right?”

“violiN, essentially so was the Presidential election of 2000. Does that make the Supreme Court always right? Votes change, cases can be re-heard. If the Supreme Court redecides its previous Roe Vs. Wade verdict, does that now make abortion "wrong"? If we're not discussing "law" but what's "right", who gets to decide what's right, regardless of which branch of government says so or what the people think? If your views are in the majority, fine, all is well, but if you have some views which are in the minority, or are outlawed, all of a sudden it's a disgrace and rights are being trampled by the majority! OooOOokay then.”

“violin, if I understand you correctly, you will be against abortions if RvW is overturned? That does make sense if you support the rule of the law in all cases.”

“Hmmm, NAMBLA is a minority in this country. Should it be made legal to screw little boys simply because they are a minority?

Necrophilia is a minority too. Screwing dead people is a right

no one is making the argument that being in the minority makes you in the right. the argument that is being made is that being in the majority doesnt necessarily make you in the right”

“the argument that is being made is that being in the majority doesnt necessarily make you in the right”

My point (which may be different than others, but regarding the article I posted) is that if the majority of Californians voted to ban gay marriage in California, the CA Senate voted FOR gay marriage, Gov. Arny vetoed it and now he's being accused of pandering to the "extreme right wing"? HellooOOOoo!!! That's absurd.

Regarding majority and minority views, the laws have to be based on SOMETHING, as there are beeellions of various opinions of right and wrong so between our three supposedly-balanced branches of gov't, they're supposed to sort this out with laws. Which can change. But whatever holds for the moment is what is, regardless of personal views of right or wrong otherwise.”

“and change is a-coming, whether you like it or not”

“It very well could be! See ya at the polls!”

“"no one is making the argument that being in the minority makes you in the right. the argument that is being made is that being in the majority doesnt necessarily make you in the right”

No it makes it democratic which is right and proper.”

“democratic which is right and proper

id call it imperfect but the best we got

but what would you call it if a law was put into effect that the practice of any religion except protestant christianity was banned? right and proper?”

“Buck-o, I feel for ya' man, you're running into discussion with the far left constituency of this board... so aptly represented by the likes of Violin & MarkO.

So that you will have a sense of perspective & know who they are, in California-terms these guys remind me very much of Berkely-leftists. They give the impression that they believe all businesses are run by criminals intent upon screwing the little guy, and seem also to have no interest whatsoever in rational debate / discussuon. They may be very quick to label you with their broad brush-strokes, and the fact that they have very little information re your personal beliefs or political philosophy is totally irrelevant to them.

It's their way or the highway.

Signed, Wanderer, the racist.

(the reason I sign off that way sometimes is because of a running thing I had with Violin about a year ago or so where he accused me of being a racist, without ANY information to back it up, of course, just his way of throwing rocks at people he disagreed with. He's never apologized to me, even though many on this board, even including some libs, came to my defense & stated that I did not make any statements that would suggest I was a racist.)”

“but what would you call it if a law was put into effect that the practice of any religion except protestant christianity was banned? right and proper?”

Crash Bang, it would be unconsitutional because Freedom of Religion is explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. Things like abortion and euthanasia and capital punishment and gay marriage and all that, not so much.

wanderer®, I agree, the "Berkeley elitists" would probably be an accurate comparison!”

“For Crash Bang's reassurance. :^D

U.S. Constitution: First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

“Damn! Buck beat me to the smoking gun! LOL!”

“HEY, cut me some slack, Nigal, you beat me to the punch last time. And it was a hard beating. I'm still trying to recover. I even went through the ridicule of actually posting it after you had, at least you caught it before hand. Anyway, yes, it feels good. SO good.”

“i didnt ask whether or not it would be constitutional. i asked whether or not it would be right and proper

RIF”

“so as soon as you guys get done patting each other on the back, an answer would be nice

awww gosh shucks”

“me, personally, id be feeling a great big hearty FUC YOU to all the jackoffs having the audacity to decide my life for me”

“You need to find another example Crash because gay marraige and religion aren't on the same level.”

“And to answer your question: They can outlaw religion for I care. I need no building or organization to practice my faith. I would however leave my state if they did outlaw it. And yes, if it was voted on and passed by the people of the state, so be it.”

“A more relevant example would be the fact that at one time a majority in many states was pro-slavery.

I don’t think anyone but wanderer would argue that it was right and proper to continue slavery in those states.”

“:) You're very consistent V, I admire that about you!”