WP: California Legislature Approves Gay Marriage

[Ancalagon the Black]

Arnie is in a bind now.

_________________

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/06/AR2005090602076.html

California Legislature Approves Gay Marriage

By Joe Dignan and John Pomfret

Washington Post Staff Writers

Wednesday, September 7, 2005; A01

SACRAMENTO, Sept. 6 -- 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 ®.

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."

Tuesday's 41 to 35 vote amounted to more difficult news for Schwarzenegger, the Republican actor-turned-politician who roared into Sacramento on the back of a recall election in 2003 promising fundamental change. Schwarzenegger, who has taken on teachers, nurses and other state workers, has seen his popularity lag in recent months. A Field Poll of registered voters early this month put the governor's approval rating at 36 percent -- an all-time low.

If he vetoes the bill, Schwarzenegger will retain the support of his GOP base, which he needs in a special election he has called for November. But he could also alienate many Democrats who voted for him and whose backing he still covets. In the special election, Schwarzenegger is asking voters to grant him more budget-cutting power, to block gerrymandering by placing legislative redistricting in the hands of retired judges and to make public school teachers work five years instead of two before they earn tenure.

"This puts Schwarzenegger on the hot seat," said Bruce Cain, a professor of political science at University of California at Berkeley, who predicted the governor would veto the bill. "I think it's a slam-dunk that he's going to have to veto the bill and hope that the anger in the gay community doesn't spill over into other groups."

Other political strategists, however, said Tuesday's vote would force Schwarzenegger to parse his own personal mix of fiscal conservatism and liberal social views. As a former Hollywood star, he hails from a social milieu where gay men and women occupy key positions, and he has spoken glowingly about his friendships with people of all sexual orientations.

"I think the governor's going to be in a difficult position, because during the campaign his positions were ambiguous on the issue," said Arnold Steinberg, a political strategist who generally works with Republicans.

Schwarzenegger supports domestic partnerships but opposes same-sex marriage, a spokesman for the governor said.

The legislature's move goes further than other states, such as Vermont and Connecticut, which have passed legislation allowing more strictly defined "civil unions." And it differs from Massachusetts, the only state to grant full marriage rights to same-sex couples, because the Massachusetts regulations were passed by order of the state's courts, which ruled that a ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

California is already one of the most gay-friendly states in the nation. Its domestic partnership legislation grants same-sex couples most of the benefits of married couples except a few, such as the right to jointly file income tax returns, the right to bring a foreign partner into the United States and right to pass Social Security benefits on to a spouse. So far, more than 30,000 same-sex couples are registered in California as domestic partners.

The Assembly members were aware that they were making history, and their debate Tuesday night -- to a packed gallery -- focused on whether they should vote their conscience or represent the wishes of their constituents. Slavery, the Bible and the Pledge of Allegiance were wielded by both sides in a piece of political theater rarely seen in Sacramento.

"There are a handful of issues where history will record where we were. This is one of them," said Thomas J. Umberg (D-Anaheim), who had abstained in a vote on the issue in June but voted yes on Tuesday night.

"History will record that you betrayed your constituents and their moral and ethical values," countered Jay LaSuer, his Republican counterpart from La Mesa.

Dignan is a special correspondent; Pomfret reported from Los Angeles. Special correspondent Sonya Geis contributed to this report.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

[Ignatius J.]

Well I certainly hope he supports it. I have been a huge arnie fan so far. He's been making tough decisions left and right, but he has been working to do the things that we put him in office to do.

If he vetoes it, I think he loses my vote. Now I'm not a very huge demographic, but I would think that in california, I'm not such a minority. It's tough for him, because he can't win without moderate democrats (who would be severely alienated by a veto) and he can't win without his base. Still, I think he has to trust the fact that people voted for him knowing he was socially liberal. He has never been secretive about his feelings about gays. In his gut I think he wants to sign this, and I hope the right realizes that they can't win an election in california with someone socially right of arnie.

[dreamingwolf]

this is a much better way of doing it than just having one mayor say its ok, or a court decide its the way to be. I got no problem with elected officials determining it, things like this should have to be ratified after the next election cycle. If californians want gay marriage they should have it.

[dreamingwolf]

Well I certainly hope he supports it. I have been a huge arnie fan so far. He's been making tough decisions left and right, but he has been working to do the things that we put him in office to do.

If he vetoes it, I think he loses my vote. Now I'm not a very huge demographic, but I would think that in california, I'm not such a minority. It's tough for him, because he can't win without moderate democrats (who would be severely alienated by a veto) and he can't win without his base. Still, I think he has to trust the fact that people voted for him knowing he was socially liberal. He has never been secretive about his feelings about gays. In his gut I think he wants to sign this, and I hope the right realizes that they can't win an election in california with someone socially right of arnie.

did you really vote for him? I would have never guessed

[Sarge]

Let's see if Arnie turns into a girlie man

[Ignatius J.]

nevermind.

[dreamingwolf]

its all good

[codeorama]

Based on Arnold's supposed views, he shouldn't veto it. He has claimed to be a social liberal and fiscal conservative. If he sticks to that, good for him. I'd vote for him.

[bird_1972]

this is a much better way of doing it than just having one mayor say its ok, or a court decide its the way to be. I got no problem with elected officials determining it, things like this should have to be ratified after the next election cycle. If californians want gay marriage they should have it.

Wow, Dreaming. I've read your posts for a while, and I have to commend you on not taking the party line on this one and sticking with your convictions. Strong work. :applause:

[Thiebear]

I totally believe a church marriage should be based on whatever religion that church is.

And a Government marriage should be based on the populace.

They should definately get the perks of marriage via jobs/hospital time off for others mother dying, medical coverage..

Ohhh, and get to go through a messy divorce like i could have.. ...

[Larry]

Of course, all this talk about his base, ant this demographic, and so forth, assumes that he wants to get re-elected. If he simply decides that "I won't be back.", then he doesn't care which groups he ticks off. (It might affect his ability to get the voters to override the legislature, but how much of that is due to his personal popularity, and how much is due to the voters feelings about an individual proposal?)

[Art Monk Fan]

This will be a tough call for Arnold I think. I've always felt that a decision like this belongs with the legislature, not the courts, so I have no complaints there. I think the problem lies in the very narrow vote margin this bill got and the fact that a very recent referendum affirmed the voters opposition to a bill like this. Legislative bodies are meant to represent their constituents, and I'm not sure that has happened here. This will make Arnold's choice difficult in that he's run solely as a populist and has used the referendum process heavily to push through his agenda. Not vetoing the bill might be seen as abandoning the people's affirmed decision on the matter.

[luckydevil]

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20050907-1822-ca-gaymarriage.html

SACRAMENTO – Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced Wednesday he will veto a bill that would have made California the first state in the nation to legalize same-sex marriage through legislative action.

Schwarzenegger said the legislation, given final approval Tuesday by lawmakers, would conflict with the intent of voters when they approved Proposition 22. That measure was put on the ballot in 2000 to prevent California from recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

"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)."

Proposition 22 stated that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The bill to be vetoed by Schwarzenegger would have defined marriage as a civil contract between "two persons."

Massachusetts' recognition of gay marriages came through a court ruling.

Gay rights advocates reacted harshly, accusing Schwarzenegger of betraying the bipartisan ideals that helped get him elected in the 2003 recall.

"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."

Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said she was not surprised by word of Schwarzenegger's pending veto.

"Any girlie man could have vetoed this legislation," she said, referring to a term Schwarzenegger used previously to mock Democratic legislators. "A real man demonstrating real leadership as governor of the most populous state in the nation would have chosen a different course of action."

Despite his promise to veto the bill, Schwarzenegger "believes gay couples are entitled to full protection under the law and should not be discriminated against based upon their relationship."

"He is proud that California provides the most rigorous protections in the nation for domestic partners," the statement said.

The Republican governor had indicated in previous statements that he would veto the bill, saying the debate over same-sex marriage should be decided by voters or the courts.

A state appeals court is weighing an appeal of a San Francisco judge's ruling striking down state laws barring gay marriages. Meanwhile, opponents of same-sex marriages are planning measures on the ballot next year that would place a ban on gay marriages in the state Constitution.

The announcement dampened a celebratory mood among the bill's supporters, who only the night before cheered, hugged and kissed as the state Assembly narrowly sent the bill to the governor's desk.

Assemblyman Paul Koretz, D-West Hollywood, had called bans on gay marriage "the last frontier of bigotry and discrimination."

The bill passed the Legislature through the persistence of its sponsors, Assemblyman Mark Leno, a San Francisco Democrat who is one of six openly gay members of the California Legislature.

His original bill had failed in the Assembly by four votes in June, but he then amended it to another bill in the Senate, which voted to approve it last week. It was that amended bill the Assembly passed by a bare majority on Tuesday. Four Democrats who did not vote on the bill in June provided the winning margin this week.

The vote made the California Legislature the first legislative body in the country to approve of same-sex marriage. As in Massachusetts, civil unions in Vermont were granted through court rulings.

"I'm encouraged that the governor is going to stop the runaway Legislature, and he's going to represent the people," said Karen England of the Capitol Resource Institute, a Sacramento group that lobbied against the bill. "I think Assembly member Leno wanted to rally everyone on his side and he's done exactly the opposite. He's forced his agenda on the rest of us. But in California the votes of the people do matter."

[portisizzle]

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20050907-1822-ca-gaymarriage.html"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)."

Proposition 22 stated that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The bill to be vetoed by Schwarzenegger would have defined marriage as a civil contract between "two persons."

."

Sounds like this politician understands what "of the people, by the people, for the people" means......

[Gallen5862]

I think He will veto it. He has to to keep his base.

[Gallen5862]

It was also voted on by the people in 2000. They said no to gay marriages.

[Gallen5862]

He is following the will of the people who voted on it in 2000.

[Kilmer17]

I applaud the Legislature for this move.

I dont agree with them. But this is the proper way to address this issue.

Im interested to see what will happen in the next Leg elections in CA.

Arnold should sign it, and then use it as a political point to get a better Legislature next time.

[stevenaa]

Arnold to Veto. Good for him. It is sad when you can't trust your ELECTED officials to act on the will of the people. It's good to see Arnold doing the right thing. I think he personally would like to sign it into law, but he's deferred his personal conviction to the will of his constituents. Too bad more politicians don't practice that.

[Ignatius J.]

Well, Arnold will not be reelected to be governmor. He was one of my favorite politicians, but I think this is a bad move.

You gain respect by doing what is right, not by simply doing what is popular. California's system of propositions have been entangling forces in our government that have often done more harm than good. For him to use them as a precedant like this is not a wise move for the future of california.

[Destino]

Ah-nold needs to veto this. The people spoke up and said no to this in 2000 and elected officials should respect the will of the people in the state of California. If they want gay marriage they should take the issue back to the voters that said "no!" very clearly and see if they've changed their minds.

As for my personal views - I'm not going to support a restructure of the most basic unit in american life without having all the facts. Until the cause of homosexuality is proven and documented, it's just too early for this kind of move.

[portisizzle]

Ah-nold needs to veto this. The people spoke up and said no to this in 2000 and elected officials should respect the will of the people in the state of California. If they want gay marriage they should take the issue back to the voters that said "no!" very clearly and see if they've changed their minds.

I don't consider this a civil rights issue at all becuase I've yet to see proof of what exactly causes a person to be gay. Until we understand it, it shouldn't be viewed as normal. No one at all should be desciminated against because of it, but there is no way in hell I'm going to support a restructure of the most basic unit in american life without having all the facts.

:applause:

[Kilmer17]

Ah-nold needs to veto this. The people spoke up and said no to this in 2000 and elected officials should respect the will of the people in the state of California. If they want gay marriage they should take the issue back to the voters that said "no!" very clearly and see if they've changed their minds.

As for my personal views - I'm not going to support a restructure of the most basic unit in american life without having all the facts. Until the cause of homosexuality is proven and documented, it's just too early for this kind of move.

Neo-Con whack job.

[visionary]

Isn't that unconstituional in California anyway...the State Supreme Court would probably have to strike it down if it were put into law. This is a tricky issue to, because normally you want something like this to come from the Congress, but as far as we know the people are against it. It probably would be better for the Congress/or bill proponants to have gone to the people first. (Does anyone have an up to date poll numbers to gauge if the overall sentiment in California has changed about this over the past few years or not?

[portisizzle]

Isn't that unconstituional in California anyway...the State Supreme Court would probably have to strike it down if it were put into law. ?

Assuming you are correct, should California go about the process of changing its constitution in order to follow the will of its people??