California Senate votes to allow gay marriage - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

CShine · 09-03-2005, 12:24 AM

Now that we've spent a few days screaming about Katrina and New Orleans, what say we go ahead and get back to screaming about the same-old-same-old, eh?

Quote:

California's Senate has voted to allow gay marriage, making it the first legislative body in the nation to back the idea and setting off a frantic scramble for votes in the Assembly. The 21-15 vote Thursday handed gay rights advocates in the country's most populous state a historic victory. Massachusetts issued marriage licenses to gays and lesbians only after court rulings.

"We are so very close," said Assemblyman Mark Leno, a Democrat who wrote the bill. "It would be very disappointing for this body not to be able to stand up for civil rights."

Leno said he planned to bring up the bill Tuesday and predicted that the Senate vote would help sway his undecided colleagues. In June, the Assembly rejected his bill by four votes. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's office had no comment Thursday on how the governor would respond if the bill reached his desk, spokeswoman Margita Thompson said.

Several senators equated the struggle for gay marriage to the civil rights movements. They said arguments against the bill were similar to arguments in supporting slavery and opposing interracial marriage.

"This is probably the most profound civil rights movement of our generation, without a doubt," said Sen. Jackie Speier, a Democrat who supported the bill.

Sen. Sheila Kuehl, one of six gay members of the Legislature, told the chamber that gay couples have the same hopes for their relationships as heterosexual couples.

"Gay and lesbian people fall in love. We settle down. We commit our lives to one another. We raise our children. We protect them. We try to be good citizens," said Kuehl, a Democrat. "This is a bill whose time has come."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050902/...iage&printer=1

Paq · 09-03-2005, 10:11 AM

i was just talking to someone the other day about how making the gay marriage an issue for the 2004 elections was a bad idea for right wingers bc it will be passed slowly and one state at a time instead of staying in the background and never going anywhere. In a way, bush and co are th saviours of the gay rights movement. they brought an issue up, had thousands upon thousands turn out for the big elections, but then had hundreds and thousands get the job done through the state.

Fallwell and robertson must be puking by now

Disfigured_J · 09-03-2005, 10:56 AM

So this is in fact a vote in support of gay marriage? Not civil unions?

n0nsensical · 09-06-2005, 08:42 PM

In a 41-35 vote, the Assembly also passed the bill. Now it's going to The Governator.

Charlatan · 09-07-2005, 04:53 AM

Does the Govenor have a veto power? I don't know state politics...

politicophile · 09-07-2005, 06:50 AM

He does indeed have veto power. I'll be interested to see if he uses it, though.

One state at a time... We're moving in the right direction, at least.

Charlatan · 09-07-2005, 07:28 AM

I don't think he will use it... he seemed to indicate he was in favour of it last time I checked (though he was sitting on the fence so it's hard to say for certain).

Rekna · 09-07-2005, 07:35 AM

this will be interesting if it passes. all other states will have to uphold california marriages and these ones won't be in doubt like the past ones.

smooth · 09-07-2005, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

this will be interesting if it passes. all other states will have to uphold california marriages and these ones won't be in doubt like the past ones.

No, other states don't and won't have to uphold our marriages.

Seaver · 09-07-2005, 09:06 AM

Quote:

No, other states don't and won't have to uphold our marriages.

Actually as the laws state, they DO.

The same reason you dont need to apply for a new drivers license everytime you cross the state lines.

alansmithee · 09-07-2005, 09:16 AM

Actually, they won't. At least in states that expressly forbid gay marriage. There was a case in Florida where a massachussetes pair tried to get their marriage considered valid, and it failed.

smooth · 09-07-2005, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Actually as the laws state, they DO.

The same reason you dont need to apply for a new drivers license everytime you cross the state lines.

No they don't.

LOL, this is fun. Now I see why many conservatives on this board argue without presenting any evidence...

don't you have any reluctance to argue a point you aren't sure of?
(psst, before "correcting" a law and society scholar on what "the laws state", how about doing a bit of research for your own edification

)

EDIT: and you'd probably do well to crack your DMV handbook before making a truth claim about your rights and obligations as a driver when you travel out of state. just saying...

LMAO, btw, you guys all know that Mass. has already legalized homosexual marriage for over a year now? right? I mean, this issue didn't just drop off your radars when the mainstream media quite yapping about it...

j8ear · 09-07-2005, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

(psst, before "correcting" a law and society scholar

Please elaborate.

No jab or other hidden agenda intended...I'm curious. I remember you being a post grad something or other...but not the specifics. Please do tell.

-bear

smooth · 09-07-2005, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by j8ear

Please elaborate.

No jab or other hidden agenda intended...I'm curious. I remember you being a post grad something or other...but not the specifics. Please do tell.

-bear

Bachelor's in Sociology, Master's in Social Ecology, currently in my 3rd year of my Ph.D in Criminology, Law & Society.
As for my specific knowledge on this subject I wrote a supreme court brief in support of legalizing homosexual marriage.

The fact of the matter is that there are no laws mandating that states honor each other's marriage licenses (or driver's licenses, for that matter). They have historically chosen to do so on their own accord.

j8ear · 09-07-2005, 12:04 PM

I'm very interested in reading your brief on the subject. Which Supreme Court? What case?

-bear

Rekna · 09-07-2005, 12:11 PM

I was under the impression that equal protection under the states forces other states to acknowledge it.

smooth · 09-07-2005, 12:56 PM

I dug this out for you guys:

Quote:

Same-Sex Marriage Lawsuit Long Shot, Legal Experts Say
Graham Bink, St. Petersburg Times, July 26, 2004

Two women married in Massachusetts want their union recognized elsewhere.

Paula Schoenwether and Nancy Wilson have been together for 27 years, through job changes and parents dying.

On July 2, they married in Massachusetts. Last week, the two Bradenton women filed a federal lawsuit in Tampa asking a judge to force the state of Florida and the federal government to legally recognize their marriage.

The lawsuit, the first of its kind in the nation, hurls Schoenwether and Wilson into an impassioned and polarized debate. President Bush, most members of Congress and state legislatures, and most Americans oppose same-sex marriages.

And the law, at least in this case, does not appear to be on the women's side.

Andrew Koppelman, a professor of law and political science at Northwestern University in Chicago, said the suit "does not have a leg to stand on."

"I am a defender of same-sex marriage," he said. "I have every reason to want this couple to win. But this particular case sounds like a sure loser."

There's much more at stake for Schoenwether and Wilson than simply gaining society's stamp of approval on their marriage.

A General Accounting Office report this year listed 1,138 statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights and privileges.

The benefits range from the obvious - collecting part of a spouse's Social Security after he or she dies - to the obscure - a landowner's eligibility to negotiate a surface-mine lease with the secretary of labor.

Other benefits include gift and estate taxes, probate rights, IRA rollovers, and protections that come with divorce, like the equitable distribution of property.

Contracts and wills allow same-sex couples to accomplish some of these financial benefits. Even then, they get only a fraction of the rights and benefits afforded married couples, said lawyer Karen Doering, a consultant to the gay rights group Equality Florida.

The lawsuit filed by Schoenwether and Wilson challenges the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act and a similar law enacted a year later by the Florida Legislature. Both acts define marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman.

The federal act adds that no state is required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. And Florida's act says the state will not recognize same-sex marriages no matter where they were performed.

The lawsuit bases some of its arguments on the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, which dates to the days when a young nation was reconciling the laws of the colonies. The clause says states should honor the public acts of other states.

Because Massachusetts legally sanctions same-sex marriages, "all the other states should be constitutionally required to uphold the validity of the marriage," the lawsuit states.

It's not that simple, legal experts say.

Historically, the full faith and credit clause has applied to judicial decisions, not legislation, said Koppelman, the Northwestern law professor. A Florida resident, say, loses a lawsuit and has to pay $1-million. Even if that person flees Florida, the full faith and credit clause makes that $1-million judgment enforceable anywhere in the country.

The federal courts have also made it clear that states do not have to acquiesce to everything another state might do. States can follow their own laws when it comes to public policy.

States do generally honor the marriage laws of other states. Florida, for instance, sets a minimum marriage age of 16, and then only with a parent's consent. But a 14-year-old Florida boy could travel to Massachusetts, which allows 14-year-olds to marry, and get hitched. Florida would likely recognize that marriage.

But think of that as a courtesy, legal experts say, not something the U.S. Constitution compels the states to do.

"A state need not recognize a marriage that violates its own public policy," said Cass Sunstein, a law and political science professor at the University of Chicago. "There has long been a public policy exception to the full faith and credit clause."

The lawsuit also claims that the federal and state defense of marriage acts violate Schoenwether and Wilson's constitutional rights to equal protection under the law and the implicit right to privacy.

Sunstein acknowledges federal courts could say that just as discrimination on the basis of race is unacceptable, so is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

"It's not unimaginable sometime in the future," he said. "However, it would be very surprising if federal judges declare this to be the law of the land any time soon."

The federal judiciary is wary of radically renovating standing laws, especially ones with broad public policy implications, he said. The judicial decisions concerning gay marriage have come from a small number of state judges interpreting state laws, not federal laws.

Koppelman agreed federal judges don't ordinarily get out in front of public opinion. Most polls show that about two of three Americans oppose same-sex marriages. Many more states will have to follow Massachusetts' lead, Koppelman said, before the federal courts address the issue head on.

"There would have to be a big change in American culture," he said.

Sunstein uses the evolution of interracial marriage laws as an example. The Supreme Court banned laws against interracial marriage in 1967. But by that time only a group of Southern states still enforced laws against interracial marriage.

The same was true of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling overturning laws making sodomy a crime. Sodomy prosecutions were already rare, Sunstein said, and few people were pushing to punish such sexual activity with jail time.

"The federal judiciary generally follows public opinion," Sunstein said. "It's much more likely that this issue will be decided politically than legally."

If some members of Congress have their way, the courts would not have a say in the matter. Last week the U.S. House approved a bill aimed at slamming the door on federal courts in same-sex marriage suits. The Marriage Protection Act, which opponents condemn as unconstitutional, would strip federal courts of jurisdiction in such cases. It has not passed the Senate.

Paula Schoenwether says she is not blind to the legal barriers she and Wilson face.

"We know this could be a long uphill battle and that this might not be the lawsuit that breaks everything wide open," Schoenwether said. "But we also believe that we should do what we can, that we have an obligation to at least try."

--http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=21515&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm

Rekna, the 14th amendment only applies to fundamental rights. While there has been a tradition of the right to marry someone in the US, it has never been understood to include an historical right for same-sex couples to marry. That's the rebuttal anyway. And until enough SCOTUS justices recognize a fundamental right to marry someone of particular sexual orientations, there is no fundamental right for homosexuals to marry one another.

smooth · 09-07-2005, 01:18 PM

j8bear, here's one of the rough drafts I have on my home computer:

Quote:

Our analysis begins with the recognition of marriage as a vital social institution. The abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits conferred upon married couples attests to the importance citizens and government place on this intimate, exclusive union between two individuals. Not only do married couples obtain over one thousand federal and hundreds of state rights as a result of their status, marriage helps stabilize domestic relations, encourages interpersonal love, devotion, and support, and fosters a nurturing environment for children. While the State has broad regulatory authority over marriage in the furtherance of these social goals, the Supreme Court has determined such power is not absolute. See Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967). In addition to its impact on the social structure, marriage must be understood in light of its personal value to individuals. As we reaffirmed in Lawrence, decisions whether to marry or have children are central components to shaping one's identity. See Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S. Ct. 2472, 2480 (2003). Since California's restriction against same-sex marriages prevents entire classes of citizens from participating in this highly valued social institution and personal behavior, this Court must decide whether California’s restrictions forbidding same-sex marriage serve a rational and legitimate state purpose in accordance with the protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Because the challenged policy expressly discriminates among applicants on the basis of sex and gender, it is subject to scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Craig, et al. v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976); (United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 82 L. Ed. 1234, 58 S. Ct. 778 (1938); United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996) "all gender-based classifications" need to be evaluated with "heightened scrutiny"). The Supreme Court has held that legislative classifications that burden a fundamental right or target a suspect class will not be allowed unless they bear a rational relation to some legitimate end. Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996). For purposes of equal protection analysis, sex is a "suspect" classification. See Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973). The burden of legitimacy is met only by showing that the classification serves "important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed are substantially related to the achievement of those objectives." Mississippi University for Women, et al. v. Hogan 458 U.S. 718 (1982); Orr v. Orr, 440 U.S. 268 (1979); and Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971) (laws classifying on the basis of sex must be "substantially related to an important governmental interest"). The level of scrutiny appropriate in cases such as these, as Justice O'Connor stated for a unanimous Court, must lie "between the extremes of rational basis review and strict scrutiny." Clark v. Jeter, 486 U.S. at 461 (1988).

The State claims a legitimate interest in restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples as a means to discourage morally reprobate conduct, encourage procreation, provide a stable setting for child rearing, and conserve State resources. Laws that recognize, promote, and protect marriage as the basis of the family, which we agree is an essential unit of society, are laudable and integral to the social and moral fabric of our culture. The fact that laws have historically criminalized homosexual conduct, however, does not create precedent for this Court to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. Neither appeal to tradition nor personal belief (religious, moral, or otherwise), can justify subordinating the desire and rights of homosexual couples to those of heterosexual families. See Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S. Ct. 2472, 2486 (2003) (O'Connor, J., concurring) (moral disapproval, with no other valid State interest, cannot justify law that discriminates against groups of persons); Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 850 (1992) ("Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code"); Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 624 (1996) (“If the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest"). The fact that this statutory policy discriminates against homosexuals rather than against heterosexuals does not exempt it from scrutiny nor does it reduce the standard of review.

III

The Supreme Court has already held marriage and procreation to be fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. See Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). Despite the powerful government interest in regulating marriage to promote child-bearing, California’s own circuit Judge Richard Kramer aptly ruled, “One does not have to be married in order to procreate, nor does one have to procreate in order to be married” (Marriage Cases, Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding, 4364 (2005)). The desire or ability to bear children is not a requirement presented to opposite-sex couples before they may marry. The State does not mandate fertility testing of couples before granting them marriage licenses. Nor does it rescind marriage licenses from childless unions. While recognizing that raising children in a healthy and stable environment is a legitimate and long-standing State interest, we can not conclude that the State’s interest in promoting stable households for children is met by denying loving, homosexual parents from marriage. Whether they are allowed to marry, homosexuals can and do raise children. Scientific studies presented to the trial court found that children of homosexual parents tend to have fewer psychological problems than children reared by heterosexual parents. Given the legal barriers and social animosity homosexual couples face in becoming parents, homosexual parents must engage in careful deliberation before choosing to raise children. Such parents can not accidentally have children as a result of sexual activity, whereas heterosexuals can and do. Adopting children is a lengthy, carefully screened process requiring motivation, patience, and appropriate financial means. Impoverished homosexuals do not have children whereas poor heterosexuals do. These factors lead us to conclude that homosexual parents provide at least as positive an environment for children as heterosexual parents. If the State is truly concerned with the welfare of children, it should focus on issues of unwanted pregnancy and poverty rather than restricting same-sex couples from engaging in one of our nation’s most cherished and fulfilling human interaction. In respect to the conservation of State resources, it is well settled that a State's interest in conserving resources does not allow it to create invidious distinctions between classes of citizens. See Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216-217, 227 (1982).

The State contends that granting civil union contracts bestows many of the same rights and privileges as marriage does on couples. This Court must recognize a vast array of benefits is granted to married couples that civil unions do not obtain. Non-married couples are precluded from special tax provisions, inheritance protections, and civic respect, among other factors. The fact that California argues both marriage and civil unions are essentially the same in order to legitimate the distinction must prompt the Court to determine whether, if the two be equal, the State has a compelling reason to differentiate between them by name. The United States Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals and forbids the creation of second-class citizens. Distinguishing between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples by name is likely to promote discrimination in the social domain, even if legal distinctions were eradicated. Maintaining a dual-classed system that identifies same-sex couples as part of an unpopular segment of society runs afoul of the values this bench is charged to uphold. This Court is precluded from validating a State system of classification that publicly brands same-sex couples as second-class citizens.

IV

Plaintiffs also contend restrictions against same-sex marriage deprive them of a fundamental liberty interest. This Court must examine whether marriage is a fundamental right and, if so, whether California’s restrictions impede citizens who wish to marry partners of the same sex, whom we have determined to be a suspect class of individuals, from exercising it. The Supreme Court has insisted that liberties must be both fundamental and traditionally protected by society in order to obtain protection under the Due Process of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934). Planned Parenthood, et al. v. Casey, et al. 505 U.S. 833 (1992) confirmed that “the Due Process Clause protects personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education.” This Court has long recognized the institution of marriage as a fundamental right that "is deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110 (1989). See Goodridge v. Deptartment of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003) ("The right to marry is not a privilege conferred by the State, but a fundamental right that is protected against unwarranted State interference"); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978) ("the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals"); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967) (freedom to marry is "one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men" under due process clause of Fourteenth Amendment and "fundamental to our very existence and survival"); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942) (marriage is one of "basic civil rights of man"). "Our doctrine known as "substantive due process" holds that the Due Process Clause prohibits States from infringing fundamental liberty interests, unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest" (Lawrence quoting Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S., at 721 (1997)). We have already reviewed the State’s interests in restricting same-sex partners from marriage and found them to be lacking a compelling state interest.[...]

Hopefully you find this piece stimulating.

Rekna · 09-07-2005, 01:22 PM

Thanks, I have a feeling before I die there will be a federal amendment preventing discrimination against people based on orientation. But this will probably not occur for 20 years.

j8ear · 09-07-2005, 01:42 PM

Thank you, and well argued!

I found this passage particularly compelling:

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

The desire or ability to bear children is not a requirement presented to opposite-sex couples before they may marry. The State does not mandate fertility testing of couples before granting them marriage licenses. Nor does it rescind marriage licenses from childless unions. While recognizing that raising children in a healthy and stable environment is a legitimate and long-standing State interest, we can not conclude that the State’s interest in promoting stable households for children is met by denying loving, homosexual parents from marriage. Whether they are allowed to marry, homosexuals can and do raise children. Scientific studies presented to the trial court found that children of homosexual parents tend to have fewer psychological problems than children reared by heterosexual parents. Given the legal barriers and social animosity homosexual couples face in becoming parents, homosexual parents must engage in careful deliberation before choosing to raise children. Such parents can not accidentally have children as a result of sexual activity, whereas heterosexuals can and do. Adopting children is a lengthy, carefully screened process requiring motivation, patience, and appropriate financial means. Impoverished homosexuals do not have children whereas poor heterosexuals do. These factors lead us to conclude that homosexual parents provide at least as positive an environment for children as heterosexual parents. If the State is truly concerned with the welfare of children, it should focus on issues of unwanted pregnancy and poverty rather than restricting same-sex couples from engaging in one of our nation’s most cherished and fulfilling human interaction. In respect to the conservation of State resources, it is well settled that a State's interest in conserving resources does not allow it to create invidious distinctions between classes of citizens. See Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216-217, 227 (1982).

and by particularly I mean extremely!

The scientific studies mentioned, but not referenced, which I highlighted, I am interested in learning more about. Even if they are suspect in their value, I see no reason to otherwise disregard the remaining assertions.

-bear

hunnychile · 09-07-2005, 04:56 PM

Well it's about f'in time!

n0nsensical · 09-07-2005, 06:51 PM

<accent type="austrian">Eet luks like da governator eez going to turhminate zhis bill</accent>

Anyway, even if it was signed, as the article notes, the entire issue would still need to go through a whole lot of courts and lawyers before being settled.

Gilda · 09-07-2005, 07:52 PM

Ah crap. We get a day to celebrate before this. So much for Shwartzeneggar being a fiscal conservative and social liberal.

Still, I think it's just a matter of time. The pressure is building slowly but surely, and we'll be there in a few years at most.

Gilda

Mojo_PeiPei · 09-07-2005, 08:05 PM

Is DOMA still around?

analog · 09-08-2005, 02:03 AM

I've said it for days, "it doesn't matter, because Arnold would NEVER go for it, and will kill it without flinching."

And I just heard on the radio that he's officially announced he's vetoing it. Not surprised.

Paq · 09-08-2005, 02:13 AM

it is still a step in the right direction. not every governor will be able to veto this if it keeps coming up. Surely, the people are ready for change and times, they are a changin

Charlatan · 09-08-2005, 04:11 AM

The interesting thing is that, according to the article linked above, he is using the excuse of Prop. 22 to veto the Legislature. That proposition is to be ruled upon by the Supreme Court to determine its legality. If it gets struck down, it suggested that he would have to pass the law.

That said, those who are opposed to same sex marriage have been up in arms about the courts making judgements in support of same sex marriage (as is the case in Massachusetts) but here we have a Legislature (i.e. an elected body, accountable to the people) making a law and they have an issue with a "runaway Legislature".

Folks. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

FoolThemAll · 09-08-2005, 04:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Folks. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

It's still pretty funny, but the use of Prop 22 actually sounds like a valid excuse to me. If the people don't want it, then the legislature is doing a poor job of representing its constituents.

Charlatan · 09-08-2005, 04:48 AM

Perhaps. I don't dispute that. It is the best and easiest excuse that the Govenor could use.

My problem is I don't believe in governing by referendum. I'd rather see the Legislature and the Courts do what they were designed to do (right or wrong). Referendums take a complex issue and turn it into a popularity contest.

martinguerre · 09-08-2005, 05:53 AM

i dunno...i'm still inclined to think that it's a pretty big deal that a state assembly passed such a bill. for all the clamor about the judicial activism, it's good to see this coming about in populist ways as well. a stunning majority of young people believe that marriage should not be limited by gender, and it's really only a matter of time...

alansmithee · 09-08-2005, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Perhaps. I don't dispute that. It is the best and easiest excuse that the Govenor could use.

My problem is I don't believe in governing by referendum. I'd rather see the Legislature and the Courts do what they were designed to do (right or wrong). Referendums take a complex issue and turn it into a popularity contest.

Umm, isn't any election a "popularity contest"? Maybe we should also eliminate the pesky voting for legislature as well. We could go back to a monarchy, and maybe set up some nobility so we can get a house of lords. Or would a dictatorship be more to your taste? Also, how is this a complex issue, people either want it or they don't.

And I'm really suprised that Schwarzenegger is vetoing this. I thought he made a big deal about being a socially liberal republican, but I guess not.

Charlatan · 09-08-2005, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

Umm, isn't any election a "popularity contest"? Maybe we should also eliminate the pesky voting for legislature as well. We could go back to a monarchy, and maybe set up some nobility so we can get a house of lords. Or would a dictatorship be more to your taste? Also, how is this a complex issue, people either want it or they don't.

And I'm really suprised that Schwarzenegger is vetoing this. I thought he made a big deal about being a socially liberal republican, but I guess not.

I knew I didn't explain that properly...

A referendum takes a complex issue like same-sex marriage, funding for schools, etc. and turns it into a yes or no question. Then it is left up to the people to decide. Generally speaking, these people are not experts on these topics and only vote based on an emotional or uninformed response.

I realize this isn't all that different from electing our politicians. But when our politicians vote on something in a legislative assembly the thing they are voting on has been through committes that have poke and prodded it throughly. Have sought expert advice.

I realize that even this system is not perfect, lobbyist can gum up the works. But frankly, I trust this system more than I do, the average voter to decide what is the right course of action for creating laws that effect us all.

Mojo_PeiPei · 09-08-2005, 09:04 AM

What's wrong with people voting based off an uninformed or emotional response, compared to a career politician who only cares about reelection or getting more power and influence, or worse running with an agenda that is in conflict with his constituents? Granted, I'm going with the assumption that the majority of Californian's are still behind prop 22; until their state laws are overturned they are entitled to vote however they want for whatever reasons they want.

aswo · 09-08-2005, 09:10 AM

The voters of california should decide these types of issues, the governator is doing the right thing

Charlatan · 09-08-2005, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aswo

The voters of california should decide these types of issues, the governator is doing the right thing

Didn't voters of California elect the Legislature?

Really. If we have to do everything by fricken referenda why bother having a legislature to begin with?

SirLance · 09-08-2005, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

The fact of the matter is that there are no laws mandating that states honor each other's marriage licenses (or driver's licenses, for that matter). They have historically chosen to do so on their own accord.

Article 4, section 1, Constitution of the United States of America:

Quote:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

So the fact is, there is a law. I don't know how it applies to marriage, and I don't think there's been a test case at the Federal level.

I know that in other areas, public policy of one state might preclude it from such recognition, and that usually flies. If, however, congress enacted a law that specifically stated that all states must recognize marriages of other states, that would put the issue to bed (no pun intended).

alansmithee · 09-08-2005, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

I knew I didn't explain that properly...

A referendum takes a complex issue like same-sex marriage, funding for schools, etc. and turns it into a yes or no question. Then it is left up to the people to decide. Generally speaking, these people are not experts on these topics and only vote based on an emotional or uninformed response.

Again, how is same-sex marriage a complex issue? I could understand budgeting issues or international relations not being left up to yes/no, but I don't see how it is bad here.

Quote:

I realize this isn't all that different from electing our politicians. But when our politicians vote on something in a legislative assembly the thing they are voting on has been through committes that have poke and prodded it throughly. Have sought expert advice.

I realize that even this system is not perfect, lobbyist can gum up the works. But frankly, I trust this system more than I do, the average voter to decide what is the right course of action for creating laws that effect us all.

The problem is that the "experts" are often paid consultants from a lobby, and have a stake in the outcomes. And representitives are often no more likely to be knowledgable on a subject than the average person. Most of their info actually comes from their staff, who might ahve their own biases/adgendas.

And why would you think that the reps elected by people w/o the ability to govern themselves (by making their own laws) would be any better than the people themselves? It seems logical that someone elected by fools would be no better than the fools themselves.

Mojo_PeiPei · 09-08-2005, 09:43 AM

I think at the current time Defense of Marriage Act makes Full Faith and Credit moot.

alansmithee · 09-08-2005, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirLance

Article 4, section 1, Constitution of the United States of America:

So the fact is, there is a law. I don't know how it applies to marriage, and I don't think there's been a test case at the Federal level.

I know that in other areas, public policy of one state might preclude it from such recognition, and that usually flies. If, however, congress enacted a law that specifically stated that all states must recognize marriages of other states, that would put the issue to bed (no pun intended).

As I said above (and a full writeup was given by someone else) there has been such a case in Florida, where the gov't sucessfully argued that states don't have to recognize gay marriages from other states.

Charlatan · 09-08-2005, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

Again, how is same-sex marriage a complex issue? I could understand budgeting issues or international relations not being left up to yes/no, but I don't see how it is bad here.

The problem is that the "experts" are often paid consultants from a lobby, and have a stake in the outcomes. And representitives are often no more likely to be knowledgable on a subject than the average person. Most of their info actually comes from their staff, who might ahve their own biases/adgendas.

And why would you think that the reps elected by people w/o the ability to govern themselves (by making their own laws) would be any better than the people themselves? It seems logical that someone elected by fools would be no better than the fools themselves.

You're right. Let's scrap the entire system.

I don't disagree with you about the problems of the system I just don't think referenda make it any better.

09-03-2005, 10:11 AM	#2 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	i was just talking to someone the other day about how making the gay marriage an issue for the 2004 elections was a bad idea for right wingers bc it will be passed slowly and one state at a time instead of staying in the background and never going anywhere. In a way, bush and co are th saviours of the gay rights movement. they brought an issue up, had thousands upon thousands turn out for the big elections, but then had hundreds and thousands get the job done through the state. Fallwell and robertson must be puking by now __________________ Live. Chris

09-03-2005, 10:56 AM	#3 (permalink)
Disfigured_J Upright Location: New Mexico	So this is in fact a vote in support of gay marriage? Not civil unions? __________________ "A word to the wise is infuriating" -Hunter S. Thompson

09-06-2005, 08:42 PM	#4 (permalink)
n0nsensical Junkie Location: San Francisco	In a 41-35 vote, the Assembly also passed the bill. Now it's going to The Governator. __________________ "Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." --Abraham Lincoln

09-07-2005, 04:53 AM	#5 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Does the Govenor have a veto power? I don't know state politics... __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-07-2005, 06:50 AM	#6 (permalink)
politicophile Addict	He does indeed have veto power. I'll be interested to see if he uses it, though. One state at a time... We're moving in the right direction, at least. __________________ The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

09-07-2005, 07:28 AM	#7 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I don't think he will use it... he seemed to indicate he was in favour of it last time I checked (though he was sitting on the fence so it's hard to say for certain). __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-07-2005, 07:35 AM	#8 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	this will be interesting if it passes. all other states will have to uphold california marriages and these ones won't be in doubt like the past ones.

09-07-2005, 09:16 AM	#11 (permalink)
alansmithee Junkie	Actually, they won't. At least in states that expressly forbid gay marriage. There was a case in Florida where a massachussetes pair tried to get their marriage considered valid, and it failed.

09-07-2005, 12:04 PM	#15 (permalink)
j8ear Gentlemen Farmer Location: Middle of nowhere, Jersey	I'm very interested in reading your brief on the subject. Which Supreme Court? What case? -bear __________________ It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

09-07-2005, 12:11 PM	#16 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I was under the impression that equal protection under the states forces other states to acknowledge it.

09-07-2005, 01:22 PM	#19 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Thanks, I have a feeling before I die there will be a federal amendment preventing discrimination against people based on orientation. But this will probably not occur for 20 years.

09-07-2005, 04:56 PM	#21 (permalink)
hunnychile Alien Anthropologist Location: Between Boredom and Nirvana	Well it's about f'in time! __________________ "I need compassion, understanding and chocolate." - NJB

09-07-2005, 06:51 PM	#22 (permalink)
n0nsensical Junkie Location: San Francisco	<accent type="austrian">Eet luks like da governator eez going to turhminate zhis bill</accent> Anyway, even if it was signed, as the article notes, the entire issue would still need to go through a whole lot of courts and lawyers before being settled. __________________ "Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." --Abraham Lincoln

09-07-2005, 07:52 PM	#23 (permalink)
Gilda 32 flavors and then some Location: Out on a wire.	Ah crap. We get a day to celebrate before this. So much for Shwartzeneggar being a fiscal conservative and social liberal. Still, I think it's just a matter of time. The pressure is building slowly but surely, and we'll be there in a few years at most. Gilda __________________ I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that. ~Steven Colbert

09-07-2005, 08:05 PM	#24 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Is DOMA still around? __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

09-08-2005, 02:03 AM	#25 (permalink)
analog Banned	I've said it for days, "it doesn't matter, because Arnold would NEVER go for it, and will kill it without flinching." And I just heard on the radio that he's officially announced he's vetoing it. Not surprised.

09-08-2005, 02:13 AM	#26 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	it is still a step in the right direction. not every governor will be able to veto this if it keeps coming up. Surely, the people are ready for change and times, they are a changin __________________ Live. Chris

09-08-2005, 04:11 AM	#27 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	The interesting thing is that, according to the article linked above, he is using the excuse of Prop. 22 to veto the Legislature. That proposition is to be ruled upon by the Supreme Court to determine its legality. If it gets struck down, it suggested that he would have to pass the law. That said, those who are opposed to same sex marriage have been up in arms about the courts making judgements in support of same sex marriage (as is the case in Massachusetts) but here we have a Legislature (i.e. an elected body, accountable to the people) making a law and they have an issue with a "runaway Legislature". Folks. You can't have your cake and eat it too. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-08-2005, 04:48 AM	#29 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Perhaps. I don't dispute that. It is the best and easiest excuse that the Govenor could use. My problem is I don't believe in governing by referendum. I'd rather see the Legislature and the Courts do what they were designed to do (right or wrong). Referendums take a complex issue and turn it into a popularity contest. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-08-2005, 05:53 AM	#30 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	i dunno...i'm still inclined to think that it's a pretty big deal that a state assembly passed such a bill. for all the clamor about the judicial activism, it's good to see this coming about in populist ways as well. a stunning majority of young people believe that marriage should not be limited by gender, and it's really only a matter of time... __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

09-08-2005, 09:04 AM	#33 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	What's wrong with people voting based off an uninformed or emotional response, compared to a career politician who only cares about reelection or getting more power and influence, or worse running with an agenda that is in conflict with his constituents? Granted, I'm going with the assumption that the majority of Californian's are still behind prop 22; until their state laws are overturned they are entitled to vote however they want for whatever reasons they want. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 09-08-2005 at 09:15 AM..

09-08-2005, 09:10 AM	#34 (permalink)
aswo Crazy	The voters of california should decide these types of issues, the governator is doing the right thing __________________ People who love people

09-08-2005, 09:43 AM	#38 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I think at the current time Defense of Marriage Act makes Full Faith and Credit moot. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.