Lost in the admittedly important coverage of Katrina’s aftermath: the California Senate has voted to permit the state to recognize same-sex marriage.
I’m pleased at this: it didn’t come as a result of a court’s ruling. As a general proposition, this is exactly how legislation should come about – from the legislature.
Here’s hoping the lower house in California will do the right thing and adopt the measure as well.
It’s not even being reported with great fanfare out here. Kind of a back-page story. It’s not likely that the Assembly will vote for it, but it’s going to be real close. The Dems are in a tough position, because many of them are elected from districts which have a large Hispanic population, and SSM is not a very popular cause among that demographic (speaking broadly, of course). Article in the SJ Merc:
Opponents of the bill are working hard to put a state Constitutional ban on SSM on the ballot in '06.
Still, this is the first state legislative body to vote in favor of SSM, even if just by 1 vote. A key milestone that tells me SSM (voted in, not decreed by judges) is not too far off. Ten years ago this would have been impossible. It might not pass this time, but I suspect within the next ten years we’ll see SSM in California. A year ago, I would’ve said it would be more like 20 years.
While I support the idea of same gender marriage, I do not support AB 849. The citizens of California passed a legislative initiative defining marriage as being between a man and a woman just 5 years ago. In general, the will of the people in such matters should be respected by the state legislature, absent some good reason to believe the temper of the populace on a subject has changed.
If successful (and the Assembly voted the measure down in June, so it faces an uphill battle there even after passage by the Senate), all that would happen is the passage of an initiative adding the ban to the state constitution, putting the issue forever beyond reach of the Legislature.
It is a stupid battle to pick on an issue that needs to wait a bit longer to be successful.
It’s unlikely to pass the Assembly but I am very pleased that it has gotten this far. If it does pass the Assembly, the Gov will most likely sign it. I am very proud that this has happened.
In the 70’s many would have said that we were a couple of years away from the total decriminalization of marijuana. The CMI came very close to being passed by the voters. Then the winds blew the other way and we’re not even close. I hope this doesn’t happen here. This is way more important that being able to toke legally.
When will you California Democrats realize that the fact that your Legislature has managed through reapportionment to preserve its Democratic majority never serves to save you when initiatives touching so-called “core” or “family” issues are placed before the people as a whole? Passage of the bill in question will simply result in a replay of Proposition 22, only this time it will be a constitutional amendment, and the issue won’t be able to be addressed by the Legislature in the future.
Shooting yourself in the foot is rarely good politics.
No one is a more vocal proponent than I of the concept that legislation should reflect the will of the people.
However, five years is a long time – especially for this issue, which has received intense national attention given Massachusetts’ foray into the field.
I don’t believe legislators should tie themselves to a five-year-old initiative. This is the value of legislators acting: if, as you suggest, this is contrary to the current will of the people, then the people are free to vote the rascals out and elect people who will change the law again.
I have been sharply critical of efforts to force same-sex marriage into being by judicial fiat. Many on this board have interpreted that as a sign that I “secretly” don’t favor same-sex marriage. On the contrary, if marriage is to be a secular policy, I believe it should be available to same-sex couples… as long as that is the will of the people, as expressed by their legislators. One house of the California legislature has taken that step, and it’s the right one to take.
No offense, but suppose for a moment that the citizens of the state of Virginia in 2000 had passed an initiative to mandate something that you personally favored. Now, in 2005, the House of Delegates works to pass a bill that completely reverses the changes made in 2000. Would you be so nonchalant about what the General Assembly was doing?
But the even more important point has to do with how Californios behave when the state legislature doesn’t bend to popular will. They are QUITE willing to engage in the initiative process, sometimes with two or three competing initiatives on the ballot. Given the number of states that have responded to the “threat” of same-gender marriage with constitutional changes, one can easily envision California doing the same. And once it gets into the Constitution, it’s damned hard to get it back out of the Constitution.
The Governor of the state of California has said he would sign legislation establishing domestic partnerships. The Legislature should enact same immediately, then chip away at the issue of “marriage” with a slow but certain erosion over time. Casting aside the will of the people will backfire; that’s why they have the Governor they have right now. Don’t the Democrats EVER learn anything in that state?
Ironically, the governor’s spokeswoman is quoted as saying that “he preferred to let judges sort out the legality of gay marriage.”
On the other hand, he never did seem to indicate that he was one to howl about activist judges at the drop of a hat. Still, it struck me as funny.
Got a cite for that, with context? My guess is that he was talking about the interpreation of a particular law or lawsuit. He’s on record saying that he’s not personally in favor of gay marriage, but if that’s what the people want, then so be it.
Here ya go (from here):
No direct quotes there, but the bit about “[s]ignalling a likely veto if it does pass” leads me to believe that at least the reporter thought the discussion was in the context of the current bill.
I’m also not sure how this quote, from the same article, squares with Schwarzenegger following the will of the people (or does he not think that the State Senate reflects the will of the people?)
No offense taken.
I might be a bit chalant, I suppose (snicker), but that would be a personal reaction, not a judgement of the political process.
A question on Constitutional law and I’m thinking about how interracial marriages became legal in states that did not want them - a state is bound to recognize as valid the legal procedings and contracts of the other states. Thus if you are married in one state, you are married in all states. Why would this be different for gay marriage? At least California recognizes this with California Family Code (CFC) Section 508 recognizing marriages in other states . . . except CFC 508.5 says only if it is between a man and woman.
Not only that, there is a certain Federal interest in the consistancy of marital status across state lines. For example, if I’m married in one state then we get to file our taxes as a married couple. How would we file if we moved to a state that does not recognize our marriage?
Lastly, there is faulty logic at work here. This is a position that a few states have held and for a cite I will point to the state’s argument before the Washington Supreme Court in the *Andersen * and *Castle * cases.
Children should be born to married couples. (Other states use the premise that the purpose of marriage is to produce children)
Homosexual couples cannot produce children.
Therefore homosexual couple should not be allowed to marry.
These argument suffer from one fatal flaw, that if homosexual couples cannot marry by this logic, the neither can ANY person who is sterile. In fact, California Family Code recognized this hypocracy (somewhat). Less than a decade ago, they used to have a law stating the purpose of marriage was to produce children and another law that someone who was sterile could only get married if they informed their partner of their inability to have children before the marriage. These laws have since been taken off the books.
I am thrilled to hear that same sex marriage is finally gaining democratic support in this country. Parts of this country at least.
Another agenda that should not be ignored is the repeal of the sodomy laws for consenting adults in the states where they are still on the books. I hate to think that gays are only tolerated in those states because the Supreme Court said they must be and not because the people of those states genuinely tolerate them.
Two reasons: First, there is the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which passed in, I think, 1996. Its main provision is that no state shall be required to respect another state’s laws with respect to same-sex marriage.
The second reason (and the reason why DOMA may in fact be constitutional) is that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the constitution (which is what you refer to when you say that a state is bound to recognize marriages from other states) has a public policy exception (I believe this is just recognized by the courts, as opposed to being explicitly in the Constitution), whereby a state can ignore another state’s laws if the latter’s laws run counter to the “public policy” of the former. I suppose an argument could be made that this covers restrictions on same-sex marriage.
Have you now changed your mind about your predicted backlash against it in MA, as people start to get angry about what you falsely claim to be “judicial fiat” as being a far greater danger than gay marriage?
Is that a general principle, or specific to subjects that are actually in the public eye and actually being thought about? If there’s an expiration date on The People’s Will, it would be very helpful to define it, or else you’ve just committed the Slippery Slope Fallacy.
But you haven’t been successful in pointing out where it has ever actually happened, in a way that withstands scrutiny.
You most certainly did, formerly. You did, however, come around after a great deal of discussion, in the manner that an increasing plurality of Americans are doing. So, you do get credit, but don’t be misleading about it, okay?
Here’s to the Cali Senate for doing the right thing - the less morally-tenable a position the prodiscrimination faction holds politically, the less likely they’ll be to hold it anyway.
No, I haven’t. I still predict Massachusetts will have and pass the requisite second vote.
It’s a general principle.
What are you talking baout? Massachusetts is the only state that has same-sex marriage, and it got it by judicial fiat. But for Goodridge, there would be no SSM.
Not intended to be misleading. I’ve been accused of being “secretly against” SSM even after my “coming around,” by people that had read the “coming around” thread and were aware of my conversion.
I can post my opinion why you are wrong about this, or I can repost an earlier comment about why you are wrong, but by now I feel that claiming “No, the mass. ruling wasn’t judicial fiat. Period.” would get just the same reply as the last hundred times I and others stated it wasn’t what you wish it was.
Oh, and:
That is right. It isn’t about what views you claim to hold, but the attitude you project. What else do you expect?
Excuse me. Can those who want to continue a past fight in this thread please take it the hell elsewhere?
This thread is about California, and California alone.
Oh, I don’t plan to hijack the thread. If Bricker or me makes one more post, itshould be in a new thread. I will not continue in this vein further.
However, I could not stand the thought that he would post his claim in this thread and find no opposition.
What do you think the motivation will be for those that vote against it? As I see it, any legislator who thinks the legislature should allow gay marriage would vote against the ammendment, regardless of their position on judicial activism. When and if it comes before the people, it would be basically a straight up/down vote on gay marriage. Putting a ban on gay marriage is a useless vote if one’s real enemy is judicial activism.
Would you agree that in writing civil unions into their ammendment last time, and defeating any proposed ammendments that don’t include them, that the legislature has, in effect, legislated civil unions into existence, even if after they had been mandated by the SJC?
Incidentally, does anyone have an online source that shows the breakdown of last ConCon’s voting in detail? I’m looking, but I can’t find one that shows the details of who voted for what and at what time (which would indicate who falls on what side of the line with regard to civil unions).