# CA Senate Votes For Same-sex Marriage **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 2, 2005, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-senate-votes-for-same-sex-marriage/319770 "2005-09-02T18:27:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2005, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-senate-votes-for-same-sex-marriage/319770/61 "2005-09-07T15:55:29Z")
The article in the SJ Merc today, [Historic OK for gay vows](http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/12579049.htm), says that it becomes law if the governor signs it. Nothing about not being valid because of Prop 22… Interestingly, though, Assemblyman Salinas, whom I referenced in my first post in this thread, ended up voted for the measure. The article credits him with casting “the deciding vote”, although anyone who voted for it could be so described. Note that the measure passed both Houses of the CA legislature by only 1 vote. My guess is that the legislature is a bit ahead of the people on this one, and that a ballot initiative in '06 will overturn this piece of legislation. But it’ll be close-- a lot closer than it was last time (Prop 22). ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2005, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-senate-votes-for-same-sex-marriage/319770/62 "2005-09-07T16:18:01Z")
**John** , I think the President of Freedonia is saying that the majority of the public will not be out in the streets **advocating for** gay marriage, and might even be inclined to oppose it if they are given a free choice, but that, presented with a _fait accompli_ (whether judicial or legislative) authorizing it, they will accept it as an element of society, one that they may not personally agree with but which they can live with, much as a Baptist personally opposed to gambling can endure Nevadan, riverboat, and Indian casinos with no major dudgeon expended towards them. ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2005, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-senate-votes-for-same-sex-marriage/319770/63 "2005-09-07T16:23:52Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Here’s my predictions, if Ahnold signs it: > > 1. By November 2006, the fundies will still be against gay marriage, but the broad middle ground of Californians will have come to accept it, and will vote down any ballot initiative attempting to repeal SSM. > > 2. Over the next three years, several other states will pass laws legalizing SSM. They’ll probably be in the mountain West or New England. > > 3. Over the decade after that, SSM will be legalized, one way or another, pretty much everywhere but the Bible Belt. > > 4. Soon after that, the FF&C clause will be interpreted to extend SSM even to those states. > > If he vetoes it, it may slow the train down by a year or two. But it’s coming. How about this … if Ahnold signs it … 1. A “family values” organization sues to invalidate AB 849 on the ground that AB 849 is unconstitutional. The argument will be that AB 849, a legislative statue, is in conflict with Prop. 22, an initiative statute, and AB 849 has not been approved by the electorate; 2. The legislature puts AB 849 before the electorate, and the electorate votes it down; 3. A right-wing group gets an initiative passed that amends the California Constitution to prohibit SSM, making AB 849 moot; 4. The pending SSM lawsuits rooted in California’s equal protection clause work their way up the the California Supreme Court, consisting of mostly Republican justices, and the court holds that SSM is not a protected right. Unfortunately, my faith in the electorate and the system to do the right thing on this issue, at this time, is lacking. I think the SJ Merc article overlooked the Prop. 22 unconstitutionality issue. While AB 849 becomes law upon signing by the governor, it is an unconstitutional law that will not be enforced. The legislature cannot run roughshod over an initiative like that. If AB 849 is valid law, it would completely gut the initiative process. I am open to other opinions on the issue if someone else has another take on it. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2005, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-senate-votes-for-same-sex-marriage/319770/64 "2005-09-07T16:28:35Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > **John** , I think the President of Freedonia is saying that the majority of the public will not be out in the streets **advocating for** gay marriage, and might even be inclined to oppose it if they are given a free choice, but that, presented with a _fait accompli_ (whether judicial or legislative) authorizing it, they will accept it as an element of society, one that they may not personally agree with but which they can live with, much as a Baptist personally opposed to gambling can endure Nevadan, riverboat, and Indian casinos with no major dudgeon expended towards them. That’s a very good point, and I was thinking about that exact possiblity earlier today as I was reading the paper. I’m not sure SSM is in that category, yet. It might very well be in 10 - 20 years, but I don’t think we’re there now. I do believe, however, that CA will get to that state of mind before the rest of the country does. Just not right now. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2005, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-senate-votes-for-same-sex-marriage/319770/65 "2005-09-07T16:30:12Z")
> [@Bearflag70](#): > > I think the SJ Merc article overlooked the Prop. 22 unconstitutionality issue. While AB 849 becomes law upon signing by the governor, it is an unconstitutional law that will not be enforced. The legislature cannot run roughshod over an initiative like that. If AB 849 is valid law, it would completely gut the initiative process. > > I am open to other opinions on the issue if someone else has another take on it. The local SJ news will be on at 10AM. I’m sure this will be the lead story, so let’s see what they have to say about it. ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2005, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-senate-votes-for-same-sex-marriage/319770/66 "2005-09-07T16:31:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The Equal Protection Clause was created to address the issue of race. It stands for the proposition that any classifications based on race are inherently suspect. > > We cannot read into the clause more than that. We cannot read it literally. Sorry, but this statement makes absolutely no sense to me. If I can’t read something literally, I’m automatically reading something into the clause. ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2005, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-senate-votes-for-same-sex-marriage/319770/67 "2005-09-07T17:05:05Z")
Some alternate news sources: > [@San Francisco Chronicle](#): > > Opponents have promised to go to court if the bill becomes law, saying it violates the spirit of Proposition 22, a 2000 ballot initiative that defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. They also say they will go to the polls next year with proposed constitutional amendments that would ban same-sex marriage. > > \ > > Schwarzenegger’s office has repeated that he believes the issue should be decided either by a vote of the people or a court decision. He has said he supports the state’s current domestic partnership laws. > > “The governor believes the people spoke with Prop. 22, and that is now in the courts,” said Schwarzenegger spokeswoman Margita Thompson. “The governor believes that is where it belongs and will uphold any decisions the courts make.” > [@Ventura County Star](#): > > Republicans asserted that California voters settled the matter in 2000, when they voted in support of Proposition 22, which stated that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” > > The legal citation contained in the measure, however, amended only the section of the Family Code that deals with recognition of marriage licenses issued in other states. > > Supporters of the bill say, since Proposition 22 did not change the section that deals with marriage licenses issued within the state, the Legislature is free to change that law if it chooses. > > Opponents contend Proposition 22 was intended to change both sections of the Family Code, and it can now be amended only by another vote of the people. ---
**Author:** ![zagloba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/977dab/32.png) [@zagloba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zagloba)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2005, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-senate-votes-for-same-sex-marriage/319770/68 "2005-09-07T17:33:44Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Interestingly, though, Assemblyman Salinas, whom I referenced in my first post in this thread, ended up voted for the measure. The article credits him with casting “the deciding vote”, although anyone who voted for it could be so described. It is possible that either they did a roll call vote or that the they have a system that shows the votes as they are cast and his was the final aye. Or it could just be hyperbole. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2005, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-senate-votes-for-same-sex-marriage/319770/69 "2005-09-07T17:54:28Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Note that the measure passed both Houses of the CA legislature by only 1 vote. ??? The Senate vote was 21-15, wasn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2005, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-senate-votes-for-same-sex-marriage/319770/70 "2005-09-07T18:28:24Z")
Senate Vote: 21-15 (37 votes cast out of 40 Senate seats) Assembly Vote: 41-34 (75 votes cast out of 80 Assembly seats) In each house, the bill got a majority of the _entire body_ by just 1 vote. Apparently, you need to get a majority of the entire body to pass a bill, not just a majority of the votes cast. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2005, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-senate-votes-for-same-sex-marriage/319770/71 "2005-09-07T18:31:36Z")
Got it. Did a Senator vote Present or something like that? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2005, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-senate-votes-for-same-sex-marriage/319770/72 "2005-09-07T18:32:10Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > ??? The Senate vote was 21-15, wasn’t it? \*\*Bearflag \*\*got it right, and I should have been clearer in my original post. There were 4 abstensions in the Senate. A bill needs a majority in favor to pass, not just a plurality. Sorry for the confusion. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2005, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-senate-votes-for-same-sex-marriage/319770/73 "2005-09-07T19:03:57Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > This is a bad precedent because it implies that Equal Protection is up for a vote. It’s not the electorate’s place to grant this right. The right already exists, The electorate has no say in it. It’s simply up to the judiciary to prevent the electorate from unlawfully trying to restrict it. Responding to this again with a new point… Yes, I do agree with you that basic human rights like marriage should not be up for a vote. But surely if you were a legislator in that situation you would have voted for the bill, wouldn’t you? The California Supreme Court has not risen to the challenge. With O’Connor gone and the Stevens being 87 years old, I think the days of relying on the Courts to protect our rights is hanging by the barest of threads and may soon be coming to a close. It’s an extremly safe bet that Bush will be appointing Anti-Roe and Anti-Lawrence Justices to the bench. What will happen if these are overturned? Liberals in this country will be forced to turn to the legislatures of the blue states as safe havens. This is not an optimal situation, since people are born who are born into Red States won’t have the same basic rights merely due to an accident of geography. But with the way things are going, if we are to have any rights anywhere in this country we must take the legislative path. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2005, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-senate-votes-for-same-sex-marriage/319770/74 "2005-09-07T19:11:52Z")
You’re right. It’s not technically the correct way to do this, and I fear that it carries an implication that the elecorate would also have the authority to take this right away, but we have to take what we can get. At least we can revel in the potential irony of a Republican trophy governor signing a gay marriage bill. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2005, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-senate-votes-for-same-sex-marriage/319770/75 "2005-09-07T19:15:30Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > You’re right. It’s not technically the correct way to do this, and I fear that it carries an implication that the elecorate would also have the authority to take this right away, but we have to take what we can get. At least we can revel in the potential irony of a Republican trophy governor signing a gay marriage bill. GAAH!! It **is** , technically, the correct way to do this. Legislatures make law. This is a legislature. They are making law. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2005, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-senate-votes-for-same-sex-marriage/319770/76 "2005-09-07T19:21:22Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > You’re right. It’s not technically the correct way to do this, and I fear that it carries an implication that the elecorate would also have the authority to take this right away, but we have to take what we can get. At least we can revel in the potential irony of a Republican trophy governor signing a gay marriage bill. Not to beat a dead horse, but the electorate most certainly does has the authority to take away this “right”. I don’t buy the idea that marriage\* is a right in the first place, but even if it were, the electorate would still have that authority. Unless you want to argue semantically that a person still has a right even if he cannot exercise that right. Either way, the electorate can prevent that person from exercising any right he might think he has. \*Marriage, in the civil sense, is a set of arbitrary priviledges bestowed upon the married couple (or group) by society. One could easily conceive of a society in which marriage was an entirely religious affair with absolutely no civil aspect at all. In fact, any state in the US could create that situation. Where would that “right” be then? ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2005, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-senate-votes-for-same-sex-marriage/319770/77 "2005-09-07T19:27:43Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > \*Marriage, in the civil sense, is a set of arbitrary priviledges bestowed upon the married couple (or group) by society. One could easily conceive of a society in which marriage was an entirely religious affair with absolutely no civil aspect at all. In fact, any state in the US could create that situation. Where would that “right” be then? Theoretically, a state could dispense with all the laws concerning marriage. But in reality it is as close to permanent as any law can be. All these proposals to do away with all marriage in light of this gay marriage movement remind me of communities in the South that chose to pave over all their swimming pools in preferance to letting blacks use them as well. ---
**Author:** ![Big\_Whistle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Big\_Whistle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Big_Whistle)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2005, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-senate-votes-for-same-sex-marriage/319770/78 "2005-09-07T19:40:31Z")
> [@Bearflag70](#): > > Yup. Arnold’s gonna veto it and there won’t be enough votes to override the veto. > > Even if Arnold signs it, the legislature can’t overturn Prop. 22 without a popular vote. [Prop. 22 said that only marriages between a man and woman are valid and recognized in California]. > > Prop. 22 passed in 2000 with over 60% of the vote. I’m not so sure public attitudes have changed that much in the past 5 years. > > It looks like it’s up to the California Supreme Court to interpret the state Constitution and hopefully strike Prop. 22. This is incorrect analysis. An initiative that does nothing more than change the wording of California statutes can be modified immediately by the Legislature. Statutory amendments are no more sacrosanct as part of an initiative than they are as part of legislation. What will happen is that the long-threatened initiative to amend the California Constitution will be passed around for signature and placement upon the ballot. Frankly, I expect that the social “conservatives” who oppose the concept of same-gender marriage are licking their chops at being handed a great reason to claim a need for an amendment to the state constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Big\_Whistle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Big\_Whistle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Big_Whistle)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2005, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-senate-votes-for-same-sex-marriage/319770/79 "2005-09-07T19:42:18Z")
Excuse me, belay that last. Might help if I read the next page of the discussion. :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2005, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-senate-votes-for-same-sex-marriage/319770/80 "2005-09-07T19:44:00Z")
I just read in interesting arument. I will try to summarize: 1. AB 849 arguably creates a dichotomy between in-state and out-of-state SSM and peacefully co-exists with Prop. 22, where AB 849 allows in-state SSM and Prop 22 only prohibits recognition of out-of-state SSM in CA. 2. Someone could then bring a federal Full Faith & Credit clause case to try to force CA to recognize an out-of-state SSM in CA, arguing that Prop 22 is unconstitutional under Full Faith & Credit unless CA can show that CA has a strong public policy to uphold by not recognizing SSM. 3. CA will not be able to show it has a strong public policy against SSM because CA allows in-state SSM pursuant to AB 849. Accordingly, the court would strike down Prop 22 as an unconstitutional violation of Full Faith & Credit. 4. The ultimate effect of AB 849 then would be to cause Prop 22 to be unconstitutional and void. Thus, AB 849 would violate the state constitution because the legislature cannot cause a state intiative to be void by passage of a legislative statute. 5. One way out of this is for CA to argue that the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is constitutional and insulates Prop 22 from a Full Faith & Credit challenge. Accordingly, AB 849 does not cause Prop 22 to be void and, thus, AB 849 does not violate the California Constitution. Conclusion: In an effort to preserve SSM in CA under AB 849, supporters of SSM in CA may end up arguing in favor of the DOMA, which is designed to undercut recognition of SSM. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-senate-votes-for-same-sex-marriage/319770.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-senate-votes-for-same-sex-marriage/319770.md?page=5)