# 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:** 12\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2005, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-senate-votes-for-same-sex-marriage/319770/121 "2005-09-13T21:34:05Z")
> [@Big Whistle](#): > > To this point, not one person has replied to my assertion that the attempt to amend Family Code §§301-303 is unwise because it would result in passage of an amendment to the California Constitution. Conservatives are just salivating at the chance to push such an amendment. The Guvernator, whatever his other faults, isn’t being stupid in vetoing the bill. Wouldn’t that require a 2/3rd majority to pass? They couldn’t get that five years ago, and acceptance of gay marriage has made gigantic strides in the intervening half-decade. I doubt they could get even get another 61% of the vote, today. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-senate-votes-for-same-sex-marriage/319770/122 "2005-09-14T01:30:25Z")
I’m getting confused by the whole thing. I know we had a voter initiative. The will of the people and all that. When? About 5 years ago? I don’t know. However, the legislature exists for the purpose of expressing the will of the people too, and they are there to write bills and make law. They are representatives whom The People put there to make laws. So, if these elected representatives don’t reflect the will of the people, and just sit on their asses - while everything is decided by ballot initiatives, then why do we even need them? If Arnold signs the bill, fine. If he doesn’t because it doesn’t reflect the will of the people, then the question is, how does he know it hasn’t changed since the ballot initiative? He seems to think law should be made by judges and not by the legislature. He has it backwards. If the People are displeased, they can always Vote The Rascals Out, come the next election. meanwhile, let the legislature do its job and if there is a veto it should be based on legal grounds that can be backed up with facts. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-senate-votes-for-same-sex-marriage/319770/123 "2005-09-14T01:38:10Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > I’m getting confused by the whole thing. I know we had a voter initiative. The will of the people and all that. When? About 5 years ago? I don’t know. However, the legislature exists for the purpose of expressing the will of the people too, and they are there to write bills and make law. They are representatives whom The People put there to make laws. So, if these elected representatives don’t reflect the will of the people, and just sit on their asses - while everything is decided by ballot initiatives, then why do we even need them? If Arnold signs the bill, fine. If he doesn’t because it doesn’t reflect the will of the people, then the question is, how does he know it hasn’t changed since the ballot initiative? He seems to think law should be made by judges and not by the legislature. He has it backwards. If the People are displeased, they can always Vote The Rascals Out, come the next election. meanwhile, let the legislature do its job and if there is a veto it should be based on legal grounds that can be backed up with facts. Exactly. Remember, since 5 years ago, we’ve had tremendous change/advances on this front in Massachusetts, several European countries, and a blitz of publicity from the weddings in San Francisco. Opinions and sensibilities certainly have likely changed/evolved since then. Arnie’s using the “will of the people” thing as a cop-out, and a pretty flimsy one at 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 14, 2005, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-senate-votes-for-same-sex-marriage/319770/124 "2005-09-14T06:20:40Z")
> [@ArchiveGuy](#): > > Arnie’s using the “will of the people” thing as a cop-out, and a pretty flimsy one at that. I think most people see that, at least most people on this board. The folks who won’t accept SSM under any circumstances will, of course, see this as a Solomon like decision. They’re too wedded (pun intended) to their own position to see the illologic in Arnold’s argument. ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-senate-votes-for-same-sex-marriage/319770/125 "2005-09-14T07:33:09Z")
**SteveG1** An initiative is law, enacted by the electorate, and does and should be presumed to reflect the will of the people until it is repealed **by the electorate** or struck by the courts. The legislature has no power to repeal or amend an initiative. So says the state constitution… and for good reason. The legislature considers thousands of bills every session, and the people cannot be expected to vote on everthing by initiative. The initiative process does not eliminate the need for a legislature to represent the people. I don’t think the electorate cares to vote on the minutiae of fishing licenses and the Vehicle Code. However, now and then, the legislature fails to properly represent the electorate on a particular issue. Hence, the people developed the initiative, referendum, and recall: processes whereby the people, themselves, can bypass the legislature on a single issue. The legislature should not be able to undo an initiative… regardless of when it was passed. An initiative passed in 1912 is still an initiative and is still just as legally valid and binding as an initiative passed 5 years ago, and still beyond the reach of the legislature to screw around with it. If the electorate wants SSM, then someone should bring a new initiative to the electorate to repeal Prop. 22 or seek to have Prop. 22 declared unconstitutional. It’s simply beyond the power of the legislature to enact SSM as long as Prop. 22 is on the books. Should the legislature be allowed to repeal or enact laws that negate Prop. 98 (1988)? Prop. 13 (1978)? These initiatives are still law and still reflect the will of the people until they are repealed or amended by the electorate or struck down by the courts. If the legislature tried to screw around with Prop. 98, I’m sure many Dems (including me) would have a major shit-fit in a hurry and would be the first ones to point out that, pursuant to the state constitution, the legislature has no business tinkering with an initiative. The legislature in 1872 passed a state law banning murder in California. How do we know _that_ law still reflects the will of the people since nobody has voted on that law in over 100 years? Well, it’s still on the books, that’s how. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-senate-votes-for-same-sex-marriage/319770/126 "2005-09-14T14:59:07Z")
OK, bearflag, thank you for the info. So, in order to “overturn” the old initiative, it would have to be “cancelled out” by a new initiative or by a court ruling. I personally would have a hemmorhaging shit fit if prop 98 or prop 13 were overturned, so I see your point (most definitely). ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-senate-votes-for-same-sex-marriage/319770/127 "2005-09-14T19:20:54Z")
This just in: [MA legislature votes down pro-discrimination amendment 157-39](http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/09/14/lawmakers_convene_constitutional_convention_on_same_sex_marriage/). It included the “civil unions” dodge. The last “hope” for the discriminators is to get a no-CU-either amendment on the ballot in 2008. Maybe that’s enough time for the Bricker Backlash to occur? ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-senate-votes-for-same-sex-marriage/319770/128 "2005-09-14T19:28:31Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > This just in: [MA legislature votes down pro-discrimination amendment 157-39](http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/09/14/lawmakers_convene_constitutional_convention_on_same_sex_marriage/). It included the “civil unions” dodge. The last “hope” for the discriminators is to get a no-CU-either amendment on the ballot in 2008. Maybe that’s enough time for the Bricker Backlash to occur? Maybe not. This [yahoo](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050914/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage) article has a comment from a co-sponsor: > [@](#): > > “Gay marriage has begun, and life has not changed for the citizens of the commonwealth, with the exception of those who can now marry,” said state Sen. Brian Lees, a Republican who had been a co-sponsor of the amendment. “This amendment which was an appropriate measure or compromise a year ago, is no longer, I feel, a compromise today.” Seems like grudging acceptance rather than backlash to me. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-senate-votes-for-same-sex-marriage/319770/129 "2005-09-14T20:22:10Z")
The MA amendment was doomed for defeat. Those pro-SSM weren’t going to abide a watered down version, and those anti-SSM weren’t going to be happy with the civil union concession. And by 2008, there won’t be any compelling reason to change something that’s been around for years. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-senate-votes-for-same-sex-marriage/319770/130 "2005-09-14T20:48:42Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > This just in: [MA legislature votes down pro-discrimination amendment 157-39](http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/09/14/lawmakers_convene_constitutional_convention_on_same_sex_marriage/). It included the “civil unions” dodge. The last “hope” for the discriminators is to get a no-CU-either amendment on the ballot in 2008. Maybe that’s enough time for the Bricker Backlash to occur? Well, well. 1. Good. 2. I was wrong. I am happy to be wrong, but I was as wrong as I could be. Wrong, wrong, and also, wrong. I predicted that this second vote would pass. That was absolutely incorrect, and I didn’t know what the hell I was talking about. ---
**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 14, 2005, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-senate-votes-for-same-sex-marriage/319770/131 "2005-09-14T21:14:50Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > This just in: [MA legislature votes down pro-discrimination amendment 157-39](http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/09/14/lawmakers_convene_constitutional_convention_on_same_sex_marriage/). It included the “civil unions” dodge. The last “hope” for the discriminators is to get a no-CU-either amendment on the ballot in 2008. Or, the voters might elect more conservative legislators in the next election who \*will \*vote for an anti-SSM amendment. Given the vote split, though, it would seem unlikely. One has to wonder about the sanity of the anti-SSM crowd, given this quote from your cite (emphasis added): > [@](#): > > Opponents of gay marriage also declared victory, saying the defeat of the amendment paves the way for the launch of a second, more restrictive proposed amendment that would ban gay marriage without allowing civil unions. The earliest that could get on the ballot in 2008. > > “We’re excited. We’re pumped. This is great. **This is exactly what we wanted.** It absolutely launches us into the signature drive next week,” said Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute. Are they really that nutty? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2005, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-senate-votes-for-same-sex-marriage/319770/132 "2005-09-15T04:01:37Z")
Not nutty exactly, just ideological. See, the “God didn’t make Adam and Steve” crowd sees “civil unions” as a dodge just as the antidiscrimination folks do, except that it’s a dodge protecting the evil of homosexuality, not the evil of discrimination. If the amendment allowing it had passed, it would be much harder for them to argue for their own morally-pure one. Now it’s the only one left for anti-SSM voters to support. It needs 66,000 signatures if you’re keeping score. Is the California political environment really all that different, other than the feature that the CA lege can’t repeal referenda the way MA’s can (i.e. RIP, Clean Elections Law)? **Bricker** , good show, pip pip, huzzah and all that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-senate-votes-for-same-sex-marriage/319770.md?page=6)