California pols overrule citizen vote on gay marriage

Keep tuned to the news folks, the future of the country is at stake.

Oh my GOD, they're getting MARRIED!!! We're all going to die because of it...somehow!!!!!!!!

Seriously though, I don't think the government should be in anyone's bedroom (well, anyone above the age of consent), and I don't think the majority should be forcing their morals on the minority. These Assemblypeople are standing up for that principle. Just imagine what would have happened if they put civil rights to a vote in Mississippi, Alabama, etc.

But at least it ain't my country...

These Assemblypeople are standing up for that principle.

What you seem to forget is that these assembly people were elected by the citizens that voted in favor of Prop 22. What they are standing up for is is their own preferences and nothing more. They are ignoring the will of the people and instead trying to replace the results of the election with their own legislation.

It may not be life or death, but it is about "rule of law" and respecting the will of the people. If the citizens in California had dediced during the vote on Prop 22 that they wanted gay marriage, would it have been right for the legislature to then attempt to over-turn that result via their own law???

"Keep tuned to the news folks, the future of the country is at stake."

I find it tremendously amusing that in this world, with all the tumult and disaster, and all the potential for catastrophe, that one would seriously believe that the fate of the country would turn on the non-issue of gay marriage.

There seems to be a feeling among some that by outlawing gay rights, including marriage, that somehow homosexuality will go away. This is obviously not so; what the restrictions do is simply make one group of people inferior to another.

Gays and lesbians are fairly philosophical about it. They've been the subject of discrimination for centuries, and don't expect the unenlightened to come around soon. The folks I wonder about are those who think it is a vital issue.

I find it tremendously amusing that in this world, with all the tumult and disaster, and all the potential for catastrophe, that one would seriously believe that the fate of the country would turn on the non-issue of gay marriage.

Again, the future of the country doesn't turn on the issue of gay marriage -- it turns on the issue of lawmakers that decide to over-ride the will of the people that just recently voted for the provisions that the lawmakers are trying to over-turn.

And again, if the public had voted for gay-marriage, and the lawmakers were voting to out-law gay marriage, who would be right????

When does a lawmaker have the right and/or obligation to overrule the voters?

'When does a lawmaker have the right and/or obligation to overrule the voters?'
In one sense at least, this is a good question - they do it all the time, don't they? To me, however, the interesting thing is - as Longbeliever points out - that you choose this particular issue to pick them up on a problem that is endemic.

Most of you are MISSING the entire point! The fate of the country is riding not on whether or not gays can marry. But on the fact the the "elected" idiots think that the voters don't know what they themselves want or is good for them. And are about to over-ride the voters wants!

"Most of you are MISSING the entire point! The fate of the country is riding not on whether or not gays can marry. But on the fact the the "elected" idiots think that the voters don't know what they themselves want or is good for them. And are about to over-ride the voters wants!"

I have to differ a bit. The REAL danger here is the fact that if gay marriage becomes law, full faith and credit is in jeopardy, or will be used to impose the Cal. legislatures law on everyone else. People married in one state are still married in another if they move or travel. That is endangered in situations like this.

So, legislators in California aren't just deciding for Californians, they are deciding for people in other states. Not surprising, their courts are the worst at setting activist precedent as well. They know that if one state denies someone the rights granted them in another, the Constitutional stage is set.

Full faith and credit is going to be used as a weapon against states that refuse to adopt gay marriage. Wait and see. I believe you'll see a half dozen test cases a month or so after California starts handing out marriage licenses.

Again, the future of the country doesn't turn on the issue of gay marriage -- it turns on the issue of lawmakers that decide to over-ride the will of the people that just recently voted for the provisions that the lawmakers are trying to over-turn.

Technically you are right, but as an outsider I sympathise with Longbeliever's perception that resisting gay-marriage has become some sort of a totem - a great line in the sand - for a section of the American Right.

What would impress me more would be to hear from someone either in favour of gay-marriage, or neutral on the question, arguing against the State Assembly's plan for the reasons you outline. Otherwise, it just seems to me to be business as usual: those who just don't like gays, period, once again getting all hot and bothered over the issue.

Otherwise, it just seems to me to be business as usual: those who just don't like gays, period, once again getting all hot and bothered over the issue

This is the problem, too many people can't seperate gay people from the gay marriage issue. Why do you accuse people who are against gay marriage of not liking gay people? I know gay people who are against the whole gay marriage issue... I guess to you, they don't like gays.

"Keep tuned to the news folks, the future of the country is at stake."

Why?

In what ways does the future of the country depend on whether a married couple are of different sexes or not?

Why do you accuse people who are against gay marriage of not liking gay people?

For the obvious reason that some people who are against gay marriage are motivated by little more than irrational prejudice. I hardly think that that is a controversial statement. I've already acknowledged (above and on another thread in this forum) that others oppose it for well-thought out reasons, but I suppose I have a blind spot here because those reasons fail to convince me.

Funnily enough, you are the one JU blogger I credit with making me think more deeply about this issue (although you haven't changed my mind )

I think it is perfectly legitimate to point out that not all the arguments against gay marriage consist of sophisticated legal or political reasoning. Once we acknowledge the existence of simple prejudice in this debate - and its opposite, the simplistic notion that this is merely a 'justice issue' - then a more sophisticated debate can begin.

For the obvious reason that some people who are against gay marriage are motivated by little more than irrational prejudice.

Fair enough. Although I think most political issues are backed or opposed by too many people who have nothing but irrational prejudices to go on... but then again "irrational" is a pretty subjective term. ;~D

Haven't changed your mind yet? Drat, and I've been working so hard at it! ;~D

An update. From IWon news, headline is linked.

---

Calif. Lawmakers Pass Gay Marriage Bill

By STEVE LAWRENCE

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - Gay rights supporters cheered loudly from the gallery as California lawmakers became the first in the country to approve a bill allowing same-sex marriages. But their celebration may be short-lived.
The legislation could be vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has expressed an acceptance of gay marriages but said it's an issue that should be decided by voters or the courts.
"He will uphold whatever the court decides," spokeswoman Margita Thompson said Tuesday after the state Assembly approved the same-sex marriage measure, 41-35. The Senate had approved it last week.
A state appellate court is considering appeals of a lower court ruling that overturned California laws banning recognition of gay marriages. And opponents of same-sex marriage are trying to qualify initiatives for the 2006 ballot that would amend the state Constitution to ban gay marriages.
The bill's supporters compared the legislation to earlier civil rights campaigns, including efforts to eradicate slavery and give women the right to vote.
"Do what we know is in our hearts," said the bill's sponsor, San Francisco Democrat Mark Leno. "Make sure all California families will have the same protection under the law."
But opponents repeatedly cited the public's vote five years ago to approve Proposition 22, which prohibits California from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries.
"History will record that you betrayed your constituents and their moral and ethical values," Republican Assemblyman Jay La Suer said.
Leno had sponsored an earlier bill that fell four votes short of passing the Assembly in June. He kept the issue alive by adding the language of the defeated measure to another bill that had already passed the Assembly and was awaiting action in the Senate.
The Senate approved that bill and sent it back to the Assembly for another vote. Four Democrats who didn't vote the last time tipped the scales.
One of them, Assemblyman Tom Umberg, said Tuesday he was concerned about what his three children would think of him if he didn't join those "who sought to take a leadership role in terms of tolerance, equality and fairness."

---

... more at linked article


So this issue will turn the other direction soon -- the voices of the people, through public referendum may again be heard, and when it is, will the lawmakers again decide to try to thwart the will of the people?

For those that still don't get it -- that is exactly what this issue is about. It's not important because it's about gay marriage. It could be smokers rights, it could be a tax issue, or it could be virtually anything at all. What is important is that lawmakers that decide to ignore the will of the people because they believe they know what is best for their constituents, or because they want to draw their own line in the sand and establish a name for themselves are wrong, and such moves cannot and should not be tolerated.

Perhaps if we analyse WHY governments support the union between two people, we can figure out whether that reason requires these two people to be of a specific type, specific different types, specific colour, specific different colours, or to have any other specific attributes in common or not in common.

Are there any arguments for mixed marriages (i.e. different sexes) that do not apply to same-sex marriages? Do any of these arguments apply to all mixed marriages but no same-sex marriages?

Are there any arguments for any government support for any kind of marriage at all? Why should government even be involved?

What does or should "marriage" mean, legally, anyway? Are these people responsible for each other before the law? If so, do their individual attributes make a difference or not? Are these people still individuals? If so, why recognise any marriage by law?

Why do married couples have tax advantages? What purpose does it serve? Would it serve the same purpose if the same law applied to same-sex marriages? Does it serve the same purpose for all cases of mixed marriages? Should it apply only to those mixed marriages where it serves that purpose? Should it apply to all mixed marriages, even when it doesn't serve the purpose? If so, why should it not apply to same-sex marriages as well?

What would impress me more would be to hear from someone either in favour of gay-marriage, or neutral on the question, arguing against the State Assembly's plan for the reasons you outline.

And how would you define that person?

Why do married couples have tax advantages?

They dont.  That is why it is called the Marriage Penalty.

They know that if one state denies someone the rights granted them in another, the Constitutional stage is set. Full faith and credit is going to be used as a weapon against states that refuse to adopt gay marriage. Wait and see. I believe you'll see a half dozen test cases a month or so after California starts handing out marriage licenses.

interestingly enough, the la times published an op-ed piece by edward whelan (president of the ethics and public policy center in washington dc, former counsel to the senate judiciary committee & former law clerk for justice antonin scalia) the point of which was to assure america that roberts will be a model of judicial restraint which he characterized thusly:

By contrast, jurists whom the left derides as "conservative extremists" would not impose conservative policies on any of these issues but would instead leave the issues to the American people to resolve.

If the people of a state, for example, want to enact same-sex marriage through the democratic process, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas would defer to their decision — as they likewise would if the people decide to retain traditional marriage. Scalia and Thomas would do so not because of any position they have on the wisdom or prudence of either policy but because they recognize that the Constitution does not authorize the courts to second-guess the political processes on such questions.

Consistent with his judicial record, Roberts' Reagan-era documents establish that he is a long-standing and committed proponent of judicial restraint. That's why all Americans who are faithful to the Constitution should support Roberts' nomination.

with that in mind, why is full faith & credit endangered. or perhaps the question should be how will it be endangered?

"They dont. That is why it is called the Marriage Penalty."

I meant in general. In most countries, I think, married couples have the advantage of splitting their income. Thus, since two people making X pay less than one person making X, married couples have a tax advantage.

If a married couple has no such advantage in the US, what is marriage (state-recognised such) for?

There are many times when the “will of the people” is ignored to protect the minority. It all comes down to whether or not homosexuality is “real” and not just bad behavior or some form of mental illness. That’s the question that needs to be answered to determine whether gay marriage can even be put to vote.

"It all comes down to whether or not homosexuality is “real” and not just bad behavior or some form of mental illness. That’s the question that needs to be answered to determine whether gay marriage can even be put to vote."

Why?

If a married couple has no such advantage in the US, what is marriage (state-recognised such) for?

INheritance, property ownership and Company Benefits mostly.

That’s the question that needs to be answered to determine whether gay marriage can even be put to vote.

that's one question (and i believe the most important one). but don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. there is no longer a standard of scientific proof in america sufficiently convincing to both sides of that argument.

an easier question might be: why is the state involved in any way with the religious ritual of marriage? in 40+ states, one need do little more than declare oneself a minister or clergyperson in order to officiate at marriages as long as the paperwork is properly filled out and any fees are collected and turned over to the proper authorities.

to the best of my knowledge, no state is involved in similar religious ceremonies--baptisms, communion services, last rites, etc.

marriage is a legally binding contract. if anything, you should need to have the blessing of a lawyer. or you should be required to go before a clergyperson when you you wish to void that contract.

the original bill defining marraige as a union between one man and one woman was passed by a 65% vote, one liberal activist judge overturned it, calling it "unconstitutional"

an easier question might be: why is the state involved in any way with the religious ritual of marriage? in 40+ states, one need do little more than declare oneself a minister or clergyperson in order to officiate at marriages as long as the paperwork is properly filled out and any fees are collected and turned over to the proper authorities.

No Wonder Katrina was so devastating.  I am going to agree with kingbee completely on that statement. (And just because I have said it before should not influence your incredulity).

you should need to have the blessing of a lawyer.

This part makes me laugh out loud. The blessing of a lawyer? In what satanic religion would that be?

Don't remember the old joke about Heaven and Hell getting into some legal skirmish and the Devil laughing at God and asking "where will you find a lawyer up there?"

Lawyer's blessing -- kingbee, you are too funny...