Calif. Lawmakers Pass Gay Marriage Bill

Sep 06 10:52 PM US/Eastern


By STEVE LAWRENCE
Associated Press Writer

SACRAMENTO, Calif.

The California Legislature on Tuesday became the first legislative body in the country to approve same-sex marriages, as gay-rights advocates overcame two earlier defeats in the Assembly.

The 41-35 vote sends the bill to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

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."

Leno's bill had failed in the Assembly by four votes in June, but he was confident he could get it through on a second try after the Senate approved a same-sex marriage bill last week.

Democratic Assemblyman Paul Koretz called bans on gay marriage "the last frontier of bigotry and discrimination, and it's time we put an end to it."

Assemblyman Tom Umberg, a Democrat who abstained when another gay marriage bill fell four votes short in June, said 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."

But opponents repeatedly cited the public's vote five years ago to approve Proposition 22, an initiative put on the ballot by gay marriage opponents to keep 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," said Republican Assemblyman Jay La Suer.



LINK




Well California has to be first....I wonder what the Terminator will do?


This is only the beginning.....

Yet ANOTHER gay thread, Ed?

Good lord, you're like the only who starts them. I'm sorry, a bad day at the office?

The one guy in the room who CONSTANTLY brings up the subject, complains about the subject, and is generally afraid of the subject.

Most likely is the subject.

We usually hate the things we fear the most, right? I'm not accusing you of being a closested self loather, but the general inordinate amount of time you spend "concerned" with the gay agenda is a little suspicious.

Well it seems that the subject has been in the news a bit more these days....

Originally posted by edsinger
Well it seems that the subject has been in the news a bit more these days....

What news are you watching?

On my news it's been nothing but panic, riots, hysteria, flooded streets and the last twenty pages of your bible come to fruition like some Irwin Winkler disaster movie. The news has been relatively "Gay free", what with third world plunging New Orleans off the deep end.

I think we see what we want to see sometimes. I think I know lots of gay people who don't talk about gay issues as much as you do.

Ed, you talk about homosexuality A LOT.

I mean A LOT.

Most people who are comfortable with their own idendity tend not to obsess about this sort of thing. I'm obsessed with Hockey, and when I'm not complaining about Republicans, I'm complaining about Hockey.

Think about that for a while, especially before you start 4 more threads on the Gay Agenda, lurking around the corner for you.

First of all , I talk in the WOT forum about 50 times more than PTS.....I have even posted more on the Hurricane, your tactics are a joke.

What is your Beef? Well I will tell you mine. I see them Celebrating on the streets of a devastated city, I see no other group doing such. I see that as being in extremely poor taste.

I see the State I live in pass a law that puts them near Massachusetts and thank goodness that we have a Governor that will uphold the WILL of the people.

It IS an agenda, the celebrating in New Orleans just shows how it works. If you cant deal with them, don't read the threads.......you can accuse me of whatever you wish, I could care less..I know what I see and I know how I feel as do the MAJORITY of Californians......

Uh, bad logic there...

KKK/GOP/republicans talk about those "evil" black people all the time, are they black? They have gone on for decades how they are better then blacks, blacks were once their property, then 2nd class citizens, so forth. The KKK was the main GOP group till it was made illegal, then the NRA popped up, but no connection, believe me, one wanted to kill blacks while wearing hoods, one didn't like to wear sheets when they hated on blacks.

But again, the GOP/republicans/KKK are not black, so your logic is flawed.

Anyways, only the republicans and gays care. Gays care because they are getting closer to leaving the 2nd class citizenship, and republicans care because they like to go around sniffing penises to make sure they don't smell like butt.

May I just politely inquire as to exactly why the government is even allowed to interfere with this?

If marriage is a religious rite - then the government should not be interfering. Separation of Church and State, and all that.

And if marriage is not a religious rite, but a personal rite - then the government has no reason to interfere in the first place.

Can someone explain why the prevention of two consenting adults from marrying - simply because they're the same sex - is not prejudicial?

Well, any person who gets so worked up about "tha gays" wanting "special" rights (EQUAL RIGHTS!) - is just another playground bully who's worried that the teacher might make him sit in the corner for picking on the last-of-the-weakest kids in the sand box.

For so long, it was never questioned that white, straight, "Christian" males were obviously superior to everyone else, no particular reason - that's just the way it was - but over the past century or so, they've been told to be nice to others. Their "right" to own slaves was taken away, their "right" to treat their wives like property was taken away, their "right" to be the only ones that could vote was taken away, and their "right" to keep different people separated from them was taken away, awwww - poor things

Now, since they can't be totally superior or racist and sexist in polite society anymore, they fear their "right" to pick on the homo-gays might be taken away too. I know, it must be horrible to have all their "rights" taken away like that. Go on, shed a little tear for them, it's OK.

Simply put, Homophobia is the new 'publicly acceptable' Racism, since the old Racism isn't acceptable anymore. Today's "polite" society has taught them that it's wrong to go around shouting the "N" word at people, simply because you don't like them. It's wrong to beat and treat your wife like you "own" her , I can only imagine how emasculating that must be.

Do you think any of the legal protections that keep them from acting like that have actually changed their minds? No, they 're still bullies, they just afraid they might get their hand popped if they act like that.

BUT, it's still OK to go around shouting homophobic slurs at people, simply because they think it's "icky" - and it's still OK to go around telling us how "evil" we are and that we're going to hell simply because we're different.

I work in a place that sells bikes and skateboards, and every day after school this place somehow becomes "daycare" for the towns kids. They can't tell I'm a "homo-gay" (not all of us are flaming queens) so their "bigotry filter" is cut off - I have to stand there and listen to them calling other kids queer and fa g and how "gay" that helmet looks that their Mama makes them wear. And when It's only white kids, I hear them throw around the "N" word. When it's just boys, I hear them talk about girls in ways that would make most of their parents red-faced with anger and embarrassment.

Is this how kids are "supposed" to act? of course not - I'm sure everyone thinks their kid is just a perfect, polite little angel, but these kids are learing this behavior from somewhere. So much for ALL these straight people teaching "Values" at home. Oops, I made a generalization about ALL straight people, because SOME of them have some messed up values. Sorry about that, I know it's not true, but I know how easy it is to judge ALL based on the behavior of SOME.



[edit on 9/8/05 by paulthefourth]

My basic beef is this:

The government has no right to tell me, as a consenting adult, what I may or may not do with another consenting adult (provided those acts do not directly cause harm to another person). Exactly who is being harmed by two women getting married and/or being afforded the same rights as a heterosexual couple?

If you're offended by gays - great! You don't have to entertain gays, you don't have to acknowledge your neighbour is gay, and you're more than welcome to sit and complain about "them". But you do not have the right to take away someone's rights based upon their sexuality.

Frankly, your politics and religious beliefs aren't really the issue here, ed.

What is at issue is when the government is trying to step in where it has no right to do so.

What is utterly wrong, is when the government is trying to discriminate against people in this manner.

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
My basic beef is this:

The government has no right to tell me, as a consenting adult, what I may or may not do with another consenting adult (provided those acts do not directly cause harm to another person). Exactly who is being harmed by two women getting married and/or being afforded the same rights as a heterosexual couple?

I would agree the government has to right to tell you you cant be gay, BUT it does have the right to limit the extent at which it can be considered normal. You want the same rights as a heterosexual couple? Fine I could go for that but call it a civil union.....marriage is between a man and a woman.

By the same benefits you ask, well I find it strange that companies can not grant spousal benefits to a common law marriage and yet would to a gay couple. Talk about discrimination....

Originally posted by edsinger

I would agree the government has to right to tell you you cant be gay, BUT it does have the right to limit the extent at which it can be considered normal.

Since when?

No, Ed, the government doesn't have any right to tell me what's "normal". Please, show me where it does?

By the same benefits you ask, well I find it strange that companies can not grant spousal benefits to a common law marriage and yet would to a gay couple. Talk about discrimination....

Maybe you're just communicating with the wrong companies?

Without exception, every company I've known who offer spousal benefits to same-sex couples also offers the exact same benefits to common-law hetero couples. Generally, the only requirement is that both parties sign a document (or similar) saying they've cohabited for a mininum term.

Originally posted by Tinkleflower

Originally posted by edsinger

I would agree the government has to right to tell you you cant be gay, BUT it does have the right to limit the extent at which it can be considered normal.

Bad post on my part, that should say the Governement does not have the right to dictate sexual preference....I should have proofread it....sorry.

Originally posted by Tinkleflower

Maybe you're just communicating with the wrong companies?

Without exception, every company I've known who offer spousal benefits to same-sex couples also offers the exact same benefits to common-law hetero couples. Generally, the only requirement is that both parties sign a document (or similar) saying they've cohabited for a mininum term.

I do not believe this but I could be wrong......I know of one that does not have common law benefits off hand but they sure as heck don't have gay benefits either.......the company I work for has just allowed same sex benefits and they do not have common law benefits that I know of, the notice only said same sex couples.

Originally posted by brimstone735
Yet ANOTHER gay thread, Ed?

He,he, I think ed is fixated on them.

Ed, is not good for your health to be so fanatical about issues like this, is not like they are going to turn you into one you know they are not contagious.

Originally posted by edsinger
I do not believe this but I could be wrong......I know of one that does not have common law benefits off hand but they sure as heck don't have gay benefits either.......the company I work for has just allowed same sex benefits and they do not have common law benefits that I know of, the notice only said same sex couples.

*shrug* don't know what to tell you, Ed...

By offering benefits to same-sex couples, and not offering the same to hetero couples, they're guilty of the same prejudice; I'd be surprised if people were actually allowing this to happen. It might be worth you checking though, just to make sure for your own knowledge?

That was my point though - every company I've worked for that has offered benefits to same-sex couples, has offered the exact same to hetero couples as matter of course. It doesn't make sense to do anything else; it's illegal to boot.

Prejudice is wrong, it's as simple as that; whether it's aimed at gays, or hetero couples.

Being gay myself, i think regardless of sexuality all relationships deserve the same recognition...... PERIOD!!!

Originally posted by la2
Being gay myself, i think regardless of sexuality all relationships deserve the same recognition...... PERIOD!!!

I just want a clarification on that, would that include illegal ones? Such as incest, underage, and others?

I am not sure that you meant it as you said, I understand your answer as I think you meant it.


Why cant civil unions with the SAME benefits work? Why does it have to be Marriage?

Originally posted by edsinger

I just want a clarification on that, would that include illegal ones? Such as incest, underage, and others?

I can't answer for la2, but I can certainly add my 50pence worth.

The sexuality of two consenting adults should never, ever be used as a reason to discriminate against them, or treat them any differently from a similarly consensual heterosexual couple. Obviously, this statement precludes relationships involving children.

I think what's being objected to is the notion that the government somehow has the right to dictate what is "normal", and "right".

Why cant civil unions with the SAME benefits work? Why does it have to be Marriage?

If marriage is a religious rite, can you explain why the government is involved at all?

Originally posted by edsinger
Why cant civil unions with the SAME benefits work? Why does it have to be Marriage?

Why CAN'T it be marriage? Why have two drinking fountains when one will do just fine?

Would a man and a woman be allowed to enter a civil union?

First of all, yay for California! Each state that passes the gay marriage bill is a step in the right direction.

Secondly, regarding 'the will of the people' in Ed's state. Many make the mistake of thinking that majority rules in law. That's not always true. If the majority wishes to discriminate, it shouldn't be made into law. If the majority are men and they wish women not to vote, it's wrong to take it away from them. If the majority of the people wish to hang black folks in the public square, it's against the law to do so and shouldn't be made law. The will of the people is fine until the majority of the people wish to break the law.

As far as companies granting spousal benefits to gay people and not common law marriages, if the law would allow gay marriages, there wouldn't be any of that crap. The hets have an option to get married, the gays don't! This point argues FOR gay marriage. Just let people get married and then you won't have to discriminate!

Marriage is a civil union. Why separate it out? Granted, my marriage is between a man and a woman, but no other marriage, regardless of its components, effects my marriage whatsoever. My marriage stands on its own. I am not threatened by anyone else's marriage and my marriage is no one else's business. I don't need anyone's approval.

If some heterophobe told me that I couldn't get 'married' because they were uncomfortable with it, but that I could have a 'civil union', I could tell them to take a hike. That's my right and nobody can take it away.

Ed, have you ever really thought about the rights of the gay person? Have you ever, for an instant tried to look at it from their perspective? Have you considered what it might feel like to be told you cannot marry the woman you love because of some legal glitch? You can have something lesser (called a civil union) but 'Marriage', 'the sanctity of marriage' is reserved for those who are just a bit different than you, Ed. Maybe better-looking, or richer, or blonde. Have you even considered that these people whom you wish to confine by law are really very much just like you? They work, they live, they struggle, they love, they hurt. They just have different preferences...

If you think all gay people are represented by the people in the gay pride parade, you need to get out more. You know that nice young single banker that lives down the street? How about your pizza delivery guy? Remember that 50-year-old bachelor who has the dinner parties but you could never understand why he doesn't have a girlfriend? They're regular people, Ed. Just like you and me. The gay pride folks are a segment of the whole. They don't represent all gay people any more than the rappers and hip-hop society represent all straight folks like you and me, Ed.

Please, open your eyes. I'm not asking you think it's normal, I'm not asking you to accept them as non-sinners. I'm not asking you to change your mind about what they do as morally wrong. Keep those thoughts if you wish. But I am asking you to consider them as human beings with the same failings and goodness, the same faults and integrity as the rest of us. They deserve the same treatment as anyone. It's cruelty to set a segment of society apart because they're different. Are you 'different', Ed? Do you know how it feels to be disallowed, set aside, outcast because of your difference?

Keep the double speak about Civil Unions........any citizen should be allowed to marry whom ever they wish as long as the obvious ( sibling, underage) is not violated.
The religious fanatics can keep their religion as bigoted as they wish; a legal marriage affects them, and especially society, not a lick.
When it's legal across the nation, and the stats come in, while we hetrosexuals are fast coming up on a 60% divorce rates, those "evil homosexuals" will likely be in the single digits.