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...

"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.

'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!"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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"

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...