Forum Home | Login

California pols overrule citizen vote on gay marriage

terpfan1980

Join Date 08/2004

+13

California pols overrule citizen vote on gay marriage

You have to love politicians that consistently try to over-rule the votes of the citizenry.

California citizens passed Proposition 22 (which says only marriages that involve one man and one woman are valid in California), but of course the California Assembly is sure that they know better, and instead they will vote on their own bill to legalize same-sex "marriage." A bill, by the way, that has already passed in the state Senate (so it is clear that both California Senators and California Assemblymen/women are all equally to blame for ignoring the will of the citizenry, who passed Prop 22 of their own accord).

In anycase, enjoy the clips from the following article from The Washington Times. Headline is linked.

California to vote on marriage

By Cheryl Wetzstein
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

A bill legalizing homosexual "marriage" in California is scheduled to go up for its second vote in the state Assembly this week, amid vigorous lobbying.
"We intend to keep the Assembly members' feet to the fire," said Benjamin Lopez, a leader of the Traditional Values Coalition. "If they support marriage for one man and one woman, like their constituents voted, they will vote against AB 849."
Mr. Lopez and his allies think California lawmakers legally cannot enact same-sex "marriage" because voters approved Proposition 22, which says only marriages involving one man and one woman are valid in California.
Homosexual rights supporters, however, think their message is the right one.
"We are so very close," Assemblyman Mark Leno said last week after his bill to legalize same-sex "marriage" passed the state Senate.
"It would be very disappointing for [the Assembly] not to be able to stand up for civil rights," he said.
In June, the Assembly rejected Mr. Leno's bill by four votes.
Meanwhile, two same-sex "marriage"-related decisions are expected in Massachusetts this month.
Either today or tomorrow, Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly is expected to issue his decision on whether to certify a constitutional marriage amendment filed by a citizens' group called VoteOnMarriage.org.
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, supports the amendment, which must garner nearly 66,000 certified signatures and two legislative approvals before it can get on a 2008 ballot.
However, dozens of homosexual rights groups and lawyers have urged Mr. Reilly not to certify the amendment. They say it is unconstitutional in light of the 2003 Goodridge decision, which legalized same-sex "marriage" in Massachusetts, the groups say.
Meanwhile, on Sept. 14, the Massachusetts legislature is scheduled to meet in a constitutional convention to offer a second vote on a marriage amendment that passed last year.

... more at linked article

Issues, issues every where. Not just California, but in Massachusetts as well.

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

politics

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

kingbee

Join Date 04/2004

+42

the original bill defining marraige as a union between one man and one woman was passed by a 65% vote

gray davis was elected governor by a 57% vote. 5 years down the road, people decided they wanted to reconsider his candidacy...and did. what part of a ballot initiative is written in stone? many ballot initiatives are voided because they're poorly conceived and poorly written and, in fact, violate the constitution.

Successfully updated karma reason!

#27 by kingbee
Wednesday, September 07, 2005

show me where there is any mention of marraige in the constitution, either california state or federal. no such thing excist, except in the mind of liberal activist judges, not ruling on excisting law, but creating new ones from the bench, where does any judge get off overruling the vast will of the people,?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Andrew J. Brehm.. Anyone who wonders why some of us consider the whole gay marriage issue an attack on marriage and family itself need look no further than the questions you ask. If the question of gay marriage is embolding anti marriage, anti family activism, that in itself shows that it isn't as much about gay marriage as it is questioning marriage and family all together.

Successfully updated karma reason!

If the question of gay marriage is embolding anti marriage, anti family activism, that in itself shows that it isn't as much about gay marriage as it is questioning marriage and family all together.

Agreed. That, in a nutshell is my argument for gay marriage. When even (parts of) the gay community want to embrace the social and personal commitment involved in marriage, marriage as an institution is strengthened against anti marriage, anti family activism.

Successfully updated karma reason!

kingbee

Join Date 04/2004

+42

any mention of marraige in the constitution

the states are empowered to legislate and regulate anything not specifically covered by the us constitution, but they cannot violate the rights of their citizens in the process.

the state has no business deciding to whom the benefit of a religious service should be granted or denied. if they did, they woulda long ago started charging heavy-duty sinners some sorta penalties and begun licensing wafer inspectors.

Successfully updated karma reason!

"an easier question might be: why is the state involved in any way with the religious ritual of marriage?"

Exactly. There should be nothing BUT civil unions in the eyes of the state.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Ted,

I think that any position that is "attacked" by questioning is a weak position.

And incidentally, questioning marriage as a government-sanctioned institution is not the same as advocating a specific type of marriage being such a government-sanctioned institution.

If you can't answer the questions, why advocate either mixed or same-sex marriages?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Our representatives have a moral imperative to vote the will of their constituents. Thats why we ELECT them, not to express their personal will, but to enforce the will of the people.

I was really struck by this statement because it expresses a more radical notion of democracy than operates in most of the world. Usually representative democracy is characterised as the voters choosing their leaders, who then exercise their judgement, 'wisdom', conscience - and, well, leadership - in deciding the great issues of the day. In theory, as professional lawmakers, they have the leisure and expertise to go more deeply into issues than the general public can manage. If the people are not satisfied with this leadership, they can then boot out their representatives at the next electoral opportunity.

Clearly a democracy "of the people, by the people, for the people" is of a different stamp. While I am impressed by this notion of representatives whose sole purpose is to enforce their voters' will, not their personal will, it does beg a couple of questions:
* What happens when the will of the voters is unclear, because opinion is heavily divided?
* If the representative serves no other purpose than as a conduit for the popular will, why does it matter which candidate is elected? I can see that the popular will is expressed in a very general way by which party's candidate is elected, by why then should it matter whether Republican A or Republican B is elected (or Democrat X, or Democrat Y)?

Successfully updated karma reason!

And I've thought of another one: if the function of elected representatives is simply to follow their electors 'instructions' doesn't that make any kind of parliamentary or congressional debate, in which representatives at least in theory try to influence each other, a waste of time?

Successfully updated karma reason!

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"

Good for him/her. I really hate it when you make this broad stroke definition of someone who would oppose something as limiting as the amendment would have done to the rights of individuals in this country as "activist". That is so disingenuous. The way I see it is that the conservatives are the activists, looking to use the Constitution in a manner for which it was never intended, that being putting limitations on how people live and what they believe, as consenting adults, and in peace and harmony.

You toss around this term activist, attribute it to liberals, thereby making it some kind of dirty word. It's the conservative judges who are the activists, the ones who would actively amend the Constitution to fit into their small minded and bigoted mindset. All you're doing is turning the tables to badmouth liberals. I don't care whether you agree with the decision or not. That's your business and your right.

But, I resent the derogatory bullshit and spinning in order to demonstrate and attribute some evil doing to someone who is just looking to protect the rights of people to believe and live as they see fit, as is their business and their right.

Successfully updated karma reason!

And, one more thing....

If you do not want to marry someone of your same sex, then don't. No one is making you do it. It's so freakin' simple.

Successfully updated karma reason!

"No one is making you do it. It's so freakin' simple."

not quite as simple as the fact that marriage is a license, not a right. not everyone can get a drivers license, not everyone can get a gun license, not everyone can get a dog license, and not everyone can get a marriage license.

If they want to be called "married", let them take it up with a church.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Who cannot get a marriage licence?

Successfully updated karma reason!

polygamists, first cousins, gay people, etc., etc. If it were unconsitutional to have standards as to who can be licensed, then anyone could be licensed.

Successfully updated karma reason!

doesn't that make any kind of parliamentary or congressional debate, in which representatives at least in theory try to influence each other, a waste of time?

Leave off the first part, and just state the above, and I would agree with you.

Successfully updated karma reason!

polygamists, first cousins, gay people, etc., etc. If it were unconsitutional to have standards as to who can be licensed, then anyone could be licensed.

NAMBLA, Siblings, Children/Parents

Successfully updated karma reason!

In 15 to 20 years those of us who are against "transgenerational marriage" will be called hate mongers and bigots. The same "civil rights" arguments abused by the "gay marriage" advocates today will be used by "transgenerational marriage" advocates to further their agenda.

Don't believe me? Compare society's acceptance of homosexuality in the 70s to acceptance of pedophilia today.. it is the same. NAMBLA is already using them and the American Psychiatric Association backs them up. We even have people defending beastiality, and it isn't even illegal in some states.

((((Before anyone goes off about how gay doesn't equal pedophilia or beastiality, I absolutely agree, however, both are already capitalizing on the gay marriage arguments... if you fight for something, make sure you understand what other causes you are championing by your words and actions))))

Successfully updated karma reason!

Bakerstreet:

polygamists, first cousins, gay people, etc., etc. If it were unconsitutional to have standards as to who can be licensed, then anyone could be licensed.

Isn't it ironic that the gay marriage activists who claim to be all about "equality" don't include any other alternative lifestyle but their own. Apparently some "equality" is more equal than others. ;~D

Successfully updated karma reason!

"polygamists, first cousins, gay people, etc., etc. If it were unconsitutional to have standards as to who can be licensed, then anyone could be licensed."

It is unconstitutional to have standards as to who can be licensed. And members of the groups you mention are certainly entitled to apply for and receive marriage licences. And they do too.

The restriction is not on who gets licences but on who they are allowed to marry. The traditional family of a few decades ago was, for example, limited to one race. Thus in many countries one could not legally marry a member of another race. That has changed now, in spite of arguments for the "traditional family".

The same thing will eventually happen to same-sex marriages, unless those opposed to them can come up with a better argument than "it's traditional".

Successfully updated karma reason!

"Isn't it ironic that the gay marriage activists who claim to be all about "equality" don't include any other alternative lifestyle but their own. Apparently some "equality" is more equal than others. ;~D"

So you believe that gay marriage activists are somehow obligated to advocate other people's causes as well?

Why?

Do you believe that gay marriage creates the same problems as marriages between first cousins? Do you believe that both should be outlawed for the same reason?

Successfully updated karma reason!

"The restriction is not on who gets licences but on who they are allowed to marry."

Um, yep. No different for homosexuals. They can marry, just not people of the same sex. You believe that will change as it changed with race. I, personally, can't say. I mean, unless you believe we will eventually let anyone marry anyone/anything, there will be a line drawn somewhere.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Reply By: dabePosted: Wednesday, September 07, 2005the 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"Good for him/her. I really hate it when you make this broad stroke definition of someone who would oppose something as limiting as the amendment would have done to the rights of individuals in this country as "activist". That is so disingenuous. The way I see it is that the conservatives are the activists, looking to use the Constitution in a manner for which it was never intended, that being putting limitations on how people live and what they believe, as consenting adults, and in peace and harmony. You toss around this term activist, attribute it to liberals, thereby making it some kind of dirty word. It's the conservative judges who are the activists, the ones who would actively amend the Constitution to fit into their small minded and bigoted mindset. All you're doing is turning the tables to badmouth liberals. I don't care whether you agree with the decision or not. That's your business and your right. But, I resent the derogatory bullshit and spinning in order to demonstrate and attribute some evil doing to someone who is just looking to protect the rights of people to believe and live as they see fit, as is their business and their right.

dabe MOST judges that legislate from the bench especially here in california ARE LIBERAL. This is 2 times in last ten years that the will of the people taken in a lawfull vote has been overturned by LIBERAL ACTIVIST JUDGES LEGISLATING LAW FROM THE BENCH. Live with it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

and further more am married already to a FEMALE as God intended, "be fruitfull {not fruits} and multiply.

Successfully updated karma reason!

(I'd really love to know why JoeUser keeps switching between displaying my name as "Leauki" and "Andrew J. Brehm".)

Anyway, here's a few pointers:

1. Not legalising gay marriage is not against the constitution or equal rights, because no right is denied to gay people. They, as does everybody else, have the right to marry another (one) individual (members of the same species) of the opposite sex. That is the same right polygamists, first cousins etc. enjoy.

2. The argument based on traditional families is empty. There is no obvious explanation for why the definition of traditional family at this very moment outways tomorrow's or yesterday's definitions.

3. There is no obvious reason for why gay couples should not enjoy the same privileges and responsibilities for one another as straight couples.

4. If there is an argument against gay marriage which applies to ONLY gay marriage and not a single instance of a straight marriage, the argument is logically valid. I have not seen such an argument yet.

Successfully updated karma reason!

"Um, yep. No different for homosexuals. They can marry, just not people of the same sex. You believe that will change as it changed with race. I, personally, can't say. I mean, unless you believe we will eventually let anyone marry anyone/anything, there will be a line drawn somewhere."

I believe it will change unless somebody can give a good reason for why it should not change.

There will be a line drawn somewhere, but it will be at a point for which somebody can give a good reason.

"and further more am married already to a FEMALE as God intended, "be fruitfull {not fruits} and multiply"

That is a) excellent and

not an argument against gay marriage, as it would also cover marriages between a man and an infertile woman or marriages of couples who don't want children.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.

There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting and posting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!

View all recent posts

Mark all posts as read Delete cookies created by the forum Return to Top

Stardock Forums v Server Load Time: Page Render Time: