California legislature passes gay marriage bill...again

By -
Here it is:

SACRAMENTO – For the second time in two years, the California Legislature has passed legislation that would grant same-sex couples the ability to marry. With a 22-15 vote, the Senate on September 7 approved AB 43, authored by Assemblymember Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, and sponsored by Equality California.

The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act is almost identical to the bill the Legislature passed in 2005. California remains the only state in the nation that has approved marriage for same-sex couples through the legislative process.

With the work of EQCA’s lobbying efforts, Political Action Committee and grassroots volunteers, AB 43 picked up three new votes in the Senate this year from Senators Ducheny, Padilla and Scott. Senators Ducheny and Scott abstained from voting in 2005. The EQCA PAC played a critical role in the 2006 elections to increase the pro-marriage majority in the Legislature.

The bill now goes to the governor’s desk for consideration. The governor must take action on all bills by October 14.

(HT: my lovely wife via our church email discussion list) Schwarzenegger will probably veto it. At least the homophobes can't complain about activist judges thwarting the will of the people. (Never mind that sometimes it is a judge's job to enforce the law and the constitution despite the will of the people.)

Comments

grishnash said…
So, I'm confused. If they passed it in 2005, why do they need to pass it again? I assume it never went into effect for some reason (struck down? vetoed?), but the article doesn't make that clear.
6:48 AM, September 08, 2007
Zachary Drake said…
It was vetoed by the Governator, I think.
7:04 AM, September 08, 2007
ogre said…
It was vetoed. Ahnuld claimed it conflicted with the notorious Prop 22--of 6.5 years ago. That's arguable; the meaning of Prop 22 is legally unclear (it was suggested in the ballot argument that it was intended to keep CA from having to recognize same sex marriages performed elsewhere, but others claim it's broader. It's also been pointed out that the carefully crafted language of the proposition is crap, which complicates things more. It says "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." What that means is... well, not what its drafters probably meant. If it was to say what they intended it would read differently; strictly parsed according to the rules of the English language, and in the context of the law, it appears to suggest that "Only marriage" (which is a specific form of contract) "between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." What that means is that the only form of contract that can be made between a man and a woman is marriage. That's unconstitutional, but hey....

The Gropenator will likely veto again.
10:08 AM, September 08, 2007
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Snarking The Odyssey (with AD&D)

By -
Image
WARNING: Those of you who are accustomed to pithy political remarks here on Internal Monologue should brace yourselves for a major dose of gaming geekitude. Here's a link to one "Jamie R." who does a very snarky close reading of Homer's The Odyssey (HT: Mad Latinist via email). I've only read book 1, but it's pretty funny so far. An excerpt: Tell me, O muse, of that ingenious hero who travelled far and wide after he had sacked the famous town of Troy. Many cities did he visit, and many were the nations with whose manners and customs he was acquainted; moreover he suffered much by sea while trying to save his own life and bring his men safely home; but do what he might he could not save his men… Sooooo, he’s in charge, and everybody dies. Tell me, O muse, of that ingenious hero and his colossal failure. What? … for they perished through their own sheer folly in eating the cattle of the Sun-god Hyperion; so the god prevented them from ever rea...
Read more

Where is 56th and Wabasha? "Meet Me in the Morning" Dylan Mystery Solved

By -
Image
Short version The lyric is not "Fifty-sixth and Wabasha", it is actually "Fifty-six and Wabasha", referring to the intersection of old Minnesota Highway 56 and Wabasha Street in Saint Paul, Minnesota. If you listen, you can hear Dylan sing "fifty-six", rather than "fifty-sixth", particularly on the take that was released as the B-side to "Duquesne Whistle". Minnesota Highway 56 no longer intersects Wabasha Street, but from 1963 to 1974 it did intersect Wabasha Street, at what is now (in Feb. 2021) the intersection of George Street and Cesar Chavez Street in St. Paul, or possibly South Wabasha & Cesar Chavez.  Long Version "Meet Me in the Morning" is the first song on side two of Bob Dylan's celebrated 1975 album  Blood on the Tracks. In the opening lines of the song, according to the lyrics on Bob Dylan's official site (https://www.bobdylan.com/songs/meet-me-morning/), the narrator invites the listener to a rendez...
Read more

Victim or perpetrator? How about both!

By -
Remember in the movie Adaptation , the main character's brother has this idea for a screenplay called The Three? It's about a detective trying to track down a serial killer before he kills his next victim. Pretty standard, right? The twist is that the detective, serial killer, and victim, are all actually the same person . Whoa, dude. Fight Club 's got nothin' on that one. Well, this isn't quite that weird. But apparently, Utah legal authorities are somewhat perplexed by a situation in which a 13-year-old girl and her 12-year-old boyfriend are both simultaneously the perpetrators and victims of the same crime: having sex with each other (HT: Feministing ): Utah Supreme Court justices acknowledged Tuesday that they were struggling to wrap their minds around the concept that a 13-year-old Ogden girl could be both an offender and a victim for the same act - in this case, having consensual sex with her 12-year-old boyfriend. The girl was put in this odd position be...
Read more