Skip to comments.Calif. panels reject gay marriage ban
Posted on 05/10/2005 6:30:07 PM PDT by SmithL
SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Two legislative committees on Tuesday rejected a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriages and strip away a long list of rights granted to domestic partners in recent years.
The Assembly and Senate Judiciary Committees both rejected an amendment offered by Republican Assemblyman Ray Haynes, who claimed the proposal would strengthen the intent of voters who approved a ballot measure five years ago that prevents the state from recognizing gay marriages performed elsewhere.
Other laws bar same-sex marriages from taking place in California.
Conservative groups immediately said they would try to gather the nearly 600,000 signatures required to put an initiative banning gay marriage on the ballot in 2006.
"This disturbing display of arrogance against marriage and the voters means average Californians must take matters into their own hands," said Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families.
Democratic state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, the state's first openly gay legislator, predicted otherwise. "This is about America, the place where no civil rights movement has ever failed," she said.
Haynes said the Legislature and the courts had "eviscerated" the meaning of the law banning gay marriages and made up legal arguments to determine it was unconstitutional.
"When the people said only that marriage could be between a man and a woman, they knew exactly what they were talking about," he said. "The words were clear. The meaning was clear. The intention was clear."
Opponents of the amendment said it was an attempt to repeal domestic partners' rights. Since 1999, the Legislature has approved a series of bills recognizing domestic partnerships and granting them most of the rights given married couples, including the right to sue for wrongful death of a partner and to adopt a partner's child.
Democratic Assemblyman Lloyd Levine said the proposed amendment amounted to "legalizing discrimination."
"The fact is plain and simple," he said. "There is a group of people who, for whatever reason, do not like gays and cannot tolerate the idea of two women sleeping together or two men sleeping together. To put that into the constitution ... is simply unconscionable."
Meanwhile, in Raleigh, N.C., hundreds of people rallied behind the Legislative Building Tuesday to urge legislators to allow them to vote on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
"You've got a very vocal, savvy minority that wants marriage to be understood differently," said protester Mark Faggion.
An election on the proposed constitutional amendment appears unlikely. Two-thirds majorities in both the House and Senate are needed to authorize a statewide vote, but referendum bills filed in both chambers have sat in committees for three months without action.
North Carolina already has a law banning same-sex marriages and the state doesn't recognize gay marriages performed in other states.
God Bless Ray Haynes.
It's already banned: Prop. 22.
Good that just means more registered Republicans NATIONWIDE.
They're so smart and wonderful. Liberals are a gift that just keeps on giving.
Piss on them. We passed a ban back in 2002 so who cares what the homo lobby thinks.
ping to self for later pingout.
ping to self.
Yep, you would think so. I guess you just have to keep punishing these homophiles until they go back into the closet or are driven into the sea.
California Proposition 22, known also as Prop 22, was a proposition proposed and passed in 2000 that barred California's recognition of same-sex marriage.
The proposition amended California's marriage law, adding section 308.5 of the Family Code stating Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
The proposition did not bar same-sex marriage, which was already illegal in the state, but it made it so that if another state allowed same-sex marriages, California would not recognize the union and the spouses would not be eligible for the rights and privileges associated with marriage.
However, this is at apparent odds with Full Faith and Credit clause of the United States Constitution which the Supreme Court determined to force states to recognize interracial marriages, even when state legislatures passed laws to the prohibit their recognition.
The proposition received considerable controversy, but was eventually passed. Prop 22 received the support of 61.4% (4,618,673) of the voters while 38.6% (2,909,370) voted against the proposition. (http://primary2000.ss.ca.gov/returns/prop/00.htm)
On February 19, 2004, the city of San Francisco filed a lawsuit against the state challenging the law. This lawsuit came out at the same time that San Francisco city officials issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
It's Gavin Newsome's fault.
Text of Proposition 22
This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.
This initiative measure adds a section to the Family Code; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
SECTION 1. This act may be cited as the "California Defense of Marriage Act."
SECTION 2. Section 308.5 is added to the Family Code, to read:
308.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
PASSED 2 TO 1 in 2000
Except the civil right of the people to govern themselves, or so it would appear.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
The 'Equal Rights Amendment' comes to mind as a failed so-called 'civil rights' movement.
...though the statement gives me courage for the pro-life movement which is about the civiel rights of unborn people.
Oh, haven't you heard? The unborn are not persons deserving of civil rights. Our unelected masters in Washington told me so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.