Posted on 12/01/2006 2:45:53 PM PST by Princip. Conservative
A San Francisco assemblyman will introduce new legislation to allow gay marriage when the Legislature reconvenes for its new session Monday.
Democratic Assemblyman Mark Leno said his bill will be nearly identical to one vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in September 2005.
California law currently does not permit gay marriage, but many of the same rights and responsibilities are granted to gay couples who register with the state as domestic partners.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Aren't we glad that Governor Schwarzenegger is there for 4 more years to stop this unconstitutional trash?
Mark Leno, the Assemblyman doing this, just never learns.
Here in CA, the voters passed Prop 22 years ago. It said "marriage" was between a man and a woman. We also have a "domestic partners" law here, that is not "marriage", so it's legal under Prop 22.
Leno wants to have the bill passed. But even if Arnold signed it, it would be valid. Under CA law, an initiative passed by the people can only be reversed or amended by the people, NOT the legislature.
What a huge waste of time. The Domestic Partner law bestows all "spousal" rights on same sex couples. The DP law is also valid for older opposite-sex couples who don't want to lose federal survivor benefits.
I wonder if we can get a cease and desist order against these lawmakers to force them to stop generating trash law after the voters have had their say on the subject? They are wasting legislators time when they could be addressing the impact that illegal immigration is having on the state's economy.
Yes, it's good Arnold is there to veto this again.
Even if Angelides had won and signed the bill, it would be in court, along with the other gay marriage cases still pending in Calif.
Mark Leno said that though the people voted in Prop. 22 which defined marriage, that it applies only to out-of-state marriages. That's the legal rationale behind his bill. Whether that's true would have to be tested in court before the legislature can pass a gay marriage bill.
The MSM has been totally clueless about this. They have taken Mark Leno's word as gospel as far as what Prop. 22 meant. And so they dutifully report that he wants to pass a gay marriage bill, when it's not clear that he has the legal right to do so. A court may have to decide this legal issue.
In Calif, a law passed by the people has a higher legal status than a legislative law. So the marriage law, Prop. 22 takes priority over what the legislature does.
The California Supreme Court is expected to rule sometime in the summer of 2007 on the issue of homosexual marriage, so this bill may not matter anyway.
The Leftist purpose is to destroy marriage, not help gays. Gays already live better than the average person, and they can protect their assets the same as a married couple.
All good points, some of which I added in my post too.
Yes this is a waste of time, until and unless the court rules that Prop. 22 is unconstitutional. If Prop. 22 is constitutional, then Leno can't legally even pass this bill. If Prop. 22 is found unconstitutional, then he can go marry his partner under the court order and none of this would be necessary anyway.
Arnold has been supportive of gay rights but vetoed the previous marriage bill. He may have vetoed precisely to avoid the additional legal entanglements that would have resulted.
"The California Supreme Court is expected to rule sometime in the summer of 2007 on the issue of homosexual marriage, so this bill may not matter anyway."
Exactly. I have a hunch that they'll rule the right way on this one. Pro-gay marriage rulings are out of vogue in the US right now - thank goodness. Even a California Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 in favor of Proposition 22 recently.
If the court challenges already in the pipeline fail, he will sign it. It's what the people want will be what he will offer as to the reason for doing so.
Never mind that courts have in the past could care less what people have voted for like Prop 22.
I was slow in replying so it looks like others have covered current pending legal action. Thanks for posting this.
The left and those who push its agenda never sleeps..
OK if I bookmark this and throw it back at you when he begins negotiations on the bill?
"OK if I bookmark this and throw it back at you when he begins negotiations on the bill?"
You're welcome to, but I don't think he'll back down anytime soon.
The question is if he will wait until the court rules before he does the deed. He has said he will abide with whatever the people or in the end the court decides.
We'll see.
He ain't up for re-election or election anytime soon, altho he could be for Recall. ;-)
Why? He's backed down on just about everything near and dear to Republicans already. Keep an eye on the drivers licenses, that's next . Look for tax increases in this year's budget (not the proposed one in January, but the version he hammers out with Democrats after a long summer stalemate).
If things go as the dems and the gUb would seem to be likely to porpose, we counld see not just a 10% leap in the budget (which is roughly the average increase the last 3 years, we could be looking at a 12-13 % jump and that is a conservative estimate.
He may not have a lot of time to spend on the diversity thing , but his staff will.
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.