Posted on 04/11/2007 12:18:56 AM PDT by nickcarraway
A state Assembly committee voted Tuesday for a bill that would allow gay couples to marry, despite a veto threat and a continuing debate over the legislation's constitutionality.
The Judiciary Committee approved the bill by Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, sending it to the Appropriations Committee, the last stop before the Assembly floor.
The 7-3 vote split along party lines, with Democrats backing the proposal and Republicans opposing it.
Lawmakers approved a nearly identical measure in 2005, but it was vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The governor argued that it violated Proposition 22, an anti-gay marriage initiative adopted by California voters in 2000.
The Republican governor told a group of high school students in February that he would turn down the bill again if it reached his desk this year. But Leno said lawmakers should keep trying.
"The time has come for California to honor its commitment to equality for all Californians by allowing each of our citizens the right to marry the person he or she loves," he said.
He said failure to allow same-sex marriages would deny a long list of benefits to gays, including pension, health care and veterans' benefits available to married couples.
The bill's opponents, agreeing with Schwarzenegger, said the state Constitution prevents the Legislature from authorizing gay marriages unless voters first overturn Proposition 22.
"The Constitution says clearly that this Legislature cannot trump the vote of the people of California," said Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families. "The vote of the people of California seven years ago was to say only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
But Leno said Proposition 22 was drafted to prevent California from having to recognize gay marriages performed in other states and countries. He said his bill would amend another section of law dealing with marriages performed in California.
Proposition 22's authors could have broadened the measure's language to ensure that it also would ban same-sex marriages in California, but they failed to do so because of "sloppiness and error on their part," Leno said.
"Their intent was to deny same-sex couples respect and dignity under the law," he said. "They did not do their job well. They created the ambiguity."
He said recent polls indicate that public support for gay marriage is increasing. But civil rights shouldn't be decided by a public vote, he added.
"That's why we have three branches of government—to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority," he said.
The debate over the bill's constitutionality is likely to be decided late this year or early next year by the state Supreme Court, which is weighing whether California's ban on same-sex marriage violates equal protection, privacy and free expression rights.
>>>He said recent polls indicate that public support for gay marriage is increasing.<<<
Ignorance is bliss. People take the long-term consequences of such a move far, far, far too lightly. Redefining marriage from what it has been in every society on earth for time imemorium is simply a terrible idea.
And what these dinkuses don’t seem to understand is that it is a complete redefinition of marriage, stripping the child-bearing and rearing component completely out of it.
[And what these dinkuses don’t seem to understand is that it is a complete redefinition of marriage, stripping the child-bearing and rearing component completely out of it.]
Seems to me the primary objective of homosexual "marriage" proponents is to mandate access to spousal benefits - Insurance benefits.
When Marry and Sherry want to procreate - your insurance premiums will pay for it.
When Stephen and Steve catch the "Love Bug" and acquire AIDS, your insurance premiums will pay for their expensive drug cocktails and their hospice care.
I wonder how many of them are in civil service?
Civil servants have great healthcare benefits.
So what the majority of Californians want regarding this demented idea is “tyranny”?
They want to adopt children, in particular little boys. Expect that "rights" battle to be the first one they wage after they are allowed to "marry."
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.