Posted on 09/07/2007 2:47:05 PM PDT by SmithL
Sacramento -- For the second time in three years, the state legislature has approved a measure giving same-sex couples the right to marry in California, with today's Senate vote split along party lines and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger expected to veto the bill as he did in 2005.
"Marriage is more than just a civil contract ... it is different from domestic partners, it's just different from civil unions - it means something," said Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, who presented the bill and was also the first openly gay person to be elected to the legislature. "And because it means something, that's why it's been denied to us."
The bill, AB43, is the third effort by Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, to pass what he has termed a "gender-neutral marriage" bill. The act would amend the California Family Code to define marriage as a civil contract between two persons.
Critics of the measure said California voters spoke clearly in 2000 when they approved Proposition 22, which barred recognition of same-sex marriage in the state by defining marriage as between a man and woman only.
"We see AB43 as yet another heavy-handed, blatant attempt for Mark Leno and company to skirt the current restrictions in law that prevents same-sex marriages in California,"
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
A bitter, militant bull dyke (no offense.)
Zelda, you ignorant slut.
zelda...still trying to push through her marriage!!!
Dobie was too good for her.
Mark Leno claims that Prop. 22 only applies to out of state same sex marriages. That proposition reads as follows :
“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
Out of that text, he interprets it to apply to out of state marriages, not those conducted within California. That’s why said his bill is legal.
He also claims that since marriage is mentioned in several places in the Calif. law books, including other bills passed by previous legislatures, his bill simply adds to the laws. In Calif. the legislature cannot override a law passed by the people such as Prop. 22, so he says that he’s simply wanting to change the definition of marriage as it appears elsewhere in the Calif. family code. Fine logic, isn’t it?
Anyway, the Calif. Supreme Court is due to rule on marriage in the next few months. He may well get his wish then to marry another man and make his political statement.
It just defies the imagination.
With upside-down pretzel logic like that, he is sure to be a future Hillary Federal court nominee.
It's a good measure of how far downhill the country has gone since the California voters spoke on the subject in 2000. There will be no adverse consequences for the legislators who support gay marriage in California, just as there has been none in Massachusetts.
What's next? Alabama? Wyoming?
Yes, it does mean something. And that something has a precise definition and what you, Ms. Kuehl, and your ilk are trying to cram down everyone's throats does not, and never will, fit that definition. Marriage is a specific thing and if you don't fit that, well, too bad. Get over it! Nobody is stopping you from having your perverted relationships, but you will never be "married".
LOL! I was wondering if anyone would catch the obscure reference.
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.