Hum Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 SACRAMENTO, California (AP) -- Gay rights supporters cheered loudly from the gallery as California lawmakers became the first in the country to approve a bill allowing same-sex marriages. But their celebration may be short-lived. The legislation could be vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has expressed an acceptance of gay marriages but said it's an issue that should be decided by voters or the courts. "He will uphold whatever the court decides," spokeswoman Margita Thompson said Tuesday after the state Assembly approved the same-sex marriage measure, 41-35. The Senate had approved it last week. full story: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/07/gay...e.ap/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcom826 Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 What? I thought Massachusetts has already done this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3beanlimit Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 The states and federal goverment should just get out of the marrige business. Leave that to the churches. For goverment and insurance issues like Social Security, divorce, taxes, benifits, ect ect, call them civil unions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamz Veteran Posted September 8, 2005 Veteran Share Posted September 8, 2005 The states and federal goverment should just get out of the marrige business. Leave that to the churches. For goverment and insurance issues like Social Security, divorce, taxes, benifits, ect ect, call them civil unions. 586493668[/snapback] if you mean let the churches decide on their own rather than be forced one way or the other, that might work, depending on the attitudes of the churches. but i have a feeling people will be protesting that as well, even if it doesn't affect them. principles, incipiency arguments, etc. who knows? but this is good news nonetheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twisted.Raven Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 cool, lets hope that it passes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LispyGlitter2 Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 to Starcom826: Mass. is the only state in the nation where gay marriage has passed all legislation. This has not happened yet in Cali. It has passed one govt. Now it's off the Govenator's for his signature. However, I've heard he's said he is going to veto it. There is also a court case pending in the Washington State Supreme court about wether to allow same sex marriages here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcom826 Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 to Starcom826: Mass. is the only state in the nation where gay marriage has passed all legislation. This has not happened yet in Cali. It has passed one govt. Now it's off the Govenator's for his signature. However, I've heard he's said he is going to veto it. There is also a court case pending in the Washington State Supreme court about wether to allow same sex marriages here. 586497846[/snapback] Right so doesn't that make California lawmakers not the first? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John S. Veteran Posted September 9, 2005 Veteran Share Posted September 9, 2005 SAN FRANCISCO -- Less than 24 hours after California lawmakers narrowly passed the country's first same-sex marriage bill, a spokeswoman for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Wednesday that the governor would veto it "out of respect for the will of the people."In a written statement, Schwarzenegger's spokeswoman, Margita Thompson, made a nod to the civil rights arguments but said the governor believed the bill was unconstitutional because of a state proposition passed by the voters in 2000 that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. "Five years ago the matter of same-sex marriage was placed before the people of California," Thompson said. "The people voted, and the issue is now before the courts. The governor believes the matter should be determined not by legislative action -- which would be unconstitutional -- but by court decision or another vote of the people of our state. We cannot have a system where the people vote and the legislature derails that vote." source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemania Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 Right so doesn't that make California lawmakers not the first? 586498029[/snapback] Mass was done through the court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chmsant Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 Thanks adonai for that excerpt. I agree with the Governor on that one. The ppl of CA did express their opinion, and that should stay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aristotle-dude Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 I hope you all realize that any "gay" marriage has no legal effect when travelling abroad to other countries which do not recognize gay marriages and gay "couples" may be denied entry if they claim to be a married couple. Most people really don't consider all of the legal ramifications of states/provinces or countries changes laws like this willy-nilly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palin Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 I hope you all realize that any "gay" marriage has no legal effect when travelling abroad to other countries which do not recognize gay marriages and gay "couples" may be denied entry if they claim to be a married couple.Most people really don't consider all of the legal ramifications of states/provinces or countries changes laws like this willy-nilly. 586498516[/snapback] I hear tell that some other countries don't recognize the U.S. minimum wage, the ADA, EOE laws, women's sufferage, free speech, Bugs Bunny, or the 4th of July, either. You're right, I really wish people would think about the effects of passing "willy-nilly" laws. I'd even venture to call them "whacky." That said, so what? Are Fred and George going to be seriously affected by the fact that Turkey doesn't think they're married? "Oh ****, Fred, no going past third base while we're here!" ?And I seriously doubt a gay couple will be denied entrance to a country simply because they claim they're married. They might get a few questions or funny looks, but that's about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LispyGlitter2 Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 I hear tell that some other countries don't recognize the U.S. minimum wage, the ADA, EOE laws, women's sufferage, free speech, Bugs Bunny, or the 4th of July, either. You're right, I really wish people would think about the effects of passing "willy-nilly" laws. I'd even venture to call them "whacky." That said, so what? Are Fred and George going to be seriously affected by the fact that Turkey doesn't think they're married? "Oh ****, Fred, no going past third base while we're here!" ?And I seriously doubt a gay couple will be denied entrance to a country simply because they claim they're married. They might get a few questions or funny looks, but that's about it. 586498629[/snapback] Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nashy Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 ummm.. didn't people vote AGAINST this? Democracy anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aristotle-dude Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 ummm.. didn't people vote AGAINST this? Democracy anyone? 586498801[/snapback] Haven't you heard? Judge's trump democracy. You are not really living in a democracy anyway. It's all about having the most money/best lawyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
undeRliRcs Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 Haven't you heard? Judge's trump democracy. You are not really living in a democracy anyway. It's all about having the most money/best lawyers. 586500099[/snapback] The people voted on an initiative, unless it is approved a second time here; it doesn't become law. The judicial system is in place to interpret the law's constitutionality, if a law is found to be unconstitutional, that law would need to be redefined. Judges don't just change a law just to **** people off; they have reasons (whether they agree with someone's personal opinion is only a personal matter). And as far as having the most money and best lawyers, that can be said to just about everything that goes before the courts if not all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts