Nimrod
04-21-2004, 02:04 PM
They're circumventing prop 22 which was approved by over 3/4 of CA state voters with a loophole, basically saying that California will change it's laws to allow gays to marry, but prop 22 will still bar California recognizing out of state gay marriages.
They're basically saying "the people voted, but we didn't like the results, and so we're going to ignore it."
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20040421-9999-1n21marriage.html
State Assembly panel OKs bill allowing gay marriage
By Bill Ainsworth
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
April 21, 2004
SACRAMENTO – The Assembly Judiciary Committee yesterday passed a bill that would allow same-sex marriages in California, becoming the first legislative body in the nation to do so, according to gay rights activists.
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
The bill once again puts the California Legislature on the forefront of an issue that has caused sharp divisions nationwide, ranging from San Francisco's decision to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples to President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages.
But the bill's author, Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, suggested that his measure still faces a tough road and might not pass the Democratic-controlled Legislature this year. Election-year politics and the potential cost to the state of allowing same-sex marriages could slow the bill's progress, according to lawmakers and other observers.
That uncertain outlook didn't diminish the celebratory mood of the bill's supporters.
"The momentum has shifted dramatically. This is a historic day," said Geoffrey Kors, executive director of Equality California, a gay rights group that is sponsoring the legislation.
Backers of AB 1987 hailed the committee's 8-3 vote as a civil rights victory, in part because it moves the discussion from domestic partnerships for gay couples to allowing them to marry. A handful of state laws passed in recent years already have granted same-sex couples many, but not all, of the rights and benefits of marriage.
Supporters also said yesterday's vote was significant because other states have advanced gay rights mainly through the judiciary, not the Legislature. Rulings by high courts in Hawaii, Vermont and Massachusetts have all opened the door for same-sex couples in those states.
Kors said this was the first time a state legislative body had voted to legalize same-sex marriages.
But while the California Legislature is moving toward allowing same-sex marriages, lawmakers in several other states are pushing legislation that bans same-sex marriage.
Opponents of the Leno bill said the committee vote smacked of arrogance.
Not only would it undermine traditional marriage, they said, but it would also violate the will of voters. In 2000, California voters approved Proposition 22, which prohibits California from recognizing same-sex marriage – though the exact meaning of the initiative is under dispute.
Randy Thomasson, executive director of Campaign for California, a group that advocates what it says are traditional family values, told the committee that the Leno bill is "illegal, unconstitutional and immoral."
"This bill turns marriage upside down and utterly rejects the vote of the people to protect marriage for a man and a woman," he said.
Some Republicans made similar arguments and noted that the state Supreme Court is considering cases involving same-sex marriage and Proposition 22.
"It trivializes the will of the people," said Assemblywoman Patricia Bates, R-Laguna Niguel, who voted against the bill.
Leno maintained that his bill does not violate Proposition 22, which he said changed only the family code section of the law that deals with recognizing marriages from other states. His bill changes a code section to define marriage as between "two persons" instead of between a man and a woman.
Opponents argued that Proposition 22 is a clear ban on same-sex marriages.
On the political front, Thomasson said the Democrats, who control both houses of the Legislature, risk losing legislative seats in the fall if they allow the bill to proceed.
Moderate Democrats have expressed concern over the potential political fallout from pursuing same-sex marriages through legislation and the courts.
Yesterday, Leno suggested that a financial concern could hamper the bill. By getting married, same-sex couples would file joint state income taxes, which would reduce state revenues, Leno said. The amount hasn't yet been determined.
Leno said that it might be difficult to persuade his colleagues in the Legislature to approve a bill that costs the state any money at a time when it faces a $15 billion deficit.
"Civil rights should not have a price tag, but in the real world it does," he said.
But if the bill doesn't succeed this year, Leno said he would be back next year. "Unfortunately, these things don't happen overnight," he said.
Leno's bill next goes to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, which must decide how much it will cost the state. The full Assembly and Senate would then have to pass the bill before it goes to the governor.
Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has sent conflicting signals on his views about same-sex marriage. Schwarzenegger harshly criticized San Francisco for, in his view, breaking the law by allowing same-sex marriages, contending they violate Proposition 22. San Francisco officials began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in February, until the state Supreme Court ordered them to stop.
But on national television, Schwarzenegger said that same-sex marriages would be "fine with me" if the courts or the voters change the law and make them legal.
His office declined to comment on the Leno bill. Schwarzenegger spokesman Vince Sollitto said the governor's office typically doesn't discuss pending legislation.
Yesterday, dozens of gay rights advocates, including some who had been married in San Francisco, came to the Capitol to attend the hearing.
"It really has made a difference. The recognition we've gotten is unbelievable," said Shelly Bailes, who married her partner of 30 years in San Francisco two months ago.
Democrats on the committee said they voted in favor of the legislation because it was a civil rights issue. They compared it to the 1948 California court decision that struck down a law banning interracial marriage and a 1960s California court decision banning housing discrimination.
"I believe our highest duty as legislators is to protect equality," said Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-Santa Clara.
Leno, one of five openly gay members of the Legislature, said that for years he believed officially recognized domestic partnerships were all that gay couples needed. For him, it wasn't worth fighting a battle over the word "marriage."
"The experience of oppression is such that we buy into it ourselves. 'Oh, I don't need the word, I'm just second-class,' " Leno said.
But he said his views changed when the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled last year that excluding same-sex couples from marriage violates their rights.
"It made me realize that if I'm going to fight for my own civil rights, why would I fight for anything second-class?" he said.
They're basically saying "the people voted, but we didn't like the results, and so we're going to ignore it."
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20040421-9999-1n21marriage.html
State Assembly panel OKs bill allowing gay marriage
By Bill Ainsworth
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
April 21, 2004
SACRAMENTO – The Assembly Judiciary Committee yesterday passed a bill that would allow same-sex marriages in California, becoming the first legislative body in the nation to do so, according to gay rights activists.
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
The bill once again puts the California Legislature on the forefront of an issue that has caused sharp divisions nationwide, ranging from San Francisco's decision to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples to President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages.
But the bill's author, Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, suggested that his measure still faces a tough road and might not pass the Democratic-controlled Legislature this year. Election-year politics and the potential cost to the state of allowing same-sex marriages could slow the bill's progress, according to lawmakers and other observers.
That uncertain outlook didn't diminish the celebratory mood of the bill's supporters.
"The momentum has shifted dramatically. This is a historic day," said Geoffrey Kors, executive director of Equality California, a gay rights group that is sponsoring the legislation.
Backers of AB 1987 hailed the committee's 8-3 vote as a civil rights victory, in part because it moves the discussion from domestic partnerships for gay couples to allowing them to marry. A handful of state laws passed in recent years already have granted same-sex couples many, but not all, of the rights and benefits of marriage.
Supporters also said yesterday's vote was significant because other states have advanced gay rights mainly through the judiciary, not the Legislature. Rulings by high courts in Hawaii, Vermont and Massachusetts have all opened the door for same-sex couples in those states.
Kors said this was the first time a state legislative body had voted to legalize same-sex marriages.
But while the California Legislature is moving toward allowing same-sex marriages, lawmakers in several other states are pushing legislation that bans same-sex marriage.
Opponents of the Leno bill said the committee vote smacked of arrogance.
Not only would it undermine traditional marriage, they said, but it would also violate the will of voters. In 2000, California voters approved Proposition 22, which prohibits California from recognizing same-sex marriage – though the exact meaning of the initiative is under dispute.
Randy Thomasson, executive director of Campaign for California, a group that advocates what it says are traditional family values, told the committee that the Leno bill is "illegal, unconstitutional and immoral."
"This bill turns marriage upside down and utterly rejects the vote of the people to protect marriage for a man and a woman," he said.
Some Republicans made similar arguments and noted that the state Supreme Court is considering cases involving same-sex marriage and Proposition 22.
"It trivializes the will of the people," said Assemblywoman Patricia Bates, R-Laguna Niguel, who voted against the bill.
Leno maintained that his bill does not violate Proposition 22, which he said changed only the family code section of the law that deals with recognizing marriages from other states. His bill changes a code section to define marriage as between "two persons" instead of between a man and a woman.
Opponents argued that Proposition 22 is a clear ban on same-sex marriages.
On the political front, Thomasson said the Democrats, who control both houses of the Legislature, risk losing legislative seats in the fall if they allow the bill to proceed.
Moderate Democrats have expressed concern over the potential political fallout from pursuing same-sex marriages through legislation and the courts.
Yesterday, Leno suggested that a financial concern could hamper the bill. By getting married, same-sex couples would file joint state income taxes, which would reduce state revenues, Leno said. The amount hasn't yet been determined.
Leno said that it might be difficult to persuade his colleagues in the Legislature to approve a bill that costs the state any money at a time when it faces a $15 billion deficit.
"Civil rights should not have a price tag, but in the real world it does," he said.
But if the bill doesn't succeed this year, Leno said he would be back next year. "Unfortunately, these things don't happen overnight," he said.
Leno's bill next goes to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, which must decide how much it will cost the state. The full Assembly and Senate would then have to pass the bill before it goes to the governor.
Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has sent conflicting signals on his views about same-sex marriage. Schwarzenegger harshly criticized San Francisco for, in his view, breaking the law by allowing same-sex marriages, contending they violate Proposition 22. San Francisco officials began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in February, until the state Supreme Court ordered them to stop.
But on national television, Schwarzenegger said that same-sex marriages would be "fine with me" if the courts or the voters change the law and make them legal.
His office declined to comment on the Leno bill. Schwarzenegger spokesman Vince Sollitto said the governor's office typically doesn't discuss pending legislation.
Yesterday, dozens of gay rights advocates, including some who had been married in San Francisco, came to the Capitol to attend the hearing.
"It really has made a difference. The recognition we've gotten is unbelievable," said Shelly Bailes, who married her partner of 30 years in San Francisco two months ago.
Democrats on the committee said they voted in favor of the legislation because it was a civil rights issue. They compared it to the 1948 California court decision that struck down a law banning interracial marriage and a 1960s California court decision banning housing discrimination.
"I believe our highest duty as legislators is to protect equality," said Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-Santa Clara.
Leno, one of five openly gay members of the Legislature, said that for years he believed officially recognized domestic partnerships were all that gay couples needed. For him, it wasn't worth fighting a battle over the word "marriage."
"The experience of oppression is such that we buy into it ourselves. 'Oh, I don't need the word, I'm just second-class,' " Leno said.
But he said his views changed when the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled last year that excluding same-sex couples from marriage violates their rights.
"It made me realize that if I'm going to fight for my own civil rights, why would I fight for anything second-class?" he said.