So, I'm confused. If they passed it in 2005, why do they need to pass it again? I assume it never went into effect for some reason (struck down? vetoed?), but the article doesn't make that clear.
It was vetoed. Ahnuld claimed it conflicted with the notorious Prop 22--of 6.5 years ago. That's arguable; the meaning of Prop 22 is legally unclear (it was suggested in the ballot argument that it was intended to keep CA from having to recognize same sex marriages performed elsewhere, but others claim it's broader. It's also been pointed out that the carefully crafted language of the proposition is crap, which complicates things more. It says "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." What that means is... well, not what its drafters probably meant. If it was to say what they intended it would read differently; strictly parsed according to the rules of the English language, and in the context of the law, it appears to suggest that "Only marriage" (which is a specific form of contract) "between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." What that means is that the only form of contract that can be made between a man and a woman is marriage. That's unconstitutional, but hey....
The Gropenator will likely veto again.
10:08 AM, September 08, 2007
Here it is: SACRAMENTO – For the second time in two years, the California Legislature has passed legislation that would grant same-sex couples the ability to marry. With a 22-15 vote, the Senate on September 7 approved AB 43, authored by Assemblymember Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, and sponsored by Equality California. The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act is almost identical to the bill the Legislature passed in 2005. California remains the only state in the nation that has approved marriage for same-sex couples through the legislative process. With the work of EQCA’s lobbying efforts, Political Action Committee and grassroots volunteers, AB 43 picked up three new votes in the Senate this year from Senators Ducheny, Padilla and Scott. Senators Ducheny and Scott abstained from voting in 2005. The EQCA PAC played a critical role in the 2006 elections to increase the pro-marriage majority in the Legislature. The bill now goes to the governor’s desk for consideration. The governor must take action on all bills by October 14.(HT: my lovely wife via our church email discussion list) Schwarzenegger will probably veto it. At least the homophobes can't complain about activist judges thwarting the will of the people. (Never mind that sometimes it is a judge's job to enforce the law and the constitution despite the will of the people.)
"California legislature passes gay marriage bill...again"
3 Comments -
So, I'm confused. If they passed it in 2005, why do they need to pass it again? I assume it never went into effect for some reason (struck down? vetoed?), but the article doesn't make that clear.
6:48 AM, September 08, 2007
It was vetoed by the Governator, I think.
7:04 AM, September 08, 2007
It was vetoed. Ahnuld claimed it conflicted with the notorious Prop 22--of 6.5 years ago. That's arguable; the meaning of Prop 22 is legally unclear (it was suggested in the ballot argument that it was intended to keep CA from having to recognize same sex marriages performed elsewhere, but others claim it's broader. It's also been pointed out that the carefully crafted language of the proposition is crap, which complicates things more. It says "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." What that means is... well, not what its drafters probably meant. If it was to say what they intended it would read differently; strictly parsed according to the rules of the English language, and in the context of the law, it appears to suggest that "Only marriage" (which is a specific form of contract) "between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." What that means is that the only form of contract that can be made between a man and a woman is marriage. That's unconstitutional, but hey....
The Gropenator will likely veto again.
10:08 AM, September 08, 2007