Gay marriage bill stalls on first vote in state Assembly

AP ^ | 6/1/5 | LISA LEFF

[SmithL]

SACRAMENTO -- A bill to legalize same-sex marriage in California stalled on its initial vote Wednesday in the Assembly, but supporters used a parliamentary procedure to keep the measure alive while they tried to round up more votes.

The bill failed on its first vote 35-37. It needed at least 41 votes to pass the 80-member house by the end of the night.

Gay rights supporters hoped it would be the first time a legislative chamber in the United States voted voluntarily to put same-sex couples on equal legal footing with heterosexuals. It took a court order for Massachusetts last year to become the first state in the country to allow gays and lesbians to marry.

The vote occurred the day after the state attorney general filed a challenge to a San Francisco judge's ruling in March that state laws prohibiting gays from marrying are unconstitutional.

Opponents of gay marriage want to put a constitutional amendment before voters banning gay marriage after the Democrat-controlled Legislature rejected similar amendments by Republicans.

The Assembly bill would amend the state family code to define marriage as between "two persons" instead of between a man and a woman. Before Wednesday's vote, the superficially simple semantic change sparked an emotional debate over the meaning of marriage and the definition of discrimination.

Several of the measure's Republican opponents described the bill as an illegal usurpation of the will a majority of California voters expressed five years when they approved a ballot initiative prohibiting the state from recognizing same-sex marriages.

[EagleUSA]

...after the Democrat-controlled Legislature rejected similar amendments by Republicans.
----
The radical left that is running California continues to ignore the will of the voters. They make their own "laws" -- those which further their extreme leftist agenda of anti-reality, anti-establishment, anti-ethics, and anti-America.

[seenenuf]

This could be my big opportunity to avoid taxes. Being single, I pay more income tax. I have a family trust and have taken measures so that my heirs inherit as much as possible, without paying probate fees, legal fees. My house is valued at more than the $250,000 allowance (for a single person) to avoid capital gains tax, and the death tax will be severe.

But now, whoopee - I can marry anybody in my family to save them a bundle when I kick?

[claudiustg]

Maybe these idiots are finally overplaying their hands! What'll it take California? Are you going to bend over for these fools?

[bboop]

To ARMS!!

[goldstategop]

I thought the Democrats could get a 41 vote minimum in favor of the radical rewriting of California's marriage law? Gee, what happened? Its just like in Canada, where the ruling Liberals are finding themselves stymied by a back-bench revolt on C-38.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[TheDon]

Most Californians are quite oblivious to what is happening in Sacramento.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping.

Back on the job!!!! So we'll have a real Homosexual Agenda Ping-o-Rama today.

California politicians - a breed apart. More evidence that liberalism (and it shouldn't be called "liberal" - it's narrow, pyschotic, criminal psychopathology) is a serious mental illness, and when acted upon, criminal insanity.

So you'll get more today, a whole lot more.

I sincerely apologize for my absence (although it may have actually been a relief not to read so many articles about nastiness and evil).

Let me know if you want on/off this pinglist.

[Grampa Dave]

"I thought the Democrats could get a 41 vote minimum in favor of the radical rewriting of California's marriage law? Gee, what happened? Its just like in Canada, where the ruling Liberals are finding themselves stymied by a back-bench revolt on C-38."

The public braying by the Gay Agenda pushers before this vote could lead one to believe that it would pass with no problem.

They and their Gay Agenda Pushing Mediots were wrong again, or where they just lying to us again?

[little jeremiah]

Their very existences are based on nothing but lies. All lies, all the time.

[Grampa Dave]

"Their very existences are based on nothing but lies. All lies, all the time."

[CatQuilt]

I love that! (well, not really but you know what I mean)...

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Several of the measure's Republican opponents described the bill as an illegal usurpation of the will a majority of California voters expressed five years when they approved a ballot initiative prohibiting the state from recognizing same-sex marriages.

Great!

[No Dems 2004]

I've seen some nonsense on the boards lately about people claiming that they can't tell the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats anymore. Well, duh.

Consider this:

ALL 32 (100%) OF THE ASSEMBLY'S REPUBLICANS VOTED AGAINST THIS BILL.

35 (73%) OUT THE ASSEMBLY'S 48 DEMOCRATS VOTED TO LEGALISE GAY MARRIAGE.

Does that sound like there might be a wee bit of difference between the 2 parties?

[Grampa Dave]

The pushers of the Gay Agenda keep telling us that they are normal and trust them with our children, our churches, our businesses and governments.

My response to these Gay Nazis is a short one: No!

[Grampa Dave]

Now some pro Gay ACLU Judge will try to cram this down our throats.

That ballot approval 5 years ago would have a larger margin for our side if voted on this year.