Gay marriage bill dies in state Assembly(Calif.)

Sacramento Bee ^ | 6/2/05 | Lisa Leff

[Susannah]

SACRAMENTO (AP) - An effort to legalize gay marriage in California died Thursday after supporters could not find the votes to make the state Assembly the first legislative chamber in the nation to give same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexuals. It was the second and final time in two days the bill failed to gain the simple majority it needed to pass the 80-member house. The 37-36 tally fell four votes shy.

Nearly a quarter of majority Democrats either joined Republicans in opposing the bill or chose not to take a stand on the hot-button topic, now headed for likely showdowns in the state's courts and at the ballot box.

(snip)

The bill would have amended the state family code to define marriage between "two persons" instead of between a man and a woman.

Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez had pledged to make it a priority to get Democrats, who hold 48 of the 80 seats in the house, to send the gay marriage bill to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

(snip)

If it had passed, it was expected to gain more support in the Senate, where Democrats hold a 25-15 advantage.

The bill's ultimate fate was uncertain because Schwarzenegger, a moderate Republican, had not taken a stand on it. He has said voters or judges, not lawmakers, should make such social changes.

Supporters expressed disappointment with Thursday's outcome but said the floor vote nonetheless represented a historic event for the gay rights movement.

"We had people who were adamantly against it last year who were speaking adamantly in favor of it on the floor," said Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-Santa Clara, a supporter of the bill. "This was progress even though it's not enough."

[Susannah]

FYI!

[glock rocks]

"This was progress even though it's not enough."

So, are CA hospitals required to supply AIDS treatment to illegal aliens?

Soon, it will be full court press time. The foundation is being whittled one day at a time.

[Ultra Sonic]

The bill is denied in legislative process!

And now watch as Leftist judges try to reverse the legislative's decision.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping.

Tra La La La La. Couldn't get enough legislators willing to not get elected next term. At least Schwarzie is saying let the voters decide, not judges. I guess he wants another term, too.

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

[FlingWingFlyer]

Looks like the 'RATS are going to have to use their judicial system to sneak this "bill" through.

[John Lenin]

70% of Californians said NO to gay marriage.

[jocko12]

We need a roll call vote,so the the voters know how to vote next election.

[Duke Nukum]

Did it die of the new Super-AIDS?

[goldstategop]

Its a reprieve. We need to work hard through the coming year to amend the State Constitution to protect marriage from Leftist legislators and activist liberal judges.

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

[BackInBlack]

Little Jeremiah: Schwarzenegger did NOT say let the voters decide instead of judges. He said let voters OR judges decide, NOT lawmakers:

"He has said voters or judges, not lawmakers, should make such social changes."

Huh? Have even the most ardent liberals said legislatures should not take up the issue if it would pass? Liberals care about the result, not the process -- as long as they get gay marriage, they don't care how it gets there. But somehow Ahnold is OPPOSED to this being decided through the legislative process? This is nuts!

[little jeremiah]

Wow - that's what I get for not reading carefullly.

S**T!! JUDGES decide? And NOT legislators? What total insanity.

Thanks for catching my stupidity.

[goldstategop]

Actually it was 62% in November 2000. But its interesting nearly a quarter of the Democrats either abstained or voted against their own leadership. They know there's no popular support for same sex marriage here. The Democrats were able to muster only 36 votes in a chamber they control for a radical rewrite of the state's law. And it wasn't even an election year! And next year, they'll be forced to take a stand on a constitutional amendment that will enshrine protection of traditional marriage in the State Constitution. By all means, let's have a debate. The Democrats didn't even want to ask the voters to consider revisiting Prop. 22. Call it a profile in spectacular political cowardice.

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

[loveamerica1]

good maybe we are starting to get somewhere maybe LOL the california nut jobs in Sac finally listened to the people who put there sorry butts in office As a CA resident I think I am dreaming actually for that to happen

[John Lenin]

You forget the voter fraud factor prevalent in CA, I thought it was 67% ?

[Red Sea Swimmer]

Good !

The other 30% are lost souls.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

...chose not to take a stand on the hot-button topic, now headed for likely showdowns in the state's courts and at the ballot box.

It was already decided at the ballot box as an amendment to the state constitution...

[goldstategop]

This was the one chance they had of getting away with it. Think they'll touch it with a 10 foot pole in an election year? When all is said and done, there were enough Democrats who realized this issue alone could cost them their majority here. When you count the Democrats who abstained together with those who voted NO - that's 12 members of a 48 member caucus. And only nine of those have to be defeated for the party to lose its control of the Assembly. The majority leadership doesn't realize or care that its playing with fire.

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

[goldstategop]

No. Prop. 22 was a statute. There will be a constitutional amendment on the ballot next year and I'd love to see the Democrats and the gay lobby come out against it. I can't wait!

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

[angkor]

define marriage between "two persons"

That seems rather restrictive.

Couldn't they make it between "two bipeds" or "two mammals" or "two entities"?