Posted on 07/11/2005 4:41:32 PM PDT by wagglebee
Using an end run around a previous vote against a bill authorizing same-sex marriage, a California legislator is seeking to revive the issue believed dead for this session in a parliamentary maneuver known as "gut-and-amend."
The original bill, AB19, authored by San Francisco Assemblyman Mark Leno, fell four votes short in the Assembly last month because seven of his Democrat colleagues failed to vote on the measure when the roll was called, a practice known as "taking a walk," according to an editorial in today's San Francisco Chronicle. Unable to reintroduce his original bill, Leno deleted the language of a bill that called for greater collaboration between people who fish and the Department of Fish and Game, which passed by an overwhelming vote of 73-0, and amended it by inserting the language of his same-sex marriage bill, AB19.
Leno also substituted his name as author, deleting the name of the author of the gutted bill. As a result, the defeated bill AB19 is now sailing under the colors of bill AB849 while having nothing whatsoever to do with its original intent.
The Chronicle reported that Leno has emphasized "absolutely no public process will be avoided" under this plan. The revised bill would need to go through at least two Senate committees and then return to the Assembly for another vote.
He defended his tactics, telling the Chronicle that "The gut-and-amend has this nefarious reputation when it's used to rush through bills at the end of session. We've got months to go."
While Senate Democrats are expected to discuss the new Leno bill when they meet in a closed-door caucus today, some Democratic supporters of the bill are said to be apprehensive about the resurrection of a hot-button issue that has already been rejected by the Assembly.
According to the newspaper, which favors legalizing same-sex marriages, the chances of passage are slim.
What about the fact that the citizens of California are against it?
Bend over and relax, california. This won't hurt a bit.
Did not the voters of this state vote no on gay marriages a while back?
That's what I thought.
In Oregon, we put it into the state constitution.
But, the Democrats are still trying to pass "civil unions" legislation to get around the will of the people.
Thankfully, the state senate's bill is D.O.A. in the GOP-controlled state house.
Yes, and it's binding and in effect. The mentally ill members of the legislature are trying to force this into a court battle. I don't think Arnold will sign the bill though, even if it does pass both houses.
They just thought we misunderstood the question the last SIX TIMES they've asked it.
You know how stupid us heterosexuals can be!
BARF
"If it don't fit, don't force it."
--"Little" Richard Penniman
The concept of a legislature writing a law that overtly violates the constitution of their state, in order to create a basis for judicial review...is abominable.
But then, what should we expect from those who practice abomination for a living?
There are no less than 540 hits when you look up "gay marriage" on Amazon. Some of the books that is being pushed around here (sf) ...
* Why Marriage Matters : America, Equality, and Gay People's Right to Marry by Evan Wolfson
* Straightforward : How to Mobilize Heterosexual Support for Gay Rights
by Ian Ayres, Jennifer Gerarda Brown
* Why Marriage?: The History Shaping Today's Debate Over Gay Equality by George Chauncey
* Gay Marriage : Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America by Jonathan Rauch
* Same-Sex Marriage and the Constitution by Evan Gerstmann
* Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con : A Reader by ANDREW SULLIVAN
* Civil Wars: A Battle for Gay Marriage by David Moats
* What is Marriage For? : The Strange Social History of Our Most Intimate Institution by E. J. Graff
We STILL don't want Gay Marriage - sorry - don't care.
later pingout.
The proposition did not bar same-sex marriage, which was already illegal in the state, but it made it so that if another state allowed same-sex marriages, California would not recognize the union and the spouses would not be eligible for the rights and privileges associated with marriage.
The proposition received considerable controversy, but was eventually passed. Prop 22 received the support of 61.4% (4,618,673) of the voters while 38.6% (2,909,370) voted against the proposition.
No, it wasn't. It was an initiative statute.
I think they did it that way because of the lower signature requirements.
But I don't want to get married.
Democratic politicians and activist judiciary to the voters: STFU! We don't care what you think.
So IOW California needs a constitutional amendment which defines marriage as one man and one woman AND prohibits civil union BS.
ahhh but the left wing loophold is that Civil Unions are allowed. So the homos simple create the idential to marraige civil unions under the "a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet."
I think it is an unconstitutional game since it does not pass the "duck test". The votes of some sexual behavior faction are more valuable than the votes of those who voted for 22. (equal protection)
We don't want this in our state, but seem helpless to stop these slimes in Sacramento!
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.