CA: Legislature reflects state's schizophrenia on gay marriage

AP: Monterey County Herald ^ | Sep. 04, 2005 | Beth Fouhy

[calcowgirl]

SAN FRANCISCO - Last week's state Senate vote seeking to legalize gay marriage is the latest example of the political schizophrenia that has come to define the issue in the nation's most populous state.

Since 1999, when lawmakers established a registry of same-sex couples, California has been in the vanguard of extending to gay and lesbian partners nearly all the rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples. But for all the state's live-and-let-live social tolerance, voters have balked at granting gay couples the right to marry.

In 2000, California voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 22, which strictly defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman. It was intended to prohibit California from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states.

Just three years later, then-Gov. Gray Davis, a Democrat, signed into law one of the nation's most sweeping laws recognizing domestic partner rights. It granted registered couples virtually every spousal right available under state law except the ability to file joint income taxes.

And in February 2004, the state became the focus of the gay-marriage movement. Citing the equal protection clause of the state Constitution, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered marriage licenses to be granted to same-sex couples, setting off a monthlong wedding spree. The state Supreme Court ordered an immediate halt to the marriages a month later and eventually voided them.

A statewide Field Poll taken as gays lined up to be married in San Francisco City Hall found that half the state's voters said they disapproved of gay marriage while about 44 percent approved. A large majority said they disapproved of Newsom's actions.

The move generated considerable backlash and was blamed by many Democrats for propelling conservatives to the polls in the 2004 presidential election.

Events in the Legislature and California's courts, where both sides are arguing over whether a same-sex marriage ban violates the state's Constitution, are again motivating opponents into action.

Two groups seeking to ban same-sex marriage hope to place separate initiatives on the June 2006 ballot, both of which would invalidate domestic partnerships and make gay marriage illegal in the state. They also want to enshrine the one-man, one-woman marriage definition in the state Constitution.

The focus this week will be on the state Assembly, which is set to vote Tuesday on whether to send the gay marriage bill approved in the Senate to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

If it does, the action would be a prime example of the state's to-be-or-not-to-be approach to same-sex marriage. The Assembly already defeated the same measure earlier this year.

The bill, by Assemblyman Mark Leno, a San Francisco Democrat, fell four votes short in the Assembly in June. Refusing to give up, Leno then amended it to a bill in the Senate. Supporters hope the Senate's 21-15 vote last week emboldens four Democrats to switch in the Assembly.

Approval in the lower house would send the bill to Schwarzenegger, who in some ways embodies California's conflicted emotions about gay marriage.

Schwarzenegger, a Republican, has expressed support for domestic partnerships and has had a generally pro-gay rights record since taking office.

Last year, he approved a law requiring health insurance companies to extend to gay partners the same benefits they offer to unmarried heterosexual couples. He also allowed the sale of clean needles to slow the spread of AIDS, and he approved an expansion of the state's hate-crimes law to protect transvestites.

But he also has said he prefers the gay-marriage issue to be settled by the courts or popular vote. No matter happens this week in the Legislature, that appears to be exactly how it will be decided.

[rellimpank]

--it was settled once by popular vote--about 60-40 against, IIRC---

[x5452]

All this does is show the schizophrenia of California's politicians. the people made their decision on this.

[DoraC]

Two groups seeking to ban same-sex marriage hope to place separate initiatives on the June 2006 ballot, both of which would invalidate domestic partnerships and make gay marriage illegal in the state. They also want to enshrine the one-man, one-woman marriage definition in the state Constitution.

Kind of stupid. Do they really think a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages AND domestic parnerships can be approved, in California of all places? By the time this amendment gets rejected, the activists will be demoralised and unable to do anything if the Supreme Court declares that prohibiting same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

[calcowgirl]

>>--it was settled once by popular vote--about 60-40 against, IIRC---

Yep.
61.4% Against, 38.6 For

http://primary2000.ss.ca.gov/returns/prop/00.htm

[Mace the Ace]

This isn't about California being schizophrenic, it's just that the legislature is controlled not by Democrats, but by freakin' Socialists...

[Smogger]

Kind of stupid. Do they really think a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages AND domestic parnerships can be approved, in California of all places?

This post demonstrate's your ignorance of the state in question. Californian's WILL approve a sweeping ban against same sex marriage and domestic partnerships. Blacks, Whites, and Mexicans will overwhelming vote in favor of banning same sex marriage. The lefties have overplayed their hand, and it cost will gays the domestic partnership benefits they already had.

[DoraC]

This post demonstrate's your ignorance of the state in question. Californian's WILL approve a sweeping ban against same sex marriage and domestic partnerships. Blacks, Whites, and Mexicans will overwhelming vote in favor of banning same sex marriage. The lefties have overplayed their hand, and it cost will gays the domestic partnership benefits they already had.

Consider this: 5 years ago, a simple ban on recognition of same-sex marriges was passed by a 60-40-margin. Now it's five years later and a poll indicates that the public is opposed by a slim margin of 50-45, while domestic partnership laws are supported by a solid majority. If enough people vote against it because they support the dp's, the ban will be rejected. I am quite sure such a far-reaching amendment will be rejected. No, I think it's the marriage folks who have overplayed their hand.

[calcowgirl]

You're a Mark Leno supporter, I assume?

[DoraC]

No, I am a strong supporter of the people's to an initiative, and thus think that approved initiatives have to be respected by the legislators. But same-sex marriage itself does not bother me.

[calcowgirl]

No, I am a strong supporter of the people's to an initiative, and thus think that approved initiatives have to be respected by the legislators. But same-sex marriage itself does not bother me.

Well, the initiative process, through Prop 22, clearly showed the people's desires.

You wrote: "Kind of stupid. Do they really think a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages AND domestic parnerships can be approved, in California of all places?"

The granting of domestic partnerships, with almost all of the rights AND benefits of marriage, was done through legislation AFTER the passage of Proposition 22. So, don't you think the people's desires should also be respected in that regard?

BTW, other than San Francisco, Proposition 22 passed overwhelmingly. Even Los Angeles voted for it 60/40. If your views of California are based on San Francisco or Santa Cruz only, I think you have a limited view of Californians.

[DoraC]

The granting of domestic partnerships, with almost all of the rights AND benefits of marriage, was done through legislation AFTER the passage of Proposition 22. So, don't you think the people's desires should also be respected in that regard?

If it were the desire of the people, of course, but it is not. Prop. 22, as far as I know, talked only about marriage, not about other arrangements. A vast majority of Californians support the domestic partnership laws, so I think it would be kind of activist of a judge to strike down that law, while Prop. 22 says nothing about anything other than same-sex marriage.

BTW, other than San Francisco, Proposition 22 passed overwhelmingly. Even Los Angeles voted for it 60/40. If your views of California are based on San Francisco or Santa Cruz only, I think you have a limited view of Californians.

I think it is beyond dispute that California is a liberal state. And don't count on it that everyone who voted for Prop. 22 will also vote for this new amendment, because (1) the number of same-sex marriage supporters has increased and (2) the new amendment goes much, much further than Prop. 22.

[calcowgirl]

>>A vast majority of Californians support the domestic partnership laws...

Since they were never given a chance to vote on it, there is no way to know. While the majority may accept an individuals right to live with whoever they choose, whether they support the LAWS that have given them various other rights and benefits (those of a traditional marriage) is yet to be seen.

I suppose you support gay parenting, as well?

[DoraC]

Since they were never given a chance to vote on it, there is no way to know. While the majority may accept an individuals right to live with whoever they choose, whether they support the LAWS that have given them various other rights and benefits (those of a traditional marriage) is yet to be seen.

There is one way: polls. Polls say a majority supports the dp-laws. Even in the South, there is majority support for either same-sex marriage or civil unions. So either California is more conservative than the South, or a majority does distinguish between marriage and civil unions or dp's.

I suppose you support gay parenting, as well?

You mean adoption? Whatever is best for kids. I would rather have them be with a different-sex couple, but I guess even a single-parent home is better than an orphanage.

By the way, what is the point of asking all this? Do you want to paint me off as a far-left liberal or something? I am a libertarian conservative in the mold of Barry Goldwater. People should be free to do whatever they want, as long as they don't hurt others. But same-sex adoption affects kids, so different considerations should be made.

[b9]

By the time this amendment gets rejected, the activists will be demoralised

I wouldn't count on either.

[calcowgirl]

Being allowed to do what one wants is a lot different than the Domestic Partnership laws that are being passed and those in the pipeline, imposing more limitations on non-gays, and more taxpayer money to fund their benefits.

I'm not trying to paint you as anything--just to understand where you are coming from.

Given your libertarian/conservative/Goldwater views, I have a couple more questions:

-Should a corporation be allowed to hire who they want (to the exclusion of gays, if they prefer?)
-Should businesses be required to give spousal benefits to "domestic partners"?
-Should the state pay pension benefits to surviving "domestic partners"?

[DoraC]

Being allowed to do what one wants is a lot different than the Domestic Partnership laws that are being passed and those in the pipeline, imposing more limitations on non-gays, and more taxpayer money to fund their benefits.

Actually, I think the picture is more nuanced. Gays paid a lot of taxes for benefits they did not receive. Now they can get those benefits too. So in a sense, they are getting their own tax money, not someone else's. And I think the 'limitations' imposed on non-gays are greatly exaggerated.

I'm not trying to paint you as anything--just to understand where you are coming from.

Okay.

Given your libertarian/conservative/Goldwater views, I have a couple more questions:

-Should a corporation be allowed to hire who they want (to the exclusion of gays, if they prefer?)

Yes, a corporation or private citizen should be allowed to refuse whoever they don't want to hire, blacks, Mormons, gays. I would strongly oppose such discrimination, but I would not approve of taxpayer-funded thugs moving in to force that corporation or person to accept a group they do not like.

-Should businesses be required to give spousal benefits to "domestic partners"?

Yes, but only to couples who cannot marry.

-Should the state pay pension benefits to surviving "domestic partners"?

Same as above.

[Tazlo]

Gays paid a lot of taxes for benefits they did not receive. Now they can get those benefits too. So in a sense, they are getting their own tax money, not someone else's.

This is insulting to all of the non-gay single people who also paid taxes for benefits they did not receive. Is it OK by you that non-gay single people foot the bill for every other segment of society while not being able to enjoy the same benefits?

[calcowgirl]

Yes, [businesses should be required to give spousal benefits to "domestic partners"] but only to couples who cannot marry.

Same as above. [the state should pay pension benefits to surviving "domestic partners"]

So you are arguing that gay couples should be provided all of the same benefits as married couples, correct?