Schwarzenegger vetoes gay marriage bill as promised

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | September 29, 2005 | Lynda Gledhill

[calcowgirl]

Sacramento -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today delivered on his promise to veto legislation that would have given same-sex partners the right to marry, but said he would not support any rollback of the state's current domestic partner benefits.

That stance would put him at odds with two initiatives being pursued by conservative groups for the ballot next year. Those measures would not only prevent gay marriage, but also eliminate rights domestic partners currently enjoy.

"I am proud California is a leader in recognizing and respecting domestic partnerships and the equal rights of domestic partners," Schwarzenegger said in his veto message. "I support current domestic partnership rights and will continue to vigorously defend and enforce these rights and as such will not support any rollback."

(snip)

Schwarzenegger's strong stance in favor of domestic partner rights, along with his signature today on four bills strengthening protections for gays and lesbians was clearly meant to temper the outpouring of criticism he had received for saying he would veto the bill.

In 2000, voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 22, an initiative that banned same-sex marriage in California. Several court cases on the constitutionality of banning same-sex marriage are making their way through the court system.

Schwarzenegger said the ultimate decision will be made by a court.

The legislature's passage of AB 849 marked the first time that a legislative body in the United States has approved a bill that legalizes gay marriage. Support from the United Farm Workers helped to push the bill to the governor's desk.

[calcowgirl]

...along with his signature today on four bills strengthening protections for gays and lesbians

I count 5:

Governor Schwarzenegger has signed 47 bills and vetoed 52:

Bills Signed:

(snip)

- SB 565 by Senator Carole Migden (D-San Francisco) - Property tax reappraisal exclusion: domestic partners.

- SB 973 by Senator Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica) - Public employees' retirement: domestic partners.

- AB 228 by Assemblymember Paul Koretz (D-West Hollywood) - Transplantation services: human immunodeficiency virus.

- AB 1142 by Assemblymember Marvyn Dymally (D-Compton) - HIV/AIDS: African-Americans: statewide initiative.

- AB 1400 by Assemblymember John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) - Civil Rights Act.

 

 

[Carry_Okie]

Schwarzenegger's strong stance in favor of domestic partner rights, along with his signature today on four bills strengthening protections for gays and lesbians was clearly meant to temper the outpouring of criticism he had received for saying he would veto the bill.

The implication being that he had to be coerced into supporting "gay rights" legislation. Such is totally false. Schwarzenegger has been signing "domestic partners" legislation since almost the day he took office, rendering the rights of same sex couples equivalent to marriage in all but name and in clear violation of the intent of the voters who passed Prop 22.

[calcowgirl]

Make that 6; I just found another one:

SIGNED TODAY: AB 1586 by Assemblymember Paul Koretz (D-West Hollywood) - Insurers: health care service plans: discrimination.

---

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=2664

California Enacts Koretz Bill For Major Transgender Protections
By California Political Desk
September 29, 2005

(West Hollywood) – California became the first state in the nation to ban denials of insurance coverage based solely on a person’s transgender status when Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed legislation today authored by Assemblymember Paul Koretz (D-West Hollywood). AB 1586 adds gender and gender identity to existing anti-discrimination provisions in California laws regulating insurance companies and health care service plans. The new law will take effect January 1, 2006 and prohibits insurers and health plans from discriminating on the basis of gender identity in contracts and policies or in the provision of benefits or coverage.

“Transgender people are part of our human family and they deserve equal access to health coverage and treatments available to everyone else. AB 1586 goes a long way toward ending the indignities that transgender men and women face when trying to access healthcare. This is a matter of human compassion and basic fairness,” said Assemblyman Koretz.

While attending a town hall meeting on transgender health care issues in Los Angeles last February, Koretz announced he would introduce legislation to somehow deal with the issue. “After hearing such compelling testimony I decided right then and there to introduce legislation outlawing the denial of health insurance based solely on ignorance, prejudice, and bureaucratic insensitivity,” said Koretz.

Despite existing statutes prohibiting discrimination based on sex, many people in California experience discrimination by insurance companies and health plans on the basis of gender, particularly members of California’s transgender community. Some are denied the ability to purchase insurance or are denied coverage for medically necessary procedures simply because they are transgender. For example, if a plan covers gynecological care for women then the same care should be available to a female-to-male transgender person whose legal gender is male, but may still have need for coverage or care usually provided only to women.

Geoff Kors is Executive Director of Equality California, a statewide organization advocating for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights and the sponsor of AB 1586. “This is the first time a state has enacted legislation to ban transgender discrimination in the provision of health insurance coverage and it is long overdue. We are gratified by the support given to this important issue by the Legislature and the Governor,” said Kors.

A 2003 report published by the Transgender Law Center and the National Center for Lesbian Rights surveyed people who participate in transgender community programs or services in San Francisco. The survey found that over 30% of respondents reported they had been discriminated against while trying to access health care. Only 15% reported surgical alteration of any type while about 70% had taken steps to change documents such as driver’s licenses or social security records to reflect their gender identity. Advocates say the report underscores the need for legislation like the Koretz bill here in California and nationally.

“AB 1586 is a powerful new tool for transgender people and their families who want to be able to utilize their health insurance free of discriminatory restrictions. Its passage clarifies the duty that insurers have to provide access to coverage and services and encourages community members to work with attorneys, advocates and state regulators to make social change one policy at a time,” said Christopher Daley, Director of the Transgender Law Center.

[calcowgirl]

PING to above - it just gets better and better.

[Czar]

"...it just gets better and better."

Lets see now, where do you suppose Arnie's Army has gone? Should be here by now...

[calcowgirl]

A couple of them are over on the other thread defending domestic partnership laws, including giving domestic partners new pension benefits of state workers. So much for reeling in the expenses of the state!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1493860/posts?page=81#81

[kellynla]

Oh, but you can't criticize Ahnold...
look what all he's done since he was elected governor...


he reversed the increase in driver's licenses

and he...

and he...

and he...

and he...

and he...

and he...

well he did reverse the increase in the driver's licenses! LMAO

[Amerigomag]

Regardless of motive, Schwarzenegger deserves recognition for his support of the letter of Prop 22.

At the same time conservatives need to get off their duff and find a candidate who can derail Schwarzenegger in the gubernatorial primary and get rid of this stealth liberal before he bankrupts the state and gives the farm away.

Until we can offer a constructive alternative our role is but to harass Republican Party shills as they attempt to utilize this forum to coax conservatives into the big tent with their guile.

[tubebender]

Stop the merry go round before I fall off. We are in Disney Land, right?

[Candor7]

Arnold is not conservative enough.

Basically we should not be using sexuality as a basis for distributing political power.

That is the problem with all this gay marriage , gay rights fiasco.

Its not about rights. Its about giving political power to
groups of people who are well organized around the principle of alternative life styles.

If the majority ofheterosexuals were 1/100 well organized, these gay wing nust would not have a chance. They do not deserve political power based on alternative sexual practises.
Next thing you know, pederasts two generations from now will petition, organize and lobby for the right to marry 12 year olds with the consent of the minors parents, based on "family values."

Stand up the the wing nuts Governator, do not give them political power, or move over for a conservative who will do just that!

[calcowgirl]

The following descriptions, of legislation that Schwarzenegger signed today, were extracted from Senate and Assembly Floor Analyses of pending legislation available at LAO.gov.

• SB 565 by Senator Carole Migden (D-San Francisco) - Property tax reappraisal exclusion: domestic partners.
Prior to this bill, there was no domestic partner exclusion that equates to the interspousal exclusion. This bill establishes an exclusion from reassessment for transfers of real property between registered domestic partners. The author indicated that the bill is intended "to guarantee equality for all Californians, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, and to further the state's interests in protecting Californians from the potentially severe economic and social consequences of abandonment, separation, the death of a partner, and other life crises."

• SB 973 by Senator Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica) - Public employees' retirement: domestic partners.
Bill amends the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), the State Teachers Retirement System (STRS), and the County Employees Retirement Act of 1937 to entitle retired members to elect to change optional retirement allowances to provide for their domestic partners.

• AB 228 by Assemblymember Paul Koretz (D-West Hollywood) - Transplantation services: human immunodeficiency virus.
Prohibits health care service plans (health plans) and health insurers from denying coverage for organ or tissue transplantation services on the basis that an enrollee, subscriber, insured, or policyholder is infected with HIV.

• AB 1142 by Assemblymember Marvyn Dymally (D-Compton) - HIV/AIDS: African-Americans: statewide initiative.
This bill establishes the Statewide African-American Initiative to address the disproportionate impact of HIV/AIDS on the health of African-Americans by coordinating prevention and service networks around the state in an effort to increase the capacity of core service providers.

• AB 1586 by Assemblymember Paul Koretz (D-West Hollywood) - Insurers: health care service plans: discrimination.
This bill adds additional language to existing anti-discrimination provisions under the Health and Safety Code and the Insurance Code to clarify that state law prohibits insurance companies and health care service plans from discriminating on the basis of gender in the creation or maintenance of service contracts or the provision of benefits or coverage. Defines the term "sex," in existing law that prohibits health care service plans (health plans) and insurers from specified discriminatory acts, to have the same meaning as "gender," as defined under the Penal Code, as specified.

• AB 1400 by Assemblymember John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) - Unruh Civil Rights Act: marital status and sexual orientation
The Unruh Civil Rights Act (Act) provides that all persons, regardless of their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges and services in all business establishments of every kind. This bill clarifies that marital status and sexual orientation are among the characteristics that are protected against discrimination by business establishments under the Act. This bill also imports into the Act definitions of the terms "disability," "religion," "sex," and "sexual orientation" from the Fair Employment and Housing Act, and includes, in enumerating the above characteristics, the perception of those characteristics and association with a person who has or is perceived to have those characteristics as being within the protected categories. These definitions will be integrated into other related provisions of the Act.

[megatherium]

There is an instructive story out of Louisville, Kentucky:

This city several years ago was debating gay rights in employment (every two years the gays would bring this up for a vote in the city government, it was always voted down 7-5 by the aldermen). Opponents of the ordinance said it would confer "special rights" to this minority group. Proponents of the ordinance adroitly called their campaign the "Fairness Campaign".

But what happened next was remarkable -- a woman who worked for the local Baptist charities agency (as a secretary or somesuch) was outed as a lesbian. The Baptist agency dismissed her, saying her lifestyle was incompatible with Baptist beliefs. So the dismissal of the lesbian had the immediate effect of undercutting the argument that gay rights are special rights. So this time, the gay rights ordinance passed 7-5. Thus Louisville has gay rights in employment. However, ironically, religious-based employers are allowed to discriminate on this basis, so the lesbian wouldn't have been protected by the new ordinance.

[Candor7]

Hey Meg,

That is what I mean. Why should our duly elected officials hand power to any group legislatively based on alternative life styles. A woman who is a lesbian perhaps has simply exercised poor choice in working for an organization whose ideology is against alternative sexuality. She should have sought an employer which was more in conformity with her own orientation,less ideologically inclined.

Raving conservative that I am at times, I would be wise enough not to seek an administrative position with MoveOn.org. There is no long term security in it. Certainly
if I did take such a job, I would not cry to the authorities if fired for my ideological orientation.

The more our politicians listen to the "fundamental fairness " issue, and the more we do not criticize them by saying , this is not about fairness, it is about a dilution of power to a weird minority who seek to control our political/cultural legislative agenda.

Sexuality is no basis upon which to devolve political power. It is ultimately dysfunctional, a can of political worms that will forever haunt our political processes and cause a disregard for the fundamental social institutions of our society.

What ever sexual practices tickles one's springs, it does not legitimize a lifestyle. Imagine having a fairness issue with politically organized sodomites who are discriminated against
in medical treatment because they have repeatedly infected each other with e-coli blood poisoning through rectal
tears, and given antibiotics and sent home without being admitted to a hospital bed for blood poisoning. That actually happens by the way, but the sodomy was their choice, the risk was their choice, and that hospital bed might be needed for more serious trauma.Yet it is unfair on its face.

I know this seems extreme as an example, but the fact is that if one seeks to live an alternate lifestyle, one assumes alternate risks. Why should our politicians think that it is a fairness issue. Why should such groups expect a devolution of political power based on their alternative lifestyle choices?

Its simply ridiculous and we who form the majority of society and pay the taxes that will go into the kitty for alternative life stylists,should JUST SAY NO! And be confident in saying it!

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping.

Just in case anyone thinks that Arnie is any kind of conservative, please read down the thread a bit. Professional homosexuals couldn't have a better friend.

"Gay" marriage in everything but name.

Freepmail me AND DirtyHarryY2K if you want on/off this pinglist.

[Turbopilot]

The following descriptions, of legislation that Schwarzenegger signed today, were extracted from Senate and Assembly Floor Analyses of pending legislation available at LAO.gov.

• SB 565 by Senator Carole Migden (D-San Francisco) - Property tax reappraisal exclusion: domestic partners.
Prior to this bill, there was no domestic partner exclusion that equates to the interspousal exclusion. This bill establishes an exclusion from reassessment for transfers of real property between registered domestic partners. The author indicated that the bill is intended "to guarantee equality for all Californians, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, and to further the state's interests in protecting Californians from the potentially severe economic and social consequences of abandonment, separation, the death of a partner, and other life crises."

This bill is good because - and only because - it limits tax liability on certain people. While we may not like the levels of its "inclusiveness", I say it gives us all a great reason to go and "domestic partner" with our friends and relatives, if we want to get their grossly-appreciated property without a tax increase.

• SB 973 by Senator Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica) - Public employees' retirement: domestic partners.
Bill amends the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), the State Teachers Retirement System (STRS), and the County Employees Retirement Act of 1937 to entitle retired members to elect to change optional retirement allowances to provide for their domestic partners.

If this was money to which they were entitled anyway, fine. If it's an excuse to provide money to those who weren't otherwise promised that money, it's nonsense. I'd like to think I could trust a Republican to know the difference.

• AB 228 by Assemblymember Paul Koretz (D-West Hollywood) - Transplantation services: human immunodeficiency virus.
Prohibits health care service plans (health plans) and health insurers from denying coverage for organ or tissue transplantation services on the basis that an enrollee, subscriber, insured, or policyholder is infected with HIV.

Is HIV still a 100% terminal disease? Tissue transplants (skin grafts, liver slices, etc.) are humane and useful, and of course should be provided. But lifesaving organs in limited supply should be limited to those with a meaningful potential lifespan. If that lifespan is short, as I thought it was with HIV patients, then the only caring course of action is to reserve vital organs of limited supply to those who are not terminally ill.

• AB 1142 by Assemblymember Marvyn Dymally (D-Compton) - HIV/AIDS: African-Americans: statewide initiative.
This bill establishes the Statewide African-American Initiative to address the disproportionate impact of HIV/AIDS on the health of African-Americans by coordinating prevention and service networks around the state in an effort to increase the capacity of core service providers.

Yikes, that's a lot of buzzwords. Sounds like a nice way for the Democrats to say they don't think black people are smart enough to prevent or get treated for diseases, so lots of money needs to get diverted to Democrat campaign coffers to compensate.

• AB 1586 by Assemblymember Paul Koretz (D-West Hollywood) - Insurers: health care service plans: discrimination.
This bill adds additional language to existing anti-discrimination provisions under the Health and Safety Code and the Insurance Code to clarify that state law prohibits insurance companies and health care service plans from discriminating on the basis of gender in the creation or maintenance of service contracts or the provision of benefits or coverage. Defines the term "sex," in existing law that prohibits health care service plans (health plans) and insurers from specified discriminatory acts, to have the same meaning as "gender," as defined under the Penal Code, as specified.

Sounds like men need to pay for full coverage for abortions, birth control, and breast cancer, and women need to pay for full prostate coverage. In other words, a lot of nonsense that a wiser legislature wouldn't even consider.

• AB 1400 by Assemblymember John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) - Unruh Civil Rights Act: marital status and sexual orientation
The Unruh Civil Rights Act (Act) provides that all persons, regardless of their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges and services in all business establishments of every kind. This bill clarifies that marital status and sexual orientation are among the characteristics that are protected against discrimination by business establishments under the Act. This bill also imports into the Act definitions of the terms "disability," "religion," "sex," and "sexual orientation" from the Fair Employment and Housing Act, and includes, in enumerating the above characteristics, the perception of those characteristics and association with a person who has or is perceived to have those characteristics as being within the protected categories. These definitions will be integrated into other related provisions of the Act.

Well, as long as some are gonna be more equal than others, why not make more of the some more equal than most of the others? < /sarc >

[calcowgirl]

GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE:

http://www.governor.ca.gov/govsite/pdf/vetoes_2005/AB_849_veto.pdf

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 849 without my signature because I do not believe the Legislature can reverse an initiative approved by the people of California.

I am proud California is a leader in recognizing and respecting domestic partnerships and the equal rights of domestic partners. I believe that lesbian and gay couples are entitled to full protection under the law and should not be discriminated against based upon their relationships. I support current domestic partnership rights and will continue to vigorously defend and enforce these rights and as such will not support any rollback.

California Family Code Section 308.5 was enacted by an initiative statute passed by the voters as Proposition 22 in 2000. Article II, section 10 of the California Constitution prohibits the Legislature from amending this initiative statute without a vote of the people. This bill does not provide for such a vote.

The ultimate issue regarding the constitutionality of section 308.5 and its prohibition against same-sex marriage is currently before the Court of Appeal in San Francisco and will likely be decided by the Supreme Court.

This bill simply adds confusion to a constitutional issue. If the ban of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, this bill is not necessary. If the ban is constitutional, this bill is ineffective.

Sincerely,
Arnold Schwarzenegger

[megatherium]

My point was that the argument that gay rights are special rights has lost its political traction. The logic is off: the argument says gay people do not need protection, that there's not really any discrimination against them. And the moment discrimination against homosexuals comes to light, the argument is lost, which is what happened down in Louisville. The truth of the matter is that people who are opposed to gay rights are opposed to it because they are opposed to homosexuality itself, not because gay rights are unneeded "special rights".

And I certainly need no reminders as to how dangerous and unhealthy homosexuality is. I had an acquaintance five years ago who had emergency surgery because he perforated his rectum with a sex toy. And a recent study showed that 25% of all sexually active urban gay men have HIV. But I also have gay collleagues who are in committed long-term monogamous relationships, who have nothing to do with the odious "gay culture" or "gay community", and who only want to live their lives quietly. I think such people should be left alone. (But the government certainly shouldn't promote or support homosexual lifestyles.)

[Czar]

"A couple of them are over on the other thread defending domestic partnership laws, including giving domestic partners new pension benefits of state workers."

Clearly, they are not conservatives. At best, they may be GOP Big Tent RINOs, liberals or moderates.

[Brian_Baldwin]

Thank you Arnold! ... I will call your office number and leave my thanks. Thanks again! You are a brave, and GREAT Governor of California!

You didn't call the Minutemen "Vigilantes" ... and you sure aren't as big a spender as Bush is.

In fact, I think your more of a Republican than Bush is.

You've got MY vote, again, for a SECOND TERM.

Great job, Gov.