'Virtual gay marriage' bill passes

WorldNetDaily ^ | June 4. 2003 | Art Moore

[scripter]

A historic bill awarding virtually all the rights of marriage to homosexual "domestic partners" narrowly passed the California state Assembly late this afternoon.

Requiring 41 votes, AB 205 passed 41-29, with 10 members not voting. Democrat supporters expressed surprise as the outcome became apparent.

Speaker Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego

"Amazing," said Assembly Speaker pro Tempore Christine Kehoe, a lesbian and co-author of the bill.

Pro-family groups that lobbied hard against the bill charged it would subvert the will of Californians who overwhelmingly approved the Protection of Marriage Initiative in March 2000, reserving marriage rights for a man and a woman only.

"People need to rise up" in response to today's vote, said Karen England, director of policy for the Capital Resource Institute, a non-profit group in Sacramento.

"We get these notes all the time from voters, asking, 'What about the will of the people?'" England told WorldNetDaily. "We thought this issue was decided."

Democrat Mark Leno of San Francisco, who identified himself as one of four homosexual Assembly members, argued during the floor debate that while voters passed the marriage initiative, opinion polls showed a majority of Californians favor equal rights for long-term domestic partners.

England discounted the significance of the polls.

"The only poll I count is the one at the ballot box," she said. "And [the people] were clear on that poll."

Mark Leno, D-San Francisco

In his remarks from the floor, Leno insisted the bill is a civil-rights issue with personal implications.

"The four of us, unlike anyone else in this chamber, are second-class citizens," he said. "Our most cherished and honored relationships are not respected in the law."

The bill now goes to the state's Democrat-controlled Senate, where England expects it to pass. The spotlight then would be on Gov. Gray Davis, who is facing a strong recall campaign.

"This battle could and should have been won," said Randy Thomasson, executive director of Campaign for California Families, in a statement after today's vote. "Although we fought hard on the outside, the inside game at the state capitol faltered and protecting marriage was not the priority that it should have been."

Beyond California

Homosexual activist groups have said the bill's impact would resonate beyond California.

"This law would be truly historic for the nation," said Geoff Kors, executive director of California Alliance for Pride and Equality, according to the San Jose Mercury News. "If California passes this, it sends a message to the rest of the nation."

While there is no legal basis for same-sex marriage in the U.S., the idea is gaining traction culturally. Last week, CBS television promoted the debut of "The Amazing Race 4" by proclaiming a male homosexual couple on the show to be married to each other.

The closest the U.S. has come to same-sex marriage is Vermont's civil-union law, a legal registration providing the same benefits and rights as married couples. The Netherlands and Belgium are the only countries that treat a same-sex couple's relationship exactly as one between a man and a woman.

AB 205, unlike civil unions, would not require a marriage-like ceremony in court, and the relationship could be ended without the same court process as divorce. Instead, it would expand the state's existing domestic partnership program, which offers limited legal rights to more than 18,000 couples registered with the secretary of state.

Thirty-seven states have passed laws that bar them from honoring same-sex marriage from another jurisdiction. However, in Massachusetts and New Jersey homosexual couples have filed lawsuits, and some analysts believe if a marriage license were issued in one of those states, it would have to be recognized in all others under the U.S. Constitution's "Full Faith and Credit Clause."

Canada appears to be headed toward instituting homosexual marriage after a law defining marriage as a male-female bond was struck down as discriminatory by three provincial court decisions.

Previous story:

California 'gay' caucus pushes 'marriage'

[Believer 1]

What is beeb? And are you serious about no one being interested in these issues?? Except for Billy and Shrillery, these are HOT issues where I live.

[stars & stripes forever]

But you're right, many Bible believing, church going Christians do not approve, and rightly so.

Every Christian is accountable for knowing the Truth of God's Word. And if we know something is wrong and do nothing about it....that is counted as sin.

I believe that this issue is a defining moment for American churches. The question is, will Christians make a stand for Truth?

[scripter]

I believe that this issue is a defining moment for American churches. The question is, will Christians make a stand for Truth?

You may be right. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. And we'll raise our boys to fight for what is right as they serve the Lord.

[Believer 1]

SSf, you are right about ERA. I am of the time when it was first brought out and we were told it was all for the women and children. Boy, was I lied to! I read this amendment and it says "on account of sex" not gender. This means just what it says and the Illinois public is so naive as to think it means gender. This is an amendment to the CONSTITUTION!!!!!What are they thinking in Springfield? We do not need to give special status to someone due to behavior. Right now according to my representative, it is an empty bill...no substance at all. The legislature will decide what it means. That's just great.
Anyone interested, call your senator. At least if this thing passes it needs to be specific as to meaning.
Whew. Now I feel better.

[Dilly]

And if we know something is wrong and do nothing about it....that is counted as sin.

Where in the Bible does it tell Christians it's a sin if they don't stop others from doing something wrong? I thought each man was responsible to God for his own soul, not for the souls of others. If we're responsible for the souls of everyone else, we're all doomed.

[Zavien Doombringer]

A beeb is a spelling error from the non-typist on the keyboard, b is next to N :). I think the more publicity we give the Clintons, homos and other minority groups, the stronger they get...that's all. am I worried about thier agendas, yes. Am I worried on how corrupted the government is getting, yes. I know, the sane that are living in the great state of California are going crazy,I wish I knew what to do. May God Bless you all, I am praying for you!

[Dilly]

I read this amendment and it says "on account of sex" not gender.

I think you may be confused as to the definitions of "sex" and "gender". Sex is the classification of males and females based on their reproductive organs, while "gender" refers to the societal or cultural identity of the sexes.

[LiteKeeper]

SPOTREP

[Mat_Helm]

Are there that many sick perverted sodomites in California to actualy generate enough votes to pass this vile and corrupt special interest legislation? Did all the perverts move out of the other states to polute and destroy California as they congregate and infest this state? This used to be a great place to live and grow up. With such lunatics given the power to run things now and given the power that government has today makes you wonder has hell frozen over?

[First Amendment]

Where in the Bible does it tell Christians it's a sin if they don't stop others from doing something wrong? I thought each man was responsible to God for his own soul, not for the souls of others. If we're responsible for the souls of everyone else, we're all doomed.

You're right, everyone is responsible themselves (and ultimately, to God) for the choices they make. But we are also responsible if we see wrong BEING DONE TO OTHERS and we do nothing and say nothing. The homo-agenda and abortion are two such examples of wrong being done to others. If those of us who know these things are wrong, destructive, etc and we sit back and do nothing, we are part of the wrong.

[Windsong]

B/c we are called to be "fishers of men". We are to, according to Paul, "snatch others from the fire". Would you sit and let someone commit suicide if the Holy Spirit moved you to intercede? What about nuns being raped? Or some thief in a shopping center? If you are lax, THEY WIN. Satan is overjoyed.

[scripter]

I think what's happened is the gay agenda has succeeded in some areas. They have tried to desensitize everyone, manipulate some and use others. Whatever it takes to push the gay agenda.

We've been in California since we were born really enjoy the beauty here. In nature, that is. But Idaho or Texas is starting to look enticing as a new place to live.

[RonF]

Before you try to start getting everyone all worked up, please make sure you know what you're talking about, first.

1) The original ERA that *almost* got ratified had a time limit on the ratification process built into it. That expired on June 30th, 1982, 3 short of the 38 states needed to ratify it. That particular legislative process is a dead issue, and it doesn't matter if the rest of the 50 states pass resolutions in favor of it, it cannot become part of the Constitution.

2) The text you quote is from a new effort to get an ERA passed. If all 50 states pass it, it won't become a part of the Constitution either, because before an amendment to the federal Constitution can be validly acted on by the States, it must first be passed by both houses of Congress, and this text (missing the ratification time limit) hasn't done so. Only after it has done so can the States validly bring it to a vote.

Oh, and, finally, 38 states are needed to pass a Constitutional Amendment, not 37. 50 * .75 = 37.5, and you have to round up. 37 states is 74%, not 75%, of 50.

[RonF]

I don't favor creating "gay marriage". But, for accuracy's sake, what a heterosexual couple can accomplish in one act (getting married), a homosexual couple would need to spend a lot of money on legal fees and filings and a lot of time to match, and there are still a lot of grey areas that aren't easy to cover. For many homosexual couples, this is the big attraction to "gay marriage". Many of these "same-sex union" acts are an attempt to create such a vehicle.

Now, whether that's desirable is another issue. But it's not as simple as one might think.

[RonF]

Oops:

before an amendment to the federal Constitution can be validly acted on by the States, it must first be passed by both houses of Congress,

OR

be passed by a Constitutional Convention originating from the passage of an appropriate resolution calling for the convening of such a body by 3/4 of the States.

Which doesn't affect the truth of the rest of my post.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"The Great Moral State of Texas" defines sodomy as being contact between "one person's" genitalia, with "another person's" anal/oral cavity", the same statute goes on to label such contact as being "deviant sexual intercourse".

Then it oulaws "deviant sexual intercourse" only for homosexuals.

Y'all just didn't want to ruin the Bar-B-Q for yourselves, did ya?

[scripter]

Now, whether that's desirable is another issue. But it's not as simple as one might think.

I was going to say something along those lines. I've spoken to a couple of attorney's who specialize in wills, living trusts, etc. I've been told: "There's no sure way to eliminate a potential family conflict."

So a gay person who wanted to will things to their partner could be blocked by a family conflict. There's also the medical decision making issue. My problem is in granting such legal action, are we accepting and/or encouraging the behavior. A behavior that can be changed. Tolerating is one thing, accepting as legitimate an entirely different matter.

[EagleMamaMT]

Unfortunately, IMO, yes. I used to transcribe medical records for a large hospital in Southern California. Each day, I transcribed at least one report on a homosexual with AIDS. Somedays, I transcribed several. All on different patients. That particular city has to rival San Francisco, per capita, for the number of homosexuals living there. I have a hunch that living in California is more financially lucrative for AIDS victims, and is in fact a Mecca of sorts for them. I do know that many of them admitted to moving to California from another state. "If you subsidize them, they will come", so to speak.

[stars & stripes forever]

Schlafly's statement to IL Senate on ERA

Friday, May 30, 2003

- Phyllis Schlafly, founder of Eagle Forum and national leader of opposition to Equal Rights Amendment

Phyllis Schlafly, founder of Eagle Forum
OPINION -- It's so unfortunate that some women are deceived into believing that the Equal Rights Amendment will give them a better break in job hiring, promotion or salaries, because ERA will do absolutely nothing in the area of employment. Chief Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a 230-page analysis of what ERA would do, and she made absolutely not claim that ERA would anything for women in employment.


It's so unfortunate that women are deceived into believing that the Equal Rights Amendment will "put women into the Constitution." Women are already in the Constitution just as much as men are. The Constitution is completely gender-neutral; it uses all gender-neutral words such as we the people, citizen, resident, President and Senator.


The ERA is a fraud. It would give no benefit to women whatsoever, but it would do a lot of mischief, as you can see from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's book. Women would not only be subject to the draft like men, but under ERA they could not be excluded from military combat, and women would have to be given the benefit of affirmative action to equalize the number of women with men.


It gets crazier. Among the laws that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg writes are open to challenge under the Equal Rights Amendment are laws that restrict prostitution, bigamists and women cohabiting with bigamists, statutory rape, and the Mann Act. Justice Ginsburg says that ERA would requires the sex-integration of all educational institutions, prisons and reformatories, fraternities, sororities, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts.


That's because the word used in ERA is sex, not women. I was on the platform with Senator Sam Ervin, the great Watergate Senator, when he said, "The only group of people the ERA would do any good for is homosexuals."


In the ten years Illinois debated and voted on ERA (1972-1983), the proponents were never able to show that ERA would give a single benefit for women. The arguments for ERA are dishonest, and it is a Pandora's box of legal mischief.


Please don't join the group that is trying to deceive women into thinking that ERA will do something for women. It won't. Stand by the language in the Illinois State Constitution -- it treats the issue perfectly.

[TheBattman]

Pro-family groups that lobbied hard against the bill charged it would subvert the will of Californians who overwhelmingly approved the Protection of Marriage Initiative in March 2000, reserving marriage rights for a man and a woman only.

And yet the idiot voters continue to put the same people in office year-after-year, despite the fact that the legislature OBVIOUSLY does not represent the voters....