'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'

[stars & stripes forever]

ERA will be held in Senate for more hearings

Thursday May 29, 2003

By JOHN O'CONNOR
Associated Press Writer

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) The Equal Rights Amendment, dormant since Illinois lawmakers killed it two decades ago, got approval from a key Senate committee Thursday.

Whether it will be called for a vote by the full Senate was up in the air, however.

Opponents said it doesn't have the 36 votes it needs to pass the Senate. And its sponsor, Senate President Emil Jones, D-Chicago, appeared to agree, telling the committee he intended to hold more hearings.

But later, Jones said he might push ahead if he gathers enough votes.

``I promised I may hold hearings, but if I don't need hearings, I may go ahead and call it. I might,'' Jones said.

Approved just a week ago in the House, the proposed 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution passed the Senate Executive Committee 8-5 on a partisan roll call.

The sometimes-raucous debate recalled the fierce, 10-year battle to get Illinois to OK the amendment, which ended when Congress' deadline for ratification expired in 1982.

Phyllis Schlafly, who led the fight against passage in the 1970s and '80s, said Thursday the amendment would require county clerks to issue licenses for same-sex marriages and states to fund abortions because it would be discriminatory not to.

``Women are in the Constitution to the same extent that men are,'' said Schlafly, president of the conservative Eagle Forum. ``It is a beautiful document that is sex-neutral.''

That angered Jones, who said he heard the same arguments against civil rights legislation.

``I know discrimination,'' said Jones, who is black. ``I heard the same arguments identical arguments that you're protected by the Constitution, you do not need this. It just so happens the Constitution was blind on those issues.''

Gayle Guthrie, president of ERA Illinois, said the issue is in the forefront again, even if the Senate does not vote this spring.

Illinois would be the 36th of 38 states that need to ratify the amendment. Proponents say others states are watching what Illinois does and that Congress can extend the 1982 deadline.

^ =

The resolution is HJRCA1.

[RonF]

O.K. Let's figure this out. You put up a posting stating that the action of the Illinois House, in passing an ERA resolution, brings the United States closer to passing the ERA as an amemdment to the Constitution (while getting the number of states needed to pass a Constitutional amendment wrong).

I put up a posting that corrects your mistaken assertion, showing you how the action of the Illinois House has no legal force whatsoever, and in fact does *not* bring the country closer to putting an Equal Rights Amendment into the U.S. Constitution.

To why you reply by ... copying out as a rather lengthy posting a bunch of other people's words as to why making the ERA part of the U.S. Constitution is a bad idea.

Did you even read my posting?

Did you understand what it meant?

Do you realize that what you told people in your initial posting (outside of the fact that the Illinois House did pass this resolution) was completely erroneous?

[Houmatt]

"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."

Someone should have reminded her what state she was in: They don't give a crap about the will of the people.

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.

What polls you lying son of a bitch?

[RonF]

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.

Fascinating. I'm supposed to accept as a guide to the legal effects of the ERA someone who doesn't know who the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America is.

Her clarity of thought is a comfort, too:

... and she made absolutely not claim that ERA would anything for women in employment.

I'm glad that this was clearly labeled "OPINION", as God knows it's pretty tough to find a fact in it.

[kevao]

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

Will these people now be subject to the marriage penalty tax?

[scripter]

Will these people now be subject to the marriage penalty tax?

I'm not sure what the next step is, but it's only fair they pay the marriage penalty as well. Realistically, they probably see it a small price to pay if they get what they want.

[stars & stripes forever]

I apologize I did make an error on the number of states. I am not an expert at Constitutional Law. However,from what I read in the text of the Illinois ERA amendment, this is far from over.



Full Text of HJRCA0001
1 HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION
2 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

3 WHEREAS, The Ninety-second Congress of the United States
4 of America, at its Second Session, in both houses, by a
5 constitutional majority of two-thirds, adopted the following
6 proposition to amend the Constitution of the United States of
7 America:

8 "JOINT RESOLUTION
9 RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATE OF
10 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED
11 (TWO-THIRDS OF EACH HOUSE CONCURRING THEREIN), That the
12 following article is proposed as an amendment to the
13 Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to
14 all intents and purposes as a part of the Constitution when
15 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several
16 States within seven years from the date of its submission by
17 the Congress:
18 "ARTICLE ______
19 Section 1. Equality of rights under law shall not be
20 denied or abridged by the United States or any State on
21 account of sex.
22 Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce
23 by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article.
24 Section 3. This Amendment shall take effect two years
25 after the date of ratification.""; and

26 WHEREAS, A Joint Resolution is a resolution adopted by
27 both houses of the General Assembly and does not require the
28 signature of the Governor; a Joint Resolution is sufficient
29 for Illinois' ratification of an amendment to the United
30 States Constitution; and

31 WHEREAS, The United States Congress has recently adopted
32 the 27th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States,

-2- LRB093 02211 MKM 02219 e
1 the so-called Madison Amendment, relating to Compensation of
2 Members of Congress; this amendment was proposed 203 years
3 earlier by our First Congress and only recently ratified by
4 three-fourths of the States; the United States Archivist
5 certified the 27th Amendment on May 18, 1992; and

6 WHEREAS, The founders of our nation, James Madison
7 included, did not favor further restrictions to Article V of
8 the Constitution of the United States, the amending
9 procedure; the United States Constitution is harder to amend
10 than any other constitution in history; and

11 WHEREAS, The restricting time limit for the Equal Rights
12 Amendment ratification is in the resolving clause and is not
13 a part of the amendment proposed by Congress and already
14 ratified by 35 states; and

15 WHEREAS, Having passed a time extension for the Equal
16 Rights Amendment on October 20, 1978, Congress has
17 demonstrated that a time limit in a resolving clause can be
18 disregarded if it is not a part of the proposed amendment;
19 and

20 WHEREAS, The United States Supreme Court in Coleman v.
21 Miller, 307 U.S. 433, at 456 (1939), recognized that Congress
22 is in a unique position to judge the tenor of the nation, to
23 be aware of the political, social, and economic factors
24 affecting the nation, and to be aware of the importance to
25 the nation of the proposed amendment; and

26 WHEREAS, If an amendment to the Constitution of the
27 United States has been proposed by two-thirds of both houses
28 of Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the state
29 legislatures, it is for Congress under the principles of
30 Coleman v. Miller to determine the validity of the state
31 ratifications occurring after a time limit in the resolving
32 clause, but not in the amendment itself; and

-3- LRB093 02211 MKM 02219 e
1 WHEREAS, Constitutional equality for women and men
2 continues to be timely in the United States and worldwide,
3 and a number of other nations have achieved constitutional
4 equality for their women and men; therefore, be it

5 RESOLVED, BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
6 NINETY-THIRD GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, THE
7 SENATE CONCURRING HEREIN, that the proposed amendment to the
8 Constitution of the United States of America set forth in
9 this resolution is ratified; and be it further

10 RESOLVED, That a certified copy of this resolution be
11 forwarded to the Archivist of the United States, the
12 Administrator of General Services of the United States, the
13 President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the
14 House of Representatives of the Congress of the United
15 States, and each member of the Illinois congressional
16 delegation.

---

Home | Legislation & Laws | House | Senate | My Legislation | Disclaimers | Email

---

This site is maintained for the Illinois General Assembly by the
Legislative Information System, 705 Stratton Building, Springfield, Illinois 62706
217-782-3944 217-524-6059 (Fax) 217-782-2050 (TDD)

[RonF]

I'll take a look at that, although in a cursory glance the legal reasoning about being able to ratify an amendment whose enabling clause time limit had run out looks a little specious. For one thing, they take the legality of the extension as a given, whereas that was never litigated but surely would have if the ERA had passed.

Having said that, why did you respond to my original posting with a posting that was completely off the point of what I was talking about?

[stars & stripes forever]

Having said that, why did you respond to my original posting with a posting that was completely off the point of what I was talking about?

I was surfing the net in an attempt to find the Illinois ERA ....and happened to find the other articles, found them to be interesting...I thought you'd like them too.

[stars & stripes forever]

Most Illinois citizens do not understand the ERA. Over twenty years have passed since its demise, and those who had the passion to defeat the bill are in their 50s-70s or no longer around.

Unless an effort is made to educate people on ERA, this bill will pass the Illinois Senate in the fall and reopen ERA. There isn't a guarantee that the ratification process won't start at 36 states with TWO states to go.

[Carry_Okie]

Was the Protection of Marriage Initiative a statute or a constitutional amendment?

[Believer 1]

Ron, that is what is in progress. Despite the current passage of time, there are those who believe if they can get the required #of states, the amendment can be passed. This is why the lobbying continues to pass the ERA amendment in those states which have not previously done so.The legislators also believe this is the case.

[Believer 1]

Ron, I do know what I am talking about. To what text are you referring? I got this copy from Springfield as what our House just finished voting on. The issue of time limit has been challenged in the courts. I wish our senators and representatives were as confident as you are, but they are not and they are the ones who are being lobbied and who are of the opinion, this is not over yet. What is the number reference? I did not use numbers.

[Believer 1]

Dilly, sex is also defined as the activity as in "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." The argument is exactly the problem in the ERA. Sex is commonly considered the behavior..."sex partner" does refer to the organs but rather what they are doing with them. The concept of gender is certainly a societal, cultural or psychological identity, generally divided by what we term male and female. Those who believe this bill is about women have a rude awakening in store. This exact question which you brought up is why it is critical clear, concise wording is contained within the ERA Amendment wording.
I appreciate your observation. I truly believe if this is all smoke and mirrors, the various states would not be still voting on the matter.

[Believer 1]

Grab your jacket, Mat, I think we're in for a cold ride. Some of my family live in California. They are not sodomites, just afraid to take a stand...everyone has a right...you know the rest of that mentality.

[Believer 1]

Good post, Stars and Stripes!!! I hope Ron reads this. ;)

[Believer 1]

Ron, I think Stars and Stripes got a checkmate on the posting of the bill.

Why do you believe so strongly in your legal knowledge and analysis? Just wondering..

[Kuksool]

Flee the state while you can! Kalifornica is becoming a sewer, both economically and morally. With the loony bills being passed in the CA General Assembly, the state of Kalifornica might not exist in the future. Latino groups and labor unions are currently pushing for a bill to allow illegal immigrants to obtain driver licenses. Politicans who favor this bill are just asking for a terrorist attack. The state will either become a part of Mexico or be destroyed by terrorists.

[RonF]

O.K. Since you sent me those posts I've done some checking around. And I must admit to an error. I was under the impression that the time limit that had been set on the ratification of the ERA was part of the amendment itself, not an accompanying bill. If the latter is the case, then indeed you may be right! The example of what's being called the Madison Amendment is instructive, referenced here. You might want to look over that site carefully, as it gives the thinking of some people invovled in this effort.When the Bill of Rights was proposed, there were actually 12 amendments proposed at the time. 10 passed, 2 did not. However, since the amendments themselves contained no expiration date (as opposed to the 22nd Amendment), people kept pursuing what eventually became the 27th Amendment, approved over 200 years after it was proposed.

So I guess you're right. There could at least be a controversy over whether or not the ERA ratification process could be re-activated. Interesting!

On that basis, I must say that I am sensitive to the argument of the use of the words "sex" over "gender". While the proposers certainly intended the former to mean the latter, there would likely be those who would like the word to be expanded to encompass behavior as well as biological identity. Then it would all depend on the courts.

Your central point, then, is much more valid that I had previously believed. The proponents of the ERA, then, would need to either a) get Congress to once again extend the deadline for ratification (which would be open to all kinds of challenges given that the previous deadline has already expired), or b) get the Supreme Court (it would definitely end up there) to declare that the ratification act itself was unconstitutional and of no validity (and they'd have the example of the 22nd amendment to point to).

Given the composition of the House, it's my guess that they'd have more success with the latter than the former.

Anyway, sorry about that. Seems that this is more of a controversy than I figured.

[Believer 1]

Ah, your reply made me smile, Ron. I tried to do thorough research and accessed all avenues I had available. It is an issue about which I am intense. Giving any law wide open to interpretation to any legislative body gives me chills. Lets hope enough folks contact their senators in Illinois to turn down this proposal.