Posted on 09/07/2005 2:54:29 PM PDT by rhema
By the slimmest of margins in each house, 21-15 in the State Senate (21 votes needed for passage) and 41-35 in the State Assembly (41 votes needed for passage), the California legislature sent Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger the homosexual marriage bill, AB 849. When the governor vetoes this bill, it will cement his reelection and start his long march back to the top of the heap in California politics.
Assemblyman Mark Leno’s (D-San Francisco) first attempt at passing a homosexual marriage bill, AB 19, failed twice on June 2, first on a 35 to 37 vote, then on a 37 to 36 vote, as one Democrat, Alberto Torrico, flipped from voting “no” to “aye”.
Undeterred, Mr. Leno looked to a bill that had made it to the Senate, AB 849, a bill originally about fish, and then “gutted and amended” it with the same language as the twice-failed AB 19. His reasoning for doing so was sound. At 25 Democrats to 15 Republicans, the State Senate is more liberal than the State Assembly. In addition, by resorting to the little-understood “gut and amend” parliamentary tactic, Mr. Leno outflanked many grassroots, pro-family lobbying groups who mistakenly thought the bill was dead for the year.
What then followed was a relentless arm-twisting effort by a wealthy and active core constituency of the Democrat Party: the Gay Lobby. Democrat members in the Assembly who voted “no” or who abstained were targeted day and night. Fundraising considerations were paramount in this calculus as Democrats facing tough primaries in gerrymandered liberal districts typically win by running to the left of their opponents with little to worry about in the general election. The Gay Lobby let it be known: vote against our bill and you’ll never win another race in California again.
After winning passage in the Senate on September 1, AB 849 moved over to the Assembly where it needed four more votes to pass. Of the members who abstained or who voted “no”, most observers thought that the venerable Assemblyman Mervyn M. Dymally, former Lieutenant Governor and former U.S. Representative, would be a sure “aye” vote, as his abstention previously occurred because it was late at night and he was out of the chamber. Where Mr. Leno would get the other three votes was of considerable speculation, with Democrats Tom Umberg, Gloria Negrete McLeod, and Simon Salinas, all eying State Senate races, being the most likely to put the bill over the top.
The first targeted Democrat to speak was Mr. Umberg. Termed out of the Assembly in 2006, Mr. Umberg faces running for a Senate seat that is moving more towards the tossup column. Burdened with a campaign debt in excess of $1 million from previous statewide runs for office as well as a spate of bad press relating to his personal life, Mr. Umberg explained that perhaps the house wouldn’t be having this debate if he had voted for it the first time around instead of abstaining. Word in Orange County is that Mr. Umberg’s turnabout on the homosexual marriage bill has all but guaranteed him Democrat primary opposition from O.C. Supervisor Lou Correa, a former member of the Assembly. Assuming he survives a challenge from within his own ranks from a moderate Democrat with a strong grassroots following, Mr. Umberg might then face rising star Republican Assemblyman Van Tran, who represents a large portion of the senate seat Mr. Umberg covets. Mr. Umberg’s flip-flop probably cost him, and the Democrats, a Senate seat in 2006.
The next lobbied Democrat to speak was Ms. Negrete McLeod. She too said that had she voted instead of abstaining the last time, the house would probably not have been forced to debate the issue again. Interestingly, Ms. Negrete McLeod is running for a Senate seat in socially conservative San Bernardino against freshman Democrat Assemblymember Joe Baca, Jr., the son of U.S. Representative Joe Baca (D-CA). During his time in the Assembly, Mr. Baca has carved out for himself a moderate voting record, as has Ms. Negrete McLeod. In this vote on the controversial issue, Mr. Baca abstained after having voted against the measure twice before. Expect Ms. Negrete McLeod to use her vote to raise funds while Mr. Baca will rely on his family’s formidable political machine to carry the day in the Senate primary race next June.
As the debate wrapped up, uncharacteristically long and philosophical for a body that approves so many bills it barely has time to vote on them, much less discuss them, the Speaker Pro Tem called the roll. Within seconds the bill had 40 votes with 36 in opposition and three abstentions (there is one vacancy). The Assembly gallery was quiet, press cameras whirred away while television lenses swept the floor. A few members gathered around Mr. Salinas’ desk and urged him to be the 41st vote. He relented. There were gasps in the gallery but one member quickly “moved the call” to delay the tally before the Speaker Pro Tem could call it. Within moments the call was lifted, and the Speaker tallied the votes resulting in pandemonium as the advocates for homosexual marriage in the gallery hooted, yelled, clapped, and cried.
As with many political actions throughout the course of history, the winners and losers are not now obvious. When Governor Schwarzenegger vetoes the homosexual marriage bill, however, he will galvanize much-needed conservative support behind his soon to be announced reelection campaign. His actions will remind conservatives that the Governator is the only thing standing between them and the extreme liberals who run the California State Legislature. In the final analysis, the homosexual marriage bill will only ensure one thing: Republican gains in California in 2006.
Mr. DeVore (R.-Irvine) represents 450,000 people in coastal Orange County's 70th Assembly District. He also serves as a major in the Army National Guard
Will Arnold veto it? First I've heard that he was leaning in that direction instead of bending over and grabbing his ankles.
Because he has already indicated he was opposed to the legislature doing it this way. Also, he has called a make-or-break special election for this fall. He knows he's going to need his "base" at a minimum; i.e Republican voters, and this is not the time to p*** them off.
Was this called the Dems Shoot Themselves In the Foot bill?
The Dems overplayed their hand bill. You will find that they made that mistake in the 2004 for elections and were resoundingly throttled for it. One can only hope that they come up with more legislation like this in time for 2006.
I'm certainly no authoritative source, but I assume Assemblyman DeVore and his fellow Republicans have enough regular contact with Arnold to predict with some certainty what'll happen to this bill when it hits the governator's desk.
I can't wait to hear what Dr. Michael Savage does with this on his radio program tonight.
It is foolish to assume that Arnold will veto this monstrosity.
If he does, he'll gain some social conservatives in next year's election (most of the social liberals already having been driven into the anti-Arnold camp by propaganda).
However, it will not cost the Rats any seats in the legislature -- unless there is redistricting. Then it might cost them two, at most.
What it might do is marginally increase Republican and conservative turnout in this year's special election. If it's handled properly, i.e., used.
Arnold must not only veto the bill, he must do it with a big splash.
I'm counting on you to be right! :)
"Arnold must not only veto the bill, he must do it with a big splash."
If Arnold vetoes he gets my vote next election. If he signs he doesn't....its that simple and its that important.
I don't care what gays do in private but they are being very selfish to slowly destroy society to accomadate their lifestyle. They are inviting chaos and depravity with gay marriage....but they will never admit it.
Vetoing it is not going to go down well at home with the liberal democrat wife.
It can't hurt to send him a letter, mentioning Prop 22. Be polite.
I'm listening to Savage now on the internet, and it looks like a replay of the last hour of yesterday's show. I hope it's just a delay.
That's what I was going to do today! Thanks for the reminder.
Bummer! I get him live at 7:00 pm Noo Yawk time.
If the Swartzenegger redistricting proposal passes in November, it will be the death knell for the Democrats in California.
The political analysis is sound... this issue is one where 70% are against it and an agitated 30% minority is for it.
The only problem is the Republican RINOs who run away from conflict ...
Arnold needs to stand up for marriage as Mitt Romney did.
I'm always bummed by a Savage no-show. I'll stay tuned and see if he is just having tech difficulties or running late - that happens on his show from time to time. If he's there I'll let you know!
Savage comes on in Las Vegas 4-7pm, but I have begun listening to his first hour live on the internet. Great show!
I sent him an e-mail last night - it was VERY polite and asked him to consider the fact that California citizens have already overwhelmingly rejected the idea of gay marriage, and to please not be deluded into thinking it's a "civil right." BTW, I notice the proponents of this are calling it the "marriage equality act." I asked my cat this morning if she would like to marry me. We're both females, and the mere fact we're entirely different species shouldn't make any difference under "marriage equality."
In 2004, not a single California district flipped parties. As they are currently gerrymandered, CA legislative seats are good as gold, with only primary challenges to concern them.
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.