  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 Gay Marriage Approved in California, AgainPosted on Sep 7, 2007Arnold Schwarzenegger has until mid-October to put his pen where his mouth is on gay issues. For the second time, the California Legislature has passed a law that would make marriage in the state gender-neutral. The governor vetoed the first effort back during his more conservative phase. The Human Rights Campaign’s Joe Solmonese warns Schwarzenegger to consider his legacy: “We urge Gov. Schwarzenegger to think about how the history books will remember this decision. He has an opportunity before him to be remembered as a courageous governor who stood up for equal treatment under the law for all families.”
Previous item: Lost Nukes Headed to Iran? Next item: Looking Beyond the 'Surge' Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment |
|
The End of an Institution
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
By pedro, September 24, 2007 at 10:48 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
hi..
Report thisBy George Ohwell, September 10, 2007 at 11:43 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
“Some animals are more equal than others on the farm”.
Either America is about equality and freedom, or it isn’t.
If it isn’t, it should stop pretending to be something it isn’t. Let some more honest nation wear the mantle of democracy.
Report thisBy nelson, September 10, 2007 at 10:30 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Arnold, you should be ashamed of yourself!
Report thisBy ursomniac, September 9, 2007 at 4:57 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Sigh - would all the heterosexuals who feel that the state shouldn’t be in the business of marriage or that civil unions should be “enough” or that we just shouldn’t “call” it “marriage” please put your actions where your words are and show some solidarity by turning in your own marriage licenses until the whole thing is (pardon the pun) “straightened out” and we can all then re-apply for whatever equal certification becomes available to all citizens?
Everything else comes across as armchair anthropology or heterocentric comfort trumping standing up for our supposed shared values of equality and liberty. It’s a LOT easier to play the “wait until the proper time” game when you’re not the ones forced to stand outside watching in.
Report thisBy RAE, September 9, 2007 at 2:53 pm #
I second DuoDave’s motion. Let’s quit assuming the only legitimate term for being hitched is “married.”
Seriously, let’s work on this separation and clarification of terminology.
To be legally recognized as a “couple” means you either live COMMON LAW or have completed a CIVIL UNION process. Offspring of either “coupling” are considered fully “legitimate” (although the notion that a child can somehow be labeled “illegitimate” is ABSURD, since the child had nothing to do with being here.)
To be “married” means you have completed some form of OPTIONAL religious ceremony but ONLY AFTER you have completed the LEGALLY REQUIRED civil union which should be open to any two mentally competent human beings not directly related to one another.
Report thisBy Duodave, September 9, 2007 at 8:10 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
IMHO, marriage is a religious ceremony that can be defined by the religious organization to which the parties subscribe. Within that framework, the religious organization has the right to define marriage however they see fit.
Europe has already recognized this and many countries in Europe have two ceremonies, a religious ceremony and a civil ceremony. Required. Everyone has to have the civil ceremony, which is often the day before the religious ceremony.
I feel that we should move toward this. Separation of church and state dictates our legislatures cannot force religions to accept gay marriage. So why not simply require a civil ceremony for everyone - with the religious ceremony optional - the way Europeans do it?
-d
Report thisBy RAE, September 9, 2007 at 6:59 am #
Well, jerryd, I can report I understand your point while at the same time very surprised by it.
I wholeheartedly agree that the “masses” can be dead wrong and astonishingly cruel - just look at some of the Middle East religious-based nations… those folk are clearly suffering from some obnoxious mass psychosis! If they were allowed to vote, ANYONE who didn’t think and believe as they do would be stoned to death!
But in our western nations? Perhaps you’re right. I know in Canada we long ago abolished the death penalty and legalized abortion, as well as gay marriage. It is very likely that one or even all of these policies would be reversed if a free and binding referendum were allowed. Sometimes the “people” need to be protected from themselves. SOMETIMES a leader or a government needs to LEAD the masses, and SOMETIMES the masses need to LEAD their leaders!
Even so, I don’t believe the solution is to give ANY individual leader or government the absolute power to proclaim policies that restrict or invade or otherwise negatively impact the right of a citizen to live freely as he or she wishes whether or not others find his/her ways objectionable. It’s a slippery slope - once you stray from that fundamental policy, it’s only a matter of time till you’ve got the equivalent of the Taliban running things - at gunpoint!
There should be a law that states NO LAW SHALL COME INTO EFFECT UNTIL BOTH THE LEGISLATURE <AND> THE GOVERNOR AGREE. If there’s disagreement, then let the process go ‘round and ‘round until there’s a clear resolution - let legislatures pass bills and governors veto, and vice versa, until the cows come come!
As some wit said “IF YOU DON’T LIKE GAY MARRIAGE, DON’T MARRY SOMEONE OF THE SAME SEX!” To carry your objection further - to attempt in any way to PREVENT other citizens from making their own choices - now THAT is what should be ILLEGAL!
In the USA and Canada, our Constitutions and Bills of Rights, lay out (mostly) clearly the “rules” but as is our bent, we humans can find a way to argue that black is white. On it goes.
Report thisBy Allwn, September 8, 2007 at 9:30 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Rae is right. If the people through their legislature have three times voiced their opinion, why should one man or one woman be able to repeatedly deny what the democracy has willed? I do not think the “people” should give over their opinion and voice to a single individual time and time again.
Report thisBy driving bear, September 8, 2007 at 7:14 pm #
Arnold S. should veto the bill because the citizens of Ca are opposed to gay marriage and said so at the ballot box in 2000 when they went to the polls and passed proposition 22
Report thisBy Jaime 716, September 8, 2007 at 2:51 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I think Rae is right. The power should be with the people and if we are just going to wait till the vote gets vetoed, whats the point in voting.
Report thisGay marriage should be legal in all the U.S and if we can get that across one state at a time, I am willing to wait and support each state that is willing to cross the line!
By Jerryd, September 8, 2007 at 11:05 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I have to agree with Alex on this one Rae. The “people” can be just as wrong as elected leaders. Our political opinions like our religious opinions strike to our cores and we rarely dig deep enough to overcome those opinions.
While I can not think of any reason other than the governor’s religious beliefs that are pushing him to veto the legislation, he still has a small amount of coverage from the vote 2000 ballot initiative. So far there is no poll or survey that indicates that that vote would change significantly today. Perhaps it would. The only way that it will get tested is if enough legislators lose their seats in the next election for this vote. I don’t think that will happen. The legislature has the right to override an citizen initiative if I am correct about the California constitution and the governor should be made aware if he is tending to forget it that the legislators of the state are elected by majorities of their districts. If his veto is on religious grounds he is violating the state and federal constitutions and leaves himself vulnerable to removal from office for cause.
The only people who are significantly at risk are the children of gay couples who need the benefits provided by the state and federal governments just as much as children of str8 couples do. These people aren’t the first to suffer from political differences and they won’t be the last. We just need to keep pushing the education of the public on this.
Report thisBy RAE, September 8, 2007 at 8:40 am #
Well, Alex, your “...as the legislature would just submit it over and over again till it gets through...” is EXACTLY my point.
Sorry you consider it “silly” to give the PEOPLE, through their representatives, the FINAL say on what becomes the laws they must follow. I thought that was the whole POINT OF DEMOCRACY?
If one person - governor or president - has the last say - why bother with legislatures? Just go directly to dictatorship and save everyone a hell of lot of time, trouble and money.
Silly, indeed.
Report thisBy Alex, September 8, 2007 at 12:06 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
RAE, that’s silly. If that happened the Veto would be a competely impotant power as the legislature would just submit it over and over again till it gets through. The way to deal with over-vetoing is a veto override power for the legislature or just to wait out the governor and try again with another.
Report thisBy Derek, September 7, 2007 at 9:58 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Unfortunately this comes at a bad time, campaign season. As we seen in 2004, Americans are more concerned with gay couples than terrorists and the Iraq war. If it passes the Republicans will use it to their advantage.
Report thisBy RAE, September 7, 2007 at 9:30 pm #
Should there be a rule that if any legislature passes a bill, the governor may veto it only two times?
The state legislatures and congress represent the voice and wishes of the people and as such should have the “last say.” Yes, checks and balances are still needed because even legislatures can be wrong but if they insist a 3rd time then right or wrong the bill becomes law.
No President or Governor should have power past a second veto. He or she should be required to sign into law any bill sent a third time. Leaving it to the people is far safer IMHO.
Report this