California passes same-sex marriage bill

September 6, 2005 10:22 PM

California passes same-sex marriage bill The California Assembly, on a mostly party-line vote, passed Assembly Bill 849, and the California Legislature becomes the first legislative body in the country to pass a same-sex marriage bill.
posted by kirkaracha (33 comments total)

The measure passed the Senate last week, but may be terminated by the governor:

Signaling a likely veto if it does pass, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's spokeswoman said he preferred to let judges sort out the legality of gay marriage; such a case is moving toward the state Supreme Court.

Ummm...wouldn't that be legislating from the bench?

"Such a case" is Proposition 22 (WikiPedia), which was passed by 61% of the public in 2000 and declared unconstitutional in March 2005 after the city of San Francisco sued the state. The case is expected to reach the California Supreme Court in 2006.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:23 PM on September 6, 2005

This will be overturned in 5... 4... 3...
posted by arcticwoman at 10:26 PM on September 6, 2005

It may be overturned or vetoed, but damn, sometimes the rational folks in this country need some good news, y'know?
posted by cmonkey at 10:32 PM on September 6, 2005

I hope with all of my being that this somehow becomes a law despite the myriad of politicians in California that seem to be against it. I think that I would feel very inspired if that actually came to fruition.
posted by inconsequentialist at 10:35 PM on September 6, 2005 [1 favorite]

Kirkachara, that's 61% of the voting public.
posted by wilful at 10:42 PM on September 6, 2005

The weird thing is, Sw..............er says that "this is a matter that should be decided by the courts. Um, havn't the republicans been bitching about Activist Judges for, like, forever?

blah. I predict he'll sign it.
posted by delmoi at 10:59 PM on September 6, 2005

In March 2004 the governator told Jay Leno he wasn't opposed to gay marriage:

Mr Schwarzenegger chose the Jay Leno television show to reveal the apparent change of heart that makes him the first major US political figure to come out in favour of gay marriages.

Under persistent questioning, he said it would be "fine with me" if California law was changed to permit same-sex marriages.

Kirkachara, that's 61% of the voting public.

Sure, sure. I regret the error. Please spell my name correctly in the future. KTHXBYE.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:15 PM on September 6, 2005

I predict he'll sign it.

If he cares about box office--er, poll numbers (which are in the dumps) he will. Which is to say, count on it.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:35 PM on September 6, 2005

Lawyers go, "yippee"
posted by TwelveTwo at 11:54 PM on September 6, 2005

If he has aspirations of being in the white house someday, he probably won't sign it.
posted by darkness at 11:56 PM on September 6, 2005

He doesn't have to sign it; he can let it become law without signing. (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bil2lawx.html)

Civil_Disobedient, if his poll numbers are low, wouldn't he want to veto it to boost his chances with the 61% of the voting public?
posted by surlycat at 12:06 AM on September 7, 2005

As much as I'd like to believe he'll make this decision based on his own real views, my better judgment reminds me that this is a political decision, just like any other. While his job approval is suffering, he couldn't possibly want to lose the respect and support of his own party.

It's at least a "safe" decision if he chooses to veto it. He won't be harrassed about it by all that many people who were his supporters before.

On the other hand, if he chooses to sign the bill, it'll definitely be a courageous move, and a very important one for the future of this country.
posted by charlie36751 at 12:53 AM on September 7, 2005

He will veto. He has to. Even Hillary would.
posted by dingobully at 2:50 AM on September 7, 2005

you can bet he'll veto it.
posted by pruner at 3:11 AM on September 7, 2005

Are there any politicians who do the right thing just to do the right thing or do they never make it past dogcatcher?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 6:24 AM on September 7, 2005

He will veto. He has to. Even Hillary would.

Should wouldn't have to, but it seems as though she might
posted by Cassford at 6:24 AM on September 7, 2005

Good show California. Hope he doesn't.
posted by jmgorman at 6:28 AM on September 7, 2005

Should wouldn't have to, but it seems as though she might

Considering that quote's from a blog post made two years ago, I'm gonna lean on "might not" at this point.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:33 AM on September 7, 2005

Guess we'll see if Schwarzenegger has any balls or not.
posted by Rothko at 6:34 AM on September 7, 2005

you can bet he'll veto it.

That is a truely awesome idea!

if his poll numbers are low, wouldn't he want to veto it to boost his chances with the 61% of the voting public?

I'm ambivalent to proposition voting numbers; the situation in California was completely different than it is now. In a short 5 years, we've had 9/11, gays in MA, the Iraq war, gays in SF, Katrina, gays in ME, etc. I have a feeling a YES vote could sway more people to his side than a NO vote would do to bolster any support he might have had in 2000.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:49 AM on September 7, 2005

Psst... C_D... he's only been in office since 2003. But yeah, my money's on Arnold not vetoing. He's got to be looking at the GOP as a sinking ship right now. Think about it- after New Orleans, he's got to be looking at the big target painted on his state, thanks to the San Andreas Faultline. I don't think the good people of California are going to be very fond of a leader who stands by a bunch of folks who think FEMA are doing a swell job.

Please spell my name correctly in the future.

Whatever, kirkupachabra. ;)
posted by mkultra at 7:11 AM on September 7, 2005

If he has aspirations of being in the white house someday, he probably won't sign it.

Please, in order to be president, the constitution needs to be amended to allow forigen born presidents. That's a pretty remote posibility.

Of course, his poll numbers are so poor right now he might as well veto it as a favor to republicans.
posted by delmoi at 7:43 AM on September 7, 2005

he's only been in office since 2003

My point exactly. Using 2000 voting statistics to claim those very same people who opposed gay marriage are "his supporters" is more than a little bit disengenuous.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:02 AM on September 7, 2005

The "girlie-men" sponsored the bill.

Gay marriage will ultimately win out due to Equal Protection:

“no state shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Whatever, kirkupachabra. ;)
Now, that's better!
posted by kirkaracha at 10:27 AM on September 7, 2005

Considering that quote's from a blog post made two years ago, I'm gonna lean on "might not" at this point.

HRC has been pretty consistent in her statements on the subject. She does not support a constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage and she supports civil unions as the method for extending the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, but she supports the Defense of Marriage Act (signed by her husband in 1996) and sees marriage as "between one man and one woman."

Who knows what she'd actually do in Schwarzenegger's position? Her main GOP challenger for the NY Senate, Bill Weld, is even more inscrutable. Theman delivered the homily at a friends's gay marriage, he urged the MA legislature to support same-sex marriage last year, but he says that he doesn't support same-sex marriage (Newsday.com).

Feckless.
posted by Cassford at 11:41 AM on September 7, 2005

Arnold Schwartzenegger supports gay porn, so why not gay families?

In Feb. 1977, Arnold Schwarzenegger did a series of nudes for a gay porn mag in New York called After Dark.

These pics were virtually unknown until Lacy H. Rich, Jr., a photographer amd printmaker for bodybuilders who was deeply connected to the southern California bodybuilding community during the late '60s / early '70s, released them to Spy Magazine (NSFW), who used them in their March '92 article.

Lacy Rich also claims to have sent Spy Magazine several photos of Arnold Schwarzenegger with gay millionaire (now deceased) Paco Arce, who reportedly paid Schwarzenegger $1000 for services rendered. Spy Magazine didn't publish these photos, but they did describe them.

From Tom Minichiello's memoirs of the early days of professional bodybuilding, he says of Paco Arce "Paco was one of the wealthiest men in Spain. He was bald, heavy-set, and had a very pleasant personality. He was very friendly, and very gay. Whenever I had shows in New York, it was Paco who paid all the expenses for both the French and the Spanish teams. He really spent his money and enjoyed himself. He had an apartment in Monaco, a place in the Canary Islands, and a mansion in Madrid.

According to Wendy Leigh's 1990 unauthorized Schwarzenegger bio, in addition to Paco Arce, Schwarzenegger was also hired in 1966 by a "top British industrialist in his 40's, notorious for his generosity to bodybuilders", referred to only as "Mr. R". Evidence seems to suggest that this individual was John Dixey, best known for his involvement in designing and constructing the Hyde Park underpass in London.

Doubt it if you will, but I checked out several elements of Lacy Rich's voluminous posts to Usenet in the run-up to the California elections, and they checked out. Perhaps most damning, Lacy Rich also mentioned in '95 that Arnold had a relationship with a woman named Gigi. He did this four years before the first public allegations came out of Schwarzenegger's affair with Gigi Goyette, and a decade before the Washington Post discovered that Arnold paid her $20,000 for her silence in the run-up to his election. Infact, the media was looking all over for Gigi Goyette at that time, only to find out that she was vacationing somewhere unknown in Europe.
posted by insomnia_lj at 12:00 PM on September 7, 2005

kirkaracha writes "Proposition 22 (WikiPedia), which was passed by 61% of the public in 2000"

2000 was a loooooong time ago. A Field Poll in May 2004 showed that only 53% of California voters disapproved of allowing same-sex marriages. I would bet that since the 2004 election, there's been even more movement towards the pro-equality side: Bush isn't popular here, and his opposition to same-sex marriage could only help it in California. I would bet that if Arnold came out in support of the bill, polls would show a majority in favor. That's how leadership should work.

Also, compare the rapid movement in opinion polls on same-sex marriage in Massachusetts: I don't have time to find links or exact numbers, but it went from something like 40% in favor of equality in 2002 to around 65% in favor now. Americans are a practical people, and once they realize that the on-the-ground practical impact of marriage equality on their own lives is nil (i.e. same-sex marriage isn't a threat to heterosexual marriage), they'll drop any resistance.
posted by mr_roboto at 1:38 PM on September 7, 2005

"Pro-family" leader Robert Knight actually suggesting that Dems timed the vote to take advantage of Katrina tragedy.

*Full disclosure: Linked site is my own.
posted by goodasyou at 3:10 PM on September 7, 2005

From what I hear Arnold is so unpopular, a veto of the bill would almost guarantee its eventual success.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 6:20 PM on September 7, 2005

Schwarzenegger just announced that he'll veto the bill.
posted by pruner at 6:30 PM on September 7, 2005

Kirkarchia: why do you think that? Seriously. Is it based strictly on your reading of the 14th Amendment's text, or do you also take into account the precedent interepreting the Amendment?
posted by esquire at 8:21 PM on September 7, 2005

You know, I'm a simple person, and when I read a sentence of mostly simple words (sure, "jurisdiction" was tough, four syllables and all, but I sounded it out), I expect the sentence to mean what it says. If the amendment says "no state shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," I expect that to mean that no state shall deny any person the equal protection of the laws. I expect "any person" to mean, you know, any person.
In other words, the rules are the same for everyone, so the idea that some rules apply to straights but don't apply to gays is not constitutional.

I know the amendment was written during Reconstruction to grant rights to former slaves, and I know that the majority of Equal Protection cases the Supreme Court have decided have benefited corporations, but I don't see anything about African-Americans or corporations in the text of the amendment, so my interpretation, or strict construction if you will, is that "any person" means any person.
posted by kirkaracha at 12:46 AM on September 8, 2005

Schwarzenegger just announced that he'll veto the bill.

The people have spoken.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:00 AM on September 8, 2005