Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, a backer of the bill said that Tuesday's vote showed that gay rights advocates have "turned the corner on the issue of marriage equality for lesbian and gay couples."
"As the debate today shows, love conquers fear, principle conquers politics and equality conquers injustice, and the governor can now secure his legacy as a true leader by signing this bill," Mr. Kors said.
The bill's supporters compared the legislation to civil rights campaigns to eradicate slavery and secure the right to vote for women.
Opponents of the civil recognition of same-sex marriage have vowed to go to court if the bill becomes law, saying it violates the spirit of Proposition 22, a 2000 ballot initiative that prohibits California from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries. Proposition 22, which California Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer deemed unconstitutional earlier this year, is not actually impacted by AB 849.
Those who disapprove of marriage equality for gay and lesbian people are also trying to qualify initiatives for the 2006 ballot, one that would amend California's state Constitution to ban the recognition of same-sex marriages and another that would roll back some of the rights gained by same-sex couples who register as "domestic partners."
Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families (but apparently only children and families that organization finds acceptable) said, "The only word I can see here is prostitution. Instead of obeying the voters and the Constitution, the Democratic politicians have prostituted themselves to the homosexual marriage agenda. It's not gay, it's bad."
In a September 6 press release, Mr. Thomasson said, “Schwarzenegger can’t afford to sign the ‘gay marriage license’ bill, He’ll actually become a hero to the majority of Californians when he vetoes it. The ‘Terminator’ should announce without delay that this bill is dead meat.”
"I think it's a sad day. I think the people of California want us to do the business of jobs, the economy, education, illegal immigration, and today we had to spend several hours talking about an issue that the voters decided back five years ago, that marriage should be between a man and a woman … I think it shows how out of touch the legislature is,” said Assemblywoman Sharon Runner (R-Lancaster).
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - DrPat
...violates the spirit of Proposition 22, a 2000 ballot initiative that prohibits California from recognizing same-sex marriages...
It also violates California's constitution, as has been found when the folks in Sacramento tried this before.
2 - TBJ
Awesome, how about spreading the word on "equality" all across the USA...I mean, it says "We the People", not "We the christian right-wingers"..
3 - Margaret Romao Toigo
Patience, TBJ. The word on equality is likely to be spread across the USA by the Supreme Court, but the cases have to reach it first.
Progress is a force that moves at its own pace. The Religious Right cannot stop it and, unfortunately, the gay rights movement cannot make it accelerate.
The position opposing the civil recognition of same-sex marriage is untenable, so the purpose of the debate is not to convince so much as it is to foster understanding in preparation for the inevitable.
4 - DrPat
...and the Governator will veto it.
Just announced...
5 - Anthony Grande
The people of California have voted nearly 70% to protect marriage between a man and women. This is a blunder for democratic californians, because this is something that the people of California obviously don't want.
Schwarzenegger will veto it, so the Democrats accomplished nothing but their own demise.
6 - Margaret Romao Toigo
Protect marriage between a man and woman from what (or whom), Mr. Grande?
7 - Matthew T. Sussman
Supreme Court would rule on precedence, and if they were in a good mood would rule that there is no Constitutional backing on same-sex marriage, and I think this should be an issue devoted to the states.
That way, the people can get a good whiff of what they want to see happen.
8 - billy
the problem is republicans cant figure out their line, first its activist jidges, now activist legislatures, seems to me arnold is being an activist governor. hes finished in california if he vetos this bill. hes probably finished in California anyway.
9 - Anthony Grande
Sorry bill boy but Arnold will not be done here in California when he vetoes this bill, because over 70% of Californians do not want gay marriage. We voted on it 5 years ago.
"Protect marriage between a man and woman from what (or whom), Mr. Grande?"
An immoral society, flow of gay migration into my state, advancement of AIDS and the wrath of God.
Also, sorry libbies but this bill will never go to any court, because my Governor will use his [VETO] power.
10 - Margaret Romao Toigo
Oh @#$%&*!
But, let's try to look on the bright side here, Proposition 22 has already been judged unconstitutional. It is only a matter of time (two steps forward, one step back) before we defeat "the last frontier of bigotry and discrimination," as California Assemblyman Paul Koretz calls our failure to recognize homosexuals' civil right to marriage.
Reading Judge Kramer's decision ought to lend some comfort with regard to that appeal's potential for success.
11 - Matthew T. Sussman
Immorality I can deal with.
But a word that extends too far across the screen really pisses off Christians.
12 - billy
republicans will lose big on this one. arnold's approval rating is in the 30s and headed south now. the court will clearly find the epc of the constitution protects gay marriage. there is absolutely no basis for a court to reject gay marriage. thats why republicans are so scared. the legislature elected by the people supports it. now only an activist out of step and out the door governer is pandering to the extreme right which we cant stand in california.
later gov. boobengrabber.
13 - Matthew T. Sussman
But billy, courts rule on precedent. Judicial activism -- i.e., "I'll rule however I WANT to rule, and nobody else can make me" -- might save it, but while I agree that there's no basis to reject it, I don't see a way to permit it either, which is why I think it'll ultimately become a state issue.
See: eminent domain, journalists protecting sources.
14 - billy
no, the "EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE" is clear. it isnt activism to read the clause and say every person is entitled to marry another person.
otherwise, men and women do it, but some men and some women cant because they are gay.
thats not activism. thats republicans like bush hating the american system and badmouthing it.
even if its a state issue the california constitution has a similar EPC clause. to me its activism to say the EPC does not protect gay marriage, or any union between two people.
activism would be to let rick santorum marry his dog under the epc, which apparently he wants to do.
15 - Anthony Grande
Billy, billy, billy you are obviosly not from California.
Arnold's approval rating is in the sewer because the liberal media has aired dozens of ads just full of lies.
Illegal Immigration is also a HUGE problem here and Arnold hasn't done nothing to stop it. Approval is down.
Gay Marriage is not a popular issue here. Us Californians don't want it. We voted not to have it by a landslide. Arnold will benefit from this move.
HAH! HAH! HAH! THIS ISN'T ABORTION! YOU CAN'T BRAINWASH US ON THIS ONE! GAY MARRIAGE WILL NEVER HAPPEN!
I think I will go over to my girlfreind's to celebrate, bye bye
16 - billy
yeah right. your girlfriend has bigger biceps than the boobengrabber, and i am from california, and he isnt popular here because he is a republican, and now he proved he is one, he fooled everyone in the election by pretending to be pro gay marriage, pro choice. we arent fooled anymore now for sure.
17 - Anthony Grande
Billy, close your eyes and listen: Gay marriage is not wanted here, we voted over 70% to beat it.
18 - Matthew T. Sussman
Marriage is not a Constitutional right. The civil rights bestowed by marriage are, and there you have a point.
It's just such a complicated and touchy issue. People try and find a comparison to the issue of same-sex marriage and there just isn't one.
19 - Anthony Grande
I honestly do not care if the Constitution stated: Marriage is between man and another man,
Us in California do not want it damn it, don't throw it on us , throw it on some New England state if you must.
20 - steve
I can't wait for parent teacher conferences in 10-15 years.
I could just picture my child's instructor with all of the parents in the classroom.
I could imagine my wife and I exhanging hellos with parent a, and parent b
21 - billy
The civil rights bestowed by marriage are, and there you have a point.
its true marriage "rights" ie a civil union is what is marriage, anything more is part of your church and has no place in government, via its exclusion in the first amendment.
therefore, all marriage should be declared religious and illegal, and all people can have any marriage they want irrespective of the government, and all people could have a non-religious civil union between two people as part of the "rights"
but that would be too simple, and as i have stated before most republicans are bigots, whoch is why they have a problem with the above. they want to discriminate against gays.
22 - practical joe
Bigamy is not a Constitutional right.
Polygamy is not a Constitutional right.
Homosexual marriage is not a Constitutional right.
Marriage is not a Constitutional right, but if it were what’s the gripe?
The "EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE" is clear.
Any man can marry any woman.
Any woman can marry any man.
Amen.
23 - Matthew T. Sussman
but that would be too simple, and as i have stated before most republicans are bigots, whoch is why they have a problem with the above. they want to discriminate against gays.
Or, people are just uncomfortable with the idea.
If you want to demonize opponents of same-sex marriage with negative descriptors like "bigot" -- words used to categorize like white supremacists -- then your argument and ideals will look negative and immature. And I hate to see that in an intriguing talking point such as this, and just like when people throw the word "immoral" around in the argument from the anti- argument, it becomes nothing more than a shouting contest. And I don't want to lose my voice.
Plus, the discomfort isn't relegated to just Republicans, because neither major 2004 presidential candidate embraced -- or even endorsed -- the concept.
24 - Matthew T. Sussman
And Maggie, I must also compliment the use of sidebars. I love online media design, and it's very nice to see someone figure it out on BC. I tried it once, but it didn't work.
May I suggest making the sidebar an off color? I prefer #CCCCFF.
25 - billy
"EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE" is clear.
Any man can marry any woman.
Any woman can marry any man.
that would be nice and good if that is what the epc says, but it doesnt, so practical joe is the activist here.
epc - all person are entitled to equal protection under the law,
what do right wingers not get? a gay family has unequal rights under the law.