Political Crossfire Forums

[John Galt]

Quote:
Calif. Lawmakers Pass Gay Marriage Bill
Sep 06 10:52 PM US/Eastern

By STEVE LAWRENCE
Associated Press Writer

SACRAMENTO, Calif.

The California Legislature on Tuesday became the first legislative body in the country to approve same-sex marriages, as gay-rights advocates overcame two earlier defeats in the Assembly.

The 41-35 vote sends the bill to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The bill's supporters compared the legislation to earlier civil rights campaigns, including efforts to eradicate slavery and give women the right to vote.

"Do what we know is in our hearts," said the bill's sponsor, San Francisco Democrat Mark Leno. "Make sure all California families will have the same protection under the law."

Leno's bill had failed in the Assembly by four votes in June, but he was confident he could get it through on a second try after the Senate approved a same-sex marriage bill last week.

Democratic Assemblyman Paul Koretz called bans on gay marriage "the last frontier of bigotry and discrimination, and it's time we put an end to it."

Assemblyman Tom Umberg, a Democrat who abstained when another gay marriage bill fell four votes short in June, said he was concerned about what his three children would think of him if he didn't join those "who sought to take a leadership role in terms of tolerance, equality and fairness."

But opponents repeatedly cited the public's vote five years ago to approve Proposition 22, an initiative put on the ballot by gay marriage opponents to keep California from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries.

"History will record that you betrayed your constituents and their moral and ethical values," said Republican Assemblyman Jay La Suer.

As I'vesaid many times,its great that the legislatures do this because that's what the people want. Only... they don't want it. 62% voted for that Prop 22 as mentioned above just 5 yearsago... This will honestly loose California for the Dems, on a state and national level, regardless if the governor signs the bill, IMO.

[Protostar]

John Galt wrote: Quote:
Calif. Lawmakers Pass Gay Marriage Bill
Sep 06 10:52 PM US/Eastern

By STEVE LAWRENCE
Associated Press Writer

SACRAMENTO, Calif.

The California Legislature on Tuesday became the first legislative body in the country to approve same-sex marriages, as gay-rights advocates overcame two earlier defeats in the Assembly.

The 41-35 vote sends the bill to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The bill's supporters compared the legislation to earlier civil rights campaigns, including efforts to eradicate slavery and give women the right to vote.

"Do what we know is in our hearts," said the bill's sponsor, San Francisco Democrat Mark Leno. "Make sure all California families will have the same protection under the law."

Leno's bill had failed in the Assembly by four votes in June, but he was confident he could get it through on a second try after the Senate approved a same-sex marriage bill last week.

Democratic Assemblyman Paul Koretz called bans on gay marriage "the last frontier of bigotry and discrimination, and it's time we put an end to it."

Assemblyman Tom Umberg, a Democrat who abstained when another gay marriage bill fell four votes short in June, said he was concerned about what his three children would think of him if he didn't join those "who sought to take a leadership role in terms of tolerance, equality and fairness."

But opponents repeatedly cited the public's vote five years ago to approve Proposition 22, an initiative put on the ballot by gay marriage opponents to keep California from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries.

"History will record that you betrayed your constituents and their moral and ethical values," said Republican Assemblyman Jay La Suer.

As I'vesaid many times,its great that the legislatures do this because that's what the people want. Only... they don't want it. 62% voted for that Prop 22 as mentioned above just 5 yearsago... This will honestly loose California for the Dems, on a state and national level, regardless if the governor signs the bill, IMO.

Wonderful. More votes for the Republicans then.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: As I'vesaid many times,its great that the legislatures do this because that's what the people want. Only... they don't want it. 62% voted for that Prop 22 as mentioned above just 5 yearsago... This will honestly loose California for the Dems, on a state and national level, regardless if the governor signs the bill, IMO.
A lot has happened since that vote.

Are legislators supposed to vote according to majority opinion, or on the basis of what will be best for all of their constituents - even when it may not be what the majority thinks is best?

[John Galt]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: As I'vesaid many times,its great that the legislatures do this because that's what the people want. Only... they don't want it. 62% voted for that Prop 22 as mentioned above just 5 yearsago... This will honestly loose California for the Dems, on a state and national level, regardless if the governor signs the bill, IMO.
A lot has happened since that vote.

Are legislators supposed to vote according to majority opinion, or on the basis of what will be best for all of their constituents - even when it may not be what the majority thinks is best?

Ahh the basic delegate-trustee question...

I like delegates on the state level.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: As I'vesaid many times,its great that the legislatures do this because that's what the people want. Only... they don't want it. 62% voted for that Prop 22 as mentioned above just 5 yearsago... This will honestly loose California for the Dems, on a state and national level, regardless if the governor signs the bill, IMO.
A lot has happened since that vote.

Are legislators supposed to vote according to majority opinion, or on the basis of what will be best for all of their constituents - even when it may not be what the majority thinks is best?

Ahh the basic delegate-trustee question...

I like delegates on the state level.
I don't see any reason for them to be delegates at the state level and trustees at the federal, if that's what you meant to imply. It can be argued that the states have even more control over our lives (especially if you dont' consider the Bill of Rights binding upon them, which I know you don't). That being the case, all the more reason for them to be trustees at the state level - to protect rights that would otherwise be subject to the whims of changeable majority opinion.

[Israel]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: As I'vesaid many times,its great that the legislatures do this because that's what the people want. Only... they don't want it. 62% voted for that Prop 22 as mentioned above just 5 yearsago... This will honestly loose California for the Dems, on a state and national level, regardless if the governor signs the bill, IMO.
A lot has happened since that vote.

Are legislators supposed to vote according to majority opinion, or on the basis of what will be best for all of their constituents - even when it may not be what the majority thinks is best?

You're confusing legislators and judges... Legislators should vote for what the majority wants.

You of all people should know this from your repeated rhetoric about how judges shouldn't have to follow public opinion. Please don't start saying Congress should do the courts job too...

[Nelson]

No..legislators shouldn't vote as the public wants. Legislators should vote as they want to vote - and the public can decide from that whether they want the legislators to stay. That's how it works.

[Israel]

Nelson wrote: No..legislators shouldn't vote as the public wants. Legislators should vote as they want to vote - and the public can decide from that whether they want the legislators to stay. That's how it works.
No... Legislators are elected by their district and should represent their district voters, not what a couple corporations think who have the resources to make a few bribes.

[Nelson]

Israel wrote: Nelson wrote: No..legislators shouldn't vote as the public wants. Legislators should vote as they want to vote - and the public can decide from that whether they want the legislators to stay. That's how it works.
No... Legislators are elected by their district and should represent their district voters, not what a couple corporations think who have the resources to make a few bribes.

Legislators are elected by their district. You are incorrect in stating that legislators should necessarily represent their district voters views - it wasn't the views on all issues that were elected, it was the legislator. If legislators make decisions that anger their district, that legislator will be removed from power. That's the way the government in the United States works.

It isn't the duty of a legislator to vote to their consistuency. Rather, it's the duty of the constituency to decide which legislator will best represent the people.

[Lord Hargreaves]

But a Constitutional Amendment could overturn this if its passed right?

[John Galt]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: But a Constitutional Amendment could overturn this if its passed right?

Depends on what theAmendment said. If such an amendment were to pass that said that homosexualmarriage is plain illegal in the United States and all the states, then yes, it would overturn this. If it said that states do not need to abide by the Constitutional requirement of fullfaith and credit regarding marriages, then no, this wouldn't...

In any event I suppose the question is moot, as the governor has indicated he'll have no girlie-man weddings in California, and will veto the bill.

[John Galt]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: As I'vesaid many times,its great that the legislatures do this because that's what the people want. Only... they don't want it. 62% voted for that Prop 22 as mentioned above just 5 yearsago... This will honestly loose California for the Dems, on a state and national level, regardless if the governor signs the bill, IMO.
A lot has happened since that vote.

Are legislators supposed to vote according to majority opinion, or on the basis of what will be best for all of their constituents - even when it may not be what the majority thinks is best?

Ahh the basic delegate-trustee question...

I like delegates on the state level.
I don't see any reason for them to be delegates at the state level and trustees at the federal, if that's what you meant to imply. It can be argued that the states have even more control over our lives (especially if you dont' consider the Bill of Rights binding upon them, which I know you don't). That being the case, all the more reason for them to be trustees at the state level - to protect rights that would otherwise be subject to the whims of changeable majority opinion.

You juist stated exactly why I want them to be delegates on state levels and trustees on Federal. The Federal government is supposedly limited by the Constitution, therefore I can TRUST them to be limited in their ways (as hopelessly idealic as that sounds). The state governments are not, and without such restrictions, I really don't trust the politicans, so they do my bidding or they do not get my vote.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: As I'vesaid many times,its great that the legislatures do this because that's what the people want. Only... they don't want it. 62% voted for that Prop 22 as mentioned above just 5 yearsago... This will honestly loose California for the Dems, on a state and national level, regardless if the governor signs the bill, IMO.
A lot has happened since that vote.

Are legislators supposed to vote according to majority opinion, or on the basis of what will be best for all of their constituents - even when it may not be what the majority thinks is best?

Ahh the basic delegate-trustee question...

I like delegates on the state level.
I don't see any reason for them to be delegates at the state level and trustees at the federal, if that's what you meant to imply. It can be argued that the states have even more control over our lives (especially if you dont' consider the Bill of Rights binding upon them, which I know you don't). That being the case, all the more reason for them to be trustees at the state level - to protect rights that would otherwise be subject to the whims of changeable majority opinion.

You juist stated exactly why I want them to be delegates on state levels and trustees on Federal. The Federal government is supposedly limited by the Constitution, therefore I can TRUST them to be limited in their ways (as hopelessly idealic as that sounds). The state governments are not, and without such restrictions, I really don't trust the politicans, so they do my bidding or they do not get my vote.

Bogus. States are likewise limited by their own constitutions. If I follow your logic, you ought to be able to trust them to abide by those limitations.

The moment you start treating representative as delegates instead of trustees, you're moving in the direction of democracy and the probable eventual dismantling of the republic.

[F'losrix]

It all matters little anyway - Schwarzenegger is saying he'll veto the bill.

Gay people can't win. First we're told it's an abuse to use the courts to pursue recognition of our marriages with equality. So we take it through the legislature. Now we're told that's no good either - that the people have to decide the issue. What a cop-out! The government already regulates marriage but now their actions on the issue aren't good enough - now we're told that the government has to bow to the whims of the fickle majority. Sure, like I'm gonna depend on a bunch of people who already hate me without knowing anything about me to treat me with any measure of equality.

You can bet that even if the people of some state decide at some point to pass gay marriage by referenda that someone will come up with an argument for having the federal government overrule them - they've already tried it with the original wording of the Federal Marriage Amendment:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_amend1.htm

Now the Attorney General of Massachusetts has given the green light to a ballot initiative to overturn the court decision that struck down the prohibitions against recognition of gay marriage in that state. So I don't expect we'll have any recognition there either once it all plays out.

That leaves us with civil unions in Vermont and New Hampshire. I expect someone will eventually find a means to overturn those as well.

I'm fast concluding that gay couples in the U.S. will never be able to depend on the good will of their fellow citizens to give their unions any lasting civil recognition.

Time to revisit emigration again....an idea which I loathe only slightly less than staying in a country where my kind are constantly vilified by religious leaders who blame us for things like 9/11 and hurricane Katrina - people who appear to have considerable clout with the current administration in power.

[John Galt]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: As I'vesaid many times,its great that the legislatures do this because that's what the people want. Only... they don't want it. 62% voted for that Prop 22 as mentioned above just 5 yearsago... This will honestly loose California for the Dems, on a state and national level, regardless if the governor signs the bill, IMO.
A lot has happened since that vote.

Are legislators supposed to vote according to majority opinion, or on the basis of what will be best for all of their constituents - even when it may not be what the majority thinks is best?

Ahh the basic delegate-trustee question...

I like delegates on the state level.
I don't see any reason for them to be delegates at the state level and trustees at the federal, if that's what you meant to imply. It can be argued that the states have even more control over our lives (especially if you dont' consider the Bill of Rights binding upon them, which I know you don't). That being the case, all the more reason for them to be trustees at the state level - to protect rights that would otherwise be subject to the whims of changeable majority opinion.

You juist stated exactly why I want them to be delegates on state levels and trustees on Federal. The Federal government is supposedly limited by the Constitution, therefore I can TRUST them to be limited in their ways (as hopelessly idealic as that sounds). The state governments are not, and without such restrictions, I really don't trust the politicans, so they do my bidding or they do not get my vote.

Bogus. States are likewise limited by their own constitutions. If I follow your logic, you ought to be able to trust them to abide by those limitations.

The moment you start treating representative as delegates instead of trustees, you're moving in the direction of democracy and the probable eventual dismantling of the republic.

The Federal government is a Republic. I already said they should act as trustees.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: As I'vesaid many times,its great that the legislatures do this because that's what the people want. Only... they don't want it. 62% voted for that Prop 22 as mentioned above just 5 yearsago... This will honestly loose California for the Dems, on a state and national level, regardless if the governor signs the bill, IMO.
A lot has happened since that vote.

Are legislators supposed to vote according to majority opinion, or on the basis of what will be best for all of their constituents - even when it may not be what the majority thinks is best?

Ahh the basic delegate-trustee question...

I like delegates on the state level.
I don't see any reason for them to be delegates at the state level and trustees at the federal, if that's what you meant to imply. It can be argued that the states have even more control over our lives (especially if you dont' consider the Bill of Rights binding upon them, which I know you don't). That being the case, all the more reason for them to be trustees at the state level - to protect rights that would otherwise be subject to the whims of changeable majority opinion.

You juist stated exactly why I want them to be delegates on state levels and trustees on Federal. The Federal government is supposedly limited by the Constitution, therefore I can TRUST them to be limited in their ways (as hopelessly idealic as that sounds). The state governments are not, and without such restrictions, I really don't trust the politicans, so they do my bidding or they do not get my vote.

Bogus. States are likewise limited by their own constitutions. If I follow your logic, you ought to be able to trust them to abide by those limitations.

The moment you start treating representative as delegates instead of trustees, you're moving in the direction of democracy and the probable eventual dismantling of the republic.

The Federal government is a Republic. I already said they should act as trustees.

My statement stands. Have a look at the 17th amendment. We've already acted to thwart the Republic - who says it stops there? The Constitution? Funny, it didn't stop us before. Treating state reps as delegates instead of trustees is just one more step on the way.

[John Galt]

No, I don't think so as I advocate fairly strong state government and minimalist federal government.

Anyway I am angered by Arnold's decision. Why? Did you hear what he said? He said this is the buisness of the COURTS not the LEGISLATURE.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: No, I don't think so as I advocate fairly strong state government and minimalist federal government.

Anyway I am angered by Arnold's decision. Why? Did you hear what he said? He said this is the buisness of the COURTS not the LEGISLATURE.
And what will the response be when the currently pending cases work their way through the court system and the court ends up agreeing with the legislature - that gay marriages should be recognized?

Can Californians overturn court decisions by employing referenda? That's where things are headed right now in Massachusetts.

It would appear that gay people are going to get screwed by the hateful majority no matter what. It seems to make little difference if attempts at remedy come from the legislative or judicial processes - neither one is good enough to protect us.