Part Deux...

Discuss. This will be interesting to watch.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/06/D8CF5BP00.html

As a Californian, I pay taxes to the state and local governments as well as work here to increase it's productivity. This makes me, in essance, a 'stakeholder' in the State and I feel I have more in common with them (the Legistlature), as opposed to a tourist, consumer, etc.

I think we blewed it up.

I'm saving my applause for when the Governator either signs it or has his veto overridden.

I dislike the idea that they keep citing the proposition to ban gay marriage. I live in MA now and the lawmakers are still fuming about the court rulings and are keyed up for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, which makes me sad. Democracy is supposed to mean equality, not suppression of minorities by the majority. *looks at what happened in New Orleanes* Or... maybe it does.

Z

The guvernator wasted no time in issuing a statement of his intent:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/12588906.htm

Yeah.
Hard to call what Ahnold will do on this one.

On the one hand he is somewhere to the right of Gengis Khan politically,
on the other hand there were those "close male friends" he had as a younger fellow ...

So, what does the California legislature need to do to override the veto? Somehow I kinda doubt there's the needed votes to do so...

Now, the following is a question on Califonia law, *not* on the merits of gay marriage...But is it true then that the Califorina lawmakers can override any proposition the people approve? If so, what's the purpose of propositions?

well isnt a referendum only of equal footing with a law from the legislature in most states?


I mean a Law is a Law - reguardless of how its passed.

It would be silly to give the voters the power to pass a law that the legislature cant adjust or recind, becuase of the potential for abuse. It would give the law passed by the voters more authority on par with an ammendment.


And an ammendment is an ammendment.

In many states voters can vote for ammendments to the constitution - in this case the legislature couldnt simply vote a new law to replace it.

Not much, I think. The veto will most likely stick, as the bill conflicts with Prop. 22 which defines marriage between one man and one woman. Prop. 22 was passed in 2000 by the voters and is currently being challenged in the courts on the grounds that it goes against the state constitution which prohibits discrimination against various minorities, one of which is sexual orientation.

The governor says he supports gay marriage but he feels that it should be legalized either through the courts or by the voters.

Either way, time is on the side of those fighting for equality and in the end they will prevail. It's just too bad Arnie doesn't have the balls to take a stand on the side of equality, even if it was only symbolic and didn't carry any real weight.