Arnold Schwarzenegger | California | Gay Marriage | News

California Assembly Approves Same-Sex Marriage

A bill that would allow same-sex couples to marry in California passed the state Assembly on a party-line vote of 42-34 yesterday, moving on to a Senate vote and perhaps another showdown with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

LenoThe Sacramento Bee reports: "Assemblyman Mark Leno D-San Francisco (left, with Assemblyman Pedro Nava (D-Santa Barbara)), characterized his Assembly Bill 43 as 'marriage equality.' 'Why would we want government dictating affairs of the heart?' he asked. But Assemblyman Anthony Adams, R-Hesperia, said that supporting the notion of gay marriage violates his religious beliefs. 'As a Christian, I do believe that the act of homosexuality is immoral,' he said. Unlike two years ago, Tuesday's debate was not angry or hurtful, though both sides were passionate in their views...Under AB 43, gay and lesbian couples would be able to obtain civil marriage certificates from local government. Churches would not be required to perform such weddings...But critics of AB 43 noted that Californians overwhelmingly passed a ballot measure seven years ago that said only marriage between a man and woman would be valid in the state. 'The will of the people has been spoken,' Adams argued."

Schwarzenegger vetoed a similar bill in 2005. He has said he'll do it again should the measure come before him.

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. It may be the will of the people, but the majority of those people are straight. That's called tyrrany by the majority, not democracy.

    Posted by: Bill | Jun 6, 2007 9:19:46 AM

  2. Isn't the election of the legislature the will of the people as well?

    Posted by: Zlexar | Jun 6, 2007 9:49:32 AM

  3. Not to mention the hypocrisy of a republican demanding the courts handle an issues and not the legislature. Arnold's a pussy.

    Posted by: Gio | Jun 6, 2007 9:54:57 AM

  4. Dear Anthony Adams, R-Hesperia:

    1. Homosexuality is not an "act."

    2. Labeling yourself "Christian" has nothing to do with this topic, since many people who identify as Christian are not opposed to homosexuality.

    3. Have you ever heard of "separation of church and state"? What if my religious beliefs dictated that people with the initials A. A. who live in Hisperia should be disenfranchised? Should we pass a law denying those people the right to marry?


    Posted by: JOE 2 | Jun 6, 2007 10:15:13 AM

  5. Why does Anthony Adams think his religious choices trump my biological programming?

    As an educated person, I do believe his act of choosing to be a Christian is immoral.

    Posted by: Jake | Jun 6, 2007 10:47:59 AM

  6. The will of the people is always, of course, subject to change, unless it echoes the will of christamentalists. Everyplace any sort of voter-driven pro-gay is passed, there's an effort to put it back on the ballot again and again and again until it repeals whatever it is. This battle isn't over, but the war is lost for the bigots. Has been since Vermont.

    Posted by: jfbiii | Jun 6, 2007 11:00:06 AM

  7. Once again, religious faith stands in the way of civil rights. It was the same back in the 1960s when Christians were syaing that god did not want the races to mix.

    I am sick and tired of religious idiots.

    Posted by: ReasReasonBased | Jun 6, 2007 12:19:09 PM

  8. Assemblyman Adams:

    Of course you may believe whatever your conscience directs. However you were not voting on the "act" of homosexuality - that act (or those actions) are constitutionally protected as the Supreme Court found in Lawrence v. Texas.

    You were asked to vote on a different matter, that relating to homosexual PERSONS and whether they should be granted the same rights and priveleges and access to their government as other persons. In this the Christian principal - as express by Christ - is clear: if this is something that you love for yourself, then Christ commands that you give it also to your neighbor.

    When at the end of your life you face your maker, you may be surprised when he asks you to explain exactly why you didn't love your neighbor as yourself. It's not like you haven't heard that commandment - remember, you're a Christian.

    Posted by: Timothy | Jun 6, 2007 12:21:44 PM

  9. Timothy - this is precisely the WRONG way to respond to a religious wingnut who does not understand that his personal delusional beliefs have nothing to do with a civil matter. What they passed was a law regarding CIVIL MARRIAGE. What does this have to do with the bible, the alleged christian cult leader El Jesus or christianity at all?

    Posted by: ReasReasonBased | Jun 6, 2007 12:59:18 PM

  10. I agree with all th ecomments made here today.

    "Homosexuality" does not exist. There is no such thing. The word is "gay". A NOUN, not an adjective. Adjectives are acts and lifestyles. Nouns are people, people with rights.

    Posted by: Juliana | Jun 6, 2007 1:36:37 PM

  11. Juliana, honey, "homosexuality" is a noun. It is not, however, a person (with or without rights).

    And "gay" is primarily an adjective, one that is increasingly used as a noun to refer to people who are gay. Used by the gays to refer to the gays it is often ironic.

    (Maybe we should all just stick to "teh gehs.")

    Posted by: 24play | Jun 6, 2007 1:48:14 PM

  12. The problem is the people of California always want to have it both ways.

    First, they give the liberal Democrats a huge majority in the legislature (just shy of a 2/3 majority). Then they elect GOP governors and overwhelmingly endorse conservative positions when it comes to referendums to limit the authority of that legislature to enact real change. This is the way it has been in California, more or less, for over 50 years.

    It seems like Californians are very confused, ideologically.

    Posted by: John | Jun 6, 2007 2:27:45 PM

  13. Trying to point out what Christ wanted christians to do is a waste of time. Religion is and always will be all things to all people. Anyone that wants to believe anything about any sort of higher power can justify it simply by believing it. It's a shame. Always has been, always will be. Expecting religious people of any stripe to consistently display logical and rational behavior is hopelessly optimistic. Even when they do support you, they're still subject to wild rationality swings.

    Posted by: jfbiii | Jun 6, 2007 7:14:15 PM

  14. In reference to John, California really has no political ideology because it's such a broad state with a broad sense of politics. The two major population centers (the Bay Area and Los Angeles) are overwhelmingly liberal/moderate while the rest of the state is moderate/conservative. I read something once that if Californian congressmen voted as a block in the US Congress they would be a significant force but because California is so multi-faceted politically that's pretty much an impossibility, just as it is within the state legislature.

    I love my state but it's hard to live in it when there is such a flip flopping nature to California voters when it comes to the issues.

    Posted by: Adric | Jun 7, 2007 3:29:41 AM

  15. They so lie about prop 22. It only concerns out of state gay marriages, and has nothing to do with marriages contracted within the state. But what a surprise a self described xtian with an R after his name might not tell the truth. Will of the people my ass, it's the will of the people that your party be the perpetual minority in the legislature, what do you think that means, moron? Here's a hint, your party's ideas are a no go in California.

    Posted by: MBSF | Jun 7, 2007 1:23:36 PM

Post a comment


« «Lightning Strike Interrupts Giuliani Abortion Debate« «