California | Gay Marriage | Mark Leno | News | Proposition 8 | Tom Ammiano

California Assembly Committee Passes Resolution Opposing Prop 8

Yesterday, the California Assembly Judiciary Committee passed a resolution on Proposition 8, calling the measure an improper revision to the state constitution:

Ammiano"Today the members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee passed House Resolution 5 (Ammiano, D-San Francisco) by a vote of 7 to 3, which resolves that the Assembly opposes the implementation of Prop 8. H.R. 5 states that Prop 8 is an improper revision of the California Constitution. 'I am proud of my colleagues and their unequivocal support of equal treatment for all Californians. This resolution speaks directly to the fundamental rights of same-sex couples to have equal protection under the Constitution, rights that cannot be taken away by popular vote. I am confident that the Assembly will support the repeal of Proposition 8 and confirm the basic rights of all Californians,' said Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco), author of HR 5."

A similar resolution, authored by Mark Leno, has been introduced in California's senate. The Supreme court is scheduled to hear arguments on the legality of Proposition 8 on March 5.

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. The hearing is on March 5th and, by law, the Supreme Court MUST announce its decision within 90 days (no later than June 5th).

    Call in the firefighters! It's going to be one hell of a gay pride month.

    Posted by: JohnInManhattan | Feb 18, 2009 11:50:10 AM

  2. For what its worth, Tom Ammiano is an obnoxious blow hard, whose idea of humor is matched only by his skills at wasting legislative time. He was silent on prop H8 throughout the election because 1) He hates Gavin Newsom and 2) Tom is a member of the SF absolutist so-far-left-they're-right-wing crowd that is actually not very pro-gay marriage because they believe it to be "hetero-normative." Tom's crowd only likes gays who wear the victim card and fall in lock step with their ideology.

    Posted by: FYI | Feb 18, 2009 11:52:04 AM

  3. FYI = BS

    Posted by: M. Bergeron | Feb 18, 2009 12:18:02 PM

  4. Does this actually mean anything in reality?

    It seems more like posing and posturing after the fact...

    Posted by: David B. | Feb 18, 2009 12:45:08 PM

  5. We wouldn't need to worry about this nonsense had Prop. 8 gone down in defeat. And its passage was certainly not inevitable.

    The gay community in California simply dropped the ball. We totally misused the funds which folks from all over the country had generously given us to fight Prop. 8. We cared more about Obama winning than Prop. 8 (as exemplified by the election night dance parties throughout West Hollywood, Hillcrest, and the Castro to "celebrate" the Democratic victory). We assumed, in all our arrogant navity, that talking to the African American and Latino communities about Prop. 8 wasn't necessary because "minorities stick together." We allowed our campaign leadership to take month long vacations in Hawaii while the religious right was pounding home its message at home.

    Gay California owes the rest of gay America an apology. We screwed up. We had a chance to show that change can come to America when it comes to LGBT issues. And we, quite frankly, blew it.

    Posted by: John in CA | Feb 18, 2009 12:53:15 PM



    Posted by: Derek Washington | Feb 18, 2009 1:18:42 PM

  7. Posturing and posing after the fact indeed, DB. Ammiano for instance was nowhere to be found prior to the election on the subject of prop 8. Only in mid-November, after it became clear that there was political hay to be made of the defeat, did he show up and muscle his way to the podium at a anti-8 rally.

    Here is an example of our local ultra-lefty take on gay marriage:

    Posted by: FYI | Feb 18, 2009 1:24:32 PM

  8. FYI - You are right on about TA. La Tom should get off his grandstanding ass and help pass the fucking budget.

    Posted by: Tralfaz | Feb 18, 2009 3:24:47 PM

  9. FYI - Gay Shame is still around? Talk about a bunch of attention whores! These queens are from the old "Queer Nation" mold that do nothing but draw attention to themselves and pose for any camera they can find.

    Posted by: Tralfaz | Feb 18, 2009 3:32:05 PM

  10. I am wary of the use of the line "This resolution speaks directly to the fundamental rights of same-sex couples to have equal protection under the Constitution, rights that cannot be taken away by popular vote."
    Isn't that what a vote is all about? Popular Vote? The most popular gets the vote? I can hear it now, "The people spoke and they said no. Now your going to take away our voice in favor of those people."
    I too agree that it was wrong for the people of CA to deny their fellow people the same civil rights as they take for granted, but this language is going to bite them in the ass.

    Posted by: Crash | Feb 18, 2009 7:38:32 PM

  11. @crash: You don't get it, do you? Equal treatment under the law-- and equal access to the law-- are central tenets of the California Constitution, and it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to deny access to legal process to a suspect class of California citizens. There was NO compelling reason to do this to a law-abiding group of citizens; the Supreme Court rightfully saw that doing so was done out of prejudice and animus. That is, HATRED. That is unconstitutional.

    And if the Supreme Court still has balls, they will do the right thing and vacate Proposition H8 as a completely and utterly immoral power-grab by religious right-wing cousinfuckers.

    Posted by: Dawn Davenport | Feb 18, 2009 7:58:31 PM

  12. @TRALFAZ, well, gay shame is around as much as they ever were, but they were big Ammiano supporters in his race for Mayor (one of their original efforts) and did some pretty nasty stuff, like creating flyers with the black mayor (Willie Brown) in effigy as a turd in a toilet, with the phrase "if its Brown, flush it down." Ammiano in classic form refused to condemn their behavior, saying that is was "all in good fun."

    Posted by: FYI | Feb 18, 2009 8:28:11 PM

  13. Crash,

    I don't know what you're trying to read into it.

    All the resolution says is that there was a "popular vote" to take away the rights of gay people. I don't think anybody's actually disputing that part. It would seem rather obvious to anyone who has seen the election results.

    The argument being posited - the same one voiced by Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Brown - is that the state has a MORAL and ETHICAL obligation to protect "those people" regardless of what the majority says.

    Posted by: John in CA | Feb 18, 2009 9:18:40 PM

Post a comment


« «Gay GOP Minnesota Lawmaker Koering Says No to Gay Rights Bill« «