Same sex marriage moves from local to state agenda

I guess I’ve been so preoccupied with Katrina news that I missed it, but recently, AB 849óa.k.a. the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, a.k.a. that same-sex marriage bill Joz blogged about last monthópassed the state legislature!

The next hurdle is getting Governor Schwarzenegger to sign off on it. There’s talk of him vetoing, which I can see some more cowardly governor doing, but come on: this is Ah-nold! The iconoclast! The Governator!

Still, he may need some nudging. John August, famous local screenwriter and unmarried gay dad, makes a plea and an offer in his excellent recent blog post on the subject:

I know youíre worried about the political implications. Personally, I think youíd get a big boost for standing up for what you believe, damn the conventional wisdom. But in case you need to fall back on your Hollywood career, know that Iím offering to write Terminator 4 for you. Hell, Iíll write Jingle All the Way 2. Thatís how important this is.

All joking aside, in his eloquent plea (go read it now), August also urges his fellow Californians to call the Governor’s office in Sacramento to let them know you want this bill to have the Governor’s support: (916) 445-2841.

If that number is busy (and it’s been busy!) here are some numbers for local offices, too:

Fresno: 559-445-5295

Los Angeles: 213-897-0322

Riverside: 951-680-6860

San Diego: 619-525-4641

San Francisco: 415-703-2218

I got through on the L.A. line right away; the whole transaction was pleasant and over in 30 seconds.

Go onómake some history, kids!

UPDATE: Oh, crap. “Will of the people”? Not all of the people. Call anyway, I say, if only to register your extreme displeasure.

7 Replies to “Same sex marriage moves from local to state agenda”

  1. That “Will of the people” line is just a bullshit excuse so he can justify the fear he has of Republicans. He knows Prop 22 refers to out-of-state recognition.

    Besides, Segregation was the “will of the people” in the south, too. But it was wrong, and changed regardless. We all have to get out there and fight.

  2. “I can see some more cowardly governor doing, but come on: this is Ah-nold! The iconoclast! The Governator!”

    Not sure if your use of “cowardly” is a swipe at Gray Davis but I bet he’d have signed it.

    As to Schwarzenegger’s iconoclastic bravado, it’s never been anything more than a toothsome, barely one-dimensional song and dance that he used to ride the coattails of a hijacking of the governor’s office ó where it didn’t take long for him to prove himself inept at promoting the reforms he so boldly and naively promised.

    Hiding behind Prop. 22 and the “will of the populace” is spineless. He’d redeem a modicum of my respect if he just said “I Don’t Agree!” And on the subject of cowardly, this special election he’s forced upon a state that doesn’t want it is as chickenshit as it gets. Governator? My ass.

  3. Arnold knows that he’s dead to Democrats and Independents. His only hope of getting re-elected is to have the American Taliban in his corner.

    Yeah, he may personally have no problem with gay marriage, and he may even be smart enough to recognize it as a civil rights issue, but I seriously doubt that he has enough integrity to sign the bill based on those grounds.

    He’s a douchebag, and it’s going to be a lot of fun to run him right out of Sacramento as soon as we get the chance. And if he thinks Hollywood is going to welcome him back in with open arms, he’s got a nice big surprise waiting for him in the make-up trailer.

  4. Why is it that prop 22 passed with 61% supporting traditional marriage. The proposition process was created so issues could be desided by the people…so now the radical gay agenda will try to override that at all costs…its not like the civil rights revolution of the 60’s….its like manipulating “the currupt congress of dems” to get your agenda, instead of the desire of the people……REMEMBER THE PEOPLE…IT IS NOT A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE. Why not try for a “contract” law.. or something that would pass. Many people actually hold marriage sacred, though I am sure you will poo poo all over that statement with disregard for statistics…

  5. Well, Duane, I disagree. I think this is a civil rights issue. The will of the people in the South during the American civil rights movement ran counter to what was right and what was just the same way this does.

    I am in NO way suggesting that anyone’s religious beliefs are wrong. While I’m no longer a practicing Catholic, I fully support any religion’s right to dictate morality within the purview of that religionóas long as it doesn’t interfere with basic human or civil rights.

    If, say, this was France, with its tradition of civil AND religious marriage, fine. Great. Dandy. Every couple above the age of consent who wants to get married goes to city hall, gets a license, gets hitched, done. THEN the people who want to get married in their church, according to the rules of that church and under the auspices of whomever in that church can get an second, religious marriage.

    If that’s what you’re suggesting, and I’ve somehow missed reading it between the lines, my apologies. Perhaps that’s what you’re suggesting be changed via contract law. But I really believe that’s the only *just* way to handle the problem of two people who want to get “married”. Anything else smacks of Jim Crow half-measures.

  6. Duane, do fat people dilute your fitness? Do skinny people make you weigh more? How is what goes on in other homes any of your business? People get married for all sorts of reasons, do you go around arguing with trophy wives and marriages-of-convenience? If people want to form family bonds, who are you to interfere with that?

    Last time I checked, the state legislature is part of the democratic process. They’re not disregarding the “will of the people” (which can be wrong), they’re merely reflecting some updated feelings on the issue.

    Do you allow for a moment that open acceptance might make this country a better place?

    Why is it that government is involved with pair-bonds in the first place? If it’s purely a religious institution, how is it that heathens are allowed to get married?

    I have one of them thar “traditional marriages” and I hope that anyone who has found a partner in this crazy-mixed-up-world gets the chance to bond with them legally if they choose to. A strong marriage doesn’t need endorsement by the government or neighbors.

Comments are closed.