View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

California may remove ‘man and woman’ state law

Posted: May 2, 2014 3:09 p.m.
Updated: May 2, 2014 3:09 p.m.
 

A bill that would strike the traditional definition of marriage from California law was approved by the state Senate this week after the U.S. and state supreme courts allowed same-sex unions to resume last year.

SB1306 would remove from the state Family Code language that marriage must be “between a man and a woman.”

It would substitute gender-neutral language, define marriage as a personal relation arising from a civil contract between two persons, and remove limits on the state recognizing the validity of same-sex marriages performed outside of California.

The bill removes “discriminatory language” from the Family Code and brings state law into compliance with federal and state court decisions allowing same-sex marriages, said Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco.

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court left in place a lower court judge’s order striking down as unconstitutional a ballot measure known as Proposition 8, the 2008 voter initiative that outlawed same-sex marriages in California.

A 5-4 court majority ruled that the ban’s sponsors lacked authority to defend the measure on appeal, though the justices did not directly address the ban’s constitutionality.

Same-sex marriages resumed in late June after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted a stay it had imposed on the lower court ruling. The state Supreme Court dismissed a final challenge by the ban’s backers in August.

“All this bill does is bring our Family Code section up to date to comply with those two court decisions,” Leno said. He added later: “The sky did not fall, civilization as we know it did not end” when gay marriages resumed.

The bill was sent to the Assembly on a 25-10 vote, with only Republicans in opposition. Two Republicans, Anthony Cannella of Ceres and Ted Gaines of Roseville, voted in favor.

Sen. Steve Knight, R-Palmdale, who represents portions of the Santa Clarita Valley, voted against the bill.

“My opinion’s not going to change on that,” Knight said Friday. “I strongly believe that the definition of marriage is that it should be between a man and a woman.”

Sen. Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills, who also represents part of the Santa Clarita Valley, voted in favor of the bill. She could not be reached for comment Friday.

 

 

Comments

Vtown123: Posted: May 2, 2014 4:20 p.m.

Why do people take so much a strong stance against this issue? I'm straight and I'm going to marry a woman. Why should I care whether the guy next to me wants to marry a man? That's not my issue, therefore it's none of my business. If it had an impact on me, that would be one thing, but it doesn't. If they want to get married, more power to them.


17trillion: Posted: May 2, 2014 4:29 p.m.

Probably because they put it to a vote and the losers whined and cried and sued. Personally I don't care either.


Rocketeer: Posted: May 3, 2014 12:08 a.m.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

How you feel about gay marriage is irrelevant. How _I_ feel about gay marriage is irrelevant. This subject has shown us all exactly how irrelevant the opinion of the voters has become. Again and again gay marriage has been on a ballot and again and again the voters have said no. Who cares? The courts don't. The government doesn't.

This is in no way a democracy. This isn't even a republic. This has descended to a dictatorship. Currently our shackles may seem loose, but they're there.

Go ask a man named Sterling about free speech. The First amendment is gone. Try to bear an arm in Cali. The Second Amendment is gone.

Ask a man named Snowden about the Fourth Amendment. He'll tell you it's gone. If you don't believe him, stop by any airport and the TSA will "explain" it to you.

Ask a woman named Fricosu about the Fith Amendment. It's gone.

And it goes on and on. Our rights are what the Liberal State SAYS they grant us.

238 years ago there was a revolution over a lower tax burden than we bear... And a king less despotic than Sacramento.


EgbertSouse4U: Posted: May 3, 2014 7:58 a.m.

Rocketeer: If you are indeed in favor of MORE freedom, then you should be in favor of same-sex marriage. The reason the ban was struck down in court is because civil rights are NOT something that can be voted on. It never even should have been on the ballot. That's a dangerous road to go down as you illustrated at the beginning of your post. Which minority should we vote on next to decide if they can marry or not?


mominthescv: Posted: May 3, 2014 12:04 p.m.

EgbertSouse4U:Well said! I enjoy people who say they want more freedom yet are opposed to anyone else exercising freedom. The definition of marriage has no business being on a ballot. It's a personal decision between two consenting adults.


missyJk: Posted: May 3, 2014 1:21 p.m.

How it even got on the vote is beyond my comprehension except some religious rights group paid off someone...We are a liberal state and have been for a long time, if people dont like it they can move to one of those "right wing" states. As for Sterling he can say what he wants but if he agreed to "terms" in his ownership of a team and violated them thats where he got it. Try living in a HOA and paint your house bright fuschia you'll see about your alleged freedom of expression, but than again you agreed to those terms living there..I for one love our state CA even if there are some flaws


DMeyer: Posted: May 3, 2014 3:46 p.m.

Lame comment of the week is......."We are a liberal state and have been for a long time, if people dont like it they can move to one of those "right wing" states."


Ok, since SCV is considered a conservative community should those who are liberal move to San Francisco? See how dumb that sounds......but then again...


Rocketeer: Posted: May 3, 2014 6:48 p.m.

Egbert, that's the false dichotomy that the liberals present: Gay marriage = more freedom, no gay marriage = less freedom. But no one was saying you couldn't be gay. No one was even saying two people couldn't co-habitate, have a wedding ceremony, and live under a legal civil union. The ONLY objection was to calling it marriage and using the government to FORCE people to recognize it as such.

More freedom would be the people being able to determine (through a democratic process) how their government should run. Allowing people to vote and then having an unelected judge simply set aside that vote is less freedom. It's outright tyranny.

Oh, it's a "personal decision between two consenting adults" is it? How about the bakeries in Oregon and Colorado that were required by law to make gay wedding cakes despite their personal beliefs? Sets a precedent for clergy and churches being required by law to perform gay marriages, even if it violates their religion. So don't even try your "well, that's just between them" nonsense when other people are already being compelled to participate against their will.

Missy, CO and TX were once conservative states, but unfortunately Cali's number one export is liberals who are fed up with the high taxes, high crime, and poor education system they themselves have wrought her. Moving's not an option when you people spread like a plague.


IamNewHere: Posted: May 3, 2014 7:32 p.m.

Wow.


EgbertSouse4U: Posted: May 3, 2014 8:01 p.m.

Rocketeer: Seriously, how is this affecting your day to day life? And I am not being scarcastic here. Are you losing sleep at night because gay people can marry? I will repeat myself. Civil rights are not up for a vote. Just because something makes you uncomfortable, you can't deny them rights. I personally despise the KKK, yet they have a right to assemble and have freedom of speech. We can't pick and chose who gets rights or not. Please try not to let this affect your sleep patterns, they are just people who would like the same rights as you.


ShredDaGnar: Posted: May 4, 2014 10:57 p.m.

MissyJK: Well said!!

Rocket, has some insecurities......


ricketzz: Posted: May 4, 2014 6:22 a.m.

You may think Texas is more "conservative" but the difference is not visible. Texas' largest city is very blue and has no zoning. It is the most "liberal" place I have ever lived. Way more than this podunk, which is the most phony conservative place I've ever lived. (We have too many rules to be anything approaching libertarian.) As near as I can tell, the political animals among us have no clue and are just acting out Rush Limbaugh fantasy memes. I can forgive the greed of business, it is their reason to be, but why is everybody else so mean?


emheilbrun: Posted: May 4, 2014 9:13 a.m.

As long as the definition of marriage is being redefined, any reason why it has to be restricted to two people as long as all are consenting adults? I ask purely from a secular point of view.


stray: Posted: May 4, 2014 10:06 a.m.

@Rocketeer - "Go ask a man named Sterling about free speech"

Yeah, and that speech was between TWO PEOPLE on a phone and NOT ONE WORD of his comments were before television cameras and microphones!

So his past behavior has singled out certain people when he decided to "target" the minorities in his rental properties. THAT right there, doesn't help him one bit towards racism... But then, if a guy is supposedly SO RACIST, why then, has he generously contributed SPECIFICALLY to the minority group - black people ??? That can be proved by the NAACP who spoke in front of the cameras and mentioned that Sterling was extremely generous towards the black community.

You folks decide if he should be compelled to sell his team over comments directed to ONE individual in a private conversation.

Again, so much for FREE SPEECH...


Rocketeer: Posted: May 4, 2014 1:57 p.m.

Yep, Egbert, that's the litmus test used by liberals and fascists throughout history: Does this affect you on a day-to-day basis? If not, then whatever you're concerned about is not an issue. Are you losing sleep over this? If so, you're probably just hysterical. Regardless, this still isn't an issue.

You should go back and read the quote I posted above (very fist para). By your reasoning no white should ever have objected to slavery- it didn't affect them, did it?

Oh, gays would just like the same rights as I have, would they? In fact I'm NOT allowed to get married. If I applied for a marriage license it would be rejected, no matter how much I love my potential spouse or if we're both consenting. That's because the State has it on file that I'm already married, and it's not my civil right to have more than one wife at a time.

But, you've almost all missed my point completely. IF Prop 8 had been voted down, or if another ballot initiative had legalized gay marriage, I would have no objection. If the Fed or State Consitution was legally amended to explicitly make gay marriage a civil right I would not speak out against it. My objection is that we live in an age where "rights" that are specifically spelled out in the Constitution are routinely violated while "rights" that a clear majority of voters have rejected are being held as sacred and inviolable.

This isn't about gay marriage. I wish the voters had legalized gay marriage for the simple reason that its blinding you to what's really going on. Open a history book- In 1925 Berlin was more gay than WeHo... and all those same gays were being herded into the gas chambers just ten years later. But, maybe by the time that happens here you'll have converted me into a mindless liberal drone and I too will say "well, that's none of my business, 'cause I'm not gay..."


EgbertSouse4U: Posted: May 4, 2014 2:32 p.m.

Here we go... another mindless rant about the "liberals and fascists." You sound positively ridiculous. "The liberals are coming, the liberals are coming!!" And by the way, how is it you can label people? How do you know what my political views are? You don't. It's just really easy and lazy to put a label on people and move on, isn't it? Oh wait, I get it. If someone disagrees with you, they are dirty liberals. OK, got it.


Unreal: Posted: May 5, 2014 9:16 a.m.

Rocketeer: Well said.


stevehw: Posted: May 6, 2014 9:38 a.m.

"Allowing people to vote and then having an unelected judge simply set aside that vote is less freedom. It's outright tyranny."

You *did* take civics somewhere back in school, didn't you? Presumably they taught you the role of that co-equal branch, the Judiciary, and how it can overturn laws which are unconstitutional?


stevehw: Posted: May 6, 2014 9:41 a.m.

"How about the bakeries in Oregon and Colorado that were required by law to make gay wedding cakes despite their personal beliefs? *********Sets a precedent for clergy and churches being required by law to perform gay marriages, even if it violates their religion.***********"

BULLS**T. You know it, I know it, and everyone else knows it, too.

Name a single case where a church was required by law to perform ANY marriage which violated their religion. Just one. (And don't try to use the case where they simply rented their facility to the general public and were required to abide by anti-discrimination laws when they did so...we're talking about *requiring* a church to perform a marriage for two people which goes against their religion.)

Come one. Just ONE.


stevehw: Posted: May 6, 2014 9:44 a.m.

"In 1925 Berlin was more gay than WeHo... and all those same gays were being herded into the gas chambers just ten years later. "

I call Godwin's Law!

Are you for real?


stevehw: Posted: May 6, 2014 9:52 a.m.

"If the Fed or State Consitution was legally amended..."

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

That whole "equal protection" thing, you know. How dare people different than you ask for it.


stevehw: Posted: May 6, 2014 9:56 a.m.

"As long as the definition of marriage is being redefined, any reason why it has to be restricted to two people as long as all are consenting adults? I ask purely from a secular point of view."

Redefined from what? The definition used by this country since sometime after it was founded? Or from the "traditional" definition(s) used by various cultures over history (including multiple marriage, women as property, etc., etc.)?

The "redefinition" meme is old...because everyone who uses it seems to forget what marriage was over nearly all of mankind's history.

And for myself, I've long said that because the state is involved in granting licenses, that means that is should be (from the state's point of view) a purely secular *contract* between as many people as want to form a contract (as long as everyone is a consenting adult).


emheilbrun: Posted: May 7, 2014 6:05 a.m.

Steve, the article is clear on how marriage will be redefined and is specfic to California law.

"SB1306 would remove from the state Family Code language that marriage must be “between a man and a woman.”"

"It would substitute gender-neutral language, define marriage as a personal relation arising from a civil contract between two persons,..."

So, again my question, from a secular view, why just two persons? From your last comment you disagree with the two person restriction.


stevehw: Posted: May 7, 2014 10:08 a.m.

Wasn't I clear?

"because the state is involved in granting licenses, that means that it should be (from the state's point of view) a purely secular *contract* between as many people as want to form a contract (as long as everyone is a consenting adult)."



You need to be a registered user to post a comment. Please click here to register.

The Signal encourages readers to interact with one another, following the guidelines outlined in our Comment/Moderation Policy. Click here to read it.

To report offensive or inappropriate comments, e-mail abuse@signalscv.com. The content posted from readers of signalscv.com does not necessarily represent the views of The Signal or Morris Multimedia. By submitting this form you agree to the terms and conditions listed above. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...