Same-sex marriage: The heated Assembly debate

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The Legislature drew to a close Sept 9, meaning that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger now has until Oct. 9 to either sign or veto bills that reach his desk. If he does nothing, a bill automatically becomes law.

This year’s session ended on a dramatic note not often seen in the Capitol. After AB 849, the same-sex marriage bill, narrowly passed the Senate on a 21-15 vote, it returned to the Assembly, where it had failed as AB 19 earlier this year. With one week left before the closing deadline, homosexual lobbyists, including couples with children in tow, roamed the halls of the Capitol.

Both supporters and opponents were calling the offices of Assembly members—especially the four members targeted as swing votes—where phones, faxes and e-mails tied up communication lines.

During the longer-than-usual hearing, it soon became apparent that two of the four—Tom Umberg, D-Santa Ana, and Gloria Negrete-McLeod, D-Montclair—had changed their votes as they rose to state how sorry they were that they had abstained the first time the bill was presented in June. Other comments by supporting legislators clearly indicated that the vote was not about representing their constituents, but about supporting their friends in the Legislature. Many of the members referred to their friends, “Jackie” (Goldberg), or “Sheila” (Kuehl), or “Mark” (Leno), etc., naming three of the six California homosexual legislators, and stating how they couldn’t look their “friends” in the eye unless they voted to give them the same rights and privileges that they, as heterosexuals, enjoy.

Another view
Finally, Assemblyman Dennis Mountjoy, R-Monrovia, rose to remind legislators that in 2000, when the people voted for Proposition 22, which stated that marriage is between one man and one woman, only six counties failed to support that initiative. The other 52 counties overwhelmingly voted in favor of the proposition. The Assemblyman correctly pointed out that unless those Assembly members supporting AB 849 were from the six dissenting counties, they should honor the will of their constituents and vote against same-sex marriage, regardless of their personal viewpoints.

It wasn’t to be.

In a display of arrogant disdain, 41 Democrats decided that they know better than the people who put them in office. In doing so, they echoed the sentiments expressed by state Sen. Gil Cedillo, D-Los Angeles. During a Senate hearing, Cedillo said that while he was well aware of the vote for Proposition 22, “sometimes they (the voters) are wrong” and it was his responsibility to exert “leadership” by voting against his constituents’ wishes and instead vote for same-sex marriage.

As the final Assembly votes were tallied, the tension in the gallery and on the Assembly floor was palpable as the 40th vote was cast (41 were needed). After a seemingly long pause—actually just a few seconds—Simon Salinas, D-Salinas, a third member of the targeted four, pushed the lever to cast his aye vote.

As screams and cheers echoed through the chamber, the gavel repeatedly was used in an attempt to restore order and quiet viewers in the gallery and jubilant legislators, who hugged and kissed each other.

In the final analysis, 41 Democrat Assembly members obviously agreed with Cedillo that the voters were wrong in 2000.

Drama not over
The victory was widely reported in news reports within minutes of the vote. Almost immediately the telephones began ringing in each of Schwarzenegger’s offices throughout the state. With a swiftness not often witnessed, the governor issued a news release only 24 hours after the vote, stating that he would veto the bill when it reached his desk. In doing so, he said that the people had clearly spoken on the issue of marriage and that he intended to uphold the will of the people.

Mark Leno, author of AB 849, was furious. He and Kuehl immediately retaliated by stating that Leno would hold the bill two weeks before submitting it to the governor for the expected veto. Leno then tried to get the Assembly to authorize a seldom-used parliamentary procedure that would have allowed him to hold the bill until next year before sending it to the governor. That attempt fizzled. Leno and Kuehl then issued a “call to action” to the bill’s supporters in an attempt to pressure Schwarzenegger to change his mind during the two-week period.

Is the battle over?
Despite the hard-won victory this year, this issue is far from dead. We can expect to see this issue raised again and again. California won’t always have a governor who respects the will of the people. Someday there will be a man or woman sitting in the governor’s chair who will sign such a bill.

There is only one way to conclusively end this debate. California’s state constitution must be changed to align with Proposition 22. The current court argument is not about the language of the proposition that was passed in 2000; it is about whether the law is constitutional or not. Most people believe Proposition 22 should stand. However, with activist judges nothing is assured. We need to ensure that no “wiggle room” exists for judges to rule against the historic definition of marriage. We need to pass a constitutional amendment that protects marriage.

Karen Holgate is director of Legislative Affairs for California Family Alliance. CFA is a not-for-profit lobby promoting family, religious, and business friendly legislation and is affiliated with California Family Council.

Published by Keener Communications Group, October 2005

Christian Examiner™, P.O. Box 2606 El Cajon, CA 92021 • 619-668-5100 • Fax 619-668-1115
Email: info@christianexaminer.com • Web site: www.christianexaminer.com