By Meg Jalsevac
SAN FRANCISCO, C.A., April 11, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – California’s first homosexual assemblyman is holding true to his promise to provide a “pioneering battle for equal rights” for homosexually disposed Californians. Assemblyman Mark Leno is once again pushing for homosexual ‘marriage’ in California despite an overwhelming rejection of the proposal on a public ballot in 2000 and two failed legislative attempts in the past two years.
Leno’s website and biography is a laundry list of ‘achievements’ for his personal homosexual agenda. Leno holds several awards from LBGT groups and his legislative history includes multiple bills to further gay rights. According to his website, the death of Leno’s life partner to AIDS complications caused Leno to “redouble his efforts in community service.” Leno’s political involvement includes active membership in California’s Legislative Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Caucus.
California currently recognizes domestic partnerships of homosexual and unmarried heterosexual couples. Individuals in such partnerships are awarded almost all the rights and privileges of marriage with the law stopping just short of officially recognizing the partnership as a marriage. The matter was put to public ballot in 2000 under Proposition 22 and 61.4% of California voters voted to maintain California law that states “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
The most recent homosexual marriage bill, entitled Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act (AB 43), was authored and proposed by Assemblyman Mark Leno. Existing California law currently defines marriage as existing between “a man and a woman.” Leno’s bill would change the wording to allow ‘marriage’ to exist between “two persons” thereby allowing for homosexual ‘marriage’.
The bill would allow religious entities to refuse to officiate at such ceremonies if to do so would contradict their religious beliefs.
AB 43 is nearly identical to Leno’s previous bill, AB 849 which was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger in September of 2005. It is also identical to the previous AB 19 which failed by 4 votes in the Assembly in June of 2005.
The Assembly’s Judiciary Committee voted in favor AB 43 in a vote of 7-3 with all seven ‘aye’ votes from Democrat party members and the three Republicans on the committee voting in opposition.
Randy Thomasson, President of the Campaign for Children and Families, condemned what he saw as activist politicians and accused them of violating their oath of office to uphold the constitution of the state of California. “Shame on the Democrat politicians for attacking and redefining marriage. This is an attack upon the voters and our system of government as much as it is an attack on marriage. AB 43 shamelessly violates the California Constitution, which expressly prohibits the Legislature from repealing voter-approved ballot initiatives. This is political arrogance in the extreme…”
The California constitution only allows the legislature the privilege to annul a public ballot outcome like Proposition 22 if the wording of the Proposition expressly allows for such an annulment. The law on such matters states, “The Legislature may amend or repeal referendum statutes. It may amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their approval.”
Thomasson argues that Proposition 22 gives no such permission. “Marriage was created for a man and a woman, a husband and a wife. This natural and sacred institution has always been supported by the people of California. But apparently, the Democrat politicians have no problem destroying the democratic vote of the people.”
Karen England, executive director of the family advocacy group, Capitol Resource Institute, says “Yet again the California legislature has shown that it will arrogantly ignore the will of the people. Even though the vast majority of citizens oppose homosexual marriage, radical activists continue to push their agenda.”
“Gov Schwarzenegger, regardless of his personal beliefs, has committed to honor the people’s vote and already vetoed a previous homosexual marriage bill. So why are radical legislators wasting taxpayer money and time by once again pushing an issue clearly decided by the people?”
England concluded, “The answer is obvious: they will push their extreme agenda until they get their way.” Despite the obvious message of the overwhelming passage of Proposition 22, the push for gay marriage has even made headway in the California judicial system. California courts have consistently awarded the rights of marriage to homosexual couples. In the past two years, California courts have ruled that businesses that offer public services must offer the exact same services and rates to homosexual couples that they offer to married couples. Insurance companies must also provide identical coverage to homosexual partners as to spouses.
In March, 2005, Judge Richard Kramer of San Francisco ruled that it was unconstitutional to restrict the definition of marriage to solely include the union between a man and a woman. Kramer’s ruling annulled Proposition 22 saying, “no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners.”
In October, 2006, the California Supreme Court overturned Kramer’s ruling and declared that California voters acted within the state’s constitution when voting to limit marriage to between a man and a woman. However, supporters of the traditional family warn that the Supreme Court ruling is precarious and could easily be challenged at anytime. Thomasson claimed that 3 of the Supreme Court justices are in favor of homosexual ‘marriage’ and only one more judge would give the majority to such a mindset.
In an effort to put the matter to rest, Thomasson and similar supporters of traditional marriage have initiated an effort to put a marriage amendment on next year’s election ballot. The amendment would define marriage within the state’s constitution as between a man and a woman and would effectively preclude homosexual marriage from California law.
Former Assemblyman Larry Bowler has voiced his support for such a constitutional amendment. He said, “The corrupt politicians have thrust a sword through the heart of marriage and the heart of the voters. But California voters don’t have to stand for this. They can override the politicians and judges by protecting marriage for a man and a woman in the state constitution. Then these out-of-touch bureaucrats can’t mess with marriage ever again.”
VoteforMarriage.com is in the process of raising the $2.5 million needed to fund the collection of 1 million signatures in order to have the issue placed on next year’s ballot.
Of the 28 states that have voted on a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman, 27 states have ratified the amendment and amended their state constitution accordingly.
Read Previous LifeSiteNews coverage:
Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Bill Re-Introduced in California Legislature
https://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/dec/06120502.html