Calif. Assembly To Vote Today On Gay Marriage Bill

[davidinalameda]

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/05/053005califMarr.htm

The California state Assembly will vote today on legislation to allow gays and lesbians to marry.

If passed by both houses and signed into law by Gov. Schwarzenegger it would make the California the first state to vote in favor of gay marriage. Currently, the only state where gays can marry is Massachusetts following a court ruling that stuck down the law preventing same-sex marriage.

"Today, each member of the California Assembly will make a decision that will alter the course of history," said Geoffrey Kors, the executive director or Equality California.

[William769]

1. This should be interesting.

[Technowitch]

2. Fingers crossed...

My same-sex spouse and I married in SF in early March, 2004. Sure would be nice to be able to wed and have it actually stick.

We shall see...

[GodlessBiker]

3. Wow. Does this have any chance? Will Arnold sign it?

[FreeState]

4. No one knows about Arnold

He has said if they pass it he will support it and he has said its not time and GLBT people should try again in a few years. I don't think he will sign it- there is an election he still wants to win, Im sure his advisors are saying to veto it if it is passed.

I would be surprised if it does not pass though. They have 30 cosponsors and only need 41 votes.

[TaleWgnDg]

5. Uuummmm, a slight correction . . .

.
Uuummmm, a slight correction . . .

In the entire history of Massachusetts since 1620, there never has been a state law in Massachusetts that prohibited same-sex marriage as you stated ("stuck (sic) down the law preventing same-sex marriage").

Instead, the local cities and towns (from whom people apply for marriage licenses) were told by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health through its official policies and procedures literature to not grant a marriage license to same-sex couples. In addition, this state (executive branch) agency published marriage license applications with the words "bride's name" and "groom's name."

Although the Commonwealth of Massachusetts had never granted a marriage license to same-sex couples thus had never married a same-sex couple, there needed to be a clarification of state law because cities and towns through the Department of Public Health REFUSED to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Several same-sex couples who applied for (and were refused) marriage licenses in various towns across Massachusetts filed a lawsuit against the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and won their lawsuit before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. The Court's opinion stated that there was no history of any state law prohibition and that there was nothing in the Massachusetts constitution that prevented same-sex marriages. Further, the Court ruled that the Massachusetts state constitution grants individuals liberty rights, equal protection rights, and due process rights, all of which was interpreted to allow same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.

The case is: Goodridge et al v. Department of Public Health


Same-sex couples, their families, friends, and supporters
celebrate the First Year's Anniversary of Same-Sex Marriage,
on May 17, 2005, the steps of the Massachusetts State House,
with streamers, confetti, and applause

______________________________________________________

edited to add: Cripes. My mistake. It wasn't you who said that. Instead, you were merely quoting the so-called "news" article. And the article is incorrect. That just goes to prove that so-called "news" isn't really news when it doesn't report (truthful) facts. My apologies to you, dwickham.


.