Why doesn't the state assembly/senate pass a civil unions bill?

[election_2004]

I think it's pretty pathetic that California hasn't gotten on-board with authorizing a system of same-sex civil unions - - both Vermont and Connecticut have already beaten CA to the punch!

So why did they exhaust efforts on a gay marriage bill that ended up simply dying in the state assembly? Why not concentrate on a compromise for civil unions that could actually pass? (unless they were waiting for the gay marriage bill to die in the legislature BEFORE introducing a civil unions compromise, to make it look like more of an actual compromise)

And yes, I realize that civil unions are not equal to actual marriage. As a gay person, I'm as aware of that as anyone. But it seems that following VT's and CT's examples by setting up a reasonable system of civil unions for gay & lesbian couples to have access to would be a step in the right direction - - and perhaps a "stepping stone" to full maritals recognition in the future.

Plus, if it reached Gropenator's desk, he'd be forced to either sign or veto the civil unions legislation. If he signs it, he alienates social conservatives all over the state - - and if they stay home in '06, that will only help Angelides. If he vetoes it, he looks unreasonable and like a double-talker, which would enable Angelides to use it as a wedge issue in '06.

[davidinalameda]

1. there are already very strong domestic partnership laws

and there's a domestic partnership registry that is pretty much the same as civil unions

[election_2004]

4. I thought the domestic partnership registry....

Was sort of like a queue (or "waiting list") for homosexual couples to be on record in the event that full marriage or civil unions were implemented in California?

[nikraye]

2. THIS is why...

"We want marriage. That's the front of the bus. The Democrats want to give us civil unions. That's the back of the bus. The Republicans want to give us nothing. That's off the bus.

And the far right wants us under the bus."

Robin Tyler to the Washington Blade, March 4.


"SEPARATE BUT EQUAL" didn't wash for blacks when it came to school segregation, and it doesn't wash for us when it comes to marriage.

[election_2004]

3. I would argue that.....

You're right that full marital equality is the front of the bus.

However, the Democrats saying, "We'll tolerate you, but we're not ready for civil unions yet" (ala Dan Mongiardo) would be the back of the bus.

Getting a system of civil unions implemented is the center of the bus. Which means we're moving our way to the front of the bus...which is better than remaining at the back of the bus.

[nikraye]

5. To compromise one's dignity...

... is something I nor my partner are willing to accept. We are fully American -- no more, no less than anyone else--and are entitled to full equality -- no more, no less than anyone else.

This is non-negotiable.

[election_2004]

6. Out of curiosity....

What was the reason why the same-sex marriage bill died prematurely in the California legislature? I thought the legislature was dominated by Democrats? It seems ridiculous that it didn't even make it to the floor for an up-or-down vote.

[nikraye]

8. Why AB 19 lost...

...cowardice.

Predictably, the Repugs in the state assembly all voted "no" for AB 19. True to their party dictum. Regardless of their personal convictions, they all stuck together in unity.

Not so, the Dems. In the months prior to AB 19's going to the floor for vote, numerous right wing and evangelical groups, from all across the country, bombarded certain assembly Dems based on their ethnicity. All the Dems targeted were Hispanic, and were targeted because of the likelihood that, as Hispanics, they were also Catholics. The right wing spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on the effort and it paid off.

The final roll call for AB 19 was 37 ayes, 36 noes, 7 abstainers/not present. 41 ayes were need for passage.

Here is the breakdown:

ASSEMBLY VOTE:

37 AYES: Bass, Berg, Bermudez, Calderon, Canciamilla, Chan, Chavez, Chu, Cohn, Coto, De La Torre, Evans, Frommer, Goldberg, Hancock, Jones, Karnette, Klehs, Koretz, Laird, Leno, Levine, Lieber, Liu, Montanez, Mullin, Nation, Nava, Oropeza, Pavley, Ridley-Thomas, Ruskin, Saldana, Torrico, Wolk, Yee, and Nunez

36 NOES: Aghazarian, Arambula, Baca, Benoit, Blakeslee, Bogh, Cogdill, Daucher, De Vore, Emmerson, Garcia, Harman, Haynes, Shirley Horton, Houston, Huff, Keene, La Malfa, La Suer, Leslie, Matthews, Maze, McCarthy, Mountjoy, Nakanishi, Niello, Parra, Plescia, Sharon Runner, Spitzer, Strickland, Tran, Vargas, Villines, Walters, and Wyland

7 ABSENT, ABSTAINING, OR NOT VOTING: Dymally, Gordon, Jerome Horton, Negrete McLeod, Richman, Salinas, and Umberg

Five of the 36 "no" votes were Dems: Arambula, Baca, Parra, Vargas, Matthews. Six of seven abstaining votes were Dems: Dymally, Gordon, Horton, Negrete McLeod, Salinas, Umberg.

The interesting thing is that, of all the "no" and "abstain" votes, all but one of the Dems who voted as such were themselves minorities: the vast majority of them were Hispanic; the remaining few were female, or black and/or mixed race. So the rightwing's targeted harassment of Hispanics did, indeed, exert influence. To summarize the traitorous Dems actions, they were either too consumed with cowardice to vote their conscience, or so hopelessly blinded by their personal prejudices or religious bigotry that they were incapable of responsibly legislating for the good of ALL people.

[Nailzberg]

7. Expect gay marraige on the 06 ballot, but not in a good way.

I recieved this news via a job bulletin from the YDA. Equality for All is expecting a constituional amendment defining marriage between a man and woman to be on the California ballot for 2006.

The common belief is that such a measure would fail in California. But it is still something that needs to be taken serisouly and defeated.

This is most likely just an GOTV tactic by the republicans in California; it will bring the social conservatives out in numbers. Not treating it as a threat, however, is a serious mistake.

It's time for Californians to prepare and organize. Something like this can't be allowed to pass here.

[nikraye]

9. California Constitutional Amendment

The Repugs did intro bills proposing to write hate into the California state constitution this past session, in both the Assembly and Senate (ACA 3 and SCA 1); however, both failed to make it out of committe. I'm sure they will try again in the next session. But unless some sort of miracle befalls the CA State Repugs between now and the 2006 election, I don't see how such a measure could find its way to the 2006 ballot. Thank Goddess for small favors...

[Nailzberg]

10. The campaign to defeat is hiring right now, so something is up.

[election_2004]

11. Wait a minute!

I thought a majority of California voters already approved a state constitutional amendment on a statewide ballot referendum to define marriage as being between one man and one woman, back in March of 2000?

So would this just be a redundant state constitutional amendment, or would this one go farther by banning same-sex civil unions too?

[nikraye]

12. Yes...Dom. Partnerships would be banned too

The proposed constitutional amendments (SCA 1, ACA 3) also called for prohibiting domestic partnerships, and would effectively strip Gays and Lesbians of all the domestic partnership rights gained through the 2003 passage of AB 205 (Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003)

From Equality California's website, info on the proposed amendment:
http://www.eqca.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=9oINKWMCF&b=40337&ct=873745

The California Repugs also introduced several other anti-gay bills, most of which have died in committee, or failed miserably to pass (due to the Dem majority in both the Assembly and the Senate). ACA 3, the bill intro'd into the Assembly which calls for a constitutional amendment died in committee this past session. SCA 1, which was also intro'd into the Senate this past session, failed in committee but its author asked for a committee vote for the right to be heard again, which the committee passed. So, technically, it is still alive and I'm sure we'll be hearing more about it in the upcoming session.

Anti-Gay bills intro'd by the Repugs in 2005:

http://www.eqca.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=9oINKWMCF&b=402977&ct=474287

[MaryBear]

13. Don't assume Angelides will be the candidate, please.

I agree with you on the idea of civil unions as a stepping stone.