↑ Grab this Headline Animator
A whole host of bills were vetoed by the Governor as the Midnight draws near. Some notable vetoes:
To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.
"The Governor's veto of AB 43 once again puts him on the wrong side of one of the major civil rights issues of this generation. History will record that he turned his back on thousands of gay and lesbian citizens when we needed him to show leadership and honor our families and relationships.
A minority's equal rights should not and can not be a mere popularity contest, subject to the same kind of discriminatory inclinations that at another time in history have denied women, ethnic minorities and interracial couples their full equality. Some things are fundamental, like the freedom to marry the person you love.
I am proud to be a part of the California Legislature, a majority of whom voted for the second time to treat everyone as a first class citizen in this free society. There will come a day, not too far off, that all of California's citizens will be treated equally and fairly in the eyes of our government. Unfortunately, this will happen despite Governor Schwarzenegger." Mark Leno - The Best Choice for Change
He signed AB 14, and AB 394
He signed AB 682 (HIV/AIDS testing)
He signed AB 102 (last-name change rights for domestic partners)
He signed SB 362 (chip implanting for employment)
He signed AB 1109 (ban on incandescent lightbulbs)
He signed AB 1470 (natural gas utility surcharge to fund an incentive program for solar water heaters). That was a surprise, I thought he'd veto it The Silent Consensus
I can't believe people can call themselves "conservative" and then in the next breath advocate government regulation of marriage.
Marriage licenses were introduced in the mid-1800's as a way of regulating interracial marriages The Silent Consensus
You're also conflating marriages and weddings. You don't "conduct" a marriage.
Here's the section on Marriage from the Institutes of Justinian, laying out Roman Law on the subject on marriage.
Roman citizens unite in legal marriage when they are joined according to the precepts of the law, and the males have attained the age of puberty and the females are capable of child-birth, whether they are the heads of families or the children of families; if the latter have also the consent of the relatives under whose authority they may be, for this should be obtained and both civil and natural law require that it should previously be secured. Wherefore it has been asked whether the daughter of an insane person could be married, or the son of an insane person take a wife; and as various opinions prevailed with regard to the son, We have rendered a decision by which it is permitted that the son of an insane person, just as the daughter of one, can also in a way prescribed by Our Constitution contract marriage without the intervention of his father. 1. We cannot, however, marry every woman, for we must refrain from contracting matrimony with some of them. Hence, marriage cannot take place where the relationship of parents or children exists; as, for instance, between father and daughter, grandfather and granddaughter, mother and son, grandmother and grandson, and so on with respect to all other degrees; and if such persons cohabit with one another they are said to have contracted an infamous and incestuous marriage. These principles are so generally applicable that even if the parties stand in the relationship of parents or children to one another by adoption they cannot be united in matrimony; and even after the adoption has been dissolved the same legal restriction exists; and therefore you cannot take as a wife any woman who has been your adopted daughter or granddaughter, even though you may have emancipated her. 2. A similar rule applies to persons related in the collateral degree, but this is not so strict. Marriage is indeed prohibited between brother and sister, whether they are the issue of the same father or mother, or of either of them; but where a woman becomes your sister by adoption, marriage cannot be contracted between yourself and her as long as the adoption exists, but after the adoption has been dissolved by emancipation, you can marry her, and also if you have been emancipated no impediment to the marriage exists. For this reason the rule has been established that if anyone desires to adopt his son-in-law, he must first emancipate his daughter; and if anyone wishes to adopt his daughter-in-law, he must previously emancipate his son. 3. It is illegal to marry the daughter of your brother or sister; nor can anyone marry the granddaughter of his brother or sister, although they are related in the fourth degree; for whenever it is not lawful to contract matrimony with the daughter of anyone, marriage with his granddaughter is also prohibited. You are, however, not prevented from marrying the daughter of a woman adopted by your father, for the reason that she is not related to you either by natural or civil law. 4. The children of two brothers or sisters, or of a brother and a sister, can marry. 5. Moreover, a man cannot marry his paternal aunt, even though she may have been adopted, nor can he marry his maternal aunt, because they stand in the relationship of progenitors; and for the same reason you are very properly forbidden to marry your great aunt, either on your father's or your mother's side. 6. It is also necessary to avoid matrimony with some women on account of the respect entertained for affinity. For example, to marry either a step-daughter or a daughter-in-law is not permitted for the reason that they both stand in the relationship of daughters; but it must be understood that the woman in question has been either a daughter-in-law or a step-daughter, for if she is still a daughter-in-law and married to your son you cannot take her as a wife for another reason, that is, because the same woman cannot be married to two men; and if she is still your step-daughter, that is to say, if her mother is married to you, you cannot contract matrimony with her because it is not lawful to have two wives at the same time. 7. To marry a mother-in-law or a step-mother is also prohibited, because of their maternal relationship, and this rule also applies only after the affinity has ceased to exist; otherwise, if she is still your step-mother and married to your father, you are prevented from marrying her by the general rule that the same woman cannot be married to two men; and if she is still your mother-in-law, that is, if her daughter is still married to you, the marriage cannot take place for the reason that you cannot have two wives at the same time. 8. The son of a husband by another wife and the daughter of a wife by another husband, or vice-versa, can lawfully contract matrimony, although they may have a brother or sister who is the issue of the marriage subsequently contracted. 9. Where your wife after having been divorced has a daughter by another husband, the latter is not your step-daughter, but Julianus says you should abstain from marriage with a woman of this kind; for the betrothed of your son is not your daughter-in-law, nor the betrothed of your father, your mother-in-law, still those who avoid marriage with persons of this description act more properly and legally. 10. That relationship existing among slaves is an impediment to marriage is certain where a father and daughter, or a brother and sister have been manumitted. 11. There are also other persons who, for different reasons, are prohibited from contracting matrimony, and these We have permitted to be enumerated in the books of the Digest or Pandects compiled from the ancient law. 12. Where persons cohabit in violation of the laws which We have prescribed, neither the relationship of husband or wife, nor a nuptial ceremony, marriage or dowry is understood to exist; hence those who are born from this intercourse are not under the authority of their fathers, but so far as relates to said authority are in the same category as those whom a mother has conceived in promiscuous intercourse; for these also are understood to have no father, as the latter is uncertain; hence they are ordinarily designated spurious children, either from a Greek word meaning "conceived at random", or because they are children without a father. It follows, therefore, that where an union of this kind is dissolved there is no claim for the return of the dowry; and, moreover, those who contract prohibited marriage are liable to other penalties which are set forth in the Imperial Constitutions. 13. It sometimes happens that children are not under paternal authority when they are born, but are afterwards subjected to it. Such a one is he who being a natural son, is subsequently brought under the control of his father through becoming a member of the curia. He also belongs to this class who is born of a free woman with whom matrimony was by no means forbidden by the laws but with whom his father was accustomed to cohabit; and who was afterwards brought under the authority of his father by means of dotal instruments executed in accordance with the provisions of Our Constitution. Our Constitution likewise gives him this advantage, even though there are other children the issue of the same marriage.
http://webu2.upmf-gr...
Now, to the crux. I'm aware of the UK, and I misunderstood your point. I was confusing regulation with handing out marriage licenses
I still don't think marriage needs government to survive
Now that you got to a personal attack I'm going to extend my response
Did you ever read the post where I conceded that Kelo was not unprecedented and I answered why the backlash even though it wasn't? The Silent Consensus
If two people want to consider themselves married, why does the state need any part in that? The Silent Consensus
However, once you get into the business, it must be operated equally and shouldn't depend on sexual orientation. Shouldn't 3 strikes apply to Arnold? Strike 1, Strike 2, Strike 3. Life Sentence!
There are hundreds of laws that are applicable to married people, and that's the whole purpose of demanding equal rights. It isn't about demanding to be allowed to be in love. That's not something the government can regulate one way or the other. And anyone can find someone to bless their union, but it doesn't mean squat if it's not legally recognized.
Sheesh. Men. You're nothing but a bunch of closet romantics. ;-)
It is not--nor has EVER been--about procreation (or else we would ban marriages of the sterile).
There's a lot of talk about what marriage is for, but very little evidence that it does what it is supposed to.
I'd like the debate to be not liberals vs. conservatives, but liberals and conservatives vs. the homophobes.
