The lawmakers in California are once again trying to address gay marriage.

I think it's darkly ironic that the lives and welfare of untold multitudes of gay couples in that state have been so adversely affected by a guy who got paid to appear in a movie as a pregnant man.

I am posting only a few bits of the article. The full article is at:
Same-sex unions OKd by Assembly - Los Angeles Times

I don't see how anyone with a soul could remain unmoved at the story of the man who ended up homeless after his partner of 50 years died. This simply cannot be allowed to continue.

---

Same-sex unions OKd by Assembly


SACRAMENTO — A measure to legalize marriage for gay couples easily passed the California Assembly after a respectful debate Tuesday, in stark contrast to rancorous exchanges on the same issue two years ago.

The legislation by Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) would make California the only state besides Massachusetts to sanction same-sex couples, but it is likely to be vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Leno argued that California's existing domestic partnership laws do not give same-sex partners all the same rights and obligations afforded to married couples. He described a couple of 50 years. One of the men died of a heart attack, Leno said, and the survivor lost access to his partner's healthcare, Social Security and veteran's benefits and wound up homeless.

"That is what our public policymaking is doing," Leno said.

"Our founding fathers used the word 'all,' not 'select,' when they talked about our rights," Assemblyman Anthony Portantino (D-La Cañada Flintridge) said.

Assemblyman Charles Calderon (D-Montebello) said that years ago he was frightened by the idea of gay marriage but he now sees it as a matter of fairness.

"Relationships between men and men and women and women have been with us since the beginning oftime," Calderon said. "In fact, to the extent that we do recognize these relationships, they become more stable and more status quo and less threatening."

The California Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether the state's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

The same day that the Governor vetoed SSM, he signed four bills to strengthen domestic partnerships. If nothing else, the parnerships will probably be strengthened further if vetoes this one.

On a more serious note... This is part of the normal pattern that every civil rights movement in the US has taken.

I'll outline it:

1. The subjugated group starts speaking up and demanding their rights
2. Those in power (the majority) laughs it off and ignores it
3. The subjugated group continues to fight for rights
4. Those in power become defensive fight against the group
5. A backlash occurs
6. The backlash dies down and gains start to be made
7. Eventually equality is achieved

If you look back at the Black Civil rights movement and Women's Sufferage, you will see that the same pattern existed.

Well put, KOS!

I believe we are now somewhere between steps 5 and 6, depending where in the country you happen to be.

Considering that we were at step 1 a mere 40 years ago, this particular fight has been swift, compared with others like it.

Couple of things to note, IMO.

1. The gay rights movement has itself become hyper-defensive and dead set on demonizing those who disagree with it.

2. I expect a huge backlash against that.

I think we have already seen the backlash and it is getting weaker every day. More People see the hysterics of people like Dobson and the AFA for exactly what they are..a bunch of whiny little cry babies.

You are absolutely right.

Arnie vetoed the last time and he will veto again.

This is a blatant attempt by rogue legislators to subjugate the clear mandate of Californian voters who made it clear in the ballot of 2000 that they don't want to redefine marriage for homosexuals.

Almost every other state in the Union has done likewise in some form or another.

The sooner the homosexual activists stop trying to demand that everybody else adapts to their perspective, and the sooner they recognise their differences, the sooner they progress can be made.

Thanks for illustrating my point.

But also bear in mind that Dobson and the AFA aren't the only people who question homosexuality.

Anybody who does is marginalized as a "religious fundamentalist" or a "bigot" of some sort.

I myself, on another forum less polite than this one, have been called a religious zealot, a hate-filled fundamentalist, been accused of being a frustrated, closeted homosexual and had my faith compared to Nazi politics.

"Religious conservative" used to mean only groups like Dobson's or AFA. And "religious fanatics" used to mean only groups like the Phelps family.

But according to the gay rights movement, that circle is ever-expanding, and now includes most Catholics, many protestants, porbably most of the Eastern Orthodox Church, the vast majority of Muslims, some Buddhists, nearly all Baha'is (I'm Baha'i) and countless other people off faith. And that's not taking in to account agnostics, non-religious theists or atheists who are dubious regarding recent claims about homosexuality.

Again, your reaction clearly illustrates this point. Only those "cry baby" extremists have any problem whatsoever with the complete acceptance and total normalization of homosexuality.

IMO, a sleeping tiger's tail is being gleefully pulled by a vocal group that will soon wonder why they didn't come up with a better plan for dealing with his teeth.

What "adaption" are you talking about here? More of this "traditional marriage will be destroyed" crap?

Originally Posted by mytmouse57 (Gay marriage in CA? Or will Arnold veto?)
Couple of things to note, IMO.

1. The gay rights movement has itself become hyper-defensive and dead set on demonizing those who disagree with it.


Exactly the kind of demonisation we are referring to!

Nice one winnie, right on cue!