Schwarzenegger signs gay rights bills

[Newsjock]

Source: Sacramento Bee

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed two gay rights bills, one honoring late activist Harvey Milk and another recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states.

In the last of hundreds of bill actions taken before midnight Sunday, Schwarzenegger approved the two bills by Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco.

The governor last year vetoed the measure declaring May 22 a state day of recognition for Milk, suggesting that the former San Francisco supervisor be honored locally. But he subsequently named him to the California Hall of Fame.

Leno's SB 54, meanwhile, requires California to recognize marriages performed in other states where same sex marriage is legal.

In a signing message, Schwarzenegger said California will not recognize the couples as married but will "provide the same legal protections that would otherwise be available to couples that enter into civil unions or domestic partnerships out-of-state. In short, this measure honors the will of the People in enacting Proposition 8 while providing important protections to those unions legally entered into in other states."



Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/latest/story/2248216.html

[Fearless]

1. It's a step back in the right direction.

[CatholicEdHead]

2. Wait for the religious right freakous later today

as they over-react as usual. :crazy: I am glad CA is moving back towards sanity.

[Newsjock]

3. Just look at the comments posted at the article

But only if you have fortitude. There's a whole lot of hate there already, none of which I'm going to repeat here.

[rurallib]

5. Gee and they are all so predictable in their comments

I was telling one of my kids last night that I heard the same comments used against Catholics, African Americans, Native Americans, Jews, Italians, Irish, Polish, Hispanic on and on and on.
They need some new material.

[EFerrari]

8. No, thanks! F#ck those idiots.

What is it about news sites that attracts the very worst in American culture? I never read those sections any more.

[No Elephants]

57. Please see Reply # 56.

[EFerrari]

67. Oh, I write and call. But I don't subject myself to the ravings

of those freaks and I don't hang out at those sites.

[Kajsa]

9. The SacBee is notoriously conservative,

and many readers are the Rabid Repugs who start
foaming at the mouth at the slightest mention of
gay rights.

No surprise there.

:(

[TommyPaine]

28. A great many social conservatives live in the San Joaquin Valley

Including a tremendous number of Eastern European immigrants with "Old World" values. I've read some articles about the curious partnership between Ukranian and Russian immigrants and local religious organizations and politicians. Basically, they're all united in their disdain for any lifestyle or sexual orientation that doesn't mesh with their narrow, dyed-in-the-wool views. And unfortunately they have increasing influence over policy.

[Kajsa]

32. i didn't know that,Tommy.

I did know that the area is primarily agricultural
( it's CA's breadbasket)
and that Armenians who settled there were forbidden
to buy houses during the WWII scare of " foreigners", i.e,
during the internment of Japanese-Americans at Manzanar.

Thanks for the info- the more I know, the better I understand
the situation.

:hi:

[No Elephants]

54. Makes sense that we disallowed house purchases by Armenians but allowed them by those of German and

Italian descent. Also makes sense that we interned peopole of Japanese descent, but not those of German or Italian descent. (Is the sarasm tag necessary here?)

If I am not mistaken, even those of Italian descent were treated differently in the military than were those of German descent. (Not sure of that one, though, and too lazy to ask Mr. Google.)

Why do I think it was more about race and skin color and not looking or sounding like a "real American?"

So, if you rent, rather than own, you are less of a threat to national security? Who knew?

[Kajsa]

55. No kidding--

Common sense- who needs it?

[EFerrari]

29. The comment section of the SF Chron is every bit as horrible.

:(

[Kajsa]

30. That is sad,

very sad indeed.

:(

[GrimReefa]

34. No it's not

I mean, yeah, it sucks that people feel that way, but don't be discouraged about the crap you find in comments sections of political stories. GoOPers actually think that by dominating comments sections, they can somehow steer the debate to their side. It's the ultimate act of lazy activism.

Liberals aviod comments sections because HOW CAN U ARRGUE WITH PEEPIL WHO TIPE LIKE THIS AND DONT NO HOW TO SEPLL AND ONLY WANT TO TIEP BARAAK "HUESSEIN" OBAMA (YA RITE MORE LIKE OSAMA LOL) AND TALK ABOUT HOW FAGS ARE RUINING THIS GREAT COUNTRY AND HOW OBAMA IS A ONE-TERM PRESIDENT JUST LIKE CARTER UNLESS SOMEONE SHOOTS HIM FIRST (I HOPE). Who wants to spend their time reading that?

[Kajsa]

53. LOL!

You make a good point,GrimReefa.

Welcome to DU.

:hi:

[No Elephants]

56. During Dummya's term, the RNC website told them to be active in posting and calling in to C-Span.

Also to write letters to newspapers and their Congresscritters. The RNC site also provided them with links, addresses, telephone numbers, etc.

By means like that, and Fox and the talk radio nuts, they make their voices louder than ours.

I have not checked the RNC site lately, so I don't know what's doing there now.

[Arugula Latte]

68. I take pleasure in contemplating that many of the older homophobes

will not be with us in ten or twenty years.

[Politicub]

4. Good for him. I'm glad he's come around

Now Calif. needs to fix the marriage injustice in the state.

[Kajsa]

6. Things are looking up for us.

Good for Schwarzenegger.It's about time we emerged from the
Dark Ages when it comes to gay rights.

We still have a long way to go.
Bring back marriage equality in CA!

[EFerrari]

7. Does anyone know what the bill about Harvey was? n/t

[TeaBagsAreForCups]

10. So let me get this, a RINO has...

... done - constructively (i.e., marriage recognition) - more in the last 24 hours for GLBT rights and progress than has "our" President in two years of promises, speeches, and meaningless platitudes - and nine months in an an office that affords him, by stroke of a single pen, the ability to immediately restore honor and dignity to the armed forces that he commands.

[caseymoz]

15. Not exactly, Arnold has been in for how long?

[Johonny]

23. How exactly hard did Arnold fight against prop 8?

Would have been nice to be more vocal last year. Who cares now that the damage is done. This doesn't fix the damage done by prop 8 nor the fact Arnold sat on his * and let this go through without a stronger fight. Same old Arnold only finds his voice after all the damage is done.

[jonnyblitz]

19. pretty fucking sad, eh? nt

[TeaBagsAreForCups]

27. Yes, almost as sad...

... as are the ill and mis-informed posts here and throughout this board relative to the matter of Obama and GLBT issues.

[whoneedstickets]

20. The Bills were created by the California state reps..

..All he had to do was sign them (not veto). If the relevant bills came from congress to Obama he would sign them too. So perhaps you should learn a little about the legislative process.

[TeaBagsAreForCups]

26. And just perhaps....

... you should reference my post number 25, below.

Indeed, you might want to consider that you need to learn a bit about the issues and legislative processes - that apply only in the long term in the matter of my reference. For the immediate, Obama has the ability to truncate the horrors of DADT with a mere stroke of a pen.

[whoneedstickets]

36. Stroke of a pen, just BS....

Obama cannot eliminate DADT at the stroke of a pen. DADT is part of US public law

http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=pubL&target=103-160

as the policy was amended to a 1994 military appropriations bill. As US law, the President can't simply ignore this at will without possible legal challenges. The law as passed must be changed via an act of congress.

Again, get informed before you spout off.

edit typo

[TeaBagsAreForCups]

37. Problems with reading, huh ?

Try taking a closer look - likewise, before "spouting off" - at my posts on this subject and actually read what I said because, yet again, you are sorely wrong and highly inaccurate in challenging my primary point that he, WITH A STROKE OF A PEN (yes), can stop the IMMEDIATE devastating effects upon both the individual members of the services and the services themselves. To wit:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/30/olbermann-obama-stonewall_n_223599.html

http://vodpod.com/watch/1840775-dan-savage-on-takes-obama-to-task-on-his-lgbt-record-thus-far

"President Obama should not wait for Congress to act. He has both the constitutional and statutory authority to implement change immediately."

http://www.discourse.net/archives/2009/02/presidential_power_and_dont_ask_dont_tell.html

"HOW TO MOVE FORWARD: Korb, Duggan, and Conley have laid out a five-step solution to repealing DADT that starts with the Obama administration setting the agenda: 1) Sign an Executive Order banning further military separations based on DADT and send a legislative proposal on DADT repeal to Congress ..."

"Since its enactment more than 16 years ago, DADT has resulted in the discharge of more than 13,000 highly qualified men and women. At least 1,000 of these service members have held "critical occupations," such as interpreters and engineers. In addition, roughly 4,000 service members have left the military voluntarily every year because of DADT."

http://pr.thinkprogress.org/2009/06/pr20090625

[whoneedstickets]

39. Um, where did you say that?

I read your previous posts, there was a lot of the 'stroke of a pen bs' and nothing of conditionals you put in your post. So presumably, you HAVE become educated by this interchange enough that you actually looked up how DADT works -- I guess I was successful. Hope you do your research before you open your pie hole next time.

[TeaBagsAreForCups]

40. So, it's not just reading with which there is a problem...

... comprehension is a challenge for you as well. "Conditionals" noted in bold for those who might be too dense to appreciate them.

"For the immediate, Obama has the ability to truncate the horrors of DADT with a mere stroke of a pen."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4100031&mesg_id=4100460

"Pro-actively anticipating further Obamabots' bullshit excuses and "explanations" from the masses here, spare us: it HAS been well documented and decided that this power is, indeed, at the hand of the present incumbent at 1600 and although potentially subject to legislative oversight, until and such time that oversight applies, he has stopped the immediate travesties that are occurring hourly in today's military."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4100031&mesg_id=4100453

"... my point in these various threads.
Stop the bleeding; then, repair the patient."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4100031&mesg_id=4100880

Clear now? And as far as any education vis-a-vis DADT if I were you, I would avoid the presumption that this little exercise provided any further data or insight for me since I came "to school" in this matter very well prepared, indeed. So, thanks for playing! ...trusting that you've learned a lesson or two, from a number of perspectives and considerations.

Oh and about those pieholes... they're like assholes. Everyone has one and some have the unfortunate propensity of frequently sticking their heads up the latter precluding their ability to see what's precisely under their nose and on the page.

[whoneedstickets]

43. You still never dealt with the point...

..that in any of your early posts you modified your stroke of the pen language by observing the actual legal status of DADT. You then have the temerity to tell me to go look at your other posts which likewise have a lot of half-assed assertions without any facts. Glad you finally found some facts and learned something. Perhaps next time you START with facts instead of the bullshit you opened this discussion with.

Frankly after crap like this I'm starting to care less if he does anything at all.

[TeaBagsAreForCups]

44. Bullshit ....

... in any neutral assessment of this thread has not been my province.

Nor for that matter has been fruitless arm waving and impotently attempting to make challenges appear as if they ever had any merit in the first place other than to try to extricate oneself from the hole that one was furiously digging and only deeper.

You obviously need to see what you need to see in my posts to support and further this ridiculous debate that you started. I believe it's called "saving face," so I'm not going to any further point out the obvious elements of my challenge to Obama since if you were ever to admit that you saw them as they are, you've have to admit that this little dance was, for you, really only on one leg.

Moreover, you're really not very good at this, btw.

[No Elephants]

58. Sorry, but you are mistaken about DADT. Obama does have the powers

to "truncate its horrors with a stroke of the pen.

The "horrors" of DADT are forcing military to be deceptive and in the closet in order to save their careers, the dishcharges, and the risks to national security that the discharges cause. 300 discharges since Obama took office alone, a number of them Arabic translators.

Obama could have "truncated the horrors" could have done that on Inauguration Day, without repealing DADT. Truman eliminated racial segregation in the military with the stroke of a pen. Using his powers under the Constitution as CIC and his more specific powers under 10 USC 12305, Obama could have suspended DADT discharges. Just ask Mr. Google.

As far as not acting in matters as to which Congress has spoken, nothing really says the CIC cannot do that, especially in times when our military is as strung out as it has been for years. It is custom, not law. And, if Obama broke that custom, even without 10 USC 12305, exactly what would happen? NOTHING. However, we do have 10 USC 12305.

[ProudDad]

41. He can order the DOD NOT to enforce it...

he could declare an emergency and halt enforcement...

But, on the other hand, why the hell would ANYONE want to be suckered into joining the fucking military?

WAR is a racket.

It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

Just say NO!

[TeaBagsAreForCups]

46. Amen.

... and thank you.

[24601]

72. Yes, he cannot change the law; however, he can direct that he

reserves original jurisdiction for any DADT discharges. That would make it highly unlikely that any discharges would actually happen during his tenure and would buy time for changing the law.

[Akoto]

21. Oh, do come off the high horse.

Obama is quite willing to sign any such bill into law, once it goes through the appropriate process. He's not going to do an end-run on Congress, as Bush had the habit of doing. If you want it to happen, then place the blame where it belongs: the House and the Senate.

[TeaBagsAreForCups]

25. Perhaps your familiarity with the matters at hand are...

... severely and woefully remiss - and you did not appreciate the import of my reference.

DADT requires a mere executive order from the civilian commander of the Armed Forces, Obama, that from hence forward from the moment of the signing, there will be no more discrimination against their fellow men and women who take bullets for their country and bleed the same red that do their comrades in defense of our Constitution - but who just happen to have a different affectional preference. And that they are to now start acting under the mandates of that Constitution that they swore to defend.

Pro-actively anticipating further Obamabots' bullshit excuses and "explanations" from the masses here, spare us: it HAS been well documented and decided that this power is, indeed, at the hand of the present incumbent at 1600 and although potentially subject to legislative oversight, until and such time that oversight applies, he has stopped the immediate travesties that are occurring hourly in today's military.

[Thothmes]

33. All the President can do is suspend discharges under the DADT

act if he deems it a military necessity. Congress has to pass legislation to over ride the requirement of DADT. If they do not act the next administration can simply cancel President Obamas order suspending discharges. At that point the armed services are free to discharge anyone that
is liable under the DADT law. To permanetly solve the situation, Congress must act. Anything short of Congressional action can be undone by future administrations. Dont forget that even if the President does suspend discharges under DADT, sodomy is still a court martial offence under the UCMJ.
The President does not have any authority suspend any part of the UCMJ. Only Congress can change that law.

[TeaBagsAreForCups]

38. Completely agree, and that has been ...

... my point in these various threads.

Stop the bleeding; then, repair the patient.

But as most know, it takes big balls to be a good surgeon. It's appearing more apparent than ever that "our" friend at 1600 has yet to truly grow a pair.

"Dont forget that even if the President does suspend discharges under DADT, sodomy is still a court martial offence under the UCMJ."

... and should that ever be enforced within the true defines of the term "sodomy," we would lose ninety eight percent of the Armed Forces, and one hundred percent of the Marine Corps.

:)

[Thothmes]

48. true, but you can bet that that will not happen

[No Elephants]

65. You can also bet that Congress will not take Obama to the Supreme Court over

suspending DADT discharges.

With almost as much certainty, you can also bet that, if Obama were to suspend DADT discharges, no one will reinstate them, not Congress and not the President who follows Obama.

But, even if someone were to reinstate them years from now, we'd still stop ruining lives and increasing risks to national security until some moran did reinstate them.

[Thothmes]

71. President Obama has shown that he is not

interested in exercising presidential authority to suspend the discharges. They will continue until the Congress delivers him legislation voiding the DADT legislaton. He will sign the law and claim a great victory for equal rights. JMO

[No Elephants]

61. I was agreeing with you, but you lost me with "big balls." Courage is not synonymous with male

genitalia, nor with being a male. And being a pussy, or having one, is not synonymous with cowardice or weakness.

[No Elephants]

60. (A) So? ( B) Not necessarily so. Please see Reply 58 as to the difference between custom and law

and also as to Presidents sending bills to Congress. And, if he did suspend, who is going to argue? And, if he does break custom, who is going to take him to the Supreme Court?

You keep posting the same thing, but repetition is not making your "point" any more meaningful.

[ProudDad]

42. EVERY president makes "end runs" around Congress (n/t)

[whoneedstickets]

45. Really!? any facts for this assertion?

Or did you just fire up your home-built bullshit machine again!? I'm guessing the latter having seen your M.O.

Wait you'll probably tell me to read your earlier post where you lay out the case for end runs around congress...let the record show that no such posts exist at the time of this edit.

[No Elephants]

62. Were you born yesterday?

[ProudDad]

69. Here one example, asshole...

"Perhaps no other president defined presidential wartime powers like Abraham Lincoln did. In 1861, while Congress was adjourned, he activated the military, sent troops to Southern states, ordered the Navy to blockade the port of New Orleans and appropriated funds from the Treasury. Lincoln was also the first to declare martial law (the temporary removal of power from the courts) and suspend habeas corpus (the right for a prisoner to petition the legality of his or her imprisonment)."

http://people.howstuffworks.com/president5.htm

Why don't you do a simple internet search instead of "guessing" "having seen my M.O."

My M.O. is an appreciation for history, a constant search for the truth and a fearless examination of what goes on and why.

From what nether region do you derive your bullshit?

[No Elephants]

59. How is using the powers Congress has given the CIC by enacting 10 USC 12305 doing an "end

run around Congress?"

DOMA is one thing. Suspending DADT discharges is quite another.


Besides, Presidents send bills to Congress ALL the time.

[ElboRuum]

50. I notice that Prop 8 is still in effect.

So actually, he's done nothing. If he were a Clinton, he'd be accused of triangulation. All Schwarzenegger did was appease the Prop 8 dipshits and throw a bone to the GLBT community.

I'll ignore the shit about Obama since your post is nothing more than baiting. "Our" President? I take it you didn't vote for him then.

[No Elephants]

63. No comparison. Ahnuld is not Commander in Chief of a military force called

California gays, nor did the California legislature enact any equivalent of 10 USC 12305.

I voted for Obama. Volunteered too. Contributed, too. More than the legal limit bc every time McCain's poll numbers went up near the end, I contributed more. Certainly more than I ever contributed to any other politician.

Does that mean I can only praise him? Does it mean that I cannot criticize him when I think he's wrong?

[ElboRuum]

70. No. It means that your quotidinous "our" is conspicuously odd.

Criticize him all you want. It seems like there is no greater virtue than that, no calling more divine. But when you use the "our", it doesn't look or sound like a critique, it looks and sounds like you're saying "he's not MY president, nuh-uh, no way." You voted for him, so own it.

Here's the comparison. Ahnuld is a politician, and so is Obama. Crediting Ahnold with doing anything but pursuing a political expedient to appease as many people as he can without actually doing anything of importance is to ignore that very calculated and self-serving political move, even if done backhandedly, as the real intent is yet another Obama criticism of dubious constructive import.

[defendandprotect]

11. Could the Gov overturn Prop 8? Some legal basis, perhaps?

[slackmaster]

12. Unfortunately, SB 54 is headed straight for a constitutional challenge that is sure to lose

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

...SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California.

There is no consideration given to the laws in effect at the time and place a marriage was performed. SB54 is a symbolic gesture. Arnold signed it because he has political aspirations. I think he's going to run for a Senate seat in the not too distant future.

[KamaAina]

13. "Declaration of Rights"?! How Orwellian is that??

:wtf:

And didn't a court already rule that that language didn't apply to the 18,000 who got married in time, thereby giving at least some "consideration given to the laws in effect at the time and place a marriage was performed"?

edit: spelling; emoticon

[slackmaster]

16. Yes, those marriages were recognized by California, so that recognition was grandfathered

A couple married in another state could argue that the exception applies to them as well, but I doubt that it would succeed. The Strauss v. Horton decision is limited to marriages that occurred in California before 11/5/2008.

Nobody married outside of California was a party to that case. It's possible that the courts would apply the same cutoff date to out-of-state marriages, or that they would be invalid no matter what.

[No Elephants]

66. Isn't Starr still fighting that?

[defendandprotect]

14. Prop 8 is a dangerous farce . . . there has to be some way to knock it out -- ???

[Garbo 2004]

35. Governor does not have authority to overturn a proposition. Prop 8 amended the state

constitution. Only another proposition passed by the voters or the CA Supreme Court ruling it unconstitutional could overturn it. (One of the reasons I am not a fan of legislation by propositions.) The State Supremes have already ruled Prop 8 constitutional but also ruled existing gay marriages still in force. I think further litigation, in Fed court, is pending.

I think the plan of those opposed to Prop 8 is to launch a future ballot proposition to undo Prop 8.

[No Elephants]

64. No. The California Supreme Court could take a stab at saying that, under

its interpretation of the California Constitution, the rights of a minority are not subject to action taken by a majority. However, that is very unlikely. The best ground would be to declare the discriminatory portion of the California Constitution a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution and that case has been initiated. However, I fear the Roberts Court will rule adversely to gay rights, so I wish that people had not begun going down that road.

[JerseygirlCT]

17. will of the people in enacting Proposition 8

will of the bigots, more like

[Neecy]

18. I'm glad he's finally doing the right thing

It took long enough, but it's more than our Federal government has done for us recently.

[valerief]

22. Since he has no money for his state, he's gotta do something good to

save his hide. However, it should have been done anyway.

[eppur_se_muova]

47. Money ... money ... always about money ...

The weddings of same-sex couples will generate new economic activity for the state’s businesses:
•
Spending by resident same-sex couples on their weddings, and by out-of-state couples on tourism and their weddings, will boost California’s economy by over $683.6 million in direct spending over the next three years.
•
Over the next three years, the direct spending by resident and out-of-state same-sex couples will create and sustain over 2,178 new jobs in California.
Over the next three years, the direct spending from same-sex couples on weddings and tourism will generate over $63.8 million in revenue for state and local governments.
•
Spending on weddings by couples living in California, and tourism and weddings by couples from outside of California, will generate over $55.1 million in state and local sales tax revenues and transient occupancy tax revenues. This estimate is conservative in that it does not include increased revenues from many other taxes that are harder to estimate, such as California’s motor vehicle fuel tax, earnings taxes, property taxes, excise tax on alcoholic beverages, or taxes on indirect spending or earnings.
•
In addition, the weddings from in-state and out-of-state couples will generate approximately $8.8 million in marriage license fees for California counties.

more: http://www.law.ucla.edu/WilliamsInstitute/publications/EconImpactCAMarriage.pdf

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/06/11/an-economic-boost-from-gay-marriage.html

[myrna minx]

24. K&R n/t

[Vidar]

31. Better than nothing--sort of.

[autorank]

49. And two years or so ago, Gov. Crist overturned felon disenfranchisement in FL

So :wtf: is with that. Every Democratic governor in the country can get rid of felon disenfranchisement just like Crist did and Arnie has no problem signing this bill either. He won't bat an eye. I don't care for either of them and wish they were not in their respective chairs, but damn, even a broken clock is right twice a day (if it's analog).

So where are our governors leading the charge?

[rhino47]

51. One step closer

To equality.But still a lot of work ahead.

[No Elephants]

52. Sad to say, the bill about recognizing marriages from another state could be

declared to violate the Constitution of California, given the success of the Mormon Church on Prop 8.