Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  this guy

CA Sen. Roy Ashburn Demands Schwarzenegger Keep Only One Type of Marriage In California

California’s Sen. Roy Ashburn doesn’t want to see Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger sign into law the Civil Marriage Religious Freedom Act — a bill introduced by gay Sen. Mark Leno, and which would, theoretically, protect religious clergy who didn’t want to perform same-sex marriages — because, BECAUSE, it creates two separate classes of marriage. That’s why Ashburn doesn’t like it! Because, he writes in a letter to the governor, gays and lesbians would be relegated to second-class status. This (“What I seek is full, equal marriage rights for all people, regardless of sexual orientation. SB 906 is clearly less than full marriage equality and therefore, I respectfully ask for your veto”) from THIS GUY. There’s turning over new leaves, and there’s raking them into a pile and setting them on fire.

EARLIER:
Is This The Real Beginning of Roy Ashburn’s Turnaround Tour?

By:           JD
On:           Sep 2, 2010
Tagged: , , , ,

  • 13 Comments
    • 7
      7

      I don’t get this guy.

      Sep 2, 2010 at 11:01 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      What? He is either trying to hard and failing, or he is still stealthily ati-gay. All the bill does, in my understanding, is spell out the protections that these churches already have under the constitution. i.e. if the Catholic Church says it doesn’t want to marry gay people, then they don’t have to, that is it.

      This is more to just stop the liars out there from trying to tell people that if gay marriage becomes legal then their churches will be forced to perform them. Which is a huge lie. Churches already discriminate

      If you aren’t Catholic, the Chatholic church won’t marry you, if you aren’t Mormon you cannot even attend the actual ceremony of a Mormon wedding in the temple etc…

      All this law is doing is writing this down so the anti-gay folks cannot try to lie to scare people into voting against marriage. Ashburn is being kind of an idiot.

      Sep 2, 2010 at 11:31 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • M
      M

      The bill was introduced by Mark Leno, not Mark Leon.

      Sep 2, 2010 at 11:59 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Shade
      Shade

      Who with the what now? This bill is a little pat on the head to freaked out conservatives to let them know they won’t be forced to perform our marriages. Like that’s every gay person’s dream: to get married in a Southern Baptist church complete with people talking in tongues and snake handlers.

      I really don’t think Ashburn has the wherewithal to stand toe to toe with Mark Leno on gay rights issues.

      Sep 2, 2010 at 12:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      After twenty five or so years of promoting discrimination, harassment and violence against us this means very little.

      I means even less if you note that he’ll be out of a job after the Fall elections and consigned to the garbage bin of history, unless he’s posturing to run for federal office in which case he’ll be defeated and then consigned…

      Sep 2, 2010 at 1:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lamar
      Lamar

      I agree with him, religious organizations shouldn’t be able to say to us “We don’t like you but you can try the church down the road”. It does actually make us second class if they are allowed to do something like that. I also don’t like the term “protect religious clergy who didn’t want to perform same-sex marriages” – if you don’t want to have to perform marriages for people you don’t like then it’s time for a new career, one that allows you to dicriminate so you are “protected”.

      Sep 2, 2010 at 1:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      @Lamar: said..

      “I agree with him, religious organizations shouldn’t be able to say to us “We don’t like you but you can try the church down the road”

      ____________

      Under our constitution churches can already do that. Catholics don’t allow women to be priests. Legally. Mormons didn’t allow blacks in until around 1980 and only because of bad P.R. Churches can do whatever they want as far as who they marry.

      Sep 2, 2010 at 2:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ForeverGay
      ForeverGay

      Haterosexuals use religious as an excuse for why they support haterosexual-only marriage and are against gay couples marrying. In fact, it’s doesn’t matter if laws to allow religious organizations to deny marrying gay couples are enacted because haterosexuals will still vote against gay couples marrying.

      Sep 2, 2010 at 3:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dave
      dave

      The real reason to oppose the law is that it’s fucking pointless. We already have a law that means religions don’t have to recognize as religious marriages any civil marriages they don’t like, and don’t have to perform any marriages they don’t like: the First Amendment.

      Civil marriage is not religious marriage, and never has been. If some religions choose not to accept legal same-sex civil marriages as religious marriages, that’s entirely their prerogative. They can also refuse to recognize interfaith, interracial, intergenerational, or any other marriages the don’t like—as religious marriages.

      They don’t, however, get to tell other churches what religious marriages they can and can’t recognize, nor do the get to tell the government what civil marriages it can recognize—also because of the First Amendment.

      Rather than mollycoddling weepy bigots with unnecessary laws, why not just point out to them that they have always had, and always will have, the right to be just as bigoted in their religious practices as they have always been?

      Sep 2, 2010 at 8:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Queer Supremacist
      Queer Supremacist

      @dave: Frankly, I’m getting sick and tired of seeing the First Amendment used as a shield to defend bigotry against those who don’t deserve it.

      Sep 3, 2010 at 12:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lamar
      Lamar

      @Cam: Then the amount of power the Church has to discriminate should be greatly reduced. It amazes me how the Church is given preferential treatment over other non-religious organizations in matters of discrimination.

      Sep 3, 2010 at 4:11 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      Discrimination by cults should be criminalized.

      Sep 3, 2010 at 4:18 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 10 · Queer Supremacist wrote, “@dave: Frankly, I’m getting sick and tired of seeing the First Amendment used as a shield to defend bigotry against those who don’t deserve it.”

      FYI the First Amendment and provisions in the California State Constitution were used in the 2008 California Supreme Court decision allowing same-sex marriage (the court pointed out that religious organizations would not be required to perform ceremonies inconsistent with their beliefs, as part of an argument as to why allowing same-sex marriages would harm no one).

      Inserting the word “civil” is not a bad idea – it emphasizes that all marriages licensed by the state are civil marriages, independent of any religious ceremonies. During the Prop 8 campaign, the “Yes on Eight” side falsely claimed that religious organizations would be required to recognized same-sex marriages or perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. It was a lie, but the average voter is not going to read a court decision well over 100 pages long to find a couple of sentences showing otherwise. Leno’s bill was intended to make the situation clearer, so that the same argument cannot be used against an attempt to repeal Proposition Eight (the legislation was introduced well before Judge Walker ruled that Proposition Eight is unconstitutional, but the outcome of an appeal is not certain).

      I’m not sure why Ashburn is opposing it, but I can see why Proposition Eight proponents would oppose this bill.

      Sep 3, 2010 at 3:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Queerty now requires you to log in to comment

    Please log in to add your comment.

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.

  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.