Today, the Vermont legislature overrode a gubernatorial veto and voted to allow same-sex couples to marry. They become the first state to legalize gay marriage through the legislative process rather than the courts. Of course, California passed a gay marriage bill twice, in 2005 and 2007, only to see the Governor veto the legislation both times. And then… nothing.
Now, the bill never passed by a margin approaching a 2/3 vote in either chamber, so you might question the efficacy of an override vote. However, that only makes sense if you aren’t aware that the California legislature NEVER overrides vetoes. This actually came up last year, when the Governor vetoed the initial FY2009 budget and the legislature threatened to override. Instead they ceded to the Governor’s demands. Indeed, California has never overridden a budget veto in the history of the legislature, and the legislature pretty much never overrides vetoes of any other kind, even if the measures pass both houses with overwhelming margins. The last override in California? THIRTY YEARS AGO.
Part of this is due to the unnecessary forced bottlenecks in the legislative process, where practically everything passes right at the end of a legislative session, and the Governor vetoes after the session ends, which means that the legislature is out of session at the time they could override a veto. But another part concerns an insidious professional courtesy mixed with threats, where the Governor in recent years has implicitly vowed to veto all kinds of bills if he’s ever overridden on one.
The overall point is that California’s government does not operate like a functioning political body. The veto override, a major tool for a legislature to impose their will on a Governor, doesn’t exist. The majority vote, when a Governor agrees with the thrust of the legislation, with respect to the budget and taxes, doesn’t exist. And so ordinary functions of political bodies are closed off to California, by self-imposed means. This highlights once again why we have an ungovernable political structure that needs to be radically changed.
I know that this posting is more about California process, but I will use it to give a shout out to the Vermont Legislature. The people of Vermont can now marry who they want to regardless of sexual orientation. I’m happy for them.
if you beleive n teh US Constitution’s Separation Clause, then you would put marraige in teh chrush wher eit belongs and all civil statutes would be expunged of teh term “marriage” as it is a religious construct… which should be kept in the practice of one’s beleif system… not city hall.
Why does any “conservative” want the state to define any domestic economic relation ship as a sexual one?
Using a religious definition to define economic relationships on the domestic level violates the separation clause.. and besides, keeping it all statutes simply abrogates our true religion “economics.. capitalism”
Marriage was implemented to define economic relationships on the demise of a parent. To stretch into civil statutes.. to definite all such relationships under a roof as sexual seems a bit archaic, insulting and controverts the Constitutions. True freedom and equal rights would be any two humans entering into a civil contract to share economic resources.
Time to revoke the Theocracy we live in… freedom for all… even those that like their vice versa.
The problem: “marriage” is a religious construct.. and the “faithful” demand that civil statutes implement a religious definition for domestic economic arrangements.
Simple answer to the “problem” with the gays and lesbians demanding “marriage” … the answer is remove “marriage” from all civil statutes in its place the only term should be “Domestic Partnership” and be governed by existing laws that apply to economic agreements.
Why foul up a domestic agreement with sexual definitions via calling them marriages?
It doesn’t happen when individuals enter into other economic agreements.. like a car loan… never are you asked if you are going to have sex in the car.