Politics Same-sex Marriages (¡DOS!)

[noggi16]

First, America isn't the only country that's against gay marriag/'homosexuals and didn't kewii say that the threads in this forum shouldn't be used to blame or point fingers at specific countries, because I'm 100% sure that she did. Anyway, I found this interesting article invovling John Roberts..

Its more than likely that she did, but as we are constantly reminded this was a discussion surrounding America, this is to do with American opinion and American policy. I seem to think there was discussion earlier involving European attitudes to same sex marriage that did not last very long.

And if my phrasing offended you, I'll change it. Campaigners for same sex marriage including Peter Tachtell should stop worrying so much about pension rights and start worrying about places where hate crimes are committed not by prejudical individuals but by the state. Isolate homophobia may be wrong, but state-wide prejudice is surely much worse (in the context of not being allowed to practice) and before anyone says it, I don't see a link between being allowed to practice homosexual acts and being allowed to marry a partner. Allowing one does not lead directly to the other.

And the article involving Roberts. Genius, the man actually isn't the devil in disguise, he's just a lawyer.

 

[sexcivaughn14]

I dont know what's been said in here before in repspects to individual country's positions on it, being Canadian, gay marriage is legal here and i dont see what the big deal is...let people get married, it's their lives, i dont see how it affects anyone else but themselves!

 

[noggi16]

But obviously it does. I could claim that its ok for suicide bombers to blow themselves up on the tube because I live in Manchester not London therefore it does not affect me.

Something as momentous as this would obviouly would affect everybody in society.

 

[sugababyboo]

To me, ALL kinds of discrimination is WRONG. I wish we didn't live ina world with so much hate and intolerance but we do. Life is about choice and not ev everyone chooses to focus their time and energy on global issues, some would rather work on domestic ones and I think that's fabulous. They're fighting for civil rights which obviously isn't a bad thing. Domestic issues cannot be ignored, of course that's just me.

Gratned this is an issue here in the states but how would you react if I told the British where to focus all their time, and energy? Honestly, how would you feel if let's say minorities in your country weren't allowed to marry and then I told you and the people of your country to focus elsewhere because it's not significant to the "big picture"??

To me, it is. When America legalizes gay marriage they'll be one of a handful countries telling the world that there's no harm in acknowledging homosexuals as equals and that the world moves on. In time the world will become more accpeting tolerant of minorities and that includes homosexuals.

And that's why your comment got to me because it was as if you were telling us what to do and almost scrutinizing us for being concerned about an issue that is directly affecting us.

Let's not forget about Iraq where both of our countries have troops risking their lives to make that country and the world a better and in bush's words a "safer place". America cannot be expected to be the only country to do this, the rest world needs to step up too and I'm just not talking about Iraq either.

 

[sexcivaughn14]

But obviously it does. I could claim that its ok for suicide bombers to blow themselves up on the tube because I live in Manchester not London therefore it does not affect me.

Something as momentous as this would obviouly would affect everybody in society.

[post="1464218"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

Those are not even CLOSE to the same things, a suicide bomber committing suicide, their own business, as soon as it literally takes someone elses life, it becomes someone elses, and if someone lets gay marriage have that great an effect on your life, than they have more issues than homophobia.

 

[noggi16]

To me, ALL kinds of discrimination is WRONG. I wish we didn't live ina world with so much hate and intolerance but we do. Life is about choice and not ev everyone chooses to focus their time and energy on global issues, some would rather work on domestic ones and I think that's fabulous. They're fighting for civil rights which obviously isn't a bad thing. Domestic issues cannot be ignored, of course that's just me.

Of course domestic issues cannot be ignored, people giving out medicines in the third world should be mindful of how many people cannot afford them in the first world, but does it not seem a little selfish, not fully in the spirit of campaiging to say, "I want to marry my partner and that is more important than people being excuted across the world for the same act" (and this is state-sponsered, not random hate crime."

Gratned this is an issue here in the states but how would you react if I told the British where to focus all their time, and energy? Honestly, how would you feel if let's say minorities in your country weren't allowed to marry and then I told you and the people of your country to focus elsewhere because it's not significant to the "big picture"??

The thing is I would say we are, there is a civil partnerships bill on its way, but one of our foremost gay rights activists (who I can't stand, not because he is gay but because he's left wing muppet) was campaigning not for gay marriage, but foremostly for regime change in Zimabwe. Is that not looking at the bigger picture, we're having massive social change in terms of drinking and gambling laws and our government is foremostly concerned with Africa, because there people are dying. Excuse me for thinking that may be slightly more important.

To me, it is. When America legalizes gay marriage they'll be one of a handful countries telling the world that there's no harm in acknowledging homosexuals as equals and that the world moves on. In time the world will become more accpeting tolerant of minorities and that includes homosexuals.

Maybe, maybe not but the American (and Canadian) Protestant churchs are already nearly causing a schism in the Protestant Communion because of their acceptance of gay marriage, is America legalising gay marriage going to stop a young man who has just come out of the closet getting stoned in Iran or beaten to death in South Africa? I very much doubt it. What it will do is enforce social differences despite the massive ones that already exisit.

Let's not forget about Iraq where both of our countries have troops risking their lives to make that country and the world a better and in bush's words a "safer place". America cannot be expected to be the only country to do this, the rest world needs to step up too and I'm just not talking about Iraq either.

I've got no clue what you are talking about there. On one hand your saying if America does this, it will encourage the rest of world, on the other admitting America can't change the world on its own? Thats contradictory.

And I would take issue with the fact America is alone in making the world a better place. Personally think our foreign policy is much more ethical. Bosnia anybody? But this is neither the time or the place for that discussion.

Those are not even CLOSE to the same things, a suicide bomber committing suicide, their own business, as soon as it literally takes someone elses life, it becomes someone elses, and if someone lets gay marriage have that great an effect on your life, than they have more issues than homophobia.

To use of libterian philosphy, you have to accept the full concequences. John Donne said "No man is an island" and its true, everything effects society.

When you look at "victimless crime" such as taking of addictive drugs it is clear although most damage is being done to the individual it impacts on everybody, the whole of society who must support him through health and benefits, those closer to him through his lack of care.

 

[sexcivaughn14]

If we want to talk about horrible hate crimes and horrible governments, why dont we talk about something like Rawanda. But quite frankly- thats not what we're talking about!

People are entitled to their own beliefs, religions and sexual preferance. Sadly, one person, one country cannot change the world- because Canada believes in Same sex marriage, it doesnt mean everyone else will. It is a travesty that people are being murdered for things like this, but because it's happening somewhere, does that really mean we should punish people in other places aswell?

And yes, it is a punishment! I mean, what did these people do to deserve to basically be shoved back into the closet when some individuals have fought so hard to get equal rights and less discrimination for them!

Take women's rights, women had very few rights until some 30-40 years ago...some places they still dont have them. But some people died for that cause, horrible yes. but a step in the right direction if you ask me-

sacrifices are made for everything, religion, love, marriage, war...as horrible as it seems for me to say this: it happens and i truly believe that people who have been sacrificed for their own beliefs, whether it be gay marriage or anything, died for something they were passionate about.

 

[Jamison]

I just really don't understand it.

They're allowed to have relationships, live together, and adopt children (only in some states, sadly), yet they cannot have a legalized union...why is that?

Of course giving gays the right to marry will impact society, but so does every decision the government and most people make, some negative, some positive, and some both.

I understand that there are awful things going on around the world, but sadly, not every country can jump in and help. There are times when a country needs to look out for issues that are affecting it's people...gay marriage being one of them.

So while it may not seem like a big deal and a waste of time to some, to others it is an extremely important issue, one that directly effects their lives. And I hope that people don't stop fighting for it, and I would love to live in a world that one day accepts homosexuals as people and allows them to get the same rights as straight couples.

 

[sexcivaughn14]

I just really don't understand it.

They're allowed to have relationships, live together, and adopt children (only in some states, sadly), yet they cannot have a legalized union...why is that?

Of course giving gays the right to marry will impact society, but so does every decision the government and most people make, some negative, some positive, and some both.

I understand that there are awful things going on around the world, but sadly, not every country can jump in and help.  There are times when a country needs to look out for issues that are affecting it's people...gay marriage being one of them.

So while it may not seem like a big deal and a waste of time to some, to others it is an extremely important issue, one that directly effects their lives.  And I hope that people don't stop fighting for it, and I would love to live in a world that one day accepts homosexuals as people and allows them to get the same rights as straight couples.

[post="1464381"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

ITA- i'm straight but im one of those people who are like "what you do in your bedroom is your business"

 

[sugababyboo]

I just really don't understand it.

They're allowed to have relationships, live together, and adopt children (only in some states, sadly), yet they cannot have a legalized union...why is that?

Of course giving gays the right to marry will impact society, but so does every decision the government and most people make, some negative, some positive, and some both.

I understand that there are awful things going on around the world, but sadly, not every country can jump in and help.  There are times when a country needs to look out for issues that are affecting it's people...gay marriage being one of them.

So while it may not seem like a big deal and a waste of time to some, to others it is an extremely important issue, one that directly effects their lives.  And I hope that people don't stop fighting for it, and I would love to live in a world that one day accepts homosexuals as people and allows them to get the same rights as straight couples.

[post="1464381"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

I so love you, come here to MA and I'll make an honest woman out of you LOL It's cool you can still date you boyfriend lol I completely agree with you hun.

I watched Kanye's interview that I mentioned and I will admit I love him even more. lol He went into detail to why he used to be homophobic b/c in high school he was accused of being a mama's boy and gay. Since he was only raised by his mom, the way that he did certain things like argue was very effeminate. So, he decided to be thug like so he wouldn't be perceived as gay and weak. He also tused the word f*g a lot too. But he changed when he found out that his cousin is gay. He realized that he's not going to discriminate against gays because that what "his people" went through.

 

[sexcivaughn14]

i hate that all that discrimination exists...equality...EQUALITY

 

[Azhria Lilu]

But obviously it does. I could claim that its ok for suicide bombers to blow themselves up on the tube because I live in Manchester not London therefore it does not affect me.

Something as momentous as this would obviouly would affect everybody in society.

[post="1464218"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

I don't see how two men or two women marrying each other would negatively affect society -- or even the "institution" of marriage. I would think that the fact Britney Spears can marry over and over again without thought in any state is more of a threat to marriage than a loving gay couple marrying.

Social conservatives complain about the lack of love in today's relationships and marriages but then actively campaign to stop people who truly love each other from marrying. It's sad to watch.

Of course domestic issues cannot be ignored, people giving out medicines in the third world should be mindful of how many people cannot afford them in the first world, but does it not seem a little selfish, not fully in the spirit of campaiging to say, "I want to marry my partner and that is more important than people being excuted across the world for the same act" (and this is state-sponsered, not random hate crime."

There are many important issues going on in the world today. Gay marriage is not the most important, even among gay rights issues. But you seem to think that people can only work towards one goal at once. Luckily, that is not the case. We can work towards marriage equality in the United States while demanding an end the Iranian government torturing and executing gay citizens for having sex --- and still work to end the genocide in Darfur.

There is a lot of injustice in this world. Just because there are greater injustices doesn't make this injustice OK or mean that we should stop trying to end it.

Some thoughts on why this issue is so hard to discuss:

I’ve found, in various gay rights debates I’ve had with people, that the greatest divide is definitional and it pretty much prevents either side from every being able to agree with the other. LGBT people, their friends and family, social progressives, mental health professionals and their associations, civil libertarians, and human sexuality researches generally see being gay as something you are – a sexual orientation that is unchosen and unchangeable. They - or we, as I agree with this group – say that you can change your sexual identity (the labels, or lack thereof) you choose to identify with, and your sexual behavior (who you choose to have sex with), but you cannot change your sexual orientation (who you have enduring emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attraction to).

Social and religious conservatives sometimes use the term “sexual preference” instead of “sexual orientation” but use it how progressives would use “sexual behavior” – that is, conservatives see sexual orientation as your behavior. So, they see a gay man who decides to no longer have sex as someone who has “left the gay lifestyle,” whereas liberals would see him as a celibate gay man, as he would still have enduring emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction to other men.

This difference in use of definitions, although sometimes subtle, makes it hard for either side to understand the other’s positions.

(part of the above was adapted from religioustolerance.org)

 

[SiriCerasi]

But obviously it does. I could claim that its ok for suicide bombers to blow themselves up on the tube because I live in Manchester not London therefore it does not affect me.

Something as momentous as this would obviouly would affect everybody in society.

[post="1464218"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

I'm sorry I just find this incredibly offense... that you could even begin to compare gay marriage with suicide bombing! If two people of the same sex marry each other, no one is going to die or be murdered. Gay marriage would have an impact on society, obviously, but it wouldn't be negative.

It will affect society, of course it will. But ending slavery affected society too. Giving women the right to vote affected society. Are you going to compare those to the London bombings as well?

I don't see how two men or two women marrying each other would negatively affect society -- or even the "institution" of marriage. I would think that the fact Britney Spears can marry over and over again without thought in any state is more of a threat to marriage than a loving gay couple marrying.

:laughbounce:
I completely agree. The divorce rates are shooting through the roof, and all anyone can argue about is gay marriage! Last time I checked divorce was against catholic belief as well as gay marriage, and I'm sure a lot of other religions share the sentiment, so what will be next? Will we not let people divorce?

I think it would be more beneficial to society, for those who think that gay marriage will wreak havoc on our lovely, perfect society, to have two people together who love each other, no matter what sex they are, than to have one person go through five different marriages. People who divorce like crazy or just rush into marriage for fun and then break it off a few years (or months. or days) later are threatening the institution of marriage more than gay couples ever could.

 

[ParadiseKendra]

Yes, they should be able to marry AND divorce for that matter. We're treating these people as slaves! What is up with that?

 

[sugababyboo]

Yes, they should be able to marry AND divorce for that matter.  We're treating these people as slaves!  What is up with that?

[post="1466843"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

Exactly, they're people too! They're not criminals, they're not second class citizens and shouldn't be treated as if they are. So what if they are physically and emotionally attracted to the same sex??? What a person behind closed doors and between the sheets is no one's businesss.

Siricersai and Charlie brought up valid points. There are people in this country and around world who are only marrying for money, citizenship and many other reason that don't involve love. Why isn't there a law stopping them from running to the altar?

Concerning Britney Spears, she actually viewed her first marriage as a real one! Being married for 55 hours does not count as a marriage yet she said "been there done that," yet people like her are allowed to wed in a drop of hat..yeah, that makes sense lol

From Guardian Unlimited

Vatican plan to block gay priests

Jamie Doward, religious affairs correspondent
Sunday August 28, 2005
The Observer

The new Pope faces his first controversy over the direction of the Catholic church after it was revealed that the Vatican has drawn up a religious instruction preventing gay men from being priests.

The controversial document, produced by the Congregation for Catholic Education and Seminaries, the body overseeing the church's training of the priesthood, is being scrutinised by Benedict XVI.

It been suggested Rome would publish the instruction earlier this month, but it dropped the plan out of concern that such a move might tarnish his visit to his home city of Cologne last week.

The document expresses the church's belief that gay men should no longer be allowed to enter seminaries to study for the priesthood. Currently, as all priests take a vow of celibacy, their sexual orientation has not been considered a pressing concern.

Vatican-watchers believe the Pope harbours doubts about whether the church should publish the document, which has already been the subject of three drafts.

'Inevitably, such a directive will be met with opposition,' said John Haldane, professor of moral philosophy at the University of St Andrews.

The instruction tries to dampen down the controversy by eschewing a moral line, arguing instead that the presence of homosexuals in seminaries is 'unfair' to both gay and heterosexual priests by subjecting the former to temptation.

'It will be written in a very pastoral mode,' Haldane said. 'It will not be an attack on the gay lifestyle. It will not say "homosexuality is immoral". But it will suggest that admitting gay men into the priesthood places a burden both on those who are homosexual and those they are working alongside who are not.'

The instruction was drawn up as part of the Vatican's response to the sexual abuse scandal that surfaced in the American church three years ago, which has seen hundreds of priests launch lawsuits against superiors whom they accuse of abusing them.

As the former head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican body charged with looking into the abuse claims, Benedict, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, was made acutely aware of the scale of the problem. He is thought to have made clearing up the scandal one of the key goals of his papacy.

Next month the Vatican will send investigators to the US to gauge the scale of the scandal. More than 100 bishops and seminary staff will visit 220 campuses. They will review documents provided by the schools and seminaries and may interview teachers, students and alumni, then report directly to the Vatican, which could choose to issue the instruction barring homosexuals from entering the priesthood as part of its response.

Studies show that a significant proportion of men who enter seminaries to train for the priesthood are gay. Any move signalling that homosexuals will not be allowed to join the seminaries, even one couched in the arcane language of the Vatican, could reduce the number of recruits to the priesthood.

In a further sign of the instruction's deeply controversial nature, it is expected the document would be signed by a cardinal rather than the Pope himself if the Vatican decides to publish it.

The Vatican has been carefully trying to soften Benedict's image since he was elected earlier this year. In recent weeks he has reached out to the Jewish and Muslim communities as well as young Catholics during the church's World Youth Day. The initiatives have been seen as a significant PR success. A decision to publish an instruction that would underscore his religious conservatism would be detrimental to Benedict's standing as he enjoys his 'honeymoon period' on the world stage.

 

[noggi16]

We're treating these people as slaves!

I'm not too sure this has any relevance. They may not be able to marry or divorce, but they can own property, write wills and if concerned enough, make provision for a partner. I'm not to sure slaves ever managed that.

The new Pope faces his first controversy over the direction of the Catholic church after it was revealed that the Vatican has drawn up a religious instruction preventing gay men from being priests.

I'm not too sure that actually sums up the article. I don't think the way this has been described is its intention.

The instruction was drawn up as part of the Vatican's response to the sexual abuse scandal that surfaced in the American church three years ago, which has seen hundreds of priests launch lawsuits against superiors whom they accuse of abusing them.

But I think that does. I don't think this is a moral move. It is a move to protect the Catholic Church from bankruptcy from the lawsuits launched against it. Catholic stipends are falling as it is, the Church cannot afford these massive payouts. And seeing a church close is the most awful thing, it destroys communities, prevents the poor,sick and lonely from getting much needed charity.

Unsuprisingly the Guardian has managed to sentionalise it its its moralistic multi-cultural manner.

 

[Itz tha Dreila]

I'm sick of people thinking that homosexuals are something less than them.

 

[Scarlet Crystal]

Nice way to put it, Moriel... But it's true. They put themselves above homosexuals for absurd reasons that don't exist.

 

[sugababyboo]

Here is a question for those who are against and yet, say that they are not against homosexuals...what are you so afraid of??? Honestly, what is it? If you're worried about the sanctity of marriage then why aren't you going after celebrities like Britney Spears or Nicky Hilton or reality television??? Or, how about those who marry for money like Anna Nicole and let's not forget about mail order braids? Why? Is it because those unions are heterosexual yet they are not "blessed" and they're definitely not based on love, trust, and companionship????


Again, I will never understand how you can be against gay marriage but not homosexuals. You can't embrace parts of their culture (like Will & Grace, Ellen Degeneres, Queer Eye, and 60% of home makeover shows) but not expect them to be perfectly fine with not having the same rights as you. Like Ms. Cho once said, it's what white people did to rock n' roll which was by the way created by blacks and a huge part of their culture.

"We love your music, but we don't feel comfortable sharing water fountains, restrooms, and schools with you and no, you may not marry out of your color neither. But hey, we just can't get enough of your music!" NOO!!!!!!

I don't understand how a gay marriage will personally affect your life since you're obviously not taking part in one and if you're not comfortable being around a gay marriage..then ignore it. No one is making you embrace it. I don't sgree with smoking, so I avoid smokers and I don't preach to them neither.

At the end of the day, a gay couple should have the same rights as a heterosexual couple whether they marry or divorce. And please, no one compare this to nazism, because no one is going to die if gays are allowed to be married, genocide will not happen..well unless crazies like Fred Phleps and James Dobson attempt to "exterminate" gays from this world. Gays are not trying to make the world be like them, they just want to be treated with respect and be given the same rights as a heterosexual person. At the end of the day, we're ALL HUMAN and should be treated as equals.

 

[Jamison]

Here is a question for those who are against and yet, say that they are not against homosexuals...what are you so afraid of???  Honestly, what is it?  If you're worried about the sanctity of marriage then why aren't you going after celebrities like Britney Spears or Nicky Hilton or reality television???  Or, how about those who marry for money like Anna Nicole and let's not forget about mail order braids?  Why?  Is it because those unions are heterosexual yet they are not "blessed" and they're definitely not based on love, trust, and companionship????
Again, I will never understand how you can be against gay marriage but not homosexuals.  You can't embrace parts of their culture (like Will & Grace, Ellen Degeneres, Queer Eye, and 60% of home makeover shows) but not expect them to be perfectly fine with not having the same rights as you.  Like Ms. Cho once said, it's what white people did to rock n' roll which was by the way created by blacks and a huge part of their culture. 

"We love your music, but we don't feel comfortable sharing water fountains, restrooms, and schools with you and no, you may not marry out of your color neither.  But hey, we just can't get enough of your music!"  NOO!!!!!!

I don't understand how a gay marriage will personally affect your life since you're obviously not taking part in one and if you're not comfortable being around a gay marriage..then ignore it.  No one is making you embrace it.  I don't sgree with smoking, so I avoid smokers and I don't preach to them neither. 

At the end of the day, a gay couple should have the same rights as a heterosexual couple whether they marry or divorce.  And please, no one compare this to nazism, because no one is going to die if gays are allowed to be married, genocide will not happen..well unless crazies like Fred Phleps and James Dobson attempt to "exterminate" gays from this world.  Gays are not trying to make the world be like them, they just want to be treated with respect and be given the same rights as a heterosexual person.  At the end of the day, we're ALL HUMAN and should be treated as equals.

[post="1483305"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

Amen, Amen, Amen, AMEN!!! You know I got your back, and completely agree with you!

Same-sex marriage bill goes to Schwarzenegger
California lawmakers first in nation to pass such legislation

SACRAMENTO, California (AP) -- Gay rights supporters cheered loudly from the gallery as California lawmakers became the first in the country to approve a bill allowing same-sex marriages. But their celebration may be short-lived.

The legislation could be vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has expressed an acceptance of gay marriages but said it's an issue that should be decided by voters or the courts.

"He will uphold whatever the court decides," spokeswoman Margita Thompson said Tuesday after the state Assembly approved the same-sex marriage measure, 41-35. The Senate had approved it last week. (Full story)

A state appellate court is considering appeals of a lower court ruling that overturned California laws banning recognition of gay marriages. And opponents of same-sex marriage are trying to qualify initiatives for the 2006 ballot that would amend the state Constitution to ban gay marriages.

The bill's supporters compared the legislation to earlier civil rights campaigns, including efforts to eradicate slavery and give women the right to vote.

"Do what we know is in our hearts," said the bill's sponsor, San Francisco Democrat Mark Leno. "Make sure all California families will have the same protection under the law."

But opponents repeatedly cited the public's vote five years ago to approve Proposition 22, which prohibits California from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries.

"History will record that you betrayed your constituents and their moral and ethical values," Republican Assemblyman Jay La Suer said.

Leno had sponsored an earlier bill that fell four votes short of passing the Assembly in June. He kept the issue alive by adding the language of the defeated measure to another bill that already had passed the Assembly and was awaiting action in the Senate.

The Senate approved that bill and sent it back to the Assembly for another vote. Four Democrats who didn't vote the last time tipped the scales.

One of them, Assemblyman Tom Umberg, said Tuesday he was concerned about what his three children would think of him if he didn't join those "who sought to take a leadership role in terms of tolerance, equality and fairness."

California already gives same-sex couples many of the rights and duties of marriage if they register with the state as domestic partners.

Massachusetts' highest court ruled in November 2003 that the state constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry. The nation's first state-sanctioned, same-sex weddings began taking place in May 2004.

Vermont began offering civil unions in 2000, after a ruling by the state's Supreme Court. Earlier this year, Connecticut became the first state to approve civil unions without being forced by the courts.

Tuesday's vote showed that gay rights advocates have "turned the corner on the issue of marriage equality for lesbian and gay couples," said Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, a backer of the bill.

"As the debate today shows, love conquers fear, principle conquers politics and equality conquers injustice, and the governor can now secure his legacy as a true leader by signing this bill," he said.

But Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families, a conservative group opposed to the bill, said Schwarzenegger should veto it.

"Schwarzenegger can't afford to sign the gay marriage license bill," he said. "He'll actually become a hero to the majority of Californians when he vetoes it."

I so very much hope it's passed.