it rewards merit.

It rewards common sense.

Rhetorical question, I presume.

How European of them, keep on voting until they get the "right" result.

Apparently, California Democrats are feeling their oats after handing the governor a couple of recent setbacks. But it's hard to see how pushing this vote multiple times is going to lay the groundwork for a successful 2006 election campaign.

I wonder if the Governator will sign it if it passes?

Didn't the california voters vote a marriage definition a couple of years ago? Can the legislature override a citizen vote that easily?

Robert,

According to this:

Leno's proposal is tricky enough as a political matter; but it is even more complicated legally. That is because one state statute in the family law code that currently rejects same-sex marriage was enacted by California voters themselves, as a so-called statutory initiative, in 2000.

Four years ago, the California electorate overwhelmingly -- by a majority of over 60% -- approved Proposition 22 (also called the Knight initiative, in reference to the Proposition's drafter, California Senator "Pete" Knight.) And here is the rub: Even though Proposition 22 took the form of a state statutory initiative, rather than a state constitutional amendment, the California constitution provides that the legislature cannot "amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute" unless the amendment or repeal is "approved by" the state voters themselves.

In other words, a statutory initiative such as Proposition 22, like a state constitutional amendment, lies outside the control of the legislature to undo or modify. Assemblyman Leno's opponents charge him with ignoring this limitation on the legislature's power. They thus criticize his proposed bill not only as unwise and immoral, but also as unconstitutional under the state's highest law. What was done by state statutory initiative, they urge, can be undone only by state statutory initiative -- that is, directly by the voters and not by the legislature -- or by constitutional amendment.

Leno's Defense: Proposition 22 Deals Only With Out-of-State Marriages

Leno and his supporters have countered by arguing that Proposition 22, which rejects recognition of same-sex marriage, had nothing to do with same-sex marriage licenses California might want to issue. Instead, Proposition 22, they argue, was about whether California was going to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

Put another way, Leno asserts that Proposition 22 rejected only the idea that California would respect same-sex marriages entered into in other jurisdictions - like Massachusetts and Hawaii - but did not address the question whether California itself would issue same-sex licenses to its own residents.

Leno bases his argument on the way Proposition 22 is codified, as a separate section of the family law code that seems to deal with out-of-state marriages; Leno finds significant that Proposition 22 is not codified in the sections of the family law code that deal directly with the issuance of licenses within the state of California. And he also points out that the debate and campaign literature surrounding Proposition 22 all focused on out-of-state same-sex marriages in particular.

Prop 22 was codified at family Code Sec. 308.5
Below is the whole dvision in which it was codified:

CALIFORNIA FAMILY CODE
DIVISION 3. MARRIAGE
PART 1. VALIDITY OF MARRIAGE ..................................... 300-310

300. Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary. ...

301. An unmarried male of the age of 18 years or older, and an unmarried female of the age of 18 years or older, ...

302. An unmarried male or female under the age of 18 years ...

303. If it appears to the satisfaction of the court by application of a minor ...

304. As part of the court order granting permission to marry under Section 302 or 303, ...

305. Consent to and solemnization of marriage may be proved under the same general rules of evidence as facts are proved in other cases.

306. Except as provided in Section 307, a marriage shall be licensed, solemnized, and authenticated, and the certificate of registry of marriage shall be returned as provided in this part.
...

307. This division, so far as it relates to the solemnizing of marriage, is not applicable to members of a particular religious society or denomination not having clergy ...

308. A marriage contracted outside this state that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted
is valid in this state.

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

309. If either party to a marriage denies the marriage ...

310. Marriage is dissolved only by ...

There are no section titles, nor do section 308.5 and 300 appear in different divisions. i don't want to argue a case here because I do not know the minutiae of California legislative procedure, but it looks to me like Jay is talking through his hat.

Seems rather clear doesn't it?

Well, if it passes and the governator signs (which I'll be surprised), it'll be challenged in court (I bet they get a quick injunction), and I think I've heard that there is another ballot initiative in the works to modify the CA constitution to ban gay marriage.

Why do I hate democracy so much? Probably for the same reason you still beat your wife.

Noel

OJ beats his wife b/c his ideas are unpopular and can only be implemented by judicial fiat. Who knew?

New slogan for the DNC: It's not the people, stupid! It's the stupid people!

genecis: that's pretty good :)