Gay and lesbian couples could legally marry in California under legislation approved Friday by the state Senate and sent to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The governor vetoed a nearly identical bill two years ago and has vowed to do so again.

Twenty-two senators, all Democrats, voted for Assembly Bill 43, while all 15 Republicans in the Senate opposed it.

The measure by Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, who also presented the 2005 legislation, would amend a section of the Family Code to define marriage as a civil contract between two persons instead of a civil contract between a man and a woman.

In his 2005 veto message, Schwarzenegger said he supports the notion of equal rights but would not overturn the will of voters who passed Proposition 22. Overwhelmingly approved by voters in 2000, the initiative limits marriage to a man and woman. -- Aurelio Rojas, Bee Capitol Bureau

"Fred Thompson Proposes Marriage Amendment to Restrain Judges

Posted by Ryan Sager
Fri, 7 Sep 2007 at 11:49 AM

Speaking in Sioux City, Iowa, moments ago, Fred Thompson endorsed an
amendment to the Constitution that would prevent state judges from altering
the definition of marriage without the direction of their states'
legislatures.

Mr. Thompson has been under fire from social conservatives in recent days
for refusing to support the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would define
marriage in the United States as being between one man and one woman. He's
said that such an amendment would conflict with his views on federalism.
Along with restraining state judges, the amendment Mr.
Thompson is proposing would also mandate that no state be forced to
recognize gay marriages from other states (such as, say, Tennessee being
forced to recognize gay marriages from Massachusetts).

Mr. Thompson's proposal came in response to the second of two questions Mr.
Thompson got from the crowd in Sioux City on the question of what the
federal government's role should be in regard to homosexuality."

TORONTO: Canada will release its first census count of same-sex married couples next week, but some activists in the gay and lesbian community are not happy with the way the census treated the question.

Some object that gay couples were relegated to the census questionnaire's "other" box…

[Egale Canada, an advocate group for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered rights] urged people to list their relationship as husband or wife rather than filling in the "other" box, and in the end it said many members simply chose not to complete the census in protest....

The term "spouse" was suggested during focus group testing but proved too confusing for participants, said Anne Milan, a senior analyst at Statistics Canada. Terms like "husband" and "wife" were also ruled out, as they are not commonly used in the gay community, she said.

The end result was an "other" box "where people were encouraged to include same-sex married couple as a write-in response.

Statistics Canada and Egale are talking about how to change the counting process next time....

Watch Fred announce on Jay Leno's comedy show this week: See Fred run.

Is Fred the one? Is Fred strong on defense, hard on taxes and also pro-traditional morality? Is he Ronald Reagan II? Can Fred, at least, fake it?

Remember Fred on CNN in August? Would Fred as president actively support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage? A simple question. A clear question.

See Fred on videotape promise, "Yes."

Fred is not a flip-flopper. He doesn't talk out of both sides of his mouth. Like him or hate him, Fred lets you know where he stands. Right?

Hear Fred speak more, "I don't think one state ought to be able to pass a law requiring gay marriage ... and have another state be required to follow along." Federal judges, Fred says, may rule the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires that. "I think a federal constitutional amendment would cure that," he says.

Does Fred support the Marriage Protection Amendment or doesn't he? The amendment a majority of GOP senators supported in 2006? The one that's simple first sentence reads: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman"?

No one can tell. So Team Thompson tidies up the mess to National Review online: "Fred Thompson does not support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage."

"If necessary," though, Team Thompson says he might support some other constitutional amendment that has the word "marriage" in it.

Oh dear. Fred's "yes" to Anderson Cooper actually meant "no." Was Fred confused by the question? Or was he trying to confuse us?

(Should polygamy be left to the states too, Fred? Will the strict constructionist judges you appoint overturn Reynolds v. United States, the 19th-century Supreme Court decision upholding the government's right to ban polygamy?)

Marvel at how that allegedly divisive issue of gay marriage produces a stunningly broad consensus among presidential candidates across party lines.

Look at all the candidates who now have the same position on gay marriage: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and now Fred Thompson. They all say: "Leave it to the states." (Barack Obama says that's why we should overturn the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) -- so that we can leave marriage to the states. Why is he wrong about that, Fred?)

Clinton, Obama, McCain, Giuliani and Thompson all say they are against gay marriage.

Who is the ONLY major presidential candidate willing to stand up and do something about it? Mitt Romney.

Watch a trial court judge overturn Iowa's DOMA law. See him give marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Shudder as gay rights activists denounce Iowans who disagree as irrational, mean-spirited bigots. See gay marriage become a front-burner issue in Iowa, just a few months before the people vote in caucuses for president.

Who will help Iowans facing state judges misusing their power? Not Clinton, not Obama, not Giuliani, not McCain. And not Fred Thompson. He and they have better things to do.

Clinton, Obama, Thompson, Giuliani and McCain all say they oppose gay marriage. But they all oppose a federal marriage amendment, which would stop these judges, even more.

Mitt Romney, amazingly, is now the ONLY major GOP candidate who supports putting these judges in their place with a federal marriage amendment. Will being the only pro-marriage candidate help him in Iowa?

See Fred run. See Fred stumble? See Fred flip. See Fred flop?

Stay tuned.

Analyze this, the first sentence of an account of a Michael Bloomberg speech to the National Press Club last week, and then take the quiz on why notable public opinion leaders are reluctant to weigh in on the sensitive question of fathers, marriage and child poverty:

“New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a divorced, billionaire dad, said Tuesday that unwed fathers increase poverty and the government should take steps to get them back with their families.”

A divorced, billionaire dad. Meaning what? A gratuitous insertion in a wire service account, it’s clearly intended to convey a message. But what? That because Bloomberg is divorced, he lacks moral authority to urge that tax laws be amended to entice the absentee male back into children’s lives? That because Bloomberg is rich, he lacks legitimacy to speak of poverty?

The gratuitous reference to his wealth and marital status — both matters unrelated to the issue he addressed or content of his remarks — are noteworthy in that they are warnings to public figures to avoid topics where they risk being accused of hypocrisy. Topics like the epidemic of births to unmarried women and the disadvantage and poverty that results.

Bloomberg wasn’t approaching the hot-button issue at the heart of the problem he addressed. He was, instead, proposing financial incentives to buy men back into their children’s lives, including “a substantial expansion and reform” of the earned income tax credit.

“Why should we expect young mothers to work and not young fathers?” he asked, a reference to the 1996 welfare reform law that, with the EITC, “led millions of people into the labor market, where they attained the dignity of work and a chance to rise out of poverty.” With that, he said, the welfare caseload in New York City had dropped by a third over the past five years.

“Right now,” he continued, “fathers are missing from our strategy to drive down the poverty rate. The gains that we’ve made over the past 10 years have been fueled by mothers. … If we are going to achieve another round of substantial gains … we have to do more to connect fathers to jobs and to their families. We have to increase the rewards for work. …”

Among the changes he suggested is eliminating the EITC “marriage penalty” for families with and without children. “Marriage increase a family’s chances of rising out of poverty — why would government discourage it? It shouldn’t. … The EITC should be a catalyst for fathers to fulfill their obligations as responsible spouses, parents and citizens.”

No hot-button cultural rhetoric there. Dry. Nuts-and-bolts.

To the extent that influential voices are dissuaded from addressing vital issues, such as the consequences of the missing father, because they themselves aren’t poor or have failed marriages, everybody loses. Imagine the treatment had Bloomberg chosen to talk about the real dynamic driving poverty, the creation of babies without bothering to marry.

Bloomberg started his conversation with the usual pabulum about education as “one of the best ways to fight poverty.” It is of course true. No question. But when 69.3 percent of black children, 46.4 of Hispanic and 24.5 of white children are born to unmarried women, the die is cast long before the first schoolteacher enters their lives. And even then, it’s fantasy land to believe any public school system anywhere in America can backfill the hours of guidance and teaching the walkaway father might have provided.

When the War on Poverty was first launched in 1964, single women headed 30 percent of the poor families with children. Today it’s double that. The Brookings Institution, to which Bloomberg delivered the same speech, noted in 2002 that in 2000, 40 percent of the children in female-headed families were poor, compared to 8 percent of the children in married families. Only 20 percent of children in families with incomes of less than $15.000 a year live with both parents.

Marriage reduces poverty. Now, because we’re reached the tipping point where the crisis of out-of-wedlock births is so deeply rooted, few public figures who wish to cultivate a following dare mention it. So they walk around it and talk around it.

But sooner or later, leaders rich and poor, married and divorced, do have to start the conversation. And we have to encourage them.

An Iowa county judge's ruling knocking down the state's same-sex marriage ban stirred up the presidential race Friday as Republicans jostled to stake out a position with the state's conservative voters in mind.

Mitt Romney was the first to seize on the ruling, promptly aligning himself with Iowa political leaders in denouncing the decision… Romney stressed his support for a federal amendment that would ban same-sex marriage, a stand that distinguishes him from his top rivals, who have said they prefer to leave such decisions to the states….

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was the first Democrat to offer a reaction. Taping an appearance on "The Ellen DeGeneres Show" Friday, Clinton said she favors civil unions "with full equality of benefits." But she said the question of same-sex marriage should be left up to the states…

A spokesman for Democrat Barack Obama said the senator "believes these matters should be left to the states, which is why he opposes the Defense of Marriage Act."

While most Democratic candidates have voiced support for same-sex civil unions, they have declined to back gay marriage, a stance that has created some tension with their gay supporters.

For Republicans, the task was not to offend conservatives.

Republican White House hopeful John McCain called the ruling "a loss for the traditional family."

"I have always supported the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman," he said. "The ruling of the court only reinforces my belief that we must have a president who is committed to appointing strict constructionists to the bench."

Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, who has worked hard to gain the backing of social conservatives in Iowa, offered a sharp rejection of the judge's ruling.

"The people of Iowa reject the redefinition of marriage, and I pledge today to defend the bond of marriage, as I have consistently done in the past," he said in a statement.

Jarrod Agen, a spokesman for Rudy Giuliani, said the former New York mayor "believes marriage is between a man and a woman." Giuliani has supported limited legal recognition for same-sex couples.

"It's becoming increasingly clear why we need judges who interpret the Constitution rather than legislate from the bench," Agen said. "It's the reason why Rudy is committed to appointing strict constructionist judges in the vein of Alito, Roberts and Scalia."

Former Sen. Fred Thompson, who will officially enter the presidential race next week, has offered support for a federal amendment that would prevent states without gay marriage laws from having to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

LORETO, Italy -- Pope Benedict XVI decried the collapse of marriages, telling tens of thousands of young Catholics Saturday that he was praying that a crisis in traditional family values doesn't become an "irreversible failure."

Benedict urged an estimated 300,000 young pilgrims who trekked to Loreto for a weekend rally to have faith that they can succeed in marriage even though so many others had failed.

"There is so much failure of love all around us!" Benedict told the crowd, camped out on a vast, dusty field. "How many couples don't succeed and separate? How many families end up in pieces? How many kids, even among you, have seen their parents separate and divorce?"…

Benedict has often bemoaned the collapse of family values and has spoken of the need to support "traditional" marriage between a man and a woman. The Italian bishops conference -- which organized the rally -- has mounted a major campaign to support traditional families and oppose proposed Italian legislation giving same-sex couples new rights…