Gay Marriage Story Forces Me To Read Newsmax

I wish California Legislature Approves Gay Marriage on A1 told us something about California legislators working against the clear wishes of a majority of their constituents. That's a remarkable development, but there are only two references to it:

Californians passed a defense-of-marriage act defining marriage as between a man and a woman in 2000, and the state, which mixes freewheeling Marin County with culturally conservative Orange County, has emerged as a front line in the battle over the bedroom ever since....

The Assembly members were aware that they were making history, and their debate Tuesday night -- to a packed gallery -- focused on whether they should vote their conscience or represent the wishes of their constituents. Slavery, the Bible and the Pledge of Allegiance were wielded by both sides in a piece of political theater rarely seen in Sacramento.

"There are a handful of issues where history will record where we were. This is one of them," said Thomas J. Umberg (D-Anaheim), who had abstained in a vote on the issue in June but voted yes on Tuesday night.

"History will record that you betrayed your constituents and their moral and ethical values," countered Jay LaSuer, his Republican counterpart from La Mesa.

What's changed since 2000? Does polling show that support for gay marriage has grown since then? As Media Research Center's Tim Graham pointed out recently in reference to an earlier Post story  on the issue, 61% of the voters supported the gay marriage ban at that time, though then as now that stat wasn't reported.

Guess we'll find out at some point. This Newsmax story mentions activity on that front:

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 story dwells a little more on legislators working against the successful 2000 referendum, but like the Post doesn't really explore why a majority of lawmakers are doing so.