BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AJR 85|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AJR 85
Author: Leno (D)
Amended: 8/16/04 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 5-1, 8/10/04
AYES: Escutia, Cedillo, Ducheny, Kuehl, Sher
NOES: Ackerman
NO VOTE RECORDED: Morrow
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 44-28, 6/24/04 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Same-sex couples
SOURCE : Equality California
DIGEST : This resolution declares the Legislature's
respectful opposition to any federal enactment designed to
prohibit or restrict the provision of rights and
obligations under the law for same-sex couples and their
families.
ANALYSIS : In 1996, Congress passed and President Clinton
signed the In Defense of Marriage Act. The Act, for
purposes of federal benefits, defines marriage as "a union
between a man and a woman," and then allows states to
refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other
states.
On February 24, 2004, President Bush endorsed the idea of
an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex
CONTINUED
AJR 85
Page
2
marriages in the country. This endorsement followed a
flurry of events surrounding same-sex marriages, including
the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in
San Francisco (which was later followed by actions of
public officials in other cities around the country); the
Massachusetts high court decision that later forced that
state's legislature to enact a law to allow marriage by
same-sex couples; the Canadian Supreme Court's decision
invalidating a prohibition against same-sex marriages; and
the introduction of two bills in Congress (H.J. Res. 56 in
May, 2003 and S.J.Res. 26 in November, 2003) to amend the
U.S. Constitution to define marriage as a union between a
man and a woman.
Since then, two other measures have been introduced in
Congress. Currently pending in the U.S. Senate is the
"Federal Marriage Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution,
stating:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of
the union of a man and a woman. Neither this
Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall
be construed to require that marriage or the legal
incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other
than the union of a man and a woman. (S.J.Res. 30,
introduced March 22, 2004.)
On July 22, 2004, a bill was introduced in the House of
Representatives, stating:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of
the union of a man and a woman. (H.R. 4892, introduced
July 22, 2004.)
H.R. 4892, while not a proposed constitutional amendment,
declares that only the Supreme Court of the United States
shall have jurisdiction to determine any claim arising
under its provisions.
In 2000, California passed Proposition 22, which amended
the Family Code to define marriage as a union between a man
and a woman. Subsequently, the Domestic Partnership Act
was enacted (later revised and called Domestic Partners
Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003 by AB 205
AJR 85
Page
3
(Goldberg), Chapter 421, Statutes of 2003), which conferred
rights and obligations on registered domestic partners
similar to those conferred by law on spouses.
This resolution makes various declarations and findings,
including:
1.Like different-sex couples, same-sex couples in
California form committed relationships, share their
lives together, participate in their communities
together, and raise children and care for other dependent
family members together.
2.The most recent data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows
that the more than 92,000 same-sex couples and their
families are spread out over the state's 58 counties.
3.Alleviating discrimination against these families
furthers the state's interest.
4.Historically, the states, rather than the federal
government, have assumed primary responsibility for
establishing family policy.
5.Throughout American history, constitutional amendments
have been passed to protect the rights, freedoms and
liberties of the American people, and the proposed
measures in the U.S. Congress represent the first use of
the constitutional amendment process to single out a
group of Americans for discrimination.
Currently pending in Congress are three measures to amend
the constitution (H.J.Res. 56, S.J. Res. 26, and S.J. Res.
30, also known as the "Federal Marriage Amendment").
Another measure, H.R. 4892, would enact a public law that
defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman, but also
limit to the Supreme Court jurisdiction over claims under
this law, if passed. In essence, the last measure would
enact extraordinary restrictions, since very few laws may
be challenged solely and directly in the United States
Supreme Court.
Legislation has been introduced in past 15 years in
California in the Assembly and the Senate providing for
AJR 85
Page
4
support for gay and lesbian rights in the area of civil
rights, family and children. Beginning with AB 167
(Burton, 1991), up to enactment of AB 205 (Goldberg, Ch.
421 Stats. 2003), various bills were introduced annually to
extend to gay and lesbian persons and to their families,
the same rights and responsibilities applicable to persons
in committed relationships similar to marriage.
FISCAL EFFECT : Fiscal Com.: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/13/04)
Equality California (source)
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
American Humanist Association
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Anti-Defamation League
Asian Americans for Civil Rights and Equality
Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern California
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer
California National Organization for Women
California Safe Schools Coalition
California State Controller Steve Westly
California Teachers Association
Center for AIDS Research, Education and Services (CARES)
Chinese for Affirmative Action
City of Los Angeles Neighborhood Council Gay & Lesbian
Caucus
City of Los Angeles Silver Lake Neighborhood Council
City of West Hollywood
Claremont United Church of Christ
Congregation Kol Ami
Eleanor Roosevelt Democratic Club
Gay and Lesbian Community Services Center of Orange County
Gay-Straight Alliance Network
Gray Panthers
Hayward City Councilmember Kevin Dowling
Human Rights Campaign
Lambda Letters Project
Legal Aid Society - Employment Law Center
Metropolitan Community Church Los Angeles (MCC-Los Angeles)
Metropolitan Community Church of the Coachella Valley
(MCC-Coachella
Valley)
AJR 85
Page
5
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
(MALDEF)
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
(NAACP)
California State Conference
National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR)
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF)
Oakland United Methodist Church
Objective Medical Evaluations
Older Women's League of California (OWL/CA)
Our Family Coalition
Parents, Families & Friends of Gays & Lesbians -
Danville/San Ramon
Chapter (PFLAG- Danville/San Ramon Chapter)
Parents, Families & Friends of Gays & Lesbians -
Oakland/East Bay (PFLAG-Oakland/East Bay)
Parents, Families & Friends of Gays & Lesbians - Pasadena
(PFLAG-
Pasadena)
Parents, Families & Friends of Gays & Lesbians - Sacramento
(PFLAG-
Sacramento)
Parents, Families & Friends of Gays & Lesbians - San Diego
(PFLAG-San
Diego)
Parents, Families & Friends of Gays & Lesbians - San
Francisco (PFLAG-
San Francisco)
People for the American Way
Pride at Work Southern California
San Diego Democratic Club
San Diego LGBT Community Center
San Francisco AIDS Foundation
San Francisco Chronicle
San Francisco LGBT Community Center
Stonewall Democratic Club of Greater Sacramento
The Legal Aid Society - Employment Law Center
Transgender Law Center
Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry
West Hollywood City Councilmember Jeffrey Prang
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/13/04)
Campaign for California Families
AJR 85
Page
6
Responsible Citizens, Inc.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : In support of this resolution, the
author's office states:
AJR 85 would make California the first state in the
country to officially oppose the pending
discriminatory federal constitutional amendments
before Congress that would enshrine in the U.S.
Constitution discrimination against lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender people.
Proponents of this resolution point out that the
constitutional amendment process has been used rarely, and
when authorized by Congress was used to address great
public policy needs. Since the passage of the first
constitutional amendment to include the Bill of Rights in
1791, the United States Constitution has been amended only
17 times in the country's entire history. All
constitutional amendments must be ratified by 35 states.
When the In Defense of Marriage Act was being considered in
Congress, many debates centered on marriage and family
matters as distinctly being a function of state law. In
fact, this is the reason why, when the Act was approved,
its effect was limited to the provision of federal
benefits. "As any good federalist should recognize, this
law leaves states the appropriate amount of wiggle room to
decide their own definitions of marriage or other similar
social compacts, free of federal meddling." (Statement by
former Congressman Barr, R-GA, in August, 2003.)
Proponents also argue that in light of California's
legislative history, it is important for the Legislature to
enact this resolution and make clear to the President and
others that the state opposes federal efforts to prevent
California from providing equality to all its residents.
"As one of the first states to strike down laws on
interracial marriage, California has a unique
responsibility to protect the promise of equality for all.
A federal constitutional amendment would jeopardize
domestic partnership laws, basic protections for unmarried
couples, and set a dangerous precedent of denying rights on
a majority vote?This resolution is a much-needed
AJR 85
Page
7
affirmation of the respect for equality and justice that
our state prides itself upon." [Letter from Americans for
Civil Rights and Equality, a Project of Chinese for
Affirmative Action and the Asian Pacific American Legal
Center, June 8, 2004.]
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Those opponents to this
resolution state that it is "another blatant attempt to
force Californians to accept openly homosexual marriage,"
and that the resolution "seeks to equate homosexual
relationships to those of a father and mother raising
children." They also call AJR 85 a "continued assault on
the family institution." [Petition of Moral Concern for
California, July 30, 2004.] Others simply implore the
Legislature to oppose this resolution "[f]or the sake of
the children." (Campaign for California Families, July 2,
2004.)
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Berg, Canciamilla, Chan, Chavez, Chu, Cohn, Corbett,
Diaz, Dutra, Dymally, Firebaugh, Frommer, Goldberg,
Hancock, Jerome Horton, Jackson, Kehoe, Koretz, Laird,
Leno, Levine, Lieber, Liu, Longville, Lowenthal,
Montanez, Mullin, Nakano, Nation, Negrete McLeod,
Oropeza, Parra, Pavley, Reyes, Ridley-Thomas, Salinas,
Simitian, Steinberg, Vargas, Wesson, Wiggins, Wolk, Yee,
Nunez
NOES: Aghazarian, Bates, Benoit, Bogh, Campbell, Cogdill,
Correa, Cox, Dutton, Harman, Haynes, Houston, Keene, La
Malfa, La Suer, Leslie, Maddox, Maze, McCarthy, Mountjoy,
Nakanishi, Pacheco, Plescia, Runner, Samuelian, Spitzer,
Strickland, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bermudez, Calderon, Daucher, Garcia,
Shirley Horton, Maldonado, Matthews, Richman
DLW:nl 8/16/04 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****