BILL ANALYSIS AB 1967 PageA Date of Hearing: April 20, 2004 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Ellen M. Corbett, Chair AB 1967 (Leno) - As Introduced: February 12, 2004 As Proposed to Be Amended SUBJECT : CIVIL RIGHTS: MARRIAGE KEY ISSUES: 1)ARE THERE ANY REASONS WHY CIVIL MARRIAGES RECOGNIZED BY OUR GOVERNMENT, AS OPPOSED TO BY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS, SHOULD BE LIMITED TO OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES? 2)WOULD ENACTMENT OF THIS LEGISLATION VIOLATE THE TERMS OR INTENT OF CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 22 OF 2000? 3)DOES THE STATE'S CONSTITUTION APPEAR TO PERMIT OR PROHIBIT CALIFORNIA'S EXCLUSION OF SAME-SEX COUPLES FROM MARRIAGE? IS IT TRUE, AS NOTED IN THE LANDMARK DECISIONOFBY THE MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME COURT, THAT "SEPARATE IS SELDOM, IF EVER, EQUAL"? 4)WHAT CONSEQUENCES ARE LIKELY IF THE STATE WERE TO RECOGNIZE MARRIAGES BETWEEN SAME-SEX PARTNERS? WHAT CONSEQUENCES ARE LIKELY IF THE STATE WERE TO CONTINUE NOT TO RECOGNIZE THEM? SYNOPSIS This bill seeks to amend California's family law by defining marriage as between "two persons" instead of solely between a man and a woman, and it does so without amending the language of Proposition 22. As such, the bill raises important questions of law and public policy that are now being discussed across the nation, and in countries around the world. Though many argue with deep and sincere conviction about whether this legislation is appropriate, few disagree about its significance. It reflects one of this nation's most significant civil rights issues for the 21st century, and is part of California's, and this nation's, legal and social struggle in defining the contours of the civil rights and protections afforded gay and lesbian couples and their families. AB 1967 PageB In support of the bill, the author states "The time has come for California to honor its commitment to equality for all Californians." According to the bill's supporters, this legislation provides necessary protections for gay and lesbian couples who wish to take on the responsibility of marriage and ensure that all children receive the protections offered to them as children raised by married couples. Supporters argue that the state currently relegates same-sex couples and their families to second-class status and thereby affirmatively inflicts harm upon them by insisting on two separate institutions-domestic partnership for gay and lesbian couples and marriage for heterosexual couples. Opponents of the bill argue their belief that the legislation is both unwise and, if enacted by the Legislature instead of the people, unconstitutional. According to the Committee on Moral Concerns, for example, enactment of the bill would "bring homosexual 'marriage' into California, violating the will and vote of the people... [It] is an extremist bill which ... would completely destroy the uniqueness of marriage for a man and a woman and turn the sacred institution of marriage upside down." SUMMARY : Seeks to end the state's denial of marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. Specifically, this bill : 1)Eliminates the current "different-gender" requirement in the state's definition of marriage. 2)Clarifies that gender-specific terms in the state's family laws shall be construed to be gender-neutral, except in regards to Section 308.5, concerning recognition of marriages contracted in other jurisdictions (Proposition 22 of 2000), which retains its effect. EXISTING LAW: 1)Provides that "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." (Family Code section 300. All further references are to this code unless otherwise noted) 2)Provides that "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." (Section 308.) AB 1967 PageC 3)Provides, immediately following section 308 that "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." (Section 308.5.) 4)Provides, in the state's Equal Protection Clause, in Article I, Section 7, that: (a) "A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws. . . " and (b) "A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens." 5)Provides, in the state Constitution's Declaration of Rights, in Article I, Section 1, that "All people . . . have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy." 6)Provides, in the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, that "[n]o State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." 7)Provides, in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, that "[n]o State shall . . . deprive any person of . . liberty, or property without due process of law." FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal. COMMENTS : This legislation seeks to halt the state's practice of denying same sex couples the right to marry. In support of the bill, the bill's sponsor, Equality California, writes: All Californians deserve access to this civil institution that provides a myriad of rights and responsibilities not afforded to domestic partners, including social security benefits, family and medical AB 1967 PageD leave, joint income tax filing, and thousands of Federal benefits, without regard to their gender or sexual orientation... Our organization has one goal-equal rights for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Californians. California has the opportunity to set an example for the nation by recognizing, as the Massachusetts Supreme Court said, that there is no rational basis for discrimination by the state against same-sex couples. The bill follows a ruling last November by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court which affirmed the right of same-sex couples to marry under that state's Equal Protection Clause, even using the so-called "rational basis" test that provides for less constitutional scrutiny by the courts. The Massachusetts high court labeled the denial of marriage equality on the basis of sexual orientation "arbitrary," and declared that the Massachusetts Constitution "affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals?and forbids the creation of second-class citizens." The Court concluded that Massachusetts "failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples." <1> California's Recognition of Same-Sex Couples : While much of the present debate focuses on recent developments in San Francisco, the question of legal recognition of same-sex couples in California dates back nearly two full decades. (See, e.g., "The Tie That Binds: Recognizing Privacy and the Family Commitments of Same-Sex Couples," David Link, 23 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 1055 (1990).) As of the early 1980s, the relationships of same-sex couples had virtually no legal recognition whatsoever in California. Family members, third parties, businesses, creditors and government at all levels treated each of the partners as an individual with no recognition granted to the other partner. In 1985, the City of West Hollywood became --------------------------- <1> Consistent with relevant case law addressing discrimination based on sex and sexual orientation, this analysis will use the terms "gender" and "sex" interchangeably. In addition, although the marriage laws do not refer to sexual orientation, this analysis will use the phrases "same-sex couples" and "gay and lesbian couples" interchangeably. As the Legislature's findings in A.B. 205 (2003) reflect, laws that classify couples based on gender composition classify both on the basis of sex and on the basis of sexual orientation. AB 1967 PageE the first city to establish a domestic partnership registry under which same-sex couples could obtain not only limited protections for themselves and their children, but also, for the first time, government recognition as family units. In a landmark study done in the mid-1980s, the Los Angeles City Task Force on Family Diversity examined the problems faced by same-sex couples in a legal environment without such recognition. The Task Force recommended, in its 1988 Final Report, that the city join the then-fledgling movement among some local jurisdictions and businesses to allow same-sex couples to form domestic partnerships that the city could recognize for purposes of municipal law. Three years later, the Human Relations Commission of the City of Long Beach conducted its own study, and came to the same conclusion. By the year 2000, fourteen California local governments had established domestic partnership registries, including the state's largest local government, the County of Los Angeles. (California's establishment of a statewide domestic partnership registry in 1999 and the subsequent extension of many protections to domestic partners are discussed below under "Prior Related Legislation.") National Backdrop - Hawaii , Vermont and the National Defense of Marriage Act : In the early 1990s, several same-sex couples in Hawaii sued their state, arguing that the Equal Protection Clause of the state - not the federal - constitution was violated by the state law that excluded them from marrying. In 1993, the state Supreme Court agreed with them that under Hawaii's constitution, Hawaii could not exclude same-sex couples from marriage without a compelling reason. That decision was the first in the nation to rule that a constitutional guarantee of equal protection applied to an asserted right to marry by same-sex couples. The state legislature subsequently passed a law creating a new status of "Reciprocal Beneficiaries," under which certain limited benefits were made available to same-sex couples and other relationships. With that law in place, the voters then passed a constitutional amendment giving the legislature authority to define "marriage" in whatever way it saw fit, and the legislature then recodified its existing definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, while continuing to grant "reciprocal beneficiaries" a limited set of parallel benefits. The Federal DOMA and Vermont : The nation took notice of these events in Hawaii, and in 1996, Congress passed, and President AB 1967 PageF Clinton signed, the so-called federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which among other things says that no state is required under federal law to recognize same-sex marriages contracted in other states. Then, in 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that Vermont's Equal Benefits Clause prohibited the Vermont Legislature from denying to same-sex couples the rights, benefits and privileges granted to married heterosexual couples. The court left it to the state legislature to decide what legal mechanism to use to guarantee equality, and the legislature passed a comprehensive Civil Unions law that remains the only civil unions law in the country. California's Proposition 22 : In light of the Hawaii and Vermont decisions, and of the provisions of DOMA, a group of citizens led by State Senator Pete Knight qualified an initiative for the California ballot in 1999 to prohibit California from recognizing any same-sex marriages contracted in other states. The measure was presented to the voters in March 2000 after the Vermont Supreme Court announced its decision requiring equality, but before the Vermont legislature had decided between marriage and civil unions for same-sex couples. The Proposition 22 ballot materials emphasized the prospect that California might soon be required to recognize out-of-state marriages (see below). 61% of voters approved the measure, with 39% voting against. When Proposition 22 was enacted, same-sex marriage was not legal in any part of the country. That will soon apparently change . In November 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the Massachusetts definition of marriage violated that state's constitutional equal protection provisions. The legislature proposed a Vermont-style comprehensive Civil Unions bill, but the high court issued an advisory opinion that this too would be an equal protection violation, and that only a fully equal definition of marriage would satisfy the constitution's command of equality. In less than one month, on May 17, 2004, it is expected that Massachusetts will begin marrying same-sex couples. Thus, when same-sex couples who marry in Massachusetts travel to California, whether on vacation or business, it appears that Proposition 22 may prohibit California not only from treating those marriages as valid, but also from recognizing those marriages for any purpose at all. In addition, although California will recognize Vermont civil unions as domestic partnerships beginning in January 2005, Massachusetts marriages between same-sex couples will not be AB 1967 PageG recognized under the domestic partnership laws. Canada and Other Countries : Three provincial appellate courts in Canada have also ruled that Canada's constitution requires that same-sex couples be permitted to marry. Accordingly, same-sex couples have full marriage rights in Canada today, and Canada permits same-sex residents of the United States to marry in Canada. The Netherlands also permits same-sex couples to marry, and the new Prime Minister of Spain recently announced his plans for Spain to permit same-sex couples to marry. Many Californian same-sex couples have married in Canada, but Proposition 22 prohibits California from recognizing those marriages. Proposition 22 also appears to prohibit California from recognizing for any purpose the marriages of same-sex couples who are residents of other countries if such couples visit California. San Francisco : It was in the context of the Massachusetts and Canadian decisions that the newly elected Mayor of San Francisco issued an order that the County Clerk should start allowing same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses. Same-sex couples from 46 states and eight countries were among the 4,037 same-sex couples married in San Francisco from February 12 through March 11, 2004. However, according to the Clerk's office, most of the newlyweds were Californians. The Mayor's decision is now under review by the California Supreme Court. In deciding to hear the case, the high court also gave explicit permission for challenges to the state's definition of marriage to proceed at the trial court level. Status of the Litigation : What started out as a flurry of marriage-related litigation when San Francisco first began issuing marriage licenses is now proceeding in two primary proceedings. First, the California Supreme Court is considering the question whether San Francisco officials should have waited for a court ruling that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry rather than independently deciding to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Supreme Court is expected to schedule oral arguments for June. Second, in direct response to the Supreme Court's invitation for such lawsuits to be filed, two lawsuits were brought against the State in San Francisco Superior Court contending that California's statutory exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage is unconstitutional. Those two lawsuits have now been consolidated into a single case. The State has not yet responded to the complaints, and AB 1967 PageH there is no way to predict at this point how long these cases will be in the courts. All other marriage lawsuits in the State have been stayed pending the Supreme Court's rulings in the cases it is now hearing. The Key Legal Issues : 1. The first legal question: Does this bill violate Proposition 22? The first major legal question presented by this legislation is whether it conflicts with Prop. 22. The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to pass initiatives and decide whether to grant the Legislature in any particular initiative measure the ability to amend what they have done. Prop. 22 was silent on this power to amend, and under longstanding rules of constitutional interpretation, this means that the Legislature cannot amend Prop. 22 without having its vote ratified by a subsequent vote of the people. The words of Prop. 22 are clear that California treats as valid or otherwise recognizes only those marriages that are between a man and a woman. It is equally clear from the legislative history of that initiative that the voters were concerned about recognizing marriages contracted in other states. Thus, the placement of the initiative in section 308.5, directly after section 308, which sets out the rules for recognizing out-of-state marriages, was a deliberate decision by the author of that measure; the text of the Proposition itself provided for its codification as section 308.5. 4) The "out-of-state marriage" reading of Proposition 22 Those who contend that Prop. 22 does not prevent the state from enacting the proposed bill point out that the text of Proposition 22 uses language long used by courts in California and elsewhere to describe two different ways that a state may regard an out-of-state marriage as entitling a claimant to inheritance rights or other incidents of marriage. The state may choose to treat the out-of-state marriage as a "valid" marriage for all purposes, or the state may choose to "recognize" the marriage for certain limited purposes (such as inheritance rights) even if the marriage will not be treated as valid for other purposes. Proposition 22 used precisely this language-"valid or recognized in California"-and thus, according AB 1967 PageI to the bill's supporters, the actual text of Proposition 22 appears limited to how California will treat out-of-state same-sex marriages. The bill's supporters also point to a host of instances when proponents for Proposition 22 stated in the ballot arguments in support that the measure was intended to focus solely on marriages from other states. For example, it was stated in the proponents' arguments: "When people ask, "Why is this necessary?" I say that even though California law already says only a man and a woman may marry, it also recognizes marriages from other states. However, judges in some of those states want to define marriage differently than we do. If they succeed, California may have to recognize new kinds of marriages, even though most people believe marriage should be between a man and a woman." "Opponents say Proposition 22 is unnecessary. THE TRUTH IS, UNLESS WE PASS PROPOSITION 22, LEGAL LOOPHOLES COULD FORCE CALIFORNIA TO RECOGNIZE "SAME-SEX MARRIAGES" PERFORMED IN OTHER STATES." It is also clear in both the arguments by supporters and opponents of Prop. 22 that the initiative was perceived to be necessary in light of the Vermont and Hawaii supreme court decisions, and the related national debate concerning the need for a federal DOMA. Thus the bill's supporters argue that Proposition 22 was a measure designed to protect state sovereignty, not to prevent California's same-sex families from marrying. Given this context and the actual arguments made in the ballot materials, proponents of the bill argue that it does not conflict with Prop. 22, in that it leaves the text of Prop. 22, now codified in Family Code section 308.5, intact and fully applicable to out-of-state marriages. In fact, the current bill expressly excludes section 308.5 from its ambit. Thus, under this "out-of-state marriage" reading of Prop. 22, if this bill is passed, California law may properly permit partners of the same sex to marry within California, but will not recognize same sex marriages contracted in other states under the terms of Prop. 22, absent a new vote of the people. Under this approach, proponents argue there could indeed be valid reasons for making such a distinction between in-state and out-of-state marriages. For example, California has a long history of interpreting its AB 1967 PageJ own laws more expansively than other states, or the federal government might interpret similar rules. Similarly, California could conclude that it is willing to participate in the ongoing "trial" of same-sex marriages entered within its borders, while leaving other states to deal with the issue in their own way. The California Attorney General has adopted this narrow reading of Prop. 22 in litigation in the Sacramento Superior Court concerning the validity of AB 205. In the words of the Attorney General, ". . . the only justification articulated by the advocates of Proposition 22 was to prohibit California from recognizing same-sex marriages that are legal in other states." The Attorney General took the same position on Proposition 22's effect in litigation prior to Proposition 22's placement on the ballot, in a case in which the Sacramento Superior Court upheld the Attorney General's title for Proposition 22-"Limit on Marriages"-over a previously proposed title-"Definition of Marriage." 4) The "complete ban" reading of Prop. 22 However, it must also be noted that it is very possible to read Prop. 22 more broadly than simply addressing the issue of out-of-state marriages, but rather as a definitive statement by the voters that no same-sex marriages would be recognized in California, whether entered into inside or outside the state. Under this broader reading of the measure, Prop. 22 did not amend Family Code section 300 because it did not need to. Proponents of this view argue that Prop. 22 did not seek to amend section 300's definition of marriage because that section already clearly placed a ban on same-sex marriage contracted within the state. Therefore, it is also possible that it could be found that this legislative proposal to permit same-sex marriage within California does violate Prop. 22 -- if Prop. 22 is read by a court as being part of a comprehensive scheme, along with section 300, which provides a total ban in this state on recognition of any same-sex marriage contracted anywhere. The state's Legislative Counsel appears to have previously reached this conclusion in an earlier analysis of last year's AB 205, although this was arguably dicta since the question of in-state marriages did not need to be reached given that AB 205 concerned the distinct institution of domestic partnership. A determination of whether Prop. 22 should be read narrowly or broadly will ultimately be up to the courts. However, if Prop. AB 1967 PageK 22 were intended as a complete ban on recognition of same-sex marriage, it would directly raise the question of whether the constitutional guarantees of equality are being denied to same-sex couples - exactly the question now pending in San Francisco Superior Court - and the courts would be required to construe Proposition 22 to avoid constitutional problems. The constitutional question is discussed below. In any event, Prop. 22's reach does not appear determinative of whether the Legislature should act on this bill for two reasons. First, it is indisputable that Family Code section 300 statutorily bars same-sex couples from marriage, and the Legislature could choose to amend section 300 to the full extent of the Legislature's authority to do so, leaving it to the courts to determine whether any conflict with Proposition 22 exists. Second, even if the proposed bill could take effect only pursuant to a vote of the people, the Legislature could pursue such a voter-amendment option. 2. The larger legal question: Is a total ban of same-sex marriage constitutional? Regardless of Prop. 22's reach, Family Code section 300 puts into full play the question whether California's exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage is unconstitutional, a question actively being litigated in San Francisco Superior Court. Three points appear important to the constitutional analysis. First, the history of California's definition of marriage clearly shows an explicit intent to discriminate against lesbians and gay men, and to exclude same-sex couples from marriage. Second, there are two landmark rulings from the California Supreme Court that bear directly on the question of the statute's constitutionality, and suggest that California's current statute banning same-sex marriage may likely be struck down if the issue is heard by the State Supreme Court. And third, there is an undeniably strong trend in rulings from other state supreme courts, and from the U.S. Supreme Court itself, suggesting that the statute likely could not withstand, and ultimately someday will be held by a court not to withstand, constitutional scrutiny. A. History of Family Code Section 300 Prior to 1977, former Civil Code section 4100 read as it would in the current bill: "Marriage is a personal relation arising AB 1967 PageL out of a civil contract between two persons. . . " In 1977, however, this gender neutral provision was changed to the current gender specific language, in response, ironically, to the then-pending federal Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). ERA opponents at that time expressed concerns that if women were given full equality with men under the federal constitution, states would have to give gay men and lesbians equal marriage rights, and California's then-gender neutral language appeared to permit that result. Therefore, the legislature passed, and then-Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill that added the current gender-specific terms to the definition. Important for any future court constitutional analysis is this: the Legislature's enactment in 1977 of existing Family Code section 300's gender-specific language barring same-sex marriage appears to demonstrate not only a clear recognition by the Legislature in 1977 that full gender equality would encompass the right to marry someone of either gender, but also a clear intent by policy-makers to exclude lesbians and gay men from the right to marry their chosen partners under California law. Such apparent animus against a minority, and specifically against gay men and lesbians, has been held constitutionally suspect under the federal constitution. ( Romer v. Evans , 517 U.S. 620 (1996).) B. State Constitutional Authority for Evaluating the Equal Protection Question (i) California's two independent constitutional provisions guaranteeing equality Though many are not aware of it, there are actually two independent equal protection provisions in California's Constitution that might be found to be grounds for invalidating the state's "opposite sex" marriage rule. Article I, Section 7 (a), of the state constitution provides that "[a] person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws. . ." This is nearly identical to the general equal protection provision found in Hawaii's and Massachusetts' constitutions. Unlike even those states, California has had a decision on the books for almost a quarter of a century seemingly guaranteeing that gay and lesbian persons are included within the state constitution's guarantee of equal protection. In the landmark California Supreme Court decision of Gay Law Students v. Pacific Telephone and Telegraph , 24 Cal.3d 458 (1977), the Supreme Court expressly held that subdivision (a) of Article I, section 7 AB 1967 PageM applies to lesbians and gay men. That provision, the Court stated, guarantees them, as a class, equal protection. While the issue in that case was whether the constitutional guarantee protected lesbians and gay men from employment discrimination, the broad principle of "equal protection of the laws" would likely be held to extend beyond that limited context. Article I, section 7, subdivision (b): Article I, section 7 has a second, distinct and equally significant provision that appears to provide an independent, and even more specific, protection for all of California's citizens: "A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens." That provision is similar to the Common Benefits Clause of the Vermont constitution, which served as the basis for that state's ruling requiring that same-sex couples be given access to the same legal protections and other benefits offered to heterosexual couples through marriage. Under California's current marriage laws, heterosexual couples and their families are clearly a large "class of citizens" who are granted a plethora of rights, privileges and immunities that are unambiguously denied to another constitutionally-recognized class of citizens, gay and lesbian couples and their families. (ii). California's seminal case on equal protection and the importance of marriage: Perez v. Lippold In 1948, California's Supreme Court was the first in the nation to hold that a law prohibiting persons from marrying outside their race violated the constitution. Perez v. Lippold , 32 Cal.2d 711 (1948) preceded the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia , 388 U.S. 1 (1967) on the same question by nearly 20 years. Perez examined the California statute that provided, "no license may be issued authorizing the marriage of a white person with a Negro, mulatto, Mongolian or member of the Malay race." The Perez opinion appears directly relevant to, and perhaps controlling of, any future court decision regarding the constitutionality of the state's current definition of marriage. The majority opinion relied on the broad wording of the due process clause, and noted the importance, in California, of personal liberty as a constitutional principle. The court specifically said that liberty included the "right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common AB 1967 PageN occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home, and bring up children. . . " (Emphasis added.) The Court then went on to specify that, in light of the fundamental nature of the right to marry, "Legislation infringing such rights must be based upon more than prejudice and must be free from oppressive discrimination to comply with the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection of the laws." To answer allegations that the statute did not discriminate against any racial group, since it applied alike to all races, the Court emphasized repeatedly that "the right to marry is the right of individuals, not of racial groups," and that it was individuals whose right to marry was infringed by the statute. Importantly the Court held that while the state has authority to prohibit marriage between specific individuals when there is a legitimate state concern, such legislation would have to be specific to the individuals in question, and could not use "arbitrary classifications of groups or races" as a substitute. (Emphasis added.) For example, to the extent the state wanted to prevent the spread of disease through marriage (one of the arguments made in the case was that non-white citizens were more prone to disease than whites), it could require individuals to be tested for health reasons, but it could not use race or other arbitrary categories as a shorthand for disease. In a concurring opinion, Justice Carter addressed the argument that the laws at issue had been on the books in some form since the founding of the state. "It is my position," he wrote, "that the statutes now before us never were constitutional. When first enacted, they violated the supreme law of the land. . . " Moreover, he continued, "Even if I concede, which I do not, that the statutes here involved were at any time reasonable, they are no longer reasonable and therefore no longer valid today. . . . A change in conditions may invalidate a statute which was reasonable and valid when enacted." Three justices signed a strong dissent authored by Justice Shenk in Perez . This dissent is worth considering because it so closely tracks many arguments used by the opponents of the current measure. The dissent first points out that anti-miscegenation laws "have been in effect in this country since before our national independence and in this state since our first legislative session. They have never been declared unconstitutional by any court in the land, although frequently they have been under attack." The dissent then briefly AB 1967 PageO dismisses the petitioner's claim that the statute violated her religious freedom, since nothing in the petitioner's religion required her to marry someone of another race. It is then the dissent focuses on the state's traditional power over matrimony. "The institution of matrimony is the foundation of society, and the community at large has an interest in the maintenance of its integrity and purity." "The right to regulate marriage, the age at which persons may enter into that relation, the manner in which the rites may be celebrated, and the persons between whom it may be contracted, has been assumed and exercised by every civilized and Christian nation." "Twenty-nine states in addition to California have similar laws. . . . Six of these states have regarded the matter to be of such importance that they have by constitutional enactments prohibited their legislatures from passing any law legalizing marriage between white persons and Negroes or mulattoes. Several states refuse to recognize such marriages even if performed where valid." The dissent then examines what was then the current biological and social science, as well as theological studies, about the injurious effect of race-mixing on the population. While much in the dissent (and a great deal of the arguments answered in the majority opinion) is highly offensive to our present-day understandings about race, and is not included here, the more relevant point for purposes of the current bill is that this closely-divided opinion made by our Supreme Court over half a century ago, which was bitterly contested at the time, has not only stood the test of the ages, but stands today as a model of a judiciary that is able to look beyond the prejudices of the day to the core constitutional question of equality, and the fundamental liberties guaranteed to individuals under our constitution. The Perez decision has been relied upon by every state supreme court which has addressed the issue of marriage by same-sex couples, and its implications for any future court decisions on the equal protection issue raised by this legislation appear clear. C. Other constitutional authority AB 1967 PageP To date, as noted, three other state supreme courts have addressed the question of whether a state law, like California's, that defines marriage in terms which exclude partners of the same sex violates the state constitution. In each case, the court has ruled in favor of the same-sex couples. The most recent and most relevant decisions are those of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. (i). Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health: The Massachuetts Cases (a.) Goodridge I: Most recently, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled in 2003 that the Massachusetts Constitution is violated by laws which exclude same-sex couples from marriage. The court began its analysis by noting that civil marriage in Massachusetts is a "wholly secular institution," distinct from religious recognition of marriages. It "anchors an ordered society by encouraging stable relationships over transient ones," and "bestows enormous private and social advantages on those who choose to marry. Civil marriage is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family." After surveying an abundance of state benefits that flow to a married couple, their children, and the community in which they live, the court then cites the Vermont Supreme Court's decision in Baker v. State for the proposition that, without the right to marry, individuals are excluded from the "full range of human experience," and are expressly denied the equal protection of the laws. The court then states its final holding, in unambiguous language: The marriage ban works a deep and scarring hardship on a very real segment of the community for no rational reason. The absence of any reasonable relationship between, on the one hand, an absolute disqualification of same-sex couples who wish to enter into civil marriage and, on the other, protection of public health, safety, or general welfare, suggests that the marriage restriction is rooted in persistent prejudices against persons who are (or who are believed to be) homosexual. 'The Constitution cannot control such prejudices but neither can it tolerate them. Private biases may be outside the reach of the AB 1967 PageQ law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect.' Limiting the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the basic premises of individual liberty and equality under law protected by the Massachusetts Constitution." (Emphasis added and citation omitted.) (b.) Goodridge II - "separate is seldom, if ever, equal": Three months later, in February 2004, the Supreme Judicial Court responded to a query from the state legislature, which was grappling with how to implement the court's edict in Goodridge I. The court then issued an advisory opinion to answer the question of whether a Vermont-style civil unions bill, giving lesbians and gay men all of the rights, privileges and immunities of marriage under a name other than marriage would comply with Goodridge I. The court answered in the negative, stating that: "The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal." The court could see no basis at all for granting same-sex couples virtually every aspect of marriage, while withholding only the name. The quarantining of same-sex spouses from opposite-sex spouses was more than just semantic: the court found that a government withholding of the name of marriage to same-sex couples "is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status." (Emphasis added.) This could not be consistent with the rule of equality set out so explicitly in the state constitution. It would have the effect of "maintaining and fostering a stigma of exclusion that the Constitution prohibits." Therefore, in Massachusetts, only equal marriage rights will satisfy the constitutional requirements. (iii). Recent U.S. Supreme Court cases: Finally, two cases from the U.S. Supreme court decided by 6-3 majorities, have recently addressed concerns that appear quite relevant to the pending bill. In Romer v. Evans , 517 U.S. 620 (1996), the court overturned Colorado's Amendment 2, which would have amended the Colorado Constitution to exclude lesbians and gay men from obtaining legal protection. The court specifically noted that animus against a political minority is an improper motive under the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment. The Colorado amendment was "a broad and undifferentiated disability on a single named group," and was thus invalid. The court concluded its opinion with the following: "We must conclude that Amendment AB 1967 PageR 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws." More recently, the court held last year in Lawrence v. Texas , 123 S.Ct. 2472 (2003) that the U.S. Constitution's protection of a liberty interest in private, consensual adult sexual relations applies to gay men and lesbians and that their relationships are entitled to dignity and respect. The Court did not need to decide whether gay men and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry, and the Court expressly left that question open. In dissent, Justice Scalia argued that the majority's opinion would logically lead to recognition of marriage rights, as well, just as he had argued in dissent in Romer that Romer would lead to the result the Court ultimately reached in Lawrence. D. Rationales offered for opposite-sex only marriage laws so far unaccepted by high courts The rationales that Hawaii, Vermont, and Massachusetts have offered in unsuccessful defense (at least so far) of their laws excluding same-sex couples from the protections of marriage are similar and may be examined as a group. Many of these arguments are currently offered in opposition to the current bill, as seen below in the summary of arguments against this bill. Traditional Definition Of Marriage: First is the notion that marriage has always been defined as a relationship between a man and a woman. There is appeal to this argument. While it is true that marriage has been defined in several other ways, the traditional understanding of marriage has been that its participants will be a husband and a wife. However the argument that marriage simply is an arrangement between one man and one woman, and has always been that way, is similar to the argument rejected in Perez v. Lippold . Under the rule in that case, tradition alone, no matter how longstanding, cannot justify excluding a class of couples from marriage. Procreation: In all three state supreme court cases, the states argued that marriage's primary purpose is procreation. But the courts have consistently noted that procreation is not a requirement in any state's marriage laws. Nor is there a requirement under state marriage laws for any intent to procreate in marriage. A state that wanted to support marriage AB 1967 PageS based on this rationale would appear logically to have to exclude all non-procreative couples, including non-procreative heterosexual couples, from marriage. On the other hand, it also must be acknowledged that this is a very powerful concern to many members of society, and there do not appear to be any definitive studies available to determine the social as opposed to legal issues of this question. Raising Children: Related to the argument only heterosexual couples can procreate (which is no longer technologically true) is the argument only traditional marriage can effectively lead to a stable home for child rearing. This is, in the Vermont case, framed as "furthering the link between procreation and child-rearing." There appears to be little debate that the legal stability of marriage helps further this sound public policy. The provision of benefits to the married spouses encourages the fulfillment of their mutual commitment, and thus helps to further a valid state goal of maintaining stable families that will benefit the couple's children. But the courts have been consistent in pointing out that this would benefit same-sex couples raising children as much as it benefits opposite-sex couples. And, significantly, this policy does not come into play for couples who have no children or whose children are grown. On the other hand, it must be noted that this is also an issue of tremendous concern to many in society that is not easily resolved or dismissed, and will ultimately play an important role amongst policy-makers and the courts in grappling with this challenging question. Optimal Setting: A related rationale (raised, so far, only in the Massachusetts case) is that two heterosexual parents are the "optimal" setting for child rearing. However, in light of the state's concession that homosexual couples could be "excellent" parents (a fact borne out by scientific study and research noted by the court) this reasoning, too, was incapable of supporting a definition of marriage that excludes homosexuals. If the quality of the parents is the issue, the state would have to use something other than the sexual orientation of the parents as a marker for quality. Thus, in the Vermont case, the state posited that the marriage definition could be supported by a desire to have children raised in homes with both a male and a female role model. That rationale, however, would justify only a regime that limited marriage to those with children and that AB 1967 PageT prohibited single parents or same-sex couples from raising or adopting children. Vermont law, like California law, specifically allows same-sex couples to adopt, and the rationale was insufficient to withstand judicial scrutiny. In addition, the California Supreme Court may have foreclosed such a line of argument in upholding second-parent adoptions by domestic partners. In Sharon S. v. Superior Court (Annette F.) (2003) 31 Cal. 4th 417, 438-39, California's high court rejected the argument that affirming second parent adoptions "would offend the State's strong public interest in promoting marriage" and stated instead: "[O]ur decision encourages and strengthens family bonds." Again, however, this concern is mentioned frequently by opponents of this legislation and they accurately note there are not any definitive studies that appear yet to answer this question one way or the other. Thus, an analysis of the bases provided by states defending their prohibitions on same-sex marriages reveals, at least in the state high court cases, that no state has yet been able to provide an adequate justification for treating homosexual couples differently from heterosexual couples in its definition of marriage - even under the more constitutionally-lenient rational-basis test -- at least from the perspective of those high courts that have considered the issue, And in California, it seems possible if not likely that the exclusion of same-sex couples may be subjected to an even more demanding level of scrutiny by the courts, given that California's courts have applied the strictest level of constitutional scrutiny to laws that discriminate based on gender. Nevertheless, this is not to say that if and when this state's highest court is confronted with this question that the court might find that some or all of the above concerns adequately support the propriety of California's current "opposite sex" requirement for marriage under Family Code section 300. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Many groups and individuals wrote in support of this measure. Reflecting their support are the following letters. AB 1967 PageU The American Civil Liberties Union asserts that "While the enactment of recent domestic partnership legislation provides tangible benefits for couples, it also sets up a separate and unequal system for gay and lesbian people. Moreover, domestic partnerships do nothing to assist bi-national couples, tax discrimination, federal employees and a multitude of scenarios faced by same-sex couples that extend beyond the borders of our state." The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) underscores the unique and enormously beneficial impact the status of marriage has for an individual, whether in a same-sex or opposite sex relationship: "Marriage has been called 'the most important relation in life,'" and the benefits of marriage are many, reaching far beyond legal benefits to include physical, mental, and economic benefits. Married individuals live longer, have better emotional and physical health, and save more. Same-sex couples should be able to share benefits like these too." The Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry of California addresses the concern opponents raise about children and in support of this bill, write "Some feel awkward explaining to their children the concept of two men or two women marrying. Our own congregations are examples of predominantly straight communities, which have grown to become fully accepting of gay and lesbian couples and their families. For over 25 years, our clergy have been officiating at same gender weddings. We have found that the children in our congregations, raised by accepting parents in inclusive communities, take the love and commitment between two people at face value. They have no trouble with the gay and lesbian couples and their children who are part of our congregations." ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: Many groups and individuals wrote in opposition to this measure. Reflecting their concerns are the following letters. The Committee on Moral Concerns , original sponsors of Proposition 22, oppose the bill because, they believe, it violates the will and vote of the people and the California AB 1967 PageV constitution. The Committee on Moral Concerns believes passage of AB1967 would "completely destroy the uniqueness of marriage for a man and a woman and turn the sacred institution of marriage upside down." The Traditional Values Coalition maintains that "homosexuals want to destroy marriage as an institution-not benefit from it." In addition, the Coalition writes: "The full granting of all rights of marriage to same-sex couples will prove to be a burden to society in many areas as taxpayer dollars will follow. Federally funded programs, employee health plans, Medi-Cal benefits, and school curriculum would have to be altered at taxpayer expense reflecting the newly sanctioned 'marriages' and new definition of 'family.'" The Campaign for California Families believes marriage is a sacred institution with unique attributes to be realized and shared only by the union of a man and woman. The Campaign further asserts AB 1967 is unconstitutional because it violates the will of the people as expressed in Proposition 22. The Capitol Resource Institute posits its concerns for children and an overall slippery slope of moral degradation within our society in general by writing: "Adults should not put their sexual desires ahead of the needs of children. Studies show us that children need a mom and a dad. Society should not gamble with the lives of children by permitting gay marriage. History has never before seen this kind of social experiment. . . . When we don't define marriage as between one man and one woman, marriage loses all significance. It can become anything anybody wants it to be." Responsible Citizens, Inc. believes the homosexual union to be an "unnatural and dangerous" one, contrary to the union between a man and a woman, "the basis for all civilization." RCI writes that if AB 1967 passes, "the underlying principles of everything that built the greatest nation in history will vanish. By abandoning our culture's basic principles of morality, the bill will leave no moral rationale to prevent multiple marriages, communal families, or exploitation of the physically weak or the politically powerless. Furthermore, there will be no moral AB 1967 PageW ground remaining from which to humanely control the new bio-frontiers of human cloning, a genetically altered work or military force, or any other future aspect of humanity." RCI also asserts that gay marriage is not a civil right because gay marriage is about homosexuality and consequently, about a specific sexual action unworthy of protection. RCI states: "There is no more a civil right to public recognition and benefits for abnormal sexual practices than there is a civil right and public recognition and benefits for snoring, smoking, or picking one's nose." Author's Amendments -- Summary of legislative findings : The author has amended the bill to include legislative findings. In brief, these findings state the fundamental importance of the institution of marriage, both to children and to the partners, and note that it is not the Legislature's intent to either affect the provisions of section 308.5 of the Family Code, relating to recognition of marriages contracted in other states, or to alter the ability of religions to perform or recognize marriages that fall within their own faith tradition. PRIOR RELATED LEGISLATION : In analyzing the merits of this proposal, a brief review of recent legislative efforts to recognize expanding rights for same-sex couples is instructive. In 1999, this Committee held hearings on a proposal to provide for civil unions (AB 1338, Koretz), and the Legislature subsequently enacted AB 26 (Migden), Ch. 588, Stats. of 1999, to create the state's first domestic partnership statute. This statute, which forms the backbone of California's domestic partnership law, provided for domestic partnerships to be registered with the Secretary of State, for public employers to offer health benefits to domestic partners, and to recognize the right of domestic partners to visit their partners in the hospital. In 2001 and 2002, the Legislature again broadened the rights of domestic partners in AB 25 (Migden), Ch. 893, Stats. of 2001, and AB 2216 (Keeley), Ch. 447, Stats. of 2002. Then last year, AB 205 (Goldberg) was enacted to provide a more comprehensive set of rights and responsibilities to registered domestic partners. That bill goes into effect on January 1, 2005. A.B. 205's legislative findings acknowledge that it was designed to AB 1967 PageX reduce discrimination based on sex and on sexual orientation. While the bill still excludes some significant rights that married couples are entitled to (for example, the right to file a joint state tax return), it brings registered domestic partners closer to equality with their legally married counterparts. The bill, however, lacks the all-inclusive nature of Vermont's Civil Unions, and continues its treatment of domestic partnerships as a purely contractual relationship which the state recognizes, rather than providing the ceremonial participation of the state that characterizes both Civil Unions and marriages. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support Equality California (Sponsor) American Civil Liberties Union American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Asian American Legal Center of Southern California Asian Americans for Civil Rights and Equality California Council of Churches and California IMPACT California National Organization for Women California Safe Schools Coalition California State Employees Association California Teachers Association Charles M. Holmes Campus of the Center City of West Hollywood Congregation Kol Ami Eleanor Roosevelt Democratic Club, Orange County Family Law Section of the Los Angeles County Bar Association Freedom to Marry Coalition of California Gay & Lesbian Alumni of Notre Dame Golden Gate Lutheran Church Immigration Equality Lambda Legal Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center Marriage Equality California Metropolitan Community Church, Los Angeles Mexican American Legal Defense Fund National Center for Lesbian Rights Our Family Coalition Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, Pasadena & San Francisco AB 1967 PageY Pride at Work, Southern California San Francisco AIDS Foundation San Francisco Labor Council San Francisco LGBT Community Center Silver Lake Neighborhood Council Stonewall Democratic Club of Greater Sacramento Tenderloin Housing Clinic Transgender Law Center Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry California United Church of Christ, Northern California Nevada Conference University Lutheran Chapel West Hollywood Presbyterian Church Many Individuals Opposition Calvary Christian Academy Campaign for California Families Capitol Resource Institute Committee on Moral Concerns Faith Baptist Tabernacle Our Lady of the Assumption Church Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists Responsible Citizens, Inc. Southpointe Christian School Traditional Values Coalition Women Volunteers in Politics Many Individuals Analysis Prepared by : Drew Liebert / JUD. / (916) 319-2334