BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1967
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 12, 2004
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Judy Chu, Chair
AB 1967 (Leno) - As Amended: April 28, 2004
Policy Committee: JudiciaryVote:8-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY
This bill:
1)Allows two persons of the same sex to enter into the civil
contract of marriage in California.
2)Declares that the above does not modify the Family Code
provision, enacted by Proposition 22, which addresses
marriages from other jurisdictions.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Counties would incur the costs associated with issuing
marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to conduct some
additional marriage ceremonies. These costs would be fully
offset by fees.
2)Counties would incur one-time, minor reimbursable costs to
modify and print new forms associated with the marriage
license process.
3)In a preliminary estimate, the Franchise Tax Board (FTB) staff
indicate an annual income tax-related revenue loss of about $1
million for every 4,900 same sex couples whose filing status
would change to married. This is the estimated net effect of
these couples being required to file tax returns as married
filing joint or as married filing separate.
4)The FTB also estimates one-time General Fund costs of $120,000
in 2004-05 for (a) reprogramming and testing automated systems
that compare federal and state tax information for audit
purposes and (b) additional customer service contracts for
AB 1967
Page 2
clarification of tax laws with respect to same sex marriage.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . In support of the bill, the author states "The time
has come for California to honor its commitment to equality
for all Californians."
The bill's sponsor, Equality California, states, "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 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."
2)Recent Events and Status of Litigation . In November 2003 the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the
Massachusetts definition of marriage violated that state's
constitutional equal protection provisions. Three provincial
appellate courts in Canada have also ruled that Canada's
constitution requires that same-sex couples be permitted to
marry. It was in the context of the Massachusetts and Canadian
decisions that the Mayor of San Francisco issued an order that
the county clerk should start allowing same-sex couples to
obtain marriage licenses. From February 12 through March 11,
2004, 4,037 same-sex couples were married in San Francisco.
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.
There are now two primary legal proceedings regarding the
issuance of same-sex marriage licenses. First, the California
Supreme Court is considering 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.
AB 1967
Page 3
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 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 Assembly Judiciary Committee's analysis of this bill
contains a thorough discussion of the legal and constitutional
questions surrounding this issue.]
3)Opposition . Opponents, which include the Committee on Moral
Concerns, the Traditional Values Coalition, the Campaign for
California Families, and the Capitol Resource Institute
generally express their moral opposition to same sex marriage
and argue that the bill violates will and vote of the people
as expressed by their approval of Proposition 22.
4)Prior Legislation . Since 1999, several statutes have been
enacted to first allow the registration of domestic partners
with the state and then to expand their legal rights. Most
recently, AB 205 (Goldberg)-Chapter 421/Statutes of 2003,
extends most of the rights and responsibilities available to
married couples under state law to registered domestic
partners.
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081