BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Joseph L. Dunn, Chair
2005-2006 Regular Session
AB 849 A
Assembly Member Leno B
As Amended June 28, 2005
Hearing Date: July 12, 2005 8
Family Code 4
GMO 9
SUBJECT
Marriage
DESCRIPTION
This bill would redefine "marriage" in California as a
union between two persons, making it gender-neutral and
thereby permitting same-sex marriages in the state. It
would not, however, require any clergy or religious
official to solemnize any marriage in violation of his or
her right to free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the
United States Constitution and the California Constitution.
The bill contains legislative findings and declarations
that it does not amend or modify Section 308.5 of the
Family Code that declares only a marriage between a man and
a woman is valid or recognized in California. Section
308.5 was enacted by the initiative Proposition 22 in 2000.
The bill contains other findings and declarations regarding
the history of statutes and decisional law that define
marriage relative to gender neutrality or that address the
constitutional infirmity of statutes that limit the ability
to marry to heterosexual couples.
Finally, the bill declares the Legislature's intent to end
marriage discrimination in California without altering
Section 308.5 of the Family Code.
BACKGROUND
(more)
AB 849 (Leno)
Page 2
Since the Hawaii Supreme Court's decision in Baehr v.
Lewin , (1993) 852 P. 2d 44, finding that Hawaii law banning
same-sex marriage violated the equal protection clause of
the Hawaii Constitution, same-sex marriage has been debated
across the United States in various fora and on different
platforms. Beginning with AB 1982 (Knight, 1996), and
followed by AB 3227 (Knight, 1996) and SB 911 (Knight,
1997), the Legislature has dealt with a procession of
measures designed to embed in California statutory law a
public policy that makes a marriage, though valid in
another state, invalid in this state if it is not a
marriage between a man and a woman. In addition, the
measures would add a corollary to that public policy, that
a same-sex union or relationship treated as a marriage by
another jurisdiction is contrary to the public policy of
this state and shall be void ab initio. These bills (AB
1982, AB 3227, and SB 911) were never enacted, but they did
engender vigorous debate on the constitutionality of a
state statute that may violate the full faith and credit
clause of the United States Constitution. The author of
those measures eventually spearheaded an initiative,
Proposition 22, that did enact Family Code 308.5 to
provide that only a marriage between a man and a woman is
valid and recognized in California.
Defense of Marriage Acts and legislative history of AB 205,
the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities
Act of 2003
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.
"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, " stated former
Congressman Barr, R-GA in August 2003.
In 1999, AB 26 (Migden), Chapter 588, Statutes of 1999,
enacted the Domestic Partnership Act, established the
statewide domestic partnership registry, provided
registered domestic partners hospital visitation rights,
AB 849 (Leno)
Page 3
and granted health benefits to domestic partners of state
employees.
In March 2000, the initiative Proposition 22, named the
California Defense of Marriage Act, was adopted by the
state. The initiative enacted Family Code Section 308.5,
which provides, "[o]nly marriage between a man and a woman
is valid or recognized in California."
Undaunted by both the federal In Defense of Marriage Act
and Proposition 22, equal rights advocates, since passage
of AB 26, have been marching California towards parity in
rights and benefits between domestic partners and married
couples under state law.
Following on the heels of AB 26, in the following year SB
2011 (Escutia, Chapter 1004, Statutes of 2000) qualified
registered domestic partners for housing in specially
designed accessible housing for senior citizens. Two years
later, AB 25 (Migden, Chapter 893, Statutes of 2001)
granted 12 new rights and benefits to registered domestic
partners, including the right to sue for wrongful death, to
use employee sick leave to care for an ill partner or
partner's child, to make medical decisions on behalf of an
incapacitated partner, to receive unemployment benefits if
forced to relocate because of a partner's job, and to adopt
a partner's child as a stepparent. SB 1049 (Speier,
Chapter 146, Statutes of 2001) permitted San Mateo County
to offer death benefits to surviving domestic partners of
county employees. AB 2216 (Keeley, Ch. 447, Statutes of
2002) conferred intestacy rights to registered domestic
partners.
Finally, the California Domestic Partner Rights and
Responsibilities Act of 2003 (AB 205, Goldberg, Chapter
421, Statutes of 2003) recast all of the previous
legislation relating to domestic partnerships and extended
to registered domestic partners substantially all rights,
benefits, and obligations of married persons under state
law, with the exception of rights, benefits, and
obligations accorded only to married persons by federal
law, the California Constitution, or initiative statutes.
AB 205 specifically recognized a legal union of the same
sex that was validly formed in another jurisdiction as
substantially equivalent to a registered domestic
AB 849 (Leno)
Page 4
partnership in the state, whether or not the legal union is
called a domestic partnership, and thus accord those legal
unions the same status, rights and obligations (Family Code
Section 299.2).
In enacting AB 205, the Legislature was advised by
Legislative Counsel in an opinion dated March 24, 2003,
that the bill would not constitute an amendment of
Proposition 22, and therefore the bill would not require
the approval of the voters. A recent appellate decision,
Knight v. Superior Court (Schwarzenegger et al.) (2005)
128 CA 4th 14, reached the same conclusion. In the last
week of June 2005, the Supreme Court declined to grant a
hearing of Knight. A similar appellate decision was
rendered in Armijo v. Miles (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1405.
2004: The debate heightens -- San Francisco issues
marriage licenses, Congress weighs in, constitutional
amendments pass in November
In 2004, several events once again brought to the forefront
the issues of same-sex marriages, civil unions, and
domestic partnerships. On February 24, 2004, President
Bush endorsed the idea of an amendment to the U.S.
Constitution to ban same-sex 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 the week
before; the Massachusetts high court decision stating that
only marriage - not civil unions - would provide same-sex
couples equal protection under that state's constitution;
the decision of the Canadian Supreme Court invalidating a
prohibition against same-sex marriages; and the
introduction of two bills in the U.S. Congress (in 2003) to
amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as only
between a man and a woman. Two other congressional
measures were introduced in March and July of 2004, both
declaring that marriage in the United States shall consist
only of a union between a man and a woman. [S.J. Res. 30
and H.R. 4892.] These congressional measures are opposed
by many members of both the Democratic and Republican
parties and died in their respective houses.
Last year, this Legislature enacted AJR 85 (Leno, Res. Ch.
172, 2004), a resolution to be delivered to the President
of the United States indicating this state's opposition to
AB 849 (Leno)
Page 5
"any federal enactment designed to prohibit or restrict the
provision of rights and obligations under the law for
same-sex couples and their families."
In November, 2004, constitutional amendments banning
same-sex marriages (and civil unions in some but not
others) were passed in several states.
Current events: AB 19, SCA 1 and ACA 3 and the courts and
others
High courts of two states have held that same-sex couples
are entitled to the privileges of civil marriage.
[ Goodridge v. Department of Public Health , 440 Mass. 309,
798 N.E.2d 941 (2003); Baker v. State , 170 Vt. 194, 744 A.
2d 864 (1999).]
In California, Superior Court Judge Kramer in San Francisco
ruled that Family Code Sections 300 and 308.5 (enacted by
Proposition 22), effectively banning same-sex marriages in
the state, violate the equal protection clause of the
California Constitution. The court's decision, issued
March 14, 2005, applied to cases filed in San Francisco
after the state Supreme Court halted the city's issuance of
marriage licenses to same-sex couples. [ Coordination
Proceeding, Special Title (Rule 1550(c), Marriage Cases ,
Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4365.] On
April 4, 2005, the Third District of the Court of Appeal
ruled in Knight v. Superior Court (Schwarzenegger) , supra,
that the Legislature's enactment of the California Domestic
Partners Rights and Responsibilities Act (AB 205) did not
constitute an amendment of the defense of marriage
initiative (Proposition 22, Family Code Sec. 308.5) and
thus, the Legislature's action without separate voter
approval did not violate article II, section 10,
subdivision (c) of the California Constitution. Knight and
another case on the same issue, Armijo v. Miles , supra, are
discussed further in Comment 2. The Supreme Court declined
to grant a hearing on Knight in late June 2005.
AB 19 (Leno, 2005) is identical to AB 849. It would
redefine "marriage" in California as a union between two
persons, making it gender-neutral and thereby permitting
same-sex marriages in the state. AB 19 failed passage
after two roll call votes were taken on the Assembly Floor.
AB 849 (Leno)
Page 6
Its contents were then amended into AB 849. Similar
measures failed passage in recent legislative sessions [AB
1338 (Koretz, 2001, died in the Assembly Judiciary
Committee) and AB 1967 (Leno, 2004, died in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee)].
SCA 1 (Morrow) and ACA 3 (Haynes) are identical measures
that intend to place before the voters a constitutional
amendment not only to ban same-sex marriages, whether
contracted in California or elsewhere, but also to prohibit
the state from granting or bestowing the rights and
obligations of marriage on unions other than a valid
marriage between a man and a woman. SCA 1 failed passage
in this committee. ACA 3 failed passage in the Assembly
Judiciary Committee.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
1. Existing law provides that marriage is a personal
relation arising out of a civil contract between a man
and a woman, to which each of the parties capable of
consenting may consent, followed by issuance of a license
and solemnization. [Family Code Sec. 300.] [All other
references are to the Family Code unless otherwise
indicated.]
This bill would change "a man and a woman" in the above
statute to "two persons."
This bill would further state that where necessary to
implement the rights and responsibilities of spouses
under the law, gender-specific terms are to be construed
as gender-neutral, except with respect to Sec. 308.5.
2. Existing law provides that an unmarried male of age 18
years or older and an unmarried female of age 18 years or
older, who are not otherwise disqualified, are capable of
consenting to and consummating a marriage. [Sec. 301.]
This bill would instead provide that two unmarried
persons of age 18 years or older who are not otherwise
disqualified are capable of consenting to and
consummating marriage.
AB 849 (Leno)
Page 7
Existing law provides that an unmarried male or female
under the age of 18 years is capable of consenting to and
consummating marriage with the written consent of the
parent, parents or guardian of each underage person or
with a court order granting permission to the underage
person to marry. [Sec. 302.]
This bill would delete "unmarried male or female" and
replace it with "unmarried person."
3. Existing law authorizes specified persons to solemnize
a marriage, including a priest, minister or rabbi of any
religious denomination and a county-licensed official of
a nonprofit religious institution whose articles of
incorporation are registered with the Secretary of State,
as well as judges, commissioners, legislators, and other
constitutional officers. [Sec. 400.]
This bill would specify that no priest, minister or rabbi
of any religious denomination and no official of any
nonprofit religious institution authorized to solemnize
marriages shall be required to solemnize any marriage in
violation of his or her right to free exercise of
religion guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution or by Section 4 of Article I of the
California Constitution. [Proposed Sec. 403.]
To this end the bill contains a statement of legislative
intent that the act be interpreted consistently with the
guarantees of the First Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution and of the California Constitution.
4. Existing law provides that only a marriage between a
man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
[Family Code Sec. 308.5 (adopted by initiative,
Proposition 22).]
This bill would specify the Legislature's intent that AB
849 (this act) not amend or modify Sec. 308.5 to the
extent Sec. 308.5 addresses only marriages from other
jurisdictions. This bill also would specify the
Legislature's intent to correct only the constitutional
infirmities of Sec. 300 and not those of Sec. 308.5, even
though both sections were found unconstitutional by a
state coordination trial judge appointed by the Judicial
AB 849 (Leno)
Page 8
Council.
5. This bill contains legislative findings relating to
civil marriage as recognized by the state, the
institution of marriage, the California Supreme Court's
decision in Perez v. Sharp (1948) 32 Cal. 2d 711, the
high courts' decisions in the states of Hawaii, Vermont,
and Massachusetts that denial of legal rights and
obligations of marriage to same-sex couples is
constitutionally suspect or impermissible, and
declarations that California's discriminatory exclusion
of same-sex couples from marriage harms same-sex couples
and their families and that the Legislature has an
interest in encouraging stable relationships regardless
of the gender or sexual orientation of the partners.
6. This act would be named the "Religious Freedom and
Civil Marriage
Protection Act."
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
The author states:
The purpose of the "Religious Freedom and Civil
Marriage Protection Act" is to end discrimination
against same-sex couples in the issuance of
marriage licenses in California. California law
currently defines marriage as "a personal relation
arising out of a civil contract between a man and a
woman." It is the author's position that this
definition violates the guarantees of privacy, due
process, and equal protection of the law in the
California Constitution. The bill could remedy
this violation by amending Family Code Section 300
to read: "Marriage is a personal relation arising
out of a civil contract between two persons." The
Family Code would thus contain no bar to the
issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples
under California law.
For 127 years, from 1850 to 1977, California
marriage law was gender-neutral, containing no
AB 849 (Leno)
Page 9
reference to "man" or "woman." The Religious
Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act simply
would restore the pre-1977 language to the Family
Code in order to provide equal marriage rights to
same-sex couples.
Although California's domestic partner laws provide
many of the benefits, obligations, and protections
to same-sex couples that are afforded to married
heterosexual partners, domestic partnerships are
not equal to marriage?.[L]egal distinctions between
heterosexual and same-sex couples relegate lesbian,
gay, and bisexual Californians to second-class
status and constitute an impermissible use of
government power to stigmatize same-sex couples and
their families with a brand of inferiority.
?The Act thus explicitly affirms the freedom of
clergy members to refuse to perform marriages for
same-sex partners, while also providing equal
respect to those religions that bless and treat the
committed life partnerships of same-sex couples as
valid marriages to be honored and enforced in the
same manner as other marriages.
2. Would AB 849 affect Family Code Section 308.5, which
was enacted by Proposition 22?
This bill contains intent language stating that while it
intends to end the pernicious practice of marriage
discrimination in California, it in no way intends to
alter Section 308.5 of the Family Code, which prohibits
California from treating as valid or otherwise
recognizing marriages of same-sex couples solemnized
outside of California. The bill further states that the
"constitutional infirmities" of Family Code Section
308.5, which was enacted through the initiative process,
cannot be corrected by the Legislature, leaving the
determination of its validity to the California Supreme
Court.
Family Code Section 308.5 states: "Only marriage between
a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California."
Whether or not Section 308.5 is constitutionally infirm
is now under consideration by the Court in the Judicial
AB 849 (Leno)
Page 10
Council Coordination Proceedings No. 4365 (consolidating
the San Francisco cases) (herinafter Coordination
Proceedings) .
Opponents of AB 849 contend that the bill "disregards the
will of the people clearly stated in [Proposition
22]?Without submitting the matter to the voters, the
Legislature cannot change this absolute refusal to
recognize marriages between persons of the same sex?Thus,
AB 849 would not only circumvent the people's will, but
is a violation of the California Constitution." [Letter
from Concerned Women for America, dated July 1, 2005.]
They further argue that despite AB 849's intent language
not to affect Section 308.5, the changes that would be
made to other sections of the Family Code "strips the
gender-specific language of current law" and "is clearly
designed to pose a contradiction in law that would be
subject to legal challenge in the hopes of undermining
the language enacted through Proposition 22." This
tactic [of gutting AB 849 and inserting the AB 19
language into that bill] gives added weight to Judge
Kramer's rationale for striking down Sections 300 and
308.5 in the Coordination Proceedings , says the
Traditional Values Coalition (TVC) in its letter dated
July 1, 2005.
Proponents of AB 849 on the other hand argue that
Proposition 22 was designed to protect state sovereignty,
nothing more. The ballot arguments in support of Prop.
22 made clear the proposition was directed at preventing
recognition of same-sex marriages performed outside the
state. Under this narrow reading, the Legislature may,
without a vote of the people, properly permit same-sex
partners to marry within California, even if it may not
recognize same-sex marriages contracted in other states.
This narrow reading of Prop. 22 was supported by the
Second District of the Court of Appeal, in Armijo v.
Miles (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1405. The court there
stated, "Proposition 22 was crafted with a prophylactic
purpose in mind. It was designed to prevent same-sex
couples who could marry validly in other countries or who
in the future could marry validly in other states from
coming to California and claiming, in reliance on Family
AB 849 (Leno)
Page 11
Code section 308, that their marriages must be recognized
as valid marriages. With the passage of Proposition 22,
then, only opposite-sex marriages validly contracted
outside this state will be recognized as valid in
California. Same-sex marriages will be given no
recognition."
Another court read the initiative measure more broadly,
stating that the plain language of Prop. 22 and Section
308.5 reaffirms the definition of marriage in Section
300. "This limitation ensures that California will not
legitimize or recognize same-sex marriages from other
jurisdictions, as it otherwise would be required to do
pursuant to section 308, and that California will not
permit same-sex partners to validly marry within the
state." [ Knight v. Superior Court , supra.] Knight
validated the Domestic Partnership Act as being not in
conflict with Prop. 22. Its appeal has been refused by
the California Supreme Court.
AB 849 contains limiting language that states it would
not amend or modify Sec. 308.5 to the extent that Sec.
308.5 addresses only marriages from other jurisdictions.
In effect, if Sec. 308.5 is interpreted by the Supreme
Court to apply to same-sex marriages contracted in
California , AB 849, if enacted, will indeed need to be
voted on by the people to become effective. If Sec.
308.5 is struck down as unconstitutional, the amendments
to the Family Code made by AB 849 would be effective as
to same-sex couples who married in other jurisdictions.
3. AB 849 joins the Legislature to the constitutional
challenge to Sections 300 and 308.5 now in the courts
Both AB 849 and AB 19 (Leno, 2005), which failed passage
in the Assembly, represent a serious legislative
challenge to the constitutionality of California's law
defining marriage as "a personal relation arising out of
a civil contract between a man and a woman" (Family Code
Section 300) and the Proposition 22 enactment declaring
that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California" (Family Code Section 308.5).
The bills address a question now moving its way through
the courts: whether those two Family Code sections
violate the equal protection and privacy provisions of
AB 849 (Leno)
Page 12
the California Constitution. The case, Judicial Council
Coordination Proceeding No. 4365 (consolidating the San
Francisco cases) is being appealed. The Governor and the
state, represented by the Attorney General, have
requested the Supreme Court to take the appeal of the
trial court's decision directly. There is no decision
from the Supreme Court as yet.
Judge Richard Kramer, in the San Francisco consolidated
cases directly challenging the two Family Code
provisions, determined these two provisions are
unconstitutional in that they deprive a discreet class of
citizens equal protection guaranteed under the California
Constitution. By now proposing to change Section 300 of
the Family Code (though not 308.5, because it was
enacted by Proposition 22), the Legislature has been
joined to determine that the current language of Section
300, defining marriage in terms of a civil contract
between a consenting man and a consenting woman violates
the California Constitution and must be changed to allow
same-sex couples to marry in the state.
Thus, the rationale behind Family Code Section 300 should
be reassessed against the following analysis of the
Legislature's historic responsibility to define civil
relationships in the state.
a. The history of Family Code Section 300 shows
apparent animus against a minority (gay men and
lesbians), which is suspect under the U.S.
Constitution and the California Constitution
The responsibility for defining the parameters of
civil marriage and other societal relationships has
been left to the legislatures of the states. Even
under the federal In Defense of Marriage Act, the
states were left to legislate what would and would not
be recognized as a valid marriage. The definition of
civil marriage "is a matter about which the people of
the State of California have now or may have in the
future differing viewpoints," according to the
California Attorney General.
AB 849 (Leno)
Page 13
Family Code Section 300, enacted in 1992, replaced
former Civil Code Section 4100, which prior to 1977
defined marriage as "a personal relation arising out
of a civil contract, to which the consent of the
parties capable of making it is necessary." There was
no reference to this relation being limited to one
between a man and a woman until 1977, when a perceived
ambiguity in the law regarding who may consent to
marriage was resolved in what is now Section 301.
That amendment spilled over into a reworking of
Section 4100 (now Section 300), manifesting the clear
intent of the Legislature and then-Governor Jerry
Brown to exclude gay men and lesbians from the right
to marry their partners under California law. A
similar treatment of gay men and lesbians under a
Colorado referendum amendment to that state's
constitution (precluding all legislative, executive,
or judicial action at any level of state or local
government designed to protect the status of persons
based on their homosexual, lesbian or bisexual
orientation, conduct, practices, or relationships) was
held constitutionally suspect in Romer v. Evans (1996)
517 U.S. 620. In a 6-3 decision (Justices Scalia,
Rehnquist and Thomas dissenting), the U.S. Supreme
Court upheld the Colorado Supreme Court, holding that
the amendment "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. [The] amendment?violates the Equal Protection
Clause?"
While Romer did not specifically declare homosexuals
as a suspect class, its holding remains the law of the
land.
b. Perez v. Sharp bans arbitrary classifications of
groups or races in determining who may marry;
infringement on the right to marry must be based upon
more than prejudice
The California Supreme Court's decision in Perez v.
Sharp (1948) 32 Cal. 2d 711 was the first in the
nation to address a statute prohibiting persons from
marrying outside of their race. The decision preceded
AB 849 (Leno)
Page 14
the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Loving v.
Virginia 388 U.S. 1 (1967) on the same question by
almost 20 years.
In Perez , the Supreme Court held that the state's law
banning interracial marriage was unconstitutional.
The California statute then 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 Court held that "liberty" within the
meaning of the due process clause included the "right
of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the
common occupations of life, to acquire useful
knowledge, to marry, to establish a home, and bring up
children?." It also held that any infringement of
that right (to marry) "must be based on 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," and that any legislation prohibiting
marriage between specific individuals would have to be
specific to the individuals and cannot be based on
"arbitrary classifications of groups or races" as a
substitute. "The right to marry is the right of
individuals, not of racial groups." [Id. at 716.]
In his concurring opinion rejecting all the
justifications proferred to support the
constitutionality of the state law then, Justice
Carter stated:
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. The rule is that the
constitutionality of a statute is not determined
once and for all by a decision upholding it. A
change of conditions may invalidate a statute which
was reasonable and valid when enacted. (Nashville,
C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Walters, 294 U.S. 405
(1935).
Thus, the answer to the question of whether there is a
rational basis or a compelling state interest to
constitutionally justify a ban on same-sex marriage,
AB 849 (Leno)
Page 15
or the recognition of same-sex marriage, is one that
may change over time. Accordingly, the Legislature is
revisiting the validity of those justifications
through its consideration of AB 849.
c. Is procreation the purpose of marriage, justifying
the ban on same-sex marriage?
Those who challenged the constitutionality of AB 205
and who wave the imprimatur of Proposition 22 argue
that California courts "have long recognized that the
purpose of marriage is procreation and that limiting
the institution to members of the opposite sex
rationally would further that purpose." [ Coordination
Proceeding, Marriage Cases , supra.] The court in that
coordination proceeding examined the various cases in
which procreation as a primary purpose of marriage was
advanced as the rationale for justifying the current
ban on same-sex marriage in the state. The court
found that in all cases, the promise of children was
merely a passing contention in an action to nullify
the consent to marriage based on fraudulent
inducements. The cases also, according to the court,
confirm the obvious natural and social reality that
one does not have to be married in order to procreate,
nor does one have to procreate in order to be married.
Thus, the court found no legitimate state interest to
justify the preclusion of same-sex marriage in the
state, and concluded that "even if the encouragement
of procreation were to be seen to be a rational basis
for our marriage laws and even if it appeared that
such interest is compelling, this rationale still
fails to satisfy constitutional equal protection
standards."
The primary rationale that Hawaii, Vermont, and
Massachusetts have offered in unsuccessful defense of
their laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are similar
to the main argument offered in opposition to AB 849
(and its parent, AB 19): that only heterosexuals can
procreate and thus rear children in an optimum
familial environment. Opponents of same-sex marriage
insist that marriage has always been defined as a
relationship between a man and a woman, the purpose of
which is procreation and the raising of children.
AB 849 (Leno)
Page 16
However, as pointed out by the court in Perez ,
tradition alone, no matter how longstanding, cannot
justify excluding a class of couples from marriage.
Such a reading of the law would lead to the absurd
conclusion that those heterosexual couples that do not
or cannot procreate should be barred from marriage and
its benefits.
Another argument proferred by opponents centers around
child rearing and the "optimal setting" that
opposite-sex couples provide their families. The
promotion of stable marriages (thus stable homes or
families) is of course sound public policy.
Logically, such policies would and should benefit
same-sex couples raising children as well as
opposite-sex couples. Opponents however contend that
only heterosexual parents can provide the "optimal
setting" for child rearing. This contention flies in
the face of this state's policies, evidenced by
legislation, that permit adoptions by same-sex couples
and court rulings, such as Sharon S. v. Superior Court
(Annette F.) (2003) 31 Cal. 4th 417, that validate
second-parent adoptions by domestic partners. In
rejecting the argument that affirming such adoptions
would "offend the state's strong public interest in
promoting marriage," the court stated that its
decision "encourages and strengthens family bonds."
d. Does the Legislature's enactment of AB 205 (the
Domestic Partnership Act) vitiate the need to correct
the infirmity of Section 300?
Judge Kramer's search for the rational legitimate
state purpose for limiting marriage in this state
first looked at the history of California's definition
of marriage, and concluded that it clearly shows an
explicit intent to discriminate against lesbians and
gay men and to exclude same-sex couples from marriage.
However, the court said, "?California's traditional
limit of marriage to a union between a man and a woman
is not a sufficient rational basis?same-sex marriage
cannot be prohibited solely because California has
always done so before." The court, citing the
Legislature's enactment of domestic partnership laws,
AB 849 (Leno)
Page 17
next examined whether there is a legitimate
governmental purpose for denying same-sex couples the
last step in the equation [of treating same-sex
couples in the same manner as opposite-sex couples,
which the domestic partnership act attempts to do],
which is marriage itself.
Again, the court turned the quest for a rational basis
in the Legislature's action unto itself and said that
the existence of marriage-like rights (conferred by AB
205) without marriage actually cuts against the
existence of a rational government interest for
denying marriage to same-sex couples. "The idea that
marriage-like rights without marriage is adequate
smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts:
separate but equal," citing Brown v. Board of
Education of Topeka, et al. (1952) 347 U.S. 483. The
court concluded that Brown is equally applicable to
the state's current structure granting substantial
marriage rights but no marriage, thus indicating
further the lack of a rational basis for denying
marriage to same-sex couples.
4. AB 849 would not compel religious officials to
solemnize marriages
The opponents of this measure see California as a major
impediment in their march across the country to push for
constitutional amendments that would ban same-sex
marriages, civil unions and other similar partnerships
(Hawaii has "reciprocal beneficiaries" for example.) They
fear that passage of a same-sex marriage statute would
force them to recognize these unions against their will.
This fear, according to proponents of AB 849, is
irrational, unfounded, and false. The guarantees provided
by the First Amendment's Establishment and Free Exercise
clauses protect their right to not recognize, in the
context of their religious beliefs, same-sex marriages.
The Supreme Court's doctrine of religious autonomy that
is rooted in both clauses provides them further
protection. "Our nation's founders adopted the First
Amendment precisely because they foresaw the dangers of
allowing government to have control over religious
AB 849 (Leno)
Page 18
doctrine and decision?If that freedom is to be preserved,
we must respect the rights of those in the faith
community to apply these religious teachings and values
to the issue of same-sex relationships. It is surely not
the business of [the Legislature], much less the
constitution, to assert control over the doctrine and
practice of our faith communities." [Letter from Chinese
for Affirmative Action/Center for Asian American Advocacy
dated May 3, 2005, in opposition to a proposed
constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.]
AB 849 would expressly provide that no priest, minister,
or rabbi of any religious denomination, and no official
of any nonprofit religious institution authorized to
solemnize marriages, shall be required to solemnize any
marriage in violation of his or her right to free
exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution or by Section 4 of Article I of the
California Constitution.
5. Other courts have struck down laws that ban same-sex
marriage or provide constitutional grounds for striking
them down
Three state supreme courts have sided with same-sex
couples who challenged the constitutionality of their
respective state laws that define marriage to exclude
same sex partners. Of those, the Massachusetts cases are
most notable. In the Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health
(2004) 440 Mass. 1201, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
Court ruled that laws prohibiting same-sex marriage
violate the Massachusetts Constitution. The court there
said, "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?Limiting the protections, benefits, and
obligations of civil marriages to opposite-sex couples
violates the basic premises of individual liberty and
equality under law protected by the Massachusetts
AB 849 (Leno)
Page 19
Constitution." The court issued an advisory opinion to
the Massachusetts Legislature that stayed the Goodridge
ruling and gave the Legislature the chance to enact a
statute that did not discriminate against same-sex
couples, but the Legislature declined to do so. The
court ruling in Goodridge is therefore the law in
Massachusetts.
In Lawrence v. Texas , 123 S.Ct. 2472 (2003), the U.S.
Supreme Court struck down a state homosexual sodomy law
on the ground that the "liberty" protected by the
Fourteenth Amendment includes private, consensual adult
sexual relations. 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, supra, that Romer would lead to the result that
the Court ultimately reached in Lawrence .
6. Arguments in support of AB 849
This bill is supported and opposed by a large number of
organizations. The differences in their opinions are
stark. In support, for example, is the American
Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFL
CIO, that wrote:
The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection
Act is an important step forward for gay, lesbian, and
bisexual Californians as they struggle to emerge from
second-class citizenship status into full acceptance
in an open and caring society. California has been at
the forefront of enacting morally just and
forward-looking social policies that set the trend for
the nation. Unfortunately, many of these new policies
have been put in place by court rulings rather than
the Legislature taking a stand for the rights of
individuals to openly express a commitment to the
person they love in an officially recognized capacity.
A State-regulated institution such as marriage need
not include a religious principle to be valid.
Indeed, freeing the institution of marriage from the
closed-mindedness of any single proscribed religious
AB 849 (Leno)
Page 20
doctrine strengthens its validity and vitality. This
legislation is [an] important step toward equality for
all Californians.
Others, such as the California Association of Human
Relations Commissions, urge the passage of AB 849 and
relegate the discriminatory laws of the past to history:
"?[a]cts of hate and discrimination are fostered by laws
which give official status to discriminatory laws, such
as one that denies a person the right to marry because of
their race, sexual orientation, or any other protected
characteristic. All other Californians deserve access to
this critical civil institution that provides a myriad of
rights and responsibilities not currently 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?.All persons should have the
right to pursue happiness through the civil institution
of marriage."
Some supporters are religious-affiliated groups, such as
the California Church IMPACT, while others are nationally
known supporters of equal rights, such as the California
National Organization for Women and the California
Women's Agenda, which includes national and state women
leaders in its membership. Still others are individuals
who have written on their own to express their support
for this bill.
7. Arguments in opposition to AB 849
The opposition to AB 849 is united in its contention that
the people of the state of California spoke loud and
clear when it enacted Proposition 22 in 2000, and
therefore urges the Legislature to reject AB 849 as the
Assembly did AB 19. At the same time, some arguments are
directed at the historical and traditional understanding
of marriage, such as the one lodged by the California
Catholic Conference of Bishops:
The author overlooks the fact that if he is successful
in rendering our society's historical definition of
marriage null and void it will make all other
arguments against coupling likewise null and void.
AB 849 (Leno)
Page 21
When the definition of marriage is loosed from its
common sense gender moorings, it loses all meaning.
All arguments against the other "committed" agreements
such as polygamy and polyandry [and] will be legally
unacceptable for the same reason posited here - that
of equal protection?States are, and should be free to
set the parameters for marriage. In California, the
historical definition has been clearly raffirmed by
the voters in Proposition 22. The people stated that
they agree that marriage is to be exclusively between
one woman and one man. Please res this history and
their strongly expressed opinion."
The Traditional Values Coalition advances the following
arguments in opposition to AB 849: (1) AB 849 is AB 19
resurrected, and should be rejected by the Senate just as
the Assembly rejected AB 19 on three different votes; (2)
AB 849 would pose a contradiction in law that would
undermine Family Code Section 308.5; (3) AB 849 violates
the Voting, Initiative and Referendum, and Recall
provisions of the California Constitution; (4)
Homosexuals want to destroy marriage as an institution -
not benefit from it; (5) The intent of marriage is to
maintain monogamous relationships between one man and one
woman; however, the actions of the homosexual lifestyle
are contrary to this goal; (6) Granting homosexual
marriage would affect all areas of public policy thereby
posing great burdens to society; and (7) AB 849's affects
[sic] would dramatically alter current school frameworks
and curriculum.
7. Same-sex marriage statutes and constitutional
amendments in other states
A survey conducted by the Traditional Values Coalition
reports that the following states have constitutional
amendments banning same-sex marriages and civil unions:
Alaska, Hawaii, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, and
Nevada. The survey also reports that in November 2004,
and in April, 2005, the following states passed
constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage:
Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan,
Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Oregon, and Utah. Civil unions are not banned (but also
not yet expressly permitted) in the following states:
AB 849 (Leno)
Page 22
Mississippi, Oregon, and Montana. Vermont permits civil
unions. Court challenges to the constitutional amendment
passed by the voters are pending in the following states:
Alaska, Georgia, Louisiana, Nebraska, and Oregon. Only
Massachusetts has legalized same-sex marriages through
its supreme court ruling in 2004. Combined, 18 states
have banned same-sex marriages via a constitutional
amendment (five are being challenged currently), three
states arguably may permit civil unions, one state
permits civil unions (Vermont) and one state allows
same-sex marriage (Massachusetts). The TVC declares that
in 13 more states, constitutional amendments have been
submitted for the general elections in 2005 or 2006. In
April, 2005, Connecticut became the second state to
permit civil unions.
Of note is that at the end of June, the Legislatures of
both Spain and Belgium adopted laws allowing same-sex
marriage in their respective countries. The Canadian
Parliament's lower house has passed an act to allow
same-sex marriage, and its higher house heard the bill
this week. It is expected to pass.
Support: AIDS Legal Referral Panel; AIDS Project Los
Angeles'; Alameda County Human Relations
Commission; American Academy of Pediatrics,
California District; American Civil Liberties Union;
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal
Employees; American Friends Service Community,
Pacific Mountain Region; Americans for Democratic
Action, Southern California Chapter; American
Humanist Association; American Jewish Congress;
Anti-Defamation League; Asian Pacific American Labor
Alliance, AFL-CIO, Los Angeles Chapter; Asian
Pacific American Legal Center of Southern
California; Asian Americans for Civil Rights and
Equality; Asian Law Caucus; Atascadero Democratic
Club; Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom; Bay
Area Municipal Elections Committee; Being Alive Los
Angeles; Beth Chayim Chadashim Congregation;
Bienestar Human Services; California Abortion and
Reproductive Rights Action League; California
Association of Human Relations Organizations;
California Coalition for Civil Rights; California
AB 849 (Leno)
Page 23
Council of Churches and California IMPACT;
California Democratic Party; California Faculty
Association; California Federation of Teachers;
California Immigrant Welfare Collaborative;
California National Organization for Women;
California Safe Schools Coalition; California School
Employees Association; California State Board of
Equalization Chair, John Chiang; California State
Controller Steve Westly; California State Employees
Association; California State Treasurer Phil
Angelides; California State Insurance Commissioner,
John Garamendi; California Teachers Association;
California Women's Agenda; Californians for Justice;
Center for Third World Organizing; Center on
Juvenile and Criminal Justice; Centro Legal De La
Raza; Charles Houston Bar Association; Child Care
Law Center; Children of Lesbians and Gays
Everywhere; Chinese for Affirmative Action; Christ
the Shepard Lutheran Church, Altadena; Christ the
Good Shepard Lutheran Church, San Jose; City and
County of San Francisco; City of Los Angeles Human
Relations Commission; City of West Hollywood;
Coalition for Economic Equity; Coalition of Black
Trade Unionists, Northern California Chapter;
Coalition of Labor Union Women; College Community
Congregational United Church of Christ, Fresno;
Communication Workers of America, AFL-CIO, District
9; Communication Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Local
9000; Communities for a Better Environment;
Community of St. Elizabeth of Hungary and Francis de
Sales, Interdenominational; Community United Against
Violence; Conference of Delegates of California Bar
Associations; Congregational Church of Belmont;
Congregational Church of Campbell; Congregational
Church, San Francisco; Congregational Community
Church, Sunnyvale; Congregation Kol Ami, West
Hollywood; Conejo Valley Unitarian Universalist
Fellowship; Congregation Sha'ar Zahav, San
Francisco; Disability Rights Education & Defense
Fund; Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence; Eleanor
Roosevelt Democratic Club, Orange County; Elections
Committee of the County of Orange; Equal Rights
Advocates; Equality Campaign, Inc.; Fairfax
Community Church; Feminist Majority; Filipinos for
Affirmative Action; First Amendment Project; First
AB 849 (Leno)
Page 24
Congregational Church, Auburn, Santa Cruz; First
Congregational United Churches of Christ, San
Francisco, Oakland, Alameda and Long Beach; Fremont
Congregational United Church of Christ; Fresno
Stonewall Democrats; Gay & Lesbian Adolescent Social
Services, Inc.; Gay & Lesbian Alliance of the
Central Coast; Gay & Lesbian Medical Association;
Glide Foundation / Glide Memorial United Methodist
Church; Glory Tabernacle Christian Center, Long
Beach; GLSEN Orange County Chapter; Golden Gate
Lutheran Church, San Francisco; Grace Community
Church; Gray Panthers; Holy Redeemer Lutheran
Church, San Jose; Housing Rights Inc.; Human Rights
Campaign; Human Rights/Fair Housing Commission of
the City and County of Sacramento; Immigration
Equality; Instituto Laboral De La Raza; Intergroup
Clearing House; Irvine United Congregational Church;
Island United Church, Foster City; Japanese American
Citizens League; Jewish Labor Committee; Justice
Matters Institute; La Familia Counseling Service; La
Raza Centro Legal; Lambda Legal; Lambda Letters
Project; Lawrence Ellis and Associates; Lawyers
Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay
Area; Legal Aid Society - Employment Law Center;
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children; Lesbian
and Gay Lawyers Association of Los Angeles; LGBT
Caucus, California Democratic Party; LGBT Greens,
Los Angeles; Live Oak Unitarian Universalist
Congregation Log Cabin Republicans; Los Angeles City
Attorney; Los Angeles County Bar Association, Family
Law Section; Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center; Los
Angeles Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender Greens;
Love Sees No Borders; Lutheran Church of Our
Redeemer, Sacramento; Meiklejohn Civil Liberties
Institute; Metropolitan Community Church, Los
Angeles; Metropolitan Community Church, San Diego;
Metropolitan Community Church, San Francisco;
Metropolitan Community Church, West Hollywood;
Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund;
Mira Vista United Church of Christ, El Cerrito;
Multicultural Education Training and Advocacy, Inc.;
NARAL Pro-Choice California Foundation; National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People,
California State Conference; National Association of
Social Workers, California Chapter; National Black
AB 849 (Leno)
Page 25
Justice Coalition; National Center for Lesbian
Rights; National Center for Youth Law; National
Conference for Community and Justice; National Gay
and Lesbian Task Force; National Lawyers Guild, San
Francisco Bay Area Chapter; National Lesbian and Gay
Law Association; New Hope Metropolitan Community
Church, Santa Rosa; New Spirit Community Church,
Berkeley; Northminster Presbyterian Church, El
Cerrito; Older Women's League of California; Online
Policy Group; Our Family Coalition; Out and Equal
Workplace Advocates; People for the American Way;
PFLAG |National Office; PFLAG (Parents, Families and
Friends of Lesbians and Gays | Bakersfield; PFLAG |
Central Coast Chapter, & Long Beach, Los Angeles,
Marysville, Southern Pacific Region, Oakland-East
Bay, Palm Springs/Desert, Palos Verdes/South Bay,
Sacramento, San Diego County, San Francisco,
Southern Pacific Region, Temecula Valley, Ventura
County; Pioneer Congregational United Church of
Christ, Sacramento; Planned Parenthood Affiliates of
California; Planned Parenthood Golden Gate; Plymouth
United Church of Christ, Oakland; Pride at Work
AFL-CIO, National Office; Pride at Work AFL-CIO,
Southern California and Washington, D.C.;
Progressive Christians Uniting; Progressive Jewish
Alliance; Protection & Advocacy, Inc.; Public
Advocates; Rainbow Community Center of Contra Costa
County; Rock The Vote; SAC Legal; Saint George's
Episcopal Church, Laguna Hills; Saint John's
Presbyterian Church; Saint Mark's United Methodist
Church, Sacramento; Saint Paul Lutheran Church,
Oakland; Saint Paulus Lutheran Church, San
Francisco; San Diego Democratic Club; San Diego LGBT
Center; San Francisco AIDS Foundation; San Francisco
Labor Council, AFL-CIO; San Francisco LGBT Community
Center; San Francisco NOW; San Francisco Zen
Center; San Leandro Community Church; San Luis
Obispo County Democratic Central Committee; San
Mateo County Board of Supervisors; Santa Clara
County Bar Association; Santa Cruz County Clerk Gail
Pellerin; Scouting for All; Sebastopol City Council;
Service Employees International Union Local 99;
Service Employees International Union Local 535;
Service Employees International Union Local 790;
Service Employees; International Union Local 1000;
AB 849 (Leno)
Page 26
Seventh Avenue Presbyterian Church, San Francisco;
Shepard of the Hills Lutheran Church, Berkeley;
Silicon Valley Atheists; Socially Active Youth of
California; Sonoma County Board of Supervisors;
South Hayward Parrish; Southern California Lambda
Medical Association; Stonewall Democratic Club of
Greater Sacramento; Suisun Fairfield UCC; Tenderloin
Housing Clinic; The Center Orange County; The
Workmen's Circle; Thirty-Third Assembly District,
California Democratic Party; Town of Fairfax,
California; Transgender Law Center; Unitarian
Universalist Legislative Ministry California; UNITE
HERE, Western States Regional Joint Board; United
Church of Christ, Petaluma; United Church of Christ,
Northern California/Nevada Conference; United Church
of Christ, Southern California Conference; United
Congregational Christian Church, Lodi; United
Japanese Christian Church; United Lesbians of
African Heritage; United Staff Workers; United
Teachers Los Angeles; United University Church, Los
Angeles; University Lutheran Church, Palo Alto;
Valley Ministries, Stockton; Ventura County Rainbow
Alliance; West Hollywood Presbyterian Church;
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom;
Yolo County Supervisor Mariko Yamada; Youth Force
Coalition; Zuna Institute; numerous individuals
Opposition: A. Rodak Painting and Decorating; Anderson
Appraisal Service, Inc.; Apostolic Church of
Jesus Christ; Arcade Church of Sacramento; Arden
Church of the Nazarene; Area Favorites;
Automotive Management Placement; Bayside Church;
Beth Shalom Messianic Jewish Congregation; Booth
Chiropractic, Inc.; California Catholic
Conference; California Family Alliance; Calvary
Chapel East Anaheim; Calvary Chapel of El Cajon;
Calvary Chapel of Guadalupe; Calvary Chapel of
Santa Maria; Campaign for California Families;
Campaign for Children and Families; Capital
Christian Center; Capitol Resource Institute;
Cerritos Republican Club; Champion Life Church;
Cherry Valley Grace Brethren Church; Chinese
Christian Alliance, Chinese New Life Zion Church;
Christian Church Zion; Christian Coalition of San
Diego County; Church "House of Prayer"; Church of
AB 849 (Leno)
Page 27
Christians of Seventh Day; Church of the
First-Born Son; Community Bible Church; Community
Faith Christian Center; Concerned Women for
America; Cornerstone Church; Covenant Life
Christian Church, Orange; Cover Graphics, Inc.;
Crenshaw Die and Manufacturing; Crossroads Bible
Church; Cross Vision Ministries; Davis Christian
Assembly; Downs Energy; Dyson & Associates;
Design Drafting Services; East Clairemont
Southern Baptist Church; El Retiro San Inigo;
Estrada Professional Services; Evangelical
Baptist Ukrainian Church; Evangelical Bible Book
Store; Evangelical Free Church of Fremont;
Evangelical Free Church of Hamilton City and Mt.
Shasta; Evangelical Reformed Church; Family
Church, Rancho Santa Margarita; First Baptist
Church, Elk Grove; First Baptist Church of
Redwood Valley; First Baptist Church of Taft;
First Slavic Evangelical Baptist Church of
Sacramento; First Ukrainian Baptist Church of
Santa Barbara; First Ukrainian Church of
Christians of Evangelical Faith; Good Shepherd
Family Bible Church; Grace Fellowship, Dixon;
Granada Heights Friends Church, La Mirada; Grove
Community Church; Hope Chapel; Idyllwild Bible
Church; Immanuel Evangelical Church; Impact
Community Church; Independent Baptist Church;
Inyokern Baptist Church; JC Graphics; JC Resource
Center; J.P.H. Professional Sciences, Inc.;
Joseph Dean Knapp Insurance and Financial
Services; Kristi Freeman, D.V.M., Inc.; Knights
of Columbus; L & L Trucking Company, LLC; Light
of the Gospel Missionary Church; Lighthouse
Coastal Community Church; Lighthouse Regional
Church; Living Waters Christian Fellowship;
Living Word Calvary Chapel; Melchizedek Church;
Mid Valley Learning Center; Mike Hourigan
Construction; Morgan Hill Presbyterian Church; My
Lord's Salvation Ministries, Inc.; New Hope
Baptist Church; New Hope Gospel Ministries; New
Life Presbyterian Church; New Song Calvary
Chapel; Norwalk First Church of the Nazarene;
Oasis Christian Fellowship; Ojai Valley Baptist
Church; Orchard Community Church; Our Lady of
Guadalupe, Calexico; PACE Technologies; Pacto de
AB 849 (Leno)
Page 28
Amor Foursquare Church; Pam's Pool & Leisure;
Peace Lutheran Church; Peninsula Christian
Fellowship; Pioneer Baptist Church; Praise Chapel
Christian Fellowship of Baldwin Park; Praise
Chapel of Concord; Remnant Christian Center;
Christian Fellowship of Concord; Quail Lakes
Baptist Church; Revival Slavic Christian Center;
River Oak Grace Community Church; Russian Baptist
Church; Russian Cultural Center of Sacramento;
Russian Speaking Forum; Sacramento Mission Church
FWB; Saddleback Church; Saddleback Covenant
Church; Sanctuary Full Gospel Fellowship; Second
Slavic Baptist Church; Sequoia Heights Baptist
Church; Shadow Mountain Community Church; Shield
of Faith Fellowship of Churches International,
Inc.; Shropshire H.V.A.C. Repair & Service;
Skyline Wesleyan Church; Slavic Baptist Church;
Slavic Baptist Church "Bethel"; Slavic Community
Center of Sacramento; The Cornerstone; Slavic
Evangelical Churches; Slavic Missionary Church,
Inc.; Slavic International Pastors Association;
South Valley Christian Church; South Valley
Community Church; St. John's Mission of the
Charismatic Episcopal Church; St. Mark Lutheran
Church; Start to Finish Roofing; Sunset Chinese
Baptist Church; Tazza da Caffe/BL Foods;
Traditional Values Coalition; Ukrainian Church of
The Evangelical Christian Baptists; Valley
Christian Center; Western Garden Nursery; Western
Ukrainian Evangelical Baptist Convention, Inc.;
Woodland United Fellowship; Word to Russia;
numerous individuals
HISTORY
Source: Equality California
Related Pending Legislation: AB 19 (Leno) failed passage on
the Assembly Floor.
SCA 1 (Morrow) See Background.
Failed passage in this committee.
ACA 3 (Haynes) See Background.
AB 849 (Leno)
Page 29
Failed passage in Assembly
Judiciary Committee.
Prior Legislation:AB 1892 (Knight, 1996) Died on the
Senate Inactive file.
AB 3227 (Knight, 1996) Died on the Assembly
Inactive file.
SB 911 (Knight, 1997) Failed passage in
this Committee.
AB 1059 (Migden, 1998) Vetoed.
AB 26 (Migden, Ch. 588, Stats. 1999) See
Background.
SB 2011 (Escutia, Ch. 1004, Stats, 2000) See
Background.
AB 25 (Migden, Ch. 893, Stats. 2001) See
Background.
AB 1080 (Kehoe, 2001) dealt with state
contracts with employers that provide
benefits to domestic partners equal to
those provided to spouses of employees.
Died in the Assembly.
SB 1049 (Speier, Ch. 146, Stats. 2001). See
Background.
SB 1575 (Sher, Ch. 412, Stats. 2002) dealt
with probate rules and domestic
partners.
SB 1661 (Kuehl, Ch. 901, Stats. 2002)
granted six weeks of paid family leave
to an employee to care for a sick
spouse or domestic partner.
AB 2777 (Nation, Ch. 373, Stats. 2002) added
more counties to those that may offer
death benefits.
AB 2216 (Keeley, Ch. 447, Stats. 2002)
granted intestacy rights to domestic
partners.
AB 2862 (Migden, 2002) would have extended
retiree rights similar to those granted
to spouses. Vetoed on budgetary
grounds.
AB 205 (Goldberg, Ch. 421, Stats. 2003).
AB 849 (Leno)
Page 30
See Background.
(This list is not exhaustive.)
Prior Vote: Not relevant. This bill is a gut and amend.
**************