BILL ANALYSIS
AB 43
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 10, 2007
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Dave Jones, Chair
AB 43 (Leno) - As Amended: April 9, 2007
SUBJECT : CIVIL RIGHTS: EQUAL MARRIAGE RIGHTS
KEY ISSUES :
1)ARE THERE ANY LEGITIMATE REASONS WHY CIVIL MARRIAGES
RECOGNIZED BY OUR GOVERNMENT 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?
4)WAS THE Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court CORRECT WHEN IT
STATED THAT "The history of our nation has demonstrated that
separate is seldom, if ever, equal?"
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. The bill raises important questions of law and
public policy that are now being discussed across the nation and
around the world, reflecting one of this nation's most
significant civil rights issues for the 21st century.
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 their partners, as well as all their children, receive
the protections offered to all married couples and their
children. Supporters argue the state currently relegates
same-sex couples and their families to second-class status and
thereby affirmatively inflicts invidious harm upon them by
insisting on two separate institutions-marriage for heterosexual
couples and the less-recognized status of domestic partnership
AB 43
Page 2
for gay and lesbian couples. Supporters also emphasize the bill
will protect religious freedom by expressly providing that no
priest, minister, or rabbi will be required to solemnize any
marriage that is against his or her religious beliefs.
Opponents of the bill contend the legislation attempts to
unlawfully supplant Family Code Section 308.5 which was enacted
by Proposition 22 in 2000 and that it is unconstitutional. For
example, the Campaign for Children and Families states in
opposition to the bill that "Because the voters of California
defined marriage as only for a man and a woman by passing
Proposition 22 in 2000, it is unconstitutional for the
Legislature to legalize 'same-sex marriage' in the form of AB 43
or any other legislation."
SUMMARY : Seeks to end the state's denial of marriage licenses
to same-sex couples in California. Specifically, this bill :
1)Eliminates the current "different-gender" requirement in the
state's definition of marriage.
2)Clarifies that in implementing the rights and responsibilities
of spouses under the law, gender-specific terms shall be
construed to be gender-neutral, except in regards to Section
308.5 of the Family Code, concerning recognition of marriages
contracted in other jurisdictions (Proposition 22 of 2000).
3)Adds Section 403 to the Family Code to clarify that no
religious official shall be required to perform or solemnize
any marriage in violation of his or her religious conviction.
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.)
3)Provides, immediately following section 308, that "Only
marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in
AB 43
Page 3
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 state Constitution's Declaration of Rights,
in Article I, Section 4, that "[f]ree exercise and enjoyment
of religion without discrimination or preference are
guaranteed," and that "[t]he Legislature shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion."
7)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."
8)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 author states:
For 127 years ? California marriage law was
gender-neutral, containing no reference to "man" or
AB 43
Page 4
"woman." The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage
Protection Act would simply 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.
California's Recognition of Same-Sex Couples : The issue of
legal recognition of same-sex couples in California dates back
two decades. Before the 1980s, same-sex couples had no legal
recognition in California - or virtually anywhere else. As
families, same-sex couples were essentially invisible to the
law. In 1984, however, the City of Berkeley extended employee
benefits to the same-sex partners of municipal employees, and in
1985 West Hollywood became the first governmental entity to
offer legal recognition to same-sex couples among the general
public by establishing a legal status called "domestic
partnership." Through the status of domestic partnership,
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. By 2000, eighteen
California local governments had established domestic
partnership registries.
Prior Related State Legislation-Registered Domestic Partnership:
The State of California took notice of this emerging movement.
In 1999, the Legislature 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 for domestic
partners to have hospital visitation rights. In 2001 and 2002,
the Legislature broadened the rights of domestic partners in AB
25 (Migden), Ch. 893, Stats. of 2001, and AB 2216 (Keeley), Ch.
447, Stats. of 2002. In all, at least sixteen statutes have
been enacted to provide legal protections to domestic partners
AB 43
Page 5
in California.
The most comprehensive set of rights and responsibilities for
registered domestic partners was enacted in 2003 by AB 205
(Goldberg). That bill became fully operative on January 1,
2005, and it has been upheld by the courts against challengers'
arguments that granting legal protections to same-sex couples is
inconsistent with Proposition 22. In so holding, however, the
California Court of Appeal has explained that, because of
differences that remain between marriage and domestic
partnership, "marriage is considered a more substantial
relationship and is accorded a greater stature than a domestic
partnership." (Knight v. Superior Court, 128 Cal. App. 4th 14,
30 (2005).)
Under the existing domestic partnership laws, domestic partners
are denied access to certain long-term care benefits that are
available to married heterosexual couples. In addition, the
prerequisites for entering a domestic partnership differ from
the prerequisites for marriage. Marriage and domestic
partnership also have different formation and termination
procedures. In particular, there is no solemnization
requirement for domestic partnership, unlike for marriage; this
difference suggests a distinction in stature. In addition,
domestic partners are denied the protections available under
more than 1,100 federal statutes relating to marriage. The
federal benefits afforded to opposite-sex, married couples
include such basic benefits as social security, Medicare,
federal housing assistance, food stamps, veterans' benefits,
military benefits, tax benefits and federal employment benefits.
Also, domestic partners risk losing essential legal
protections-such as hospital visitation rights and authority to
make medical decisions for their partners in an emergency-when
they travel outside California because California's domestic
partnership registry is neither understood nor recognized in
most jurisdictions outside California. Because the word
"marriage" is universally understood, the name itself,
supporters of this bill contend, provides a measure of
protection and respect unavailable to California's domestic
partners.
Recognition in other states : In 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court
became the first in the nation to hold, on equal protection
grounds, that that state could not exclude same-sex couples from
marriage without a compelling reason. The state legislature
AB 43
Page 6
subsequently passed a law creating a new status of "Reciprocal
Beneficiaries," under which certain limited benefits were made
available to same-sex couples (as well as others). 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 benefits. 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 Vermont legislature responded by passing a
comprehensive "civil unions" law, rather than by permitting
same-sex couples to marry. Connecticut followed six years
later, enacting a civil unions law as well in 1995. In 2004,
New Jersey and Maine established domestic partnership registries
offering limited protections for same-sex couples. Last year,
in 2006, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the New Jersey
state constitution required that same-sex couples be offered all
of the comprehensive state-law legal protections that are made
available through marriage to heterosexual couples. The New
Jersey legislature responded with a comprehensive civil unions
bill that went into effect earlier this year.
The Federal DOMA : In 1996 Congress passed, and President
Clinton signed, the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA),
which among other things says that no state is required under
federal law to give effect to marriages of same-sex couples
contracted in other states.
California's Proposition 22 : A group of citizens led by the
late State Senator William J. ("Pete") Knight placed an
initiative on the March 2000 California ballot to prohibit
California from recognizing any marriages between same-sex
couples contracted in other states or countries. The measure
was presented to the voters shortly after the Vermont Supreme
Court announced its decision requiring equal benefits, 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 of same-sex couples
(see in-depth discussion of Proposition 22 below). The measure
passed with 61% of the vote and became codified as Section 308.5
of the Family Code.
AB 43
Page 7
Other States' Laws Enacted in Light of the Federal DOMA : In
light of the federal DOMA, other states have also enacted
measures prohibiting recognition of marriages entered into by
same-sex couples in other jurisdictions. Some states have gone
so far as to enact into their constitutions provisions that
purport to prohibit recognition of relationships between
same-sex couples other than marriage, such as domestic
partnerships or civil unions.
Efforts to Amend the Federal Constitution : In 2003,
Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado introduced a
resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives seeking to amend
the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a
woman. Senator Wayne Allard of Colorado introduced a companion
measure in the Senate. Although President Bush has repeatedly
expressed support for such efforts to amend the U.S.
Constitution, those measures have thus far always failed to
garner the necessary level of support in Congress.
Massachusetts Marriage Rulings : The Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court ruled in November 2003 that laws prohibiting
marriage between persons of the same sex violate the
Massachusetts Constitution. Noteworthy portions of the court's
opinion include:
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
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.)
AB 43
Page 8
Three months later, in February 2004, acting on a request from
the Massachusetts legislature, the Supreme Judicial Court issued
an advisory opinion to the state legislature stating: "The
history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom,
if ever, equal." Even where a state grants substantially
similar rights to same-sex "civil unions," the court found that
refusing to recognize these unions as "marriage" is a
"considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable
assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to
second-class status." To permit such a distinction would amount
to "maintaining and fostering a stigma of exclusion that the
Constitution prohibits."
San Francisco : In February 2004, the City and County of San
Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
From February 12 through March 11, 2004, 4,037 same-sex couples
from 46 states and eight countries married in San Francisco.
However, on March 11, 2004, the California Supreme Court ordered
San Francisco to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex
couples while the Court considered the legality of San Francisco
County's actions. On August 12, 2004, the California Supreme
Court unanimously ruled that San Francisco officials exceeded
their authority in issuing the licenses because it is the role
of the courts, not local officials, to determine the
constitutionality of the state's marriage laws. By a 5-2 vote,
the Court also invalidated the 4,037 marriages that had taken
place in San Francisco. The Court did not rule on the
constitutionality of the state's statutory prohibition of
marriage by same-sex couples. Rather, an order filed by the
Court in March 2004 expressly invited the filing of a lawsuit in
superior court to address this issue, which occurred thereafter
(see "coordinated Marriage Cases" discussion below).
AB 849, First Such Bill to Pass in Country: After AB 19, the
author's first legislative attempt to permit same-sex couples to
marry, failed in the Assembly in June of 2005, Assembly Member
Leno revived his bill as AB 849, which became the first such
bill in the nation to be passed by both houses of a state
legislature. However, on September 29, 2005, Governor
Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill. In his veto message, the
Governor reiterated his belief that gay and lesbian couples
should be afforded the same rights as married heterosexual
couples and that he would "continue to vigorously defend" the
rights afforded under the state's domestic partnership laws.
However, the Governor cited Proposition 22 and the state
AB 43
Page 9
constitutional provision (Article 1, Section 10) that prohibits
a state legislature from reversing any initiative approved by
the voters of California. The Governor suggested that the only
way the law could be changed is if the courts void the ban as
unconstitutional, or if the people reversed Proposition 22
through another initiative or a referendum. The Governor's veto
message noted that the question of Proposition 22's
constitutionality was pending before the state's appellate
courts (see below).
Coordinated Marriage Cases : Currently before the California
Supreme Court are six cases raising the question of whether
California's statutory ban on marriage between two persons of
the same sex violates the California Constitution by denying
equal protection of the laws on the basis of sexual orientation
or sex, by infringing on the fundamental right to marry, or by
denying the right to privacy and freedom of expression.
These six cases began in 2004. That year, the state's Judicial
Council ordered that the cases were to be coordinated and heard
together in San Francisco Superior Court. On March 14, 2005,
the San Francisco Superior Court issued a landmark ruling in the
coordinated marriage cases, concluding that same-sex couples are
indeed denied equal protection by marriage laws that prohibit
them from marrying. The trial court held that California's
exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage constitutes
discrimination on the basis of gender and interferes with the
fundamental right to marry the person of one's choosing. Under
the trial court's reasoning, California's statutory exclusion of
same-sex couples from marriage, the court ruled, should thus be
subject to the strictest level of constitutional scrutiny, known
as "strict scrutiny." But according to the trial court, the
marriage exclusion could not survive even the lowest level of
constitutional scrutiny-that is, review to determine whether the
law has even a "rational basis." The trial court explained that
California could not demonstrate any rational basis for denying
same-sex couples the right to marry. The trial court emphasized
that so-called "separate but equal" systems have long been
rejected by the courts as unconstitutional.
In an opinion that has been vacated by the California Supreme
Court's subsequent grant of review (see below), the California
Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District thereafter
reversed the San Francisco Superior Court on October 5, 2006,
upholding the state's statutory ban on marriages between persons
AB 43
Page 10
of the same sex. (In re Marriage Cases, 143 Cal. App. 4th 873.)
In a 2-1 opinion, Justice McGuiness, writing for the majority,
concluded that "California's historical definition of marriage
does not deprive individuals of a vested fundamental right or
discriminate against a suspect class," and that therefore the
law only needed to pass a "rational basis" test. (Id at 890.)
Under this deferential standard, Justice McGuiness held that the
California Legislature could constitutionally define marriage as
only between a man and a woman. Justice McGuiness side-stepped
the question of the scope of Proposition 22 and whether the
Legislature could reverse it (Id. at 899) and instead only
considered whether there was a rational basis for the
Legislature to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples.
Justice McGuiness concluded that the state had a legitimate
interest in maintaining a "traditional definition" of marriage.
More pointedly, however, Justice McGuiness concluded that if a
change is to be made, it must come from the Legislature or
voters, not the courts: "In the final analysis, the court is not
in the business of defining marriage. The Legislature has
control of the subject of marriage, subject only to initiatives
passed by the voters and constitutional restrictions. If
marriage is to be extended to same-sex couples, this change must
come from the people - either directly, through a voter
initiative, or through their elected representatives in the
Legislature." (Id. at 937-938, citations omitted.)
Justice Parrilli's concurring opinion agreed with Justice
McGuiness that the Legislature must ultimately define marriage,
but she wrote separately, apparently to express her view that
the Legislature should remove the ban on marriage between
persons of the same sex. She noted that "the forms marriage can
take have changed over the centuries, and will continue to
change if history is a reliable guide. It seems rational that
allowing more people to participate in the institution of
marriage would only strengthen that institution, not diminish it
. . . Seemingly, it would be wise to encourage such commitment,
especially where children and families are involved." Noting
the changing sensibilities and the struggles that gay and
lesbian couples have endured, Justice Parrilli concluded that
"if being gay or lesbian is an immutable trait or biologically
determined," then "the inequities of the current parallel
institutions [i.e. marriage and domestic partnership] should not
continue . . . if we are to remain faithful to our
Constitution." (Id at 938-943, Parrilli, J. concurring.)
AB 43
Page 11
Nonetheless, despite these beliefs, Parrilli agreed with Justice
McGuiness's opinion that rather than the courts, the Legislature
or the voters should decide whether same-sex couples may marry.
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Kline criticized the majority
for defining the issue in a way that he said pre-ordained its
conclusion. That is, the majority claimed it was obliged to use
the deferential "rational basis" test because, while there is a
fundamental right to marry, there is no fundamental right to
marry someone of the same sex. But according to Justice Kline,
the plaintiffs were no more asserting a "right to same-sex
marriage" than the plaintiffs in earlier challenges to
anti-miscegenation laws were asserting "a right to interracial
marriage." In both the current marriage cases and the
miscegenation cases, he noted, plaintiffs were asserting a right
to marry the person of their choice, and existing statutes
arbitrarily and unconstitutionally prevented them from doing so.
(Id. at 943-944.) Unlike his colleagues, Justice Kline
believed that the ban on marriage of same-sex couples involved
several fundamental rights (to marry and to privacy) and a
suspect classification (sexual orientation) and therefore the
law should have been analyzed under the heightened "strict
scrutiny" test. (Id. at 945-965, 970-971.) Nonetheless,
Justice Kline concluded that even under a rational basis test,
the ban on same sex marriage was not rationally related to any
legitimate state purpose. (Id. at 976-977.)
Finally, Justice Kline stated that in attempting to defend two
separate systems - marriage and domestic partnership - the
majority had adopted the repudiated doctrine of "separate but
equal." (Id. at 978-980 (referring to the infamous U.S. Supreme
Court decision, Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) 163 U.S. 573).) As
Justice Kline concluded: "Judicial opinions upholding blanket
denial of the right of gay men and lesbians to enter society's
most fundamental and sacred institution are as incompatible with
liberty and equality, and as inhumane, as the many opinions that
upheld denial of that right to interracial couples. Like them,
such opinions will not stand the test of time." (Id. at pp.
983-984.)
Following the intermediate appellate court's 2-1 decision, the
California Supreme Court voted unanimously to review the
marriage cases. Opening briefs were filed last week (April
2007), and responding briefs are due in a few months (early June
of 2007). The Court has not yet announced when it will hear
AB 43
Page 12
oral argument in the cases.
Other Recent State and Federal Court Opinions : Challenges to
laws banning marriage between persons of the same sex have been
reviewed by a number of other state courts in the last year,
almost all of which have upheld - relying on the rational basis
test - their own state's bans on same sex couples marrying.
Here in California, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
in May of last year (2006) held that, given the pending
California state litigation challenging California's exclusion
of same-sex couples from marriage, the federal district court
had correctly abstained from deciding whether California's
marriage laws violate the federal Constitution. The Ninth
Circuit also held that a same-sex couple in a registered
domestic partnership lacks standing to challenge the federal
DOMA. (Smelt v. County of Orange (9th Cir. 2006) 447 F.3d 673.)
Many State Initiatives to Ban Same-Sex Marriage Pass in Fall
2006 : While cases proceed through the courts, a number of state
ballot measures have attempted to override judicial debate by
declaring in state constitutions that marriage is only between a
man and a woman, and thereby effectively denying the courts the
power to change that definition. Of eight states that had
initiatives on the 2006 ballot, only one - Arizona - saw the
initiative defeated. However, the election results suggested
that traditional public opinion on this issue has been changing
nationwide, in that the votes were not as lopsided as were the
votes on 13 similar initiatives during the 2004 elections.
According to the website Stateline.org, which tracks state
legislation and initiatives, the percentage of voters opposed to
constitutional bans increased on average from 33% in 2004 to 39%
in 2006.
( www.stateline.orglive/printable/story?contentID=20695 ) ( See
also Gay Marriage Losing Punch as Ballot Issue, New York Times,
October 14, 2006.)
Recent International Developments : While courts and voters in
the United States continue to grapple with the issue of marriage
rights for same-sex couples, Spain and South Africa became the
latest nations, in July and November of 2006 respectively, to
legalize marriages of same-sex couples. (See Washington Post,
July 1, 2005, and New York Times, November 15, 2006.) They join
Belgium, the Netherlands, and Canada in legalizing same-sex
marriages. The Canadian Parliament recently rejected efforts of
Conservative MPs to restore the country's "traditional"
AB 43
Page 13
definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. (Toronto
Star, December 6, 2006.) The Supreme Court of Israel ruled in
November 2006 that same-sex couples who marry in foreign
jurisdictions are entitled to register their marriages in
Israel.
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 Proposition 22. As discussed below,
the answer to this question depends upon how broadly the
proposition is read. Under a more narrow reading, Proposition
22 applies only to marriages contracted out of state-that is, it
simply prevents California from recognizing marriages between
same-sex couples entered into outside California. Under a
broader reading, Proposition 22 prohibits marriages between
same-sex couples whether performed inside or outside of the
state.
Given the ambiguity in the text of Proposition 22,
interpretation of the measure requires review of the legislative
history-that is, the official ballot materials distributed to
the voters in 2000. It appears evident from those ballot
materials that the voters were concerned about recognizing
marriages contracted in other states. Proposition 22's
provision for its codification in section 308.5, directly after
section 308, which sets out the rules for recognizing
out-of-state marriages, appears to have been a deliberate
decision by Senator Pete Knight, the author of that measure, to
"head off" California's recognition of possible out-of-state
marriages, as reflected by the ballot materials' focus on
out-of-state marriages.
As noted above, Proposition 22 was declared unconstitutional by
the Superior Court in San Francisco in the coordinated marriage
cases. A divided Court of Appeal panel came to the opposite
conclusion. Depending on how the California Supreme Court rules
in those marriage cases, the entire consideration of Proposition
22's meaning that follows below may be beside the point. If the
Supreme Court upholds the San Francisco Superior Court's earlier
ruling that Proposition 22 itself is invalid, any Proposition 22
concern would evaporate. Here however is a brief summary of the
AB 43
Page 14
competing arguments about the intent of Proposition 22:
8) The "out-of-state marriage" reading of Proposition 22
Proponents of this bill argue that Proposition 22 was designed
to protect state sovereignty-that is, to prevent California from
being required to recognize marriages of same-sex couples
performed outside the state. Under this narrow reading, the
Legislature may properly permit partners of the same sex to
marry within California, even if it may not recognize marriages
of same-sex couples contracted in other states absent a new vote
of the people.
A recent opinion of another California appellate court, the
Second Appellate District of the Court of Appeal, issued on
March 30, 2005, appears to support this narrower reading of
Proposition 22. In the case of Armijo v. Miles, the appellate
court considered Proposition 22's meaning in the course of
rejecting the argument that Proposition 22 prevents the
Legislature from enacting protections for same-sex couples. The
court stated in dicta: "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 Code
section 308, that their marriages must be recognized as valid
marriages." (Emphasis added.)
The text of Proposition 22, proponents note, also 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, proponents note -"valid or recognized
in California"-and thus, according to AB 43's supporters, the
actual text of Proposition 22 appears limited to how California
will treat out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples.
The ballot arguments in support of Proposition 22 focused on
marriages from other states. For example, it was stated in the
proponents' arguments:
AB 43
Page 15
"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 the ballot arguments both by supporters and
opponents of Proposition 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 couples 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 Proposition 22, in that it leaves the text of
Proposition 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
Proposition 22 by the bill's proponents, if this measure 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
Proposition 22, absent a new vote of the people. Under this
approach, proponents argue there could 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 own laws more expansively than other states or
the federal government might interpret similar rules.
Similarly, California could conclude that it is willing to honor
marriages between same-sex couples entered within its borders,
while leaving other states to deal with the issue in their own
way.
8) The "complete ban" reading of Proposition 22
Proposition 22 may also be read more broadly as a general ban on
marriage by same-sex couples, whether entered into inside or
outside the state. Under this broader reading of the measure,
proponents of this view argue that Proposition 22 reasonably did
not feel the need to amend section 300's definition of marriage
because that section already clearly placed a ban on marriages
AB 43
Page 16
of same-sex couples contracted within the state. Therefore, it
is also possible that a court could find that this bill's
proposal to permit marriage between persons of the same sex
within California does violate Proposition 22. The state's
Legislative Counsel appears to have previously reached this
conclusion in an earlier analysis of 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 recent opinion of the Third Appellate District, issued April
4, 2005 in the case of Knight v. Superior Court, took this view
of Proposition 22 in one portion of its opinion. Although the
Third Appellate District emphasized that Proposition 22 was
focused on preventing recognition of out-of-state marriages of
same-sex couples, the court's opinion also included dicta that
stated "California will not legitimize or recognize same-sex
marriages from other jurisdictions" and "California will not
permit same-sex partners to validly marry within the state."
2. The larger legal question: Is a total ban of same-sex
marriage constitutional?
The issue of Proposition 22's reach arguably does not appear
determinative of whether the Legislature should act on this
bill. It is indisputable both that Family Code section 300
statutorily bars same-sex couples from marriage -- and that it
likewise raises serious constitutional concerns. Indeed, the
question of the constitutionality of both section 300 and 308.5
is, as noted above, currently being considered by the California
Supreme Court. Thus proponents argue that regardless of one's
interpretation of the scope of Proposition 22, the Legislature
could choose to support this bill in order to amend section 300
to the full extent of the Legislature's authority to do so --
leaving it to the Supreme Court to determine whether any
conflict with Proposition 22 exists and, if so, whether
Proposition 22 is constitutional.
Several points appear important to the constitutional analysis.
First, the history of California's definition of marriage
clearly appears to show an explicit intent to discriminate
against lesbians and gay men and to exclude same-sex couples
from marriage. Second, a landmark ruling from the California
Supreme Court recognizes a fundamental "right to join in
marriage with the person of one's choice." (Perez v. Sharp
AB 43
Page 17
(1948) 32 Cal.2d 711, 715.) Third, there arguably is not a
rational basis, much less a compelling reason, for the state to
exclude same-sex couples from marriage -- especially given
California's acknowledgment in the domestic partnership statutes
that same-sex couples and their children should have the same
legal protections that married couples and their children have.
Thus follows a quick review of the state's marriage statute, and
of the state constitutional provisions guaranteeing equal
protection.
A. History of Family Code Section 300
Prior to 1977, California law defined marriage as a relationship
between two "persons." In 1977, this gender neutral language
was changed to the current gender specific language by the
Legislature and then-Governor Jerry Brown in AB 607 (1977). The
history of the 1977 amendment is important because it appears to
indicate a clear intent by policy-makers to exclude lesbians and
gay men from the right to marry their chosen partners.
Employing reasoning that seems to rely on stereotypes about
women and men that were arguably outdated even then, the
Assembly Judiciary Committee analysis of that time described
marriage as granting "special benefits" that "were designed to
meet situations where one spouse, typically the female, could
not adequately provide for herself because she was engaged in
rearing children." (Committee Analysis of AB 607 (1977).) The
legislative history of the 1977 amendment to the state's
marriage statute thus appears to suggest that it was enacted
with the express intent of treating same-sex couples
unequally-based on what are now generally perceived to be
arguably inaccurate assumptions about sex-role stereotypes.
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
The California Constitution contains two independent equal
protection provisions. As noted above, Article I, Section 7
(a), provides "[a] person may not be deprived of life, liberty,
AB 43
Page 18
or property without due process of law or denied equal
protection of the laws. . ." For nearly three decades, the
California courts have held that the equal protection clause
protects gay and lesbian persons. In the landmark decision of
Gay Law Students v. Pacific Telephone and Telegraph, 24 Cal.3d
458 (1977), the California Supreme Court expressly held that
subdivision (a) of Article I, section 7 guarantees lesbians and
gay men, as a class, equal protection. In addition, Article I,
section 7 (b) provides: "A citizen or class of citizens may not
be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same
terms to all citizens." Under California's current marriage
laws, heterosexual couples and their families are an
identifiable "class of citizens" who are arguably granted
rights, privileges, and immunities that are denied to another
identifiable 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. Sharp
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. Sharp, 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 held that "liberty," within the meaning of the
state's 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,
establish a home, and bring up children . . ." (Emphasis
added.) Given the fundamental nature of the right to marry, the
Court held that any infringement of that right "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." More,
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 ? could not use
"arbitrary classifications of groups or races" as a substitute."
(Emphasis added.)
C. Recent U.S. Supreme Court cases
AB 43
Page 19
Two cases from the U.S. Supreme Court decided by 6-3 majorities
have recently addressed issues 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 Court stated that
"Amendment 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, in Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S.Ct. 2472 (2003), in
an opinion by Justice Kennedy, the U.S. Supreme Court struck
down a state same-sex 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.
D. Rationales offered for opposite-sex only marriage laws
The primary substantive rationale that Hawaii, Vermont,
Massachusetts, New York, Washington, and New Jersey have offered
in defense of their laws prohibiting marriage between persons of
the same sex are similar to the main argument offered in
opposition to the current bill-namely, that only heterosexuals
can procreate and optimally rear children. Opponents of
marriage between same-sex couples insist that "marriage" has
always been defined as a relationship between a man and a woman,
the primary purpose of which is procreation and the raising of
children. While a strong argument can be made that marriage has
been traditionally defined in this way, in Perez, as noted
above, the California Supreme Court held that tradition alone,
no matter how longstanding, cannot justify excluding a class of
couples from marriage. Indeed, such a reading of law would lead
to the seemingly silly conclusion that heterosexual couples that
do not, or cannot, procreate should be barred from marriage and
its corresponding benefits.
AB 43
Page 20
Closely related to the argument that only heterosexual couples
can procreate is the argument that only marriage between a man
and a woman can create a stable home for child rearing. Few
would dispute, including proponents of this bill, that the
promotion of stable marriages is sound public policy. For
example, the provision of benefits to married spouses reinforces
marital commitment, thereby helping to maintain stable families
that benefit children. But such policies arguably would benefit
same-sex couples raising children just as much as they benefit
opposite-sex couples. Opponents of marriage between persons of
the same sex, however, contend that, while it is possible for
same-sex couples to rear a child, heterosexual parents provide
the "optimal" setting for child-rearing. However, in light of
the state's determination that homosexual couples could be
"excellent" parents (a fact borne out by scientific study and
research) that reasoning, too, seems suspect. The Legislature
has already provided, in its domestic partnership statutes, for
same-sex couples and their children to have the same legal
protections that married couples and their children have. In
addition, California already allows same-sex couples to adopt by
statute, and the California Supreme Court has upheld
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." In sum, the
arguments based on procreation and child-rearing that have been
offered in opposition to permitting same-sex couples to marry
appear to run directly counter to established California public
policy. Indeed, throughout the California marriage litigation,
the State of California has declined to rely on any rationale
related to procreation or parenting, given California's clear
public policy. Thus the California Legislature's public policy
determinations, as well as the state's constitutional
provisions, all generally appear to point to the same
conclusion: that separate is indeed seldom, if ever, equal.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Many groups and individuals wrote in
support of this measure. Just one example of the strongly held
views in support of this measure is seen in the letter by the
bill's sponsor, Equality California (EQCA), which states in part
that:
The bill would guarantee the California Constitution's
AB 43
Page 21
promise of religious freedom while extending the vital
protections afforded by marriage to loving, committed
same-sex couples? Current California law ? provides
registered domestic partners with a significant number
of legal rights, benefits, responsibilities, duties,
and obligations available to married couples. However,
while California's domestic partner law is very
important, it is not recognized by other jurisdictions
and does not provide more than one thousand rights and
responsibilities under federal law that are
unavailable to domestic partners, including the right
to sponsor a partner for immigration to the U.S., the
right to collect social security survivors benefits,
the right to family and medical leave, and the right
to file joint federal income tax returns? Marriage is
not simply a legal status. It is a social institution
that our society recognizes as the ultimate expression
of love and commitment. Married couples are recognized
as a family unit and are afforded a unique respect and
dignity in our culture. AB 43 would provide critical
social support and validation to tens of thousands of
same-sex couples in California?
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Many groups and individuals also wrote
in opposition to this measure. These groups and individuals
oppose the bill because, they believe, it violates the will and
vote of the people and the California constitution. Just one
example of this view is reflected in correspondence by Capitol
Resource Institute. The group writes in opposition to the bill
that:
In 2000, voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition
22, which clearly stated that marriage in California
is defined as between a man and a woman. Over 61% of
voters agreed that California will only recognize
traditional marriage. AB 43 seeks to redefine
marriage as being between two people - regardless of
gender.
Proponents of homosexual marriage have argued that
Proposition 22 only applies to out-of-state homosexual
marriages. This argument is completely nonsensical.
AB 43
Page 22
If the people of California opposed homosexual
marriages in other states, why would they at the same
time approve them within the state? Heterosexual
marriages in other states are legally recognized in
California because Californians approve of traditional
marriage. If citizens were concerned about granting
the rights and benefits of married couples to couples
entering the state, they would have banned all
out-of-state marriages legal recognition.
It is misleading and disingenuous to argue that the
people of California did not mean to ban homosexual
marriage in California when they passed Proposition
22. Voters considered Proposition 22 a straight
up-or-down vote on homosexual marriage in California.
And they overwhelmingly support traditional marriage.
AB 43 is an attempt to subvert the will of the people
and dismantle the necessary institution of marriage.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Equality California (Sponsor) |American Humanist Association |
|ACLU of Southern California |Anti-Defamation League |
|AIDS Legal Referral Panel |Arcadia Congregational United |
|AIDS Project Los Angeles |Church of |
|Alum Rock United Methodist | Christ |
|Church |Asian Americans for Civil |
|American Academy of Pediatrics |Rights and Equality |
|American Civil Liberties Union |Asian American Drug Abuse |
|The American College of |Program |
|Obstetricians and |Asian American Queer Women |
| Gynecologists District IX |Activists |
|American Federation of State, |Asian Pacific American Legal |
|County, and |Center of |
| Municipal Employees | Southern California |
|Asian Pacific American Labor |Asian Pacific AIDS Intervention |
|Alliance |Team |
|Asian Pacific American Legal |Asian Pacific American Bar |
|Center |Association |
AB 43
Page 23
|Asian Pacific Islander Law |California Teachers Association |
|Students |California Women's Agenda |
| Association, UCLA |Californians for Justice |
|Asian Pacific Islander Lesbian, |Center for Young Women's |
|Bisexual |Development |
| Women & Transgender Network |Centro Legal De La Raza |
|Asian Pacific Islander Parents, |Chalice Christian Church, |
|Families & |Disciples of Christ |
| Friends of Lesbians and Gays |Charles Houston Bar Association |
|Asian Pacific Islander Pride |Children of Lesbians and Gays |
|Council |Everywhere |
|Asian Pacific Policy & Planning |Chinese for Affirmative Action |
|Council | Chinese Rainbow Association |
|Asian Pacific Student |Christ the Shepard Lutheran |
|Association, Loyola |Church, Altadena |
| Marymount University |Christ the Good Shepard |
|Asian Law Caucus |Lutheran Church, |
|API Equality | San Jose |
|Barangay |Church of the Foothills |
|Bay Area Lawyers for Individual |City & County of San Francisco |
|Freedom |City of West Hollywood |
|Bay Area Immigrant Rights |Coalition for Economic Equity |
|Coalition |Coalition for Humane Immigrant |
|Bay Area Municipal Elections |Rights of |
|Committee | Los Angeles |
|Being Alive |Communication Workers of |
|Beth Chayim Chadashim |America, AFL-CIO, Local 9000 |
|Congregation |Community Congregational United |
|Bethany United Methodist Church |Church of |
|Bienestar Human Services | Christ |
|Bill DeFrank Community Center |Community Lutheran Chruch |
|Board of Equalization Vice |Community United Against |
|Chair, Judy Chu |Violence |
|Board of Supervisors County of |Conejo Valley Unitarian |
|Santa Clara |Universalist |
|Body Wisdom Institute | Fellowship |
|California Alliance for Retired |Congregation Kol Ami, West |
|Americans |Hollywood |
|California Association of Human |Congregation Or Ami |
|Relations |Congregation Shir Chadash |
| Organizations |Disability Rights Education & |
|California Commission on the |Defense Fund |
|Status of |EarthWorks Enterprises |
| Women |Equal Justice Society |
|California Coalition for Civil |Equal Rights Advocates |
AB 43
Page 24
|Rights |The Ecumenical Catholic Church |
|California Church IMPACT |Fair Oaks United Methodist |
|California Democratic Party, |Church |
|LGBT Caucus |Fairview Community Church |
|California Faith for Equality |Filipinos for Affirmative |
|California Federation of |Action |
|Teachers |First Congregational Church of |
|California Immigrant Policy |Alameda |
|Center |First Congregational Church of |
|California Immigrant Welfare |Berkeley |
| Collaborative |First Congregational Church of |
|California Nurses Association |Pasadena |
|California Safe Schools |First Presbyterian Church of |
|Coalition |Baldwin Park |
|California Secretary of State |First Unitarian Church of |
|Debra Bowen |Oakland |
|California School Employees |First Unitarian Universalist |
|Association |Society of San |
|California State Employees | Francisco |
|Association |Friends Committee on |
|California State Controller |Legislation of |
|John Chiang | California |
|California State Treasurer Bill |Metropolitan Community Church, |
|Lockyer |Sacramento |
| |Metropolitan Community Church, |
| |San Diego |
| |Mission Peak Unitarian |
|Gay Asian Pacific Support |Univeralist |
|Network | Congregation |
|Gay & Lesbian Adolescent Social |NARAL ProChoice California |
|Services |National Association of Social |
|Gay & Lesbian Alliance of the |Workers, |
|Central Coast | California Chapter |
|Gay & Lesbian Medical |National Association for the |
|Association | Advancement of Colored |
|Gray Panthers California |People, |
|Gray Panthers National Office | California State Conference |
|Gay-Straight Alliance Network |National Black Justice |
|Greenlining Institute |Coalition |
|Holy Nativity Episcopal Church |National Campaign to Restore |
|Holy Spirit Fellowship |Civil Rights |
|Housing Rights, Inc. |National Center for Lesbian |
|Humanist Association of Greater |Rights |
|Sacramento |National Center for Youth Law |
|Humanist Community of Silicon |National Gay and Lesbian Task |
AB 43
Page 25
|Valley |Force |
|Human Rights Campaign |National Korean American |
|Human Rights/Fair Housing |Service & |
|Commission of | Education Consortium |
| the City and County of |National Latina/o Law Student |
|Sacramento |Association |
|Impact Fund |National Lawyers Guild, San |
|Inland Counties Stonewall |Francisco Bay |
|Democrats | Area Chapter |
|Japanese American Bar |National Lesbian and Gay Law |
|Association |Association |
|Japanese American Citizens |National Organization for Women |
|League - Pacific |- |
| Regional Office | California |
|Japanese American Citizens |Nepal Sewa Center |
|League of |Nevada County Clerk Kathleen |
| Watsonville/Santa Cruz |Smith |
|Korean Immigrant Workers |?M?i |
|Advocates |Online Policy Group |
|Korean Resource Center |Orange County Asian Pacific |
|La Raza Centro Legal |Islander |
|Lake Research Partners | Community Alliance |
|Lambda Legal |Our Family Coalition |
|Lambda Letters Project |Out & Equal |
|Law Center for Families |Palm Springs/Desert Communities |
|Lawyers Committee for Civil |Palomar Unitarian Universalist |
|Rights of the |Fellowship |
| San Francisco Bay Area |Pacific Asian Counseling |
|Legal Services for Prisoners |Services |
|with Children |Pacific Unitarian Church |
|LGBT Caucus, California |People for the American Way |
|Democratic Party |PFLAG | National Office |
|Little Tokyo Service Center |PFLAG | Anderson Valley |
|Log Cabin Republicans |PFLAG | Bakersfield |
|Los Angeles County Bar |PFLAG | Central Coast |
|Association, Family |PFLAG | Danville/San Ramon |
| Law Section |Valley |
|Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian |PFLAG | Fremont/East Bay |
|Center |PFLAG | Fresno |
|Mahu, Asian Pacific Islander |PFLAG | Grass Valley/Nevada |
|LGBT Student |City |
| Organization, UCLA |PFLAG | Greater Placer County |
|Marin County Clerk Michael |PFLAG | Idyllwild/San Jacinto |
|Smith |Valley |
|Metropolitan Community Church, |PFLAG | Laguna Hills/South |
AB 43
Page 26
|Los |Orange County |
| Angeles |PFLAG | Long Beach |
|Metropolitan Community Church, |PFLAG | Los Angeles |
|San Jose |PFLAG | Marysville/Yuba City |
|Metropolitan Community Church |PFLAG | Merced |
|in the Valley |SAC LEGAL |
|Mexican American Legal Defense |Saint John's Presbyterian |
|and |Church |
| Education Fund |Saint Matthew's Church |
|Mira Vista United Church of |San Francisco Black |
|Christ, El Cerrito |Firefighters |
|PFLAG | Modesto/Stanislaus |San Francisco Human Rights |
|PFLAG | Monterey/Monterey |Commission |
|County |San Mateo County Clerk Warren |
|PFLAG | Oakhurst |Solcum |
|PFLAG | Oakland/East Bay |Santa Cruz County Clerk Gail |
|PFLAG | Orange County |Pellerin |
|PFLAG | Southern Pacific Region |Satrang |
| |Search to Involve Pilipino |
|PFLAG | Oakland-East Bay |Americans |
|PFLAG | Palm Springs/Desert |Seventh Avenue Presbyterian |
|Communities |Church, San |
|PFLAG | Palos Verdes/South Bay | Francisco |
|PFLAG | Pasadena |Service Employees International |
|PFLAG | Placerville/El Dorado |Union |
|County |San Francisco Labor Council, |
|PFLAG | Redding/Shasta County |AFL-CIO |
|PFLAG | Redlands |San Francisco LGBT Community |
|PFLAG | Ridgecrest |Center |
|PFLAG | Riverside |San Francisco NOW |
|PFLAG | Rossmoor/Walnut Creek |San Francisco AIDS Foundation |
|PFLAG | Sacramento |Social Justice Committee of the |
|PFLAG | San Diego County |Unitarian Society of Santa |
|PFLAG | San Francisco |Barbara |
|PFLAG | Santa Rosa/North Bay |Soka Gakkai International |
|PFLAG | San Joaquin/Stockton |Sophia Spirit |
|PFLAG | San Jose/Peninsula |South Asian Network |
|PFLAG | San Luis Obispo/Central |South Bay LGBT Community |
|Coast |Organization of |
|PFLAG | Santa Barbara | Torrance |
|PFLAG | Santa Clarita |Starr King |
|PFLAG | Santa Cruz/Santa Cruz |State Board of Equalization, |
|County |Chairwoman |
|PFLAG | Sonora/Mother Lode | Betty Yee |
|PFLAG | Temecula |Stonewall Democratic Club of |
AB 43
Page 27
|PFLAG | Vacaville/North Solano |Greater Sacramento |
|County |Straight Spouse Network |
|PFLAG | Ventura County | Tenderloin Housing Clinic |
|PFLAG | Walnut Creek/Diablo |The Center Orange County |
|Valley |Throop Memorial Church, |
|PFLAG | Westwood/Lake Almanor |Unitarian |
|Philanthropic Initiative for | Universalist |
|Racial Equity |Transgender Law Center |
|Pilipino Workers' Center |Trinity Montclair United |
|Pioneer Congregational United |Methodist Church |
|Church of |Unitarian Universalist Church, |
| Christ, Sacramento |Berkeley |
|Pine United Methodist Church |Unitarian Universalist Church, |
|Planned Parenthood Golden Gate |Redwood City |
|Progressive Christians Uniting |Unitarian Universalist Church, |
|Progressive Jewish Alliance |Sacramento |
|Protection & Advocacy, Inc |Unitarian Universalist Church, |
|Pride at Work AFL-CIO, Southern |Santa Monica |
| |Unitarian Universalist Church, |
| California |Ventura |
|Planned Parenthood Affiliates |Unitarian Universalist |
|of |Legislative Ministry |
| California | California |
|Public Advocates, Inc. |United Church of Christ, |
|RainbowPUSH |Fullerton |
|Reconciling Ministries Network, |United Church of Christ, Niles |
|United |Congregational |
| Methodists | Church |
|Unity Fellowship of Christ |United Church of Christ, |
|Church |Northern |
|United Teachers Los Angeles | California/Nevada Conference |
|United University Church |United Church of Christ, Simi |
|Visual Communications West |Valley |
|Hollywood |United Farm Workers |
|Presbyterian Church | |
|Women's Leadership Alliance | |
|Yolo County Clerk Freddie | |
|Oakley | |
|Yolo County Supervisor Mariko | |
|Yamada | |
|Numerous individuals | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Opposition
AB 43
Page 28
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Autocam Medical of California | & Landscaping |
|Bakersfield Pregnancy Center |HIS Creations Today |
|Beels & Associates, Inc. |Holy Tabernacle Church of God |
|BNS Electronics, Inc. |in Christ, El |
|Brawley Holy Tebernacle | Centro |
|C.O.G.I.C., Brawley |Home Inspection Services |
|California Family Council |H. Terry Buchanan Real Estate |
|California Right to Life |Investments |
|Committee, Inc. |Indian Street LLC |
|Calvary Chapel Chino Valley |Iglesia Cristiana De Fullerton |
|Calvary Chapel of Santa Maria |Jesus Revolution Now |
|Calvary Church |Johnson Chapel A.M.E., El |
|Campaign for California |Centro |
|Families |Johnson Edwards Entertainment |
|Campaign for Children and |KYCC Radio |
|Families |Kairos Communication Service |
|Capital Christian Center |International |
|Capitol Resource Institute |Main Street Mortgage |
|Centerpointe Realty, Inc. |Marty Price & Associates |
|CEO Solutions |MVP Vacuum Inc |
|Concerned Women for America |Nancy P. Holladay, CPA |
|Chapman & Chapman |National Association of |
|Christian Community Concerns |Evangelicals |
|Church of the Divide |Natomas Men's Ministry |
|Church of the Living Water, El |New Bethel Baptist Church, |
|Centro |Brawley |
|Community-West Christian Center |One Way Sanctified Holiness |
|Complete Computer Solutions |Church, El |
|Custom Home Accessories | Centro |
|DGS Capital |Plug-It Products |
|Douglas E. Shively, CPA |Pro-Family Law Center |
|Eastside Christian Church |Robert J. Sutton, Attorney At |
|Educational Resources |Law |
|Edwards Chapel C.M.C, El Centro |Rohnert Park Chinese Christian |
|Finance & Tax Management |Church |
|Solutions |Rose's Computer Services |
|First Baptist Church of Taft |Saddleback Covenant Church |
|First Christian Church of |Santa Maria Foursquare Church & |
|Huntington Beach |Uturn |
|First Evangelical Lutheran |Second Baptist Church, El |
|Church |Centro |
|Fresh Air & Water Technologies |Sequoia Brigade Camp, Inc |
|GU Solutions |Slavic Missionary Church, Inc. |
AB 43
Page 29
|Head High Creations |Smart Design Woodworking |
|Higher Ground Equipment Rental |Solid Rock Christian |
|@ Grading |Ministries, Imperial |
|Susan C. Tatar, CPA |Sonrise Academy |
|Sweet Home Missionary Baptist |Southland Equine Veterinary |
|Church, El |Dental Services |
| Centro |St. John's Anglican Church |
|The Carpenter | |
|The Chapel Christian Fellowship | |
|Thrift International | |
|Traditional Values Coalition | |
|Truelight Missionary Baptist | |
|Church | |
|VR Solutions | |
|Wesson Hearing Aid Center | |
|Windsor Capital Mortgage | |
|Corporation | |
|Zurich International and | |
|Associates | |
|Numerous individuals | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis Prepared by : Drew Liebert / JUD. / (916) 319-2334