BILL ANALYSIS ------------------------------------------------------------ |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 54| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ------------------------------------------------------------ UNFINISHED BUSINESS Bill No: SB 54 Author: Leno (D) Amended: 7/15/09 Vote: 21 PRIOR SENATE VOTES NOT RELEVANT ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 47-29, 09/03/09 - See last page for vote SUBJECT : Out-of-state same-sex marriages SOURCE : Equality California DIGEST : This is a new bill. As it left the Senate, the bill eliminated the exception in current law that allows health plans and health insurers to use gender as a basis for premium, price, or charge differentials, when based on valid statistical and actuarial data. These provisions were deleted in the Assembly. This bill provides that, notwithstanding any other provision of law: (1) a marriage between two persons of the same sex contracted outside of California that is valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which it was contracted and that was contracted before November 5, 2008 (before passage of Proposition 8) is valid in California, and (2) two persons of the same sex who contracted a marriage outside of California on or after November 5, 2008 that is valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which it was contracted shall have the same rights, protections, and CONTINUED SB 54 Page 2 benefits and subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from the California Constitution, the United States Constitution, statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses with the sole exception of the designation of "marriage." ANALYSIS : Existing law 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. Existing case law provides that, while on and after November 5, 2008, only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California, marriages of same-sex couples that were performed prior to November 5, 2008, are valid. This bill provides that, notwithstanding any other provision of law, a marriage between two persons of the same sex 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 if the marriage was contracted prior to November 5, 2008. Existing case law also recognizes that while, effective November 5, 2008, same-sex couples lack the right to enter into a relationship designated "marriage," they possess the right to the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage, including, the opportunity of an individual to establish an officially recognized and protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage. This bill specifies that, notwithstanding any other provision of law, two persons of the same sex who contracted a marriage on or after November 5, 2008, that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, as specified, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses with CONTINUED SB 54 Page 3 the sole exception of the designation of "marriage." Background This bill addresses the presently uncertain question of how California should treat same-sex marriages entered outside of this state. After the passage of Proposition 8, the California Supreme Court on May 15, 2009, in Strauss v. Horton , upheld its passage, but went on to hold that "same-sex couples retain the same substantive protections embodied in the state constitutional rights of privacy and due process as those accorded to opposite-sex couples and the same broad protections under the state equal protection clause that are set forth in the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases , including the general principle that sexual orientation constitutes a suspect classification and that statutes according differential treatment on the basis of sexual orientation are constitutionally permissible only if they satisfy the strict scrutiny standard of review." (Strauss v. Horton (2009) 46 Cal.4th 364, 412.) The Court also upheld the validity of the 18,000 same-sex marriages validly entered in California before passage of Proposition 8. Under this bill, sponsored by Equality California, all valid same-sex marriages entered outside of California before passage of Proposition 8 will be legally recognized as such in California; and couples in all such marriages entered into after passage of Proposition 8 will have all of the same rights, responsibilities and obligations as married couples, with the sole exception of using the legal designation of "marriage." FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No SUPPORT : (Verified 9/3/09) Equality California (source) American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy American Civil Liberties Union Anti-Defamation League Betty T. Yee, Chairwoman, California State Board of Equalization CONTINUED SB 54 Page 4 California Commission on the Status of Women California Communities United Institute California School Employees Association Congregation Kol Ami, West Hollywood's Reform Synagogue GSA Network Housing Rights, Inc. Humanist Association of the Greater Sacramento Area National Association of Social Workers National Center for Lesbian Rights Out & Equal Workplace Advocates Planned Parenthood Progressive Jewish Alliance San Francisco LGBT Community Center Scouting for All OPPOSITION : (Verified 9/3/09) California Family Council California Catholic Conference ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Equality California states in support: "Equality California (EQCA) is pleased to sponsor your SB 54, which would clarify the legal status of same-sex couples that married outside of California before and after the passage of Proposition 8?. "On November 4, 2008 Proposition 8, the initiative constitutional amendment that eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry in California, passed by a narrow 52 percent margin. Civil rights organizations promptly filed suit with the California Supreme Court in the case of Strauss v. Horton , asking that it overturn the initiative as an invalid revision. The Court ruled on May 26, 2009 to uphold Proposition 8 and at the same time preserve more than 18,000 marriages that took place between June 16 and November 4, 2008. Those marriages continue to be fully valid and recognized by the state of California. "The Court in Strauss v. Horton did not specifically address the marriages of same-sex couples that married out-of-state because no one in that situation was a party in the case. However, based on the Court's reasoning in CONTINUED SB 54 Page 5 Strauss and In re Marriage Cases , as well as longstanding family law principles, it is clear that those marriages must continue to be recognized in California. The Court in In re Marriage Cases struck down Family Code section 308.5, which purported to prohibit in-state marriages of same-sex couples and deny recognition to such marriages performed out of state. The Court held that such marriages must be recognized pursuant to Family Code Section 308, just as the out-of-state marriages of different-sex couples are recognized. Further, the Court held that different treatment of out-of-state and in-state marriages would violate the federal Privileges and Immunities Clause. "Same-sex couples who married outside of California before the passage of Proposition 8 reasonably relied on that holding and the express mandate of recognition in Section 308. In addition, same-sex couples that were already married in another jurisdiction were prohibited from re-marrying in California, based on Family Code Section 301 (stating that an individual must be unmarried in order to marry in California), and those who attempted to re-marry were barred from doing so. SB 54 would clarify the Court's decision so that couples that were married in a jurisdiction other than California prior to November 5, 2008 clearly understand that they will continue to be recognized as married in California. "The bill would also clarify, following the holding in Strauss v. Horton , the legal status of same-sex couples who married outside of California after the enactment of Proposition 8 on November 5, 2008. In Strauss the Court made clear that its primary holding from Marriage Cases is still valid: the California Constitution requires that same-sex couples must be granted full equality under the law, including all the substantive rights and responsibilities of marriage, other than the word 'marriage.' SB 54 would implement that holding, making it clear that same-sex couples who marry in other jurisdictions will have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and will be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law as are granted to and imposed upon opposite-sex spouses, with the sole exception of the designation of 'marriage.' CONTINUED SB 54 Page 6 "In conclusion, SB 54 would remove any confusion for same-sex couples and their families regarding recognition of out-of-state marriages that occurred before or after Proposition 8 passed. Such clarification is essential in the wake of Proposition 8 and the Supreme Court's ruling in Strauss. EQCA thanks you for carrying this legislation and looks forward to working with you and your staff toward its passage." ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California Catholic Conference states in opposition "?SB 54 which inappropriately attempts to circumvent the state constitution and the expressed will of California voters by granting validity to same-sex marriages which occurred in other jurisdictions prior to November 5, 2008. "On May 26, 2009, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 which reads: 'Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.' Although they did grandfather in those same-sex marriages that occurred in the state in the interim between June 18 and November 4, 2008, they declined to address the validity of same-sex marriages contracted in other states prior to the November 2008 vote?." ASSEMBLY FLOOR : AYES: Ammiano, Beall, Block, Blumenfield, Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero, Charles Calderon, Chesbro, Coto, De La Torre, De Leon, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Galgiani, Hall, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill, Huber, Huffman, Jones, Krekorian, Lieu, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Monning, Nava, John A. Perez, V. Manuel Perez, Portantino, Ruskin, Salas, Saldana, Skinner, Solorio, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico, Yamada, Bass NOES: Adams, Anderson, Arambula, Bill Berryhill, Tom Berryhill, Blakeslee, Conway, Cook, Duvall, Emmerson, Fletcher, Fuller, Gaines, Garrick, Gilmore, Hagman, Harkey, Jeffries, Knight, Logue, Miller, Nestande, Niello, Nielsen, Silva, Smyth, Audra Strickland, Tran, Villines NO VOTE RECORDED: Carter, Davis, DeVore, Vacancy CONTINUED SB 54 Page 7 RJG:nl 9/17/09 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END **** CONTINUED