BILL ANALYSIS Ó ------------------------------------------------------------ |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1140| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ------------------------------------------------------------ THIRD READING Bill No: SB 1140 Author: Leno (D) Amended: 4/23/12 Vote: 21 SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 4-1, 5/1/12 AYES: Evans, Blakeslee, Corbett, Leno NOES: Harman SUBJECT : Marriage SOURCE : California Council of Churches IMPACT Equality California DIGEST : This bill provides that marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil, and not religious, contract. This bill specifies that no priest, minister, rabbi, or authorized person of any religious denomination would be required to solemnize a marriage that is contrary to the tenets of his/her faith. This bill additionally states that any refusal to solemnize a marriage under this provision would not affect the tax exempt status of any entity. ANALYSIS : Existing law enumerates persons who are authorized to solemnize a marriage, including to, but not limited to, any priest, minister, rabbi, or authorized person of any religious denomination. (Family Code Section 400) CONTINUED SB 1140 Page 2 Existing law provides that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. (United States Constitution, Amendment 1) Existing law provides that free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed. (California Constitution, Article I, Section 4) This bill provides that marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil, and not a religious, contract. This bill specifies that no priest, minister, rabbi, or authorized person of any religious denomination would be required to solemnize a marriage that is contrary to the tenets of his/her faith. This bill additionally states that any refusal to solemnize a marriage under the above provision shall not affect the tax exempt status of any entity. Prior Legislation SB 906 (Leno, 2010) passed the Senate (23-11) on August 25, 2010 but was vetoed. AB 43 (Leno, 2007), AB 19 (Leno, 2005) and AB 849 (Leno, 2005) would have enacted the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, which would have provided that a marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between two persons, and included similar religious exemption language as this bill. AB 19 did not pass the Assembly, and AB 849 and AB 43 were vetoed by the Governor. FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No SUPPORT : (Verified 5/2/12) California Council of Churches IMPACT (co-source) Equality California (co-source) AFSCME, AFL-CIO Anti-Defamation League California Communities United Institute SB 1140 Page 3 OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/2/12) California Catholic Conference Catholics for the Common Good ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : In support of this bill, the author writes, "In the national debate surrounding marriage equality, opponents argue that clergy will be forced to solemnize marriages of same-sex couples or face legal consequences, even when their faith does not permit or support such marriages. While proponents of marriage equality disagree with the validity of this concern, citing a law of evidence that clergy in states of countries with marriage equality have ever experienced any such consequences, they acknowledge that each state (except Iowa) which has enacted a marriage equality law has also enacted an explicit religious exemption. As long as there is confusion over this issue, it is a valid and necessary area for the legislature to act in order to clarify constitutional rights." ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Catholic for the Common Good states: Catholics for the Common Good strongly opposes SB 1140 as it seeks to create two new and distinct types of marriages in California Family Code. This will create confusion and a conflict with the state constitution, which defines marriage. Marriage is a reality that serves a public purpose; it is the only institution that unites a man and a woman with each other and any children born from their union. It is the same reality that has been recognized by every society, culture, and religion, each with its own competency. It is the same reality that is recognized under current law by the state and religions. There is no justification or public interest for changing that. Proponents of the bill argue that there is concern by various religions that if marriage is redefined as merely the public recognition of a committed relationship to accommodate same-sex couples, religions would be forced SB 1140 Page 4 to recognize or solemnize such weddings. That is not a concern, since the state has no competence or authority to tell religions who is qualified or not for marriage according to their faith. If the state were to try to impose religious qualifications, it would clearly be violation of the First Amendment regarding the establishment of a state religion by dictating what people of faith must do in the course of practicing their religion. If the bill's sponsors were truly concerned and serious about providing protection for people of faith, they could provide conscience and freedom of religious expression provisions that would protect institutions and individuals from discrimination and abuse should they fail to make facilities available or provide services to people or events that conflict with their witness of the unique value of marriage to children and society, and the public interest in promoting that men and women marry before they have children . Without serious religious expression protections, the only consequence of the bill seems to be adding confusion and conflict related to the only public institution that unites children with their natural mothers and fathers. We, therefore, respectfully ask the members of the Judiciary Committee to vote "no" on SB 1140. RJG:kc 5/3/12 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END ****