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 ****