BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1306|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 1306
Author: Leno (D)
Amended: 4/29/14
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 5-2, 4/8/14
AYES: Jackson, Corbett, Lara, Leno, Monning
NOES: Anderson, Vidak
SUBJECT : Marriage
SOURCE : Equality California
National Center for Lesbian Rights
DIGEST : This bill repeals the provision of the Family Code
which provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is
valid or recognized by the State, removes language from the
Family Code which provides that marriage is only between a man
and a woman, and replaces other gendered language in the Family
Code with gender-neutral terms. This bill also provides that
marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract
between two persons, and removes limitations on the validity of
same-sex marriages performed outside of California.
Senate Floor Amendments of 4/29/14 clarify that cohabitation for
the purposes of a presumption of spousal support termination, is
not limited to persons of the opposite sex.
ANALYSIS : Existing law provides that only marriage between a
man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
CONTINUED
SB 1306
Page
2
This bill repeals the above code section.
Existing law provides that a marriage is a personal relation
arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman.
This bill instead provides that marriage is a personal relation
arising out of a civil contract between two persons.
Existing law provides that marriages valid in the jurisdiction
where contracted, except for same-sex marriages contracted after
November 5, 2008, are valid in California.
Existing law provides that same-sex marriages contracted after
November 5, 2008 have the same rights, protections, benefits and
responsibilities as imposed upon spouses except for the
designation of "marriage."
This bill instead provides that a marriage contracted outside of
California that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction
in which the marriage was contracted, is valid in California.
This bill makes other conforming changes in the Family Code by
replacing gendered language with gender neutral language.
Background
On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court, in a 4-3
decision, struck down as unconstitutional the California
statutes enacted by Proposition 22 in 2000 limiting marriage to
a man and a woman. (In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th
757.) Following the Court's landmark decision, approximately
18,000 same-sex couples wed in California. However, opponents
of same-sex marriage began circulating petitions to amend the
statutory text of invalid Family Code Section 308.5 into the
Constitution even before the Supreme Court issued its ruling,
and enough signatures were gathered to qualify the petition as
Proposition 8. On November 4, 2008, Proposition 8 passed by a
52% margin. Civil rights organizations again filed suit with
the California Supreme Court asking that it overturn the
initiative as an invalid revision.
On May 26, 2009, the Supreme Court in Strauss v. Horton (2009)
46 Cal.4th 364, upheld Proposition 8 in a 6-1 decision, but
CONTINUED
SB 1306
Page
3
held, unanimously, that the same-sex marriages performed in
California before the passage of Proposition 8 remain valid. In
Strauss, the Supreme Court first determined that Proposition 8
did not repeal the constitutional rights of individuals to
choose their life partners and enter into "a committed,
officially recognized, and protected family relationship that
enjoys all the constitutionally based incidents of marriage"
recognized by the Court in Marriage Cases. (Strauss, 46 Cal.4th
at 388.) Instead, the Court found, Proposition 8 "carves out a
narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional
rights, reserving the official designation of the term
'marriage' for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of
state constitutional law, but leaving undisturbed all of the
other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex
couple's state constitutional right to establish an officially
recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee
of equal protection of the laws."
On May 22, 2009, opponents of Proposition 8 filed an action in
federal court in the Northern District of California challenging
Proposition 8 as violating both the due process clause and equal
protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the federal
Constitution. On February 7, 2012, the United States Court of
Appeal for the Ninth Circuit reviewed and affirmed the judgment
of the district court and held that the People of California,
via Proposition 8, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the
federal Constitution by using their power to target a minority
group and withdraw a right that the group already possessed,
without a legitimate reason for doing so. (Perry v. Brown, 52
Cal.4th 1116.) The proponents of Proposition 8 appealed that
decision, but on June 26, 2013, the United States Supreme Court
dismissed the appeal for lack of standing. The State of
California thereafter began allowing same-sex couples to marry,
and began recognizing marriages between same sex couples from
other states.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local:
No
SUPPORT : (Verified 4/29/14)
Equality California (co-source)
National Center for Lesbian Rights (co-source)
ACLU
CONTINUED
SB 1306
Page
4
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
California Communities United Institute
California Teachers Association
Executive Committee of the Family Law Section of the State Bar
National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter
Secular Coalition for California
OPPOSITION : (Verified 4/29/14)
Concerned Women For America
Catholics for the Common Good
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author, "The statutory
prohibitions against allowing and recognizing marriages between
same-sex couples were stricken by the California Supreme Court
in In re Marriage Cases but were never removed. Proposition 8
did not reinstate these statutory provisions, but rather created
a separate prohibition that is no longer enforced by the state
pursuant to a federal injunction. Because same-sex couples may
now marry in California and are recognized as married in
California, the existence of these provisions in the code, and
the corresponding use of gendered terms on Judicial Council and
other state forms referencing these provisions, creates
confusion for same-sex married couples, courts, and government
agencies."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : In opposition, the Concerned Women
For America argue that the California Supreme Court found
Proposition 22 unconstitutional and part of this bill's intent
is to strike that specific language from Section 308.5 of the
Family Code, the definition of marriage as it has been known for
millennia remains in the California Constitution, Article 1,
Section 7.5. The Legislature cannot remove the amendment placed
there by more than seven million California voters who supported
Proposition 8 without another vote of the people or by an
appellate decision. Since the U.S. Supreme Court has vacated
the Ninth Circuit decision regarding Proposition 8, neither has
occurred and Article 1, Section 7.5 remains the law of the land.
They also argue the reason "marriages" between people of the
same sex are being recognized in this state is not because of a
legal decision, but because the Governor and Secretary of State,
who both took oaths to defend the state's constitution, decided
without the support of the law or the electorate to ignore their
duty to defend the state constitution and allow those unions to
CONTINUED
SB 1306
Page
5
proceed.
AL:nl 4/30/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED