BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                  SB 1306
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:  June 10, 2014

                           ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
                                Bob Wieckowski, Chair
                     SB 1306 (Leno) - As Amended: April 29, 2014

           SENATE VOTE :  25-10
           
          SUBJECT  :  MARRIAGE

           KEY ISSUE  :  SHOULD CALIFORNIA STATUTES BE UPDATED, CONSISTENT  
          WITH STATE AND FEDERAL CASE LAW PRECEDENT AND THE AUTHOR'S  
          EXTRAORDINARY AND TENACIOUS EFFORTS TO RECOGNIZE THAT ALL ADULTS  
          - INCLUDING SAME-SEX COUPLES - HAVE THE RIGHT AND DIGNITY TO  
          MARRY? 

                                      SYNOPSIS
          
          This bill represents the culmination of a decades-long effort,  
          spearheaded by the author's leadership, to allow same-sex  
          couples to marry in California.  In 1999, California created its  
          first domestic partnership statute for same-sex couples,  
          following similar actions by local jurisdictions beginning in  
          the 1980's.  The drive for marriage equality was advanced  
          substantially in 2005 when the author introduced legislation to  
          permit same-sex couples to marry.  AB 849 (Leno) became the  
          first marriage equality bill in the nation to pass a state  
          legislature, but then-Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed it.  Three  
          years later, the California Supreme Court, in its landmark In re  
          Marriage Cases ruling (43 Cal.4th 757 (2008)), following similar  
          reasoning as this Committee enumerated three years earlier,  
          struck down as unconstitutional statutes that limited marriage  
          to a man and a woman, and same sex-couple were able to marry.   
          That lasted until November of that year, when Proposition 8,  
          which defined marriage in the state constitution as the union of  
          a man and a woman, passed.  Proposition 8 was subsequently found  
          unconstitutional by a federal district court and that decision  
          remains the law of the land today after the U.S. Supreme Court  
          just last year found that appellants lacked standing to appeal.   
          (Perry v. Schwarzenegger (2010) 740 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal.);  
          Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013) 133 S. Ct. 2652.)  

          Thus, same-sex couples may now marry in California and  
          California must recognize same-sex marriages from other  
          jurisdictions.  And though once quite lonesome in the debates  








                                                                  SB 1306
                                                                  Page  2

          surrounding marriage equality, California is certainly no longer  
          alone in its recognition of same-sex marriages.  More and more  
          states are now either recognizing same-sex marriages or are  
          having their bans on such marriages challenged in court.  As of  
          now, fully 29 states have either enacted marriage equality  
          through legislation or the ballot, or had their state marriage  
          bans struck down as unconstitutional.     

          This bill therefore appropriately conforms California's marriage  
          statutes to the precedential court decisions noted above,  
          defining marriage in gender-neutral terms as a civil contract  
          between two persons.  The measure is jointly sponsored by  
          Attorney General Kamala Harris, Equality California and the  
          National Center for Lesbian Rights, and is supported by, among  
          others, the American Civil Liberties Union, the California  
          Teachers Association and the Family Law Section of the State  
          Bar.  It is opposed by the California Family Council, Catholics  
          for the Common Good, Concerned Women for America of California  
          and several individuals, who argue that it improperly amends  
          Proposition 8.  Proposition 8, however, amended the California  
          Constitution, which this bill does not seek to alter.  This bill  
          instead, logically clarifies that the statutory language enacted  
          by the earlier Proposition 22, no longer has, after In re  
          Marriage Cases, any legal effect.  The bill received a  
          bipartisan vote of 25-10 in the State Senate.

           SUMMARY  :  Logically clarifies that the anachronistic statutory  
          language in California's Family Code enacted a decade and a half  
          ago by Proposition 22 no longer has, after the State Supreme  
          Court's In re Marriage Cases, any legal effect, and therefore  
          defines marriage gender-neutrally.  Specifically,  this  bill:

          1)Provides, consistent with the State Supreme Court's In re  
            Marriage Cases, that marriage is a personal relation arising  
            out of a civil contract between two persons. 

          2)Repeals the provision that provides that only marriage between  
            a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. 

          3)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.

          4)Replaces gendered language regarding marriage with  
            gender-neutral terms.








                                                                  SB 1306
                                                                  Page  3


          5)States the declaration of the Legislative that all laws  
            relating to marriage and the rights and responsibilities of  
            spouses apply equally to opposite-sex and same-sex spouses.   
            Provides that the changes in this bill are not intended to  
            affect any existing decisional law otherwise interpreting the  
            amended statutes.   

           EXISTING LAW  : 

          1)Provides that a marriage is a personal relation arising out of  
            a civil contract between a man and a woman.  (Family Code  
            Section 300.  Unless stated otherwise, all further statutory  
            provisions are to that code.)

          2)Provides that marriages valid in the jurisdiction where  
            contracted, except for same-sex marriages contracted after  
            November 5, 2008, are valid in California.  (Section  
            308(a)-(b).)

          3)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."  (Section 308(c).)

          4)Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid  
            or recognized in California.  (Section 308.5.)

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  As currently in print this bill is keyed  
          non-fiscal.

           COMMENTS  :  This bill, conforming existing statutes to  
          superseding state and federal case law, provides that marriage  
          is the gender-neutral union of two individuals.  Writes 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  








                                                                  SB 1306
                                                                  Page  4

               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.

          For self-represented individuals, understanding the law and  
          complex legal processes is often very difficult and can be  
          nearly impossible when statutes do not reflect the actual law.   
          Updating the statutes will help ensure that someone reading the  
          Family Code will have an accurate understanding of the law.   
          Such updating will also logically clarify that the anachronistic  
          statutory language in California's Family Code enacted a decade  
          and a half ago by Proposition 22 no longer has, after the State  
          Supreme Court's In re Marriage Cases, any legal effect.  

           More Than That, This Bill Represents the Culmination of a  
          Decades' Long Fight, Spearheaded in the Legislature by the  
          Author, for Marriage Equality in California :  The origins of  
          this bill - and the civil rights struggle it represents - goes  
          back decades. 

          California's Initial Recognition of Same-Sex Couples:  The issue  
          of legal recognition of same-sex couples in California dates  
          back two decades.  Before the 1980's, same-sex couples had no  
          legal recognition in California, or virtually anywhere else - as  
          families, they were essentially invisible to the law.  Beginning  
          in the mid-1980's, local jurisdictions began to recognize  
          same-sex couples by establishing a legal status called "domestic  
          partnership," which gave same-sex couples not only limited  
          protections for themselves and their children, but also, for the  
          first time, government recognition as family units.  By 2000, 18  
          California local governments had established domestic  
          partnership registries.


          Registered Domestic Partnerships:  California took notice of  
          this emerging movement to recognize the rights of same-sex  
          couples.  In 1999, the Legislature enacted AB 26 (Migden), Chap.  
          588, Stats. 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.   
          The most comprehensive set of rights and responsibilities for  








                                                                  SB 1306
                                                                  Page  5

          registered domestic partners was enacted in 2003 by AB 205  
          (Goldberg), Chap. 421.  That bill became fully operative on  
          January 1, 2005, and it was upheld by the courts against  
          challenges.  (See, e.g., Knight v. Superior Court (2005) 128  
          Cal.App.4th 14, 30.)

          However, although domestic partnership laws extended many  
          protections to same-sex couples, their protections differed from  
          those extended to married couples.  First, under the existing  
          laws, domestic partners have been denied access to certain  
          long-term care benefits that are available to married couples.   
          (However, after the Supreme Court decisions in In re Marriage  
          Cases and Strauss, discussed in more detail below, it is  
          unlikely that any differences in rights or responsibilities  
          provided under California law are constitutionally permissible.)  
           In addition, the prerequisites for entering a domestic  
          partnership differ from the prerequisites for marriage.   
          Marriage and domestic partnership also have different formation  
          procedures.  For example, unlike marriage, domestic partnership  
          has no solemnization requirement, a difference that suggests a  
          distinction in stature.  Finally, domestic partners were denied  
          the protections available under more than 1,100 federal statutes  
          relating to marriage.

          The Federal Defense of Marriage Act:  In 1996 Congress passed,  
          and President Clinton signed, the federal Defense of Marriage  
          Act (DOMA), which includes the provision that no state is  
          required under federal law to give effect to a same-sex marriage  
          contracted in another state.  In addition, DOMA prevented the  
          federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.  Last  
          year, the Supreme Court struck down that latter provision in  
          United States v. Windsor (2013) 570 U.S. 12, holding that  
          denying recognition to same-sex couples who are legally married  
          unconstitutionally discriminates against them simply to express  
          disapproval of state-sanctioned same-sex marriage.

          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 same-sex marriages.  The Proposition  
          22 ballot materials emphasized the prospect that California  
          might soon be required to recognize the out-of-state marriages  
          of same-sex couples.  The measure passed with 61 percent of the  
          vote and became codified as Section 308.5 of the Family Code.   
           








                                                                 SB 1306
                                                                  Page  6

           San Francisco Allows Same-Sex Couple to Marry:  In February  
          2004, the City and County of San Francisco began issuing  
          marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  However, on March 11,  
          2004, after 4,037 same-sex couples had married, 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'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 the Country:  Senator Leno's  
          first legislative attempt to permit same-sex couples to marry  
          was AB 19 in 2005, which passed this Committee that year but  
          failed passage on the Assembly Floor.  Senator Leno then revived  
          the bill later in the year as AB 849, which became the first  
          such bill in the nation to be passed by both houses of a  
          legislature.  However, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill,  
          suggesting that the only way the law could be changed was if the  
          courts voided the ban as unconstitutional, or if the people  
          reversed Proposition 22 through another initiative or a  
          referendum.  Senator Leno nevertheless reintroduced the measure  
          in 2007 as AB 43, and Governor Schwarzenegger once again vetoed  
          the bill, stating it was up to the Supreme Court to decide if  
          the state's ban on same-sex marriage was constitutional, which  
          happened the very next year.

          Coordinated Marriage Cases:  State Supreme Court Decision:  On  
          May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision,  
          struck down as unconstitutional the California statutes limiting  
          marriage to a man and a woman.  The majority opinion concluded  
          that "the California Constitution properly must be interpreted  
          to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether  
          gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to  
          opposite-sex couples."  (In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th  
          757, 782 (footnote omitted).)  









                                                                  SB 1306
                                                                  Page  7

          The Court found that "[a]lthough our state Constitution does not  
          contain any explicit reference to a 'right to marry,' past  
          California cases establish beyond question that the right to  
          marry is a fundamental right whose protection is guaranteed to  
          all persons by the California Constitution."  (Id. at 809.)  The  
          core substantive rights embodied in the right to marry "include,  
          most fundamentally, the opportunity of an individual to  
          establish - with the person with whom the individual has chosen  
          to share his or her life - 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."  (Id. at 781.)  The Court  
          noted that "in contrast to earlier times, our state now  
          recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving  
          and long-term committed relationship with another person and  
          responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon  
          the individual's sexual orientation, and, more generally, that  
          an individual's sexual orientation - like a person's race or  
          gender - does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to  
          deny or withhold legal rights."  (Id. at 782.)  Accordingly, the  
          Court concluded that "in light of the fundamental nature of the  
          substantive rights embodied in the right to marry - and their  
          central importance to an individual's opportunity to live a  
          happy, meaningful, and satisfying life as a full member of  
          society - the California Constitution properly must be  
          interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all  
          individuals and couples, without regard to their sexual  
          orientation."  (Id. at 820, emphasis added.)  



          Although the opinion acknowledges that the comprehensive  
          domestic partnership legislation enacted in California affords  
          same-sex couples most of the substantive elements embodied in  
          the constitutional right to marry, the opinion concludes that by  
          assigning a different name for the family relationship of  
          same-sex couples, while preserving the historic and honored  
          designation of "marriage" only for opposite-sex couples, the  
          California statutes threatened to deny the family relationship  
          of same-sex couples dignity and respect equal to that accorded  
          the family relationship of opposite-sex couples. 

          Proposition 8:  In late 2007, the proponents of Proposition 8,  
          apparently contemplating that the California Supreme Court might  
          (as it did indeed do) find the state's discriminatory marriage  








                                                                  SB 1306
                                                                  Page  8

          provisions unconstitutional, began the legal process of  
          proposing an initiative amendment to add to the California  
          Constitution the provision that in California marriage could  
          only be between one man and one woman.  Then, as noted above, on  
          May 15, 2008, the Court issued its decision in the In re  
          Marriage Cases, holding that statutes limiting marriage to a  
          union between a man and a woman unconstitutional.  The  
          Proposition 22 Legal Defense & Education Fund and others  
          requested a stay of the effective date of the In re Marriage  
          Cases decision until after the vote on Proposition 8.  The Court  
          denied the request, and on June 16, 2008 the In re Marriage  
          Cases decision took effect.  Approximately 18,000 same-sex  
          couples married in California after the effective date of the In  
          re Marriage Cases decision.

          On November 4, 2008, Proposition 8 narrowly passed on a vote of  
          52-48 and same-sex marriages were once again prohibited in  
          California.

          Constitutionality of Proposition 8:  State Supreme Court  
          Decision:  Immediately after the passage of Proposition 8, its  
          opponents filed a petition directly with the California Supreme  
          Court seeking to invalidate the measure on the grounds that it  
          was not permissibly enacted.  The Supreme Court, in Strauss v.  
          Horton (2009) 46 Cal.4th 364, upheld Proposition 8 in a 6-1  
          decision, but held, unanimously, that the same-sex marriages  
          performed in California before the passage of Proposition 8  
          remain valid.  While upholding Proposition 8, the Court  
          reiterated its key holding in In re Marriage Cases, namely that  
          in all respects, other than the word marriage, "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 In re 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."  (Id. at 412.)

          Proposition 8 Struck Down by Federal Court:  In 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  








                                                                  SB 1306
                                                                  Page  9

          clause of the 14th Amendment to the federal constitution and  
          seeking injunctive relief enjoining application of the  
          proposition.  After a lengthy trial, the district court  
          concluded that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional, violating  
          both the federal due process and the equal protection clauses:

               Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in  
               singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage  
               license.  Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does  
               nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution  
               the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to  
               same-sex couples.  Because California has no interest in  
               discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because  
               Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its  
               constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal  
               basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is  
               unconstitutional.

          (Perry v. Schwarzenegger (2010) 704 F. Supp. 2d 921, 1003 (N.D.  
          Cal.).)


          Ninth Circuit Agrees on Narrower Grounds and the Supreme Court  
          Dismisses for Lack of Standing:  Defendants appealed and the  
          Ninth Circuit granted a stay pending the appeal.  The Ninth  
          Circuit, after dismissing one of the defendants - Imperial  
          County - for lack of standing, and certifying a question to the  
          California Supreme Court regarding whether the other defendants  
          (proponents of Proposition 8) had standing to defend the action  
          in the place of the State of California, agreed with the trial  
          court that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional, but on much  
          narrower grounds.  In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit ruled  
          that Proposition 8 violated the equal protection clause by  
          targeting a minority group and withdrawing a right that the  
          group already possessed (the right to marriage under the In re  
          Marriage Cases), without a legitimate reason for doing so.   
          (Perry v. Brown (9th Cir. 2012) 671 F.3d 1052.)


          The proponents of Proposition 8 appealed that decision, but on  
          June 26, 2013, the United States Supreme Court, on a 5-4  
          decision, dismissed the appeal for lack of standing.  The  
          Supreme Court found that the proponents of the initiative lacked  
          standing to appeal.  (Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013) 133 S. Ct.  
          2652.)  As a result, the district court decision is now the law  








                                                                  SB 1306
                                                                  Page  10

          of California.


          Same-Sex Marriages Begin Again in California:  On June 28, 2013,  
          the Ninth Circuit lifted the stay on the district court order  
                                                     and on that same date Governor Brown ordered all county clerks  
          to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  The  
          State of California thereafter began allowing same-sex couples  
          to marry, and began recognizing marriages between same sex  
          couples from other states.  In light of these court decisions,  
          this bill seeks to update the Family Code to reflect the correct  
          state of law in California.   

          California is Not Alone in its Recognition of Same-Sex  
          Marriages:  As noted above, more and more states are now either  
          recognizing same-sex marriages or are having their bans on such  
          marriages challenged in court.  As of May 21, 2014, fully 29  
          states have either enacted marriage equality through legislation  
          or the ballot, or had their state marriage bans struck down as  
          unconstitutional.  Same-sex couples can legally marry in  
          nineteen states and the District of Columbia, while 31 states  
          have a law or constitutional amendment restricting marriage to  
          the union of one man and one woman.  Only one state - North  
          Dakota- has a ban on marriage equality but no current court case  
          challenging its constitutionality.  

           Voter Approval Not Required to Make Non-Substantive Changes to  
          Statutes Enacted by Proposition  :  This bill repeals Family Code  
          Section 308.5 (which provides that "only marriage between a man  
          and a woman is valid or recognized in California"), originally  
          enacted, as noted above, by Proposition 22 in 2000, and  
          statutory language which specifies that marriage is "between a  
          man and a woman" in Section 300.  Catholics for the Common Good  
          and Concerned Women for America of California, as well as a  
          number of individuals, oppose the bill, erroneously suggesting  
          that the measure improperly amends Proposition 8 itself.   
          Proposition 8, however, amended the California Constitution,  
          which this bill does not seek to alter.  This bill instead,  
          clarifies that the statutory language enacted by Proposition 22  
          has no legal effect - which is indeed the case under the In re  
          Marriage Cases. 

          Generally, California allows for amendment to law enacted by  
          proposition in only a handful of ways, most of which involve  
          voter approval.  However, in order to safeguard the rights of  








                                                                  SB 1306
                                                                  Page  11

          the public, the courts also have the authority to amend  
          legislative measures.  Consistently, the California courts have  
          protected the right of voters to exercise the authority afforded  
          by ballot initiative, but those ballot measures are subject to  
          the same constitutional limitations that apply to statutes  
          adopted by the Legislature.  Thus, the fact that Proposition 22  
          limited marriage to between a man and a woman by a popular vote  
          does not exempt the resulting statutory provision from  
          constitutional scrutiny or justify a more deferential standard  
          of review from the court.  In the In re Marriage Cases the court  
          found that: 

               Although defendants maintain that this court has an  
               obligation to defer to the statutory definition of marriage  
               contained in section 308.5 because that statute-having been  
               adopted through the initiative process-represents the  
               expression of the "people's will," this argument fails to  
               take into account the very basic point that the provisions  
               of the California Constitution itself constitute the  
               ultimate expression of the people's will, and that the  
               fundamental rights embodied within that Constitution for  
               the protection of all persons represent restraints that the  
               people themselves have imposed upon the statutory  
               enactments that may be adopted either by their elected  
               representatives or by the voters through the initiative  
               process.  (In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th at 852.)

          Accordingly, it was the California Supreme Court who  
          substantively "amended" Proposition 22, upon deciding In re  
          Marriage Cases, where it ordered that the language "between a  
          man and a woman" be stricken from the Family Code, and ordered  
          that the entirety of Family Code 308.5 could not stand because  
          it violated the California Constitutional rights to equal  
          protection, due process, and privacy.  (Id. at 857.)  Thus, this  
          bill does not change the law; it simply appropriately reconciles  
          statutory language with existing Supreme Court precedent and  
          helps ensure that someone reading the Family Code will have an  
          accurate understanding of the law.  

           ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT  :  Equality California and the National  
          Center for Lesbian Rights, co-sponsors of the bill, state that  
          they have both been working for years for the freedom of  
          same-sex couples to marry and that they are sponsoring this bill  
          to clarify the law: 









                                                                  SB 1306
                                                                  Page  12

               Although same-sex couples may now marry in California and  
               are fully recognized as married by the state, the  
               California code still contains provisions limiting marriage  
               to one man and one woman.  Because of these code  
               provisions, these restrictions also appear in Judicial  
               Council forms used in court proceedings, as well as in  
               other state forms and policies, even though same-sex  
               married spouses are recognized as married for all purposes.  
                This inaccurate language can create confusion for courts,  
               litigants, and applicants for state programs about what  
               rights are available to same-sex married spouses. 

           ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION  :  Catholics for the Common Good write to  
          express concerns:

               There is a well-known crisis regarding the breakdown of  
               marriage that has resulted in increased children living in  
               poverty and increasing human and societal[] consequences of  
               fatherlessness.  . . . What concrete steps can the state  
               and public institutions take to teach young people the  
               value of men and women marrying before having children if  
               marriage is redefined so that there is no longer a legal  
               basis for connecting marriage with conception, birth and  
               rearing of children in the family of common ancestry?  Will  
               not such an effort be prohibited as discriminatory?  . . .  
               We recognize that these questions are unrelated to the  
               sincere desires of same-sex couples to have their  
               relationships recognized, but they address some of the  
               unintended consequences of redefining marriage.  These []  
               consequences were rationally considered by voters when Prop  
               8 was passed and must be considered today.

           REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION  :   

           Support  

          Attorney General Kamala Harris (co-sponsor) 
          Equality California (co-sponsor) 
          National Center for Lesbian Rights (co-sponsor)
          American Civil Liberties Union
          American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,  
          AFL-CIO
          California Communities United Institute
          California Teachers Association
          Family Law Section of the State Bar 








                                                                  SB 1306
                                                                  Page  13

          National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter
          Secular Coalition for California

           Opposition 

           California Family Council
          Catholics for the Common Good
          Concerned Women for America of California
          Some individuals

           Analysis Prepared by  :  Drew Liebert and Leora Gershenzon / JUD.  
          / (916) 319-2334