BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 414|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 414
Author: Jackson (D)
Amended: 4/14/15
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 4/07/15
AYES: Jackson, Vidak, Anderson, Hertzberg, Leno, Monning,
Wieckowski
SUBJECT: Marriage
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill replaces references to a husband or wife with
references to a spouse, and makes other conforming and related
changes.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)Prohibits the definition of marriage to be limited to a union
between a man and a woman. (See In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43
Cal.4th 757; Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052 (2012).)
2)Provides that marriage is a personal relation arising out of a
civil contract between two persons. (Fam. Code Sec. 300.)
3)Contains various references to "husband" and/or "wife"
SB 414
Page 2
throughout 18 different codes.
This bill:
1)Replaces "husband" and "wife" with "spouse" and other
non-gendered terms and make other conforming changes.
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 the invalid Family Code section into the state
Constitution before the Supreme Court issued its ruling, and the
opponents gathered sufficient signatures to qualify the petition
as Proposition 8. On November 4, 2008, Proposition 8 passed by
a narrow 52 percent margin. Civil rights organizations again
filed suit asking that it overturn the initiative as an invalid
revision.
Roughly one year later, the California 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
remained valid. In Strauss, the Supreme Court held 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." (Strauss, 46 Cal.4th at 388.) Instead,
SB 414
Page 3
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."
(Id.)
Less than a week prior to the Strauss decision, 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 United States 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 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, 671 F.3d 1052 (2012).) 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. (Hollingsworth v.
Perry, 133 S.Ct 786 (2013).) In light of these court decisions,
the Legislature has enacted a number of measures that update the
California Code to accurately reflect the law in California.
(See SB 1306 (Leno, Chapter 82, Statutes 2014) and AB 1403
(Committee on Judiciary, Chapter 510, Statutes of 2013). This
bill seeks to update the remaining codes and ensure clarity with
respect to the rights of same-sex spouses.
Comments
The author writes:
SB 414
Page 4
There are many provisions in statutory law, particularly in
California's Probate Code, with important applications for
married couples and the individual rights of a spouse.
Language that does not accurately reflect the law can create
confusion for courts, litigants, and applicants for state
programs about what rights are available to same-sex spouses,
particularly for self-represented individuals. SB 414 helps
to ensure all married couples and individuals understand the
law applies to them, and all legal professionals and
administrators are clear on who is protected under statutory
law.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:NoLocal: No
SUPPORT: (Verified4/7/15)
American Civil Liberties Union of California
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
AFL-CIO
Executive Committee of the Family Law Section of the State Bar
National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter
National Center for Lesbian Rights
OPPOSITION: (Verified4/7/15)
California Catholic Conference
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The American Civil Liberties Union of
California, in support of this bill argues, "Marriage equality
is the law of the land in California, and conformity between
case law, legal precedent, and statutory language ensures a fair
process for those seeking remedy under the law, individual
litigants, and those tasked with studying, developing and
applying the law. In support, the National Center for Lesbian
Rights writes, "Senate Bill 1306 ? made an important stride
SB 414
Page 5
towards ensuring that the code fully protects same-sex spouses.
However, the language of other statues that control property,
elder care, housing, and probate still potentially leave
same-sex spouses vulnerable and unprotected. Because many
people without representation rely on these provisions when
their spouse has passed away or has become incompetent, these
changes are especially important."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The California Catholic Conference
writes in opposition that the "proposal to eliminate all
references to 'husband' or 'wife' wherever it appears in current
state law and replace those words with the singular, generic,
word 'spouse' is inappropriate, divisive and perhaps
unconstitutional. .. Moreover, by making such unneeded
amendments to the laws of California, unintended consequences
are undoubtedly likely to arise."
Prepared by:Nichole Rapier / JUD. / (916) 651-4113
4/15/15 16:33:54
**** END ****