BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2015-2016 Regular Session
SB 1005 (Jackson)
Version: March 16, 2016
Hearing Date: March 29, 2016
Fiscal: No
Urgency: No
NR
SUBJECT
Marriage
DESCRIPTION
This bill would replace references to "husband" or "wife" with
references to a "spouse" 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
SB 1005 (Jackson)
Page 2 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,
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, Ch. 82, Stats. 2014) and AB 1403 (Committee
on Judiciary, Ch. 510, Stats. 2013). This bill seeks to update
the remaining codes and ensure clarity with respect to the
rights of same-sex spouses.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing case law 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).)
SB 1005 (Jackson)
Page 3 of ?
Existing law provides that marriage is a personal relation
arising out of a civil contract between two persons. (Fam. Code
Sec. 300.)
Existing law contains various references to "husband" and/or
"wife" throughout 18 different codes.
This bill would replace "husband" and "wife" with "spouse" and
other non-gendered terms.
This bill would add the term "registered domestic partner" to
various codes to ensure that individuals understand that
registered domestic partners are treated the same under
California law as spouses.
COMMENT
1.Stated need for the bill
According to the author:
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 1005 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.
2.Continuing trend towards gender-neutral language
This bill would delete references to "husband" or "wife"
throughout various codes and would instead refer to a "spouse,"
and make other conforming changes. These changes are in line
with a widespread trend. Across the country, states have been
attempting to make statutes more gender neutral. In 2013 Time
Magazine reported:
SB 1005 (Jackson)
Page 4 of ?
About half of the states have moved toward using
gender-neutral language in their official documents, according
to the National Conference of State Legislatures. State
lawmakers in Alaska have attempted for years to change their
constitution so it contains fewer masculine pronouns, while
states like Florida long ago passed directives forcing
revisers to go through state laws line by line to purge it of
gender bias. In states such as Nevada and New Mexico,
lawmakers have proposed bills in recent weeks tackling similar
issues. (Katy Steinmetz, Down the Manhole: State Officials
Grapple with Gender-Neutral Language, (Feb. 5, 2013) Time
Magazine
[as of March 7,
2016].)
California was among the first of states to make this transition
in 1974 when the state passed Proposition 11, which amended the
State Constitution to recast terms couched in the masculine
gender. In the context of family law, California's courts have
long been interpreting the code to apply neutrally regarding
gender in an effort to accommodate the evolution of the nuclear
family. In order to best protect parties and their children,
courts recognize that in many families traditional
gender-stereotypes cease to exist: more mothers are
breadwinners, more fathers are primary caretakers, and many
same-sex couples are raising children. To that end, in 2013 the
Legislature updated statutory terms within the Uniform Parentage
Act to conform with case law and other statutory provisions,
including changing "presumed father" to "presumed parent," and
replacing "father" and "mother" with "parent." (See AB 1403,
Assembly Committee on Judiciary, Ch. 510, Stats. 2013.) In
addition, the Legislature enacted SB 1306 (Leno, Ch. 82, Stats.
2014 ) which codified recent case law by deleting references to
"husband" or "wife" in the Family Code and instead referring to
a "spouse." Equality California, sponsor, writes "SB 1306 ?
updated the Family Code by replacing references of 'husband' and
'wife' with gender-neutral language and made specific revisions
in line with directives in In re Marriage Cases and the federal
court ruling that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. This bill
takes the next steps to reflect these decisions in California
code."
SB 1005 (Jackson)
Page 5 of ?
Support : American Civil Liberties Union of California; American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO;
National Center for Lesbian Rights
Opposition : California Catholic Conference (late)
HISTORY
Source : Equality California
Related Pending Legislation : None known
Prior Legislation :
SB 414 (Jackson, Chapter 609, Statutes of 2015), as introduced,
was substantially similar to this bill, but was subsequently
amended to address an unrelated issue.
SB 1306 (Leno, Chapter 82, Statutes of 2014) See Comment 2.
AB 1403 (Committee on Judiciary, Chapter 510, Statutes of 2013)
See Comment 2.
**************