BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1005|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 1005
Author: Jackson (D), et al.
Amended: 3/16/16
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 3/29/16
AYES: Jackson, Moorlach, Anderson, Hertzberg, Leno, Monning,
Wieckowski
SUBJECT: Marriage
SOURCE: Equality California
DIGEST: This bill replaces references to husband or "wife" with
references to a "spouse" and makes other conforming 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.)
SB 1005
Page 2
3)Contains various references to "husband" and/or "wife"
throughout 18 different codes.
This bill:
1)Adds 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.
2)Replaces "husband" and "wife" with "spouse" and other
non-gendered terms.
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
SB 1005
Page 3
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, Chapter 82,
Statutes of 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.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:NoLocal: No
SB 1005
Page 4
SUPPORT: (Verified3/31/16)
Equality California (source)
American Civil Liberties Union of California
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
AFL-CIO
National Center for Lesbian Rights
OPPOSITION: (Verified3/31/16)
The California Catholic Conference
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Equality California, sponsor of this
bill, 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.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:The California Catholic Conference
writes in opposition:
The Catholic Church, along with other faith traditions,
teaches that the nature of marriage and the family cannot be
redefined by society, as God is the author of marriage and its
corresponding gift of co-creating human life. The legal
recognition of marriage is not only about personal commitment
but also about the social commitment that husband and wife
make to the well-being of their children. It is for this
reason that it is important for government give a unique
status to marriage between one man and one woman both in law
and in public policy.
Prepared by:Nichole Rapier Rocha / JUD. / (916) 651-4113
3/31/16 15:45:58
SB 1005
Page 5
**** END ****