BILL ANALYSIS SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE John L. Burton, Chairman 1997-98 Regular Session SB 911 S Senator Knight B As Introduced Hearing Date: April 22, 1997 9 Family Code 1 JMR:cjt 1 SUBJECT Same-sex marriages DESCRIPTION This bill would declare the strong public policy of this state that only a marriage contracted between one man and one woman outside this state which is valid in that jurisdiction, is invalid in this state, and that any other union or relationship treated as a marriage by another jurisdiction, involving members of the same sex, is contrary to the public policy of this state and shall be void ab initio. BACKGROUND In May 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that making a person's ability to marry depend on the sex of the proposed spouse is sex discrimination under the Hawaii Constitution. The Supreme Court remanded the case for a trial on the issue of whether the State has a compelling reason to continue discrimination. Last December, the trial court ruled that the Hawaii law which bans same-sex marriages violated the equal protection clause of the Hawaii constitution, finding that the state had failed to prove a "compelling state interest" sufficient to allow the state to continue to issue marriage licenses only to opposite-sex couples. The state has appealed to the Hawaii Supreme Court, so there is likely to be a final decision later this year or early next year. CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW Existing law provides that a marriage contracted outside this state that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted, is valid in this state. This bill would provide that any marriage contracted outside this state between individuals of the same sex is not valid in this state. COMMENT 1. Author's purpose : The author has stated that the purpose of this bill is "to defend California's definition of civil marriage from being undermined when Hawaii legalizes same-sex marriages and same-sex couples return to demand recognition in California of their Hawaii marriage." 2. Does this bill violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution ? Section 1, of Article IV of the U.S. Constitution provides, in part: "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved and the effect thereof." In addition, Congress enacted Section 1738 of Title 28 of the U.S. Code, which provides, in part, as follows: "Such acts, records, and judicial proceedings ... shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States ... as they have by law or usage in the courts of such state ... from which they were taken." There is an exception to full faith and credit where the judicial proceedings of a sister state involve a lack of jurisdiction ( Adam v. Saenger (1938) 82 L.Ed. 649, reh. den.; cert. den. 83 L. Ed. 1511), are not final ( Hendrix v. Hendrix (Conn. 1970) 273 A.2d 890), involve the enforcement of a sister state's penal law ( Huntington v. Attrill (1892) 146 U.S. 657), or where the enforcement of the judicial proceedings would deny to a party or parties due process of law ( Hanson v. Deckla (1958) 2 L.Ed.2d 1283, reh. den., 3 L.Ed.2d 92). The courts are generally in accord that the "full faith and credit" clause of the United States Constitution and the implementing federal statute require that each state give to the judicial proceedings the same force and effect as such proceedings would have in the rendering state. ( Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Hunt (1943) 88 L.Ed. 149, 154-155, reh. den. 88 L.Ed. 1088; Nowell v. Nowell (Conn. 1969) 254 A.2d 889, 893 cert. den. 24 L.Ed.2d 94.) The Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue of whether marriages must be accorded Article IV, Section 1 respect, but state courts and lower federal courts often have, even in instances where the marriages would not be recognized under the laws of the forum state. (See Parish v. Minvielle (LA 1969) 217 So.2d 684, 688, Louisiana does not recognize or permit common-law marriages but must give effect to them when validly contracted in Texas; Guidry v. Mezeal (LA 1986) 487 So.2d 780, 781; Commonwealth ex rel. Alexander v. Alexander (PA 1971) 289 A.2d 83, 86; Orsburn v. Graves (AK 1948) 210 S.W.2d 496.) a. Federal "Defense of Marriage Act" On September 21, 1996, President Bill Clinton signed HR 3396 into law. (Public Law 104-199; 110 Statute 2419.) The effect of the "Defense of Marriage Act" was two-fold: to prohibit the legal recognition of same-sex marriages for any purpose under federal law, and to allow each state to pass laws declining to give "effect" to any same-sex relationship treated as a marriage under the laws of another jurisdiction. The federal legislation has been widely debated as to its constitutionality. Some scholars believe the legislation exceeds the federal government's authority and intervenes into matters legitimately within the power of the states, such as divorce and probate. Other legal commentators argue that the legislation runs afoul of the constitution by allowing states to be relieved of their general obligation to recognize other states' laws under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. Interestingly, even the U.S. House Report from the Judiciary Committee, which asserted that it believes that states currently possess the ability to avoid recognizing a same-sex marriage license from another state, recognized "that that conclusion is far from certain." (House Report No. 104-664, July 9, 1996, p. 9.) Still, others believe that the constitutional history and case precedent overwhelmingly confirm that a state can refuse to recognize a same-sex marriage when the state has a strong public policy against same-sex marriage. One thing seems certain, the passage of HR 3396 has not resolved the constitutionality of a state's refusal to recognize a same-sex marriage of another state. b. "Conflicts of law" as a competing analysis While it has been held that considerations of local law and policy do not diminish the requirement of enforcing sister state judgments ( Fauntleroy v. Lum (1908) 52 L.Ed. 1039; Kenney v. Supreme Lodge of the World (1920) 64 L.Ed. 638), the courts have appeared to follow a less stringent approach regarding the enforcement of sister state statutes and laws, recognizing that the laws of one state need not, in all cases, be subordinated to the laws of a sister state. (See Hughes v. Fetter (1951) 95 L.Ed. 1212, 1216 ; Pink v. A.A.A. Highway Express Inc . (1941) 86 L.Ed. 152, 158, reh. den., 86 L.Ed. 570 ; Alaska Packers Assoc. v. Industrial Acci. Com . (1935) 79 L.Ed. 1044, 1052.) This dichotomy appears to have resulted not from any inherent superiority of judgments over statutes and other laws, but rather because of a tendency of cases to combine the requirement of "full faith and credit" with the doctrine of comity; the former requiring enforcement, the latter permitting enforcement. (See Rich v. Con-Stan Industries (Tex. 1969) 449 S.W.2d 323, 327.) The United States Supreme Court in Pink v. A.A.A. Highway Express Inc . (1941) 86 L.Ed. 152, 158, stated: "Every State has authority under the Constitution to establish laws through both its judicial and its legislative arms, which are controlling upon its inhabitants and domestic affairs. When it is demanded in the domestic forum that the operation of those laws be supplanted by the statute of another state, that forum is not bound, apart from the full faith and credit clause, to yield to the demand, and the law of neither can, by its own force, determine the choice of law for the other... "...But the full faith and credit clause is not an inexorable and unqualified command. It leaves some scope for state control within its borders of affairs which are peculiarly its own. This court has often recognized that, consistent with the appropriate application of the full faith and credit clause, there are limits to the extent to which the laws and policy of one state may be subordinated to those of another... "It was the purpose of that provision to preserve rights acquired or confirmed under the public acts and judicial proceedings of one state by recognition of their validity in others. But the very nature of the federal union of states, to each of which is reserved the sovereign right to make its own laws, precludes resort to the Constitution as the means for compelling one state wholly to subordinate its own laws and policy concerning its particularly domestic affairs to the laws and policy of others. When such conflict of interest arises it is for this Court to resolve it by determining how far the full faith and credit clause demands the qualification or denial of rights asserted under the laws of one state, that of the forum, by the public acts and judicial proceedings of another..." (Citations omitted, emphasis added.) Thus, while it is clear from the above, that there may be exceptions to the application of the full faith and credit clause, it is not clear precisely what the parameters of such exceptions may be, and the U.S. Supreme Court seems content to provide for the exceptions on a case-by-case basis. Proponents resisting recognition of same-sex marriages rely on this equivocal area of exceptions to argue that the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require the state to treat such marriages as an act, proceeding, or record to which they must give effect, but rather allows the state to invoke its own marriage laws as applicable. Opponents argue that the argument is misplaced, and assert that what is at issue is not whose law should govern, but rather what respect must be accorded a res , a marital status, that the couples would possess and embody. Opponents argue that the proper conflicts of law analysis is that when state acts, records, or judicial proceedings have been applied to the facts of a particular case to determine the rights, obligations, or status of specific parties, the other states must give those acts, records, or proceedings the same effect they would have at home. The status has been created, the judgment rendered, the record recorded, and rights established - no question of what legal regime may be invoked is appropriate. However, when asked to recognize an unfulfilled or general right based on another state's statute or case law, states may weigh the competing interest before deciding which rule of law to apply. This distinction seems consistent with California decisions. In Metropolitan Creditors Service v. Sadri ,15 Cal.App.4th 1821, the defendant had exchanged checks and memoranda of indebtedness for gambling chips at a Nevada casino and thereafter lost the chips playing baccarat. The defendant stopped payment of the checks and memoranda, and the assignee of the casino brought an action in California to collect on the credit instruments. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment for the defendant, ruling that the enforcement of gambling debts is against public policy in California. The court explained the principles of the full faith and credit clause as applied to foreign judgments and cause of action, as follows: "A forum state must give full faith and credit to a sister state judgment, regardless of the forum state's public policy on the underlying claim.... However, the forum state may refuse to entertain a lawsuit on a sister state cause of action if its enforcement is contrary to the strong public policy of the forum state." c. Common law and California statute The California cases involving the recognition of marriages contracted in other states have not relied on the full faith and credit clause. In Colbert v. Colbert (1946) 28 Cal.2d 276, 280, the court relied on the proposition that ordinarily the law of the place of marriage controls the question of its validity, as well as relying on Civil Code Section 63 (now Family Code Section 308), in ruling that California recognizes common law marriages validly contracted in a sister state. The Restatement of Conflict of Laws (Second) elaborates on the practice of recognizing marriages performed in other states. The Restatement states a presumptive rule that the lex loci celebrationis (the law of the place of marriage) governs, unless upholding the marriage would violate the "strong public policy" of another state that had the most significant relationship to the couple. (Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws Section 283 (1971); see also McDonald v. McDonald (1936) 6 Cal.2d 457, 459-460; Pearson v. Pearson (1873) 51 Cal. 120, 125; Estate of Bir (1948) 83 Cal.App.2d 256, 261; Barrons v. United States (9th Cir. 1951) 191 F.2d 92, 95.) The California Supreme Court, in Norman v. Thomson (1898) 121 Cal. 620, at 624, cited with approval the following rule set forth in Commonwealth v. Lane 113 Mass. 458, as follows: "'A marriage which is prohibited here by statute, because contrary to the policy of our laws, is yet valid if celebrated elsewhere according to the law of the place, even if the parties are citizens and residents of this commonwealth, and have gone abroad for the purpose of evading our laws, unless the legislature has clearly enacted that such marriages out of the state shall have no validity here.'" Norman notwithstanding, California courts have upheld certain marriages which were contrary to the public policy of the laws of California, when validly contracted in other jurisdictions. For example, interracial marriages at a time interracial marriages were invalid in California ( People v. Godines (1936) 17 Cal.App.2d 721,723); a marriage which would be deemed bigamous under California law because of a law prohibiting marriage within a year after a divorce, where the marriage was validly contracted in Nevada ( Estate of Wood 137 Cal. 129.); a valid Nevada marriage of underage persons who went to that state for the purpose of evading the laws of California requiring the consent of a parent or guardian ( McDonald v. McDonald (1936) 6 Cal.2d 457, 459-460); and where a proxy marriage validly contracted in Nevada that would not otherwise be valid in California was upheld as valid ( Barrons v. United States (9th Cir. 1951) 191 F.2d 92, 95-96). Thus, the issue is whether the public policy of the state which would be offended by the statute is sufficiently strong to be deemed an exception to the general rule of recognizing marriages performed in other states. As discussed above, California has followed a long-standing policy of validating marriages valid in other forums, even where they would be invalid under California law. Last year, during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on this same subject, Professor Sullivan of Standard University Law School facility, surmised that the state's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages when it has recognized all other out-of-state marriages, including those which may be contrary to California policy, would be constitutionally suspect. 2. SB 911, on its face and as applied, would discriminate based on sexual orientation and gender in the exercise of marriage, thereby implicating the equal protection clause a. Classification based on sexual orientation Last year the United States Supreme Court decided Romer v. Evans (1996) U.S. Lexis 3245. The basic facts of Romer, taken from the Supreme Court decision, are as follows: After various Colorado municipalities passed ordinances banning discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing, employment, education, public commendations, health and welfare services, and other transactions and activities, Colorado voters adopted a statewide referendum "Amendment 2" to the State Constitution, which precluded all legislative, executive, or judicial action at any level of state or local government designed to protect the status of persons based on their "homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships." Respondents, who included aggrieved homosexuals and municipalities, commenced suit in state court against the state (Roy Romer is sued in his capacity as the Governor of Colorado) to declare Amendment 2 invalid. The trial court granted a preliminary injunction which was sustained by the Colorado Supreme Court, which held that Amendment 2 was subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it infringed the fundamental right of gays and lesbians to participate in the political process. On remand, the trial court found that the Amendment failed to satisfy strict scrutiny and so, enjoined its enforcement. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed that decision, in its second opinion on the case. In Romer , the Court concluded that: "..Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed." The Court noted that it did not rely on its own interpretation of the amendment, but on the authoritative construction of the Colorado Supreme Court. "The state court, deeming it unnecessary to determine the full extent of the amendment's reach, found it invalid even on a modest reading of its implications." ( Id . at p. 5.) The Court also chose not to decide whether Amendment 2 denied homosexuals the protections of generally applicable anti-discrimination laws, because it found that even if it did not have such an effect, the imposition of a special disability on homosexuals alone, forbidding them, and no others, from seeking the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint was impermissible. ( Id . at p. 5.) The Court noted that when making an equal protection evaluation, "we insist on knowing the relation between the classification adopted and the object to be attained. The search for the link between classification and objective gives substance to the Equal Protection Clause." ( Id . at p. 7.) The Court noted further that "the law will be sustained if it can be said to advance a legitimate government interest, even if the law seems unwise or works to the disadvantage of a particular group, or if the rationale for it seems tenuous. The court also notes that by requiring a classification bear a rational relationship to an independent and legitimate legislative end, we ensure that the classifications are not drawn for the purpose of disadvantaging the group burdened by the law." ( Id . at p. 8.) Romer may stand for the proposition that the U.S. Supreme Court will seriously scrutinize any statute that clearly disfavors homosexuals. The majority opinion struck down the statute because there was no legitimate government purpose. Throughout the years, the Supreme Court in applying a rational basis review has rarely invalidated a statute based on a illegitimate governmental purpose. Usually, the court gives a great deal of deference to government's stated purpose without inquiring into its motives. An issue raised by legal commentators is whether Romer truly applied a rational basis test. Although Romer stated it was applying a rational basis analysis, the practical result looked more like a heightened scrutiny analysis, in which a state is either required to show an important governmental interest or a compelling state interest, not merely a legitimate state interest. This would be consistent with previous decisions stating that classifications based on sex are subject to a standard intermediate between rational basis and strict scrutiny. ( Craig v. Boren (1976) 429 U.S. 190, 197.) In Romer , the court clearly did not buy the government's rationale for the statute and found the only plausible argument to be discrimination. Conversely, the author of SB 911 contends that the bill is to preserve the union of marriage for male-female pairings for the purpose of procreation and the survival of the race, not to discriminate, and thus would satisfy even the Romer standard of a legitimate governmental interest. It is indisputable that court's have pointed to the fundamental right to marry and have linked that right to the right of procreation. ( Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942) 86 L.Ed. 1655, 1660.) However, to imply that procreation is the sole or primary purpose behind marriage ignores the surplus of legitimate reasons and concerns which guide people to marry. Opponents state that marriage is a critically important institution because it is the only vehicle our society has for recognizing the existence of primary relationships not defined by blood. They contend that this relationship has powerful emotional consequences, and powerful practical consequences as well. Among the more practical consequences of marriage are the rights to: visit a partner or a partner's child in a hospital; inherit from your partner is she or he does not have a valid will; obtain joint health, home and auto insurance policies; enter joint rental agreements; continue to live in the family home if one partner enters a nursing home through Medicaid; make medical decisions on a partner's behalf in event of illness; take bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or a partner's child; choose a final resting place for a deceased partner obtain wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children; get an equitable division of property in a divorce; have joint child custody, visitation, adoption and foster care; determine child custody and support in a divorce; file joint tax returns; obtain veterans' discounts on medical care, education and home loans; apply for immigrations and residency for partners from other countries; and obtain domestic violence protective orders. Many of these consequences cannot be duplicated by private arrangements or contracts. Even for those problems which can be handled by agreements, that solution is only available to people with the money and sophistication to hire a competent lawyer. Thus, like Amendment 2, opponents argue that SB 911 is not narrowly drawn as to avoid the over-breadth aspect of Romer and negate its application. Amendment 2 prohibited homosexuals from access to all forms of the political and law-making process, except for the ability to obtain a new constitutional amendment. The Romer Court found that Amendment 2 excluded homosexuals from "an almost limitless number of transactions and endeavors that constitute ordinary civic life in a free society." ( Id ., at 16.) Likewise, while on its face, SB 911 appears to exclude persons of the same sex only from the right to marry, in practice it would prohibit a surplus of opportunities afforded married persons. Thus, it would appear that SB 911 would raise the same over-breadth concerns that Amendment 2 raised in Romer . b. Classification based on gender: application of a heightened scrutiny analysis In May 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that the states refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples under the Hawaii marriage law implicates the state constitution's guarantee of equal protection, and remanded the case for a trial on the issue of whether the state has a compelling reason to continue discriminating. ( Baehr v. Lewin (Haw. 1993) 852 P.2d 44, 58.) The court held that making a person's ability to marry depend on the sex of the proposed spouse is sex discrimination under the Hawaii Constitution, just as laws which made the ability to marry depend on the proposed spouse's race were race discrimination under the federal constitution. While the Hawaii court applied the strict scrutiny test to the constitutionality of its marriage law based on the state's inclusion of "sex" as a suspect class under its equal protection clause, the court correctly noted that even under the federal constitution a standard intermediate between rational basis and strict scrutiny is applied to such classifications. "(C)lassification by gender must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to achievement of those objectives (citations omitted)." ( Baehr , at 72.) The dissent in Baehr attempted to argue that the state marriage law did not constitute a classification based on sex because the law "treats everyone alike and applies equally to both sexes," with the result that neither sex is being granted a right or benefit the other does not have. ( Id ., at 96-97.) This is similar to an argument put forth by the author's office with regards to SB 911. In rejecting the dissent's contention, the Baehr court held that this type of argument was expressly considered and rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia (1967) 388 U.S. 1, 8, regarding laws based on race: "Thus, the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race. . . . (W)e reject the notion that the mere "equal application" of a statute containing racial classifications is enough to remove the classifications from the Fourteenth Amendment's proscriptions of all invidious discrimination . . . . In the case at bar, . . . we deal with statutes containing racial classifications, and the fact of equal application does not immunize the state from the very heavy burden of justification which the Fourteenth Amendment has traditionally required of state statutes drawn according to race." Thus, it seems likely that the bill would be subjected to a heightened scrutiny analysis, and would be upheld only if it was found to serve important governmental objectives and was substantially related to achievement of those objectives. Based on the arguments above, it appears that this will be a difficult hurdle. 3. Affects the bill would have on the right to interstate travel The right to interstate travel was first recognized by the Supreme Court in Crandall v. Nevada (1867) 73 U.S. 6, which held that the right is a necessary inference from the structure of the Constitution and the federal government. In other cases, courts have found the right in an explicit provision of the Constitution or through prior decisions of the court. (See Edwards v. California (1941) 314 U.S. 160, 176, stating that the Commerce Clause requires recognition of the right to interstate travel.) More recently, the Supreme Court has held that a state cannot discriminate against people entering its territory by imposing unconstitutional conditions on the right to enter. ( Shapiro v. Thompson (1969) 394 U.S. 618, 631, state may not impose unduly long residence requirements on access to state services.) While the Supreme Court has held that a lesser standard applies when restrictions based on interstate travel are of a limited duration, opponents argue that this is plainly not the case with the refusal to recognize a marriage. (See Sosna v. Iowa (1975) 419 U.S. 393, upholding one-year durational residency requirement for divorce because recent travelers not "irretrievably foreclosed" from divorce but "merely delayed.") Opponents argue that these cases provide strong, additional support to the arguments that the United States is one nation, that the policy of the Constitution is that we should be able to move freely, and that making marital status depend on which state you are in at the moment seems inconsistent with these basic policies. Support: California Catholic Conference; Committee on Moral Concerns; Capitol Resource Institute; Choices Ministry; two individuals Opposition: American Civil Liberties Union; Frontiers News Magazine; Planned Parenthood; Pacific Pride Foundation; ; Life; Unity Pride Coalition; nine individuals HISTORY Source: Author Related Pending Legislation: Prior Legislation: AB 1982 (Knight, 1996), died on the Senate Inactive File. AB 167 (Burton, 1991) amended what is now Section 300 to delete the reference to male and female, thus statutorily providing for same-sex marriage. Held in the Senate Judiciary Committee without a vote. AB 2810 (Katz, 1994) provided a scheme for the statewide registry for domestic partners which specifically allowed for the following rights: hospital visitation; conservatorship; and inheritance. Vetoed by the Governor. **************