BILL ANALYSIS
AB 19
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 26, 2005
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Dave Jones, Chair
AB 19 (Leno) - As Amended: April 21, 2004
SUBJECT : CIVIL RIGHTS: EQUAL MARRIAGE RIGHTS
KEY ISSUES :
1)ARE THERE ANY LEGITIMATE REASONS WHY CIVIL MARRIAGES
RECOGNIZED BY OUR GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE LIMITED TO OPPOSITE-SEX
COUPLES?
2)DOES THE STATE'S CONSTITUTION APPEAR TO PERMIT OR PROHIBIT
CALIFORNIA'S EXCLUSION OF SAME-SEX COUPLES FROM MARRIAGE?
3)WOULD ENACTMENT OF THIS LEGISLATION VIOLATE THE TERMS OR
INTENT OF CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 22 OF 2000?
4)WHAT CONSEQUENCES ARE LIKELY IF THE STATE WERE TO RECOGNIZE
MARRIAGES BETWEEN SAME-SEX PARTNERS? WHAT CONSEQUENCES ARE
LIKELY IF THE STATE WERE TO CONTINUE NOT TO RECOGNIZE THEM?
SYNOPSIS
This bill seeks to amend California's family law by defining
marriage as between "two persons" instead of solely between a
man and a woman. The bill raises important questions of law and
public policy that are now being discussed across the nation and
around the world, reflecting one of this nation's most
significant civil rights issues for the 21st century.
In support of the bill, the author states "The time has come for
California to honor its commitment to equality for all
Californians." According to the bill's supporters, this
legislation provides necessary protections for gay and lesbian
couples who wish to take on the responsibility of marriage and
ensure their partners, as well as all their children, receive
the protections offered to all married couples and their
children. Supporters argue the state currently relegates
same-sex couples and their families to second-class status and
thereby affirmatively inflicts insidious harm upon them by
insisting on two separate institutions-marriage for heterosexual
couples and the less-recognized status of domestic partnership
AB 19
Page 2
for gay and lesbian couples. Supporters also emphasize the bill
will protect religious freedom by expressly providing that no
priest, minister, or rabbi will be required to solemnize any
marriage that is against his or her religious beliefs.
Opponents of the bill contend the legislation attempts to
unlawfully supplant Family Code Section 308.5 which was enacted
by Proposition 22 in 2000 and that it is unconstitutional. For
example, the Committee on Moral Concerns voices the fear the
bill would "bring homosexual 'marriage' into California,
violating the will and vote of the people." According to the
Committee on Moral Concerns, this bill "is an extremist bill
which ... would completely destroy the uniqueness of marriage
for a man and a woman and turn the sacred institution of
marriage upside down."
SUMMARY : Seeks to end the state's denial of marriage licenses
to same-sex couples in California. Specifically, this bill :
1)Eliminates the current "different-gender" requirement in the
state's definition of marriage.
2)Clarifies gender-specific terms in the state's family laws
shall be construed to be gender-neutral, except in regards to
Section 308.5, concerning recognition of marriages contracted
in other jurisdictions (Proposition 22 of 2000).
3)Adds Section 403 to the Family Code to declare that no
religious official shall be required to perform or solemnize
any marriage in violation of his or her religious conviction.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that "Marriage is a personal relation arising out of
a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the
consent of the parties capable of making that contract is
necessary." (Family Code section 300. All further references
are to this code unless otherwise noted.)
2)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." (Section
308.)
3)Provides, immediately following section 308 that "Only
marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in
AB 19
Page 3
California." (Section 308.5.)
4)Provides, in the state's Equal Protection Clause, in Article
I, Section 7, that:
(a) "A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law or denied equal
protection of the laws. . . " and
(b) "A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted
privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all
citizens."
5)Provides, in the state Constitution's Declaration of Rights,
in Article I, Section 1, that "All people . . . have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending
life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting
property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and
privacy."
6)Provides, in the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, that "[n]o State
shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws."
7)Provides, in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, that "[n]o State
shall . . . deprive any person of . . liberty, or property
without due process of law."
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed
fiscal.
COMMENTS : This legislation seeks to halt the state's practice
of denying same-sex couples the right to marry. In support of
the bill, the author states:
For 127 years ? California marriage law was
gender-neutral, containing no reference to "man" or
"woman." The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage
Protection Act simply would restore the pre-1977 language
to the Family Code in order to provide equal marriage
rights to same-sex couples? Although California's
domestic partner laws provide many of the benefits,
AB 19
Page 4
obligations, and protections to same-sex couples that are
afforded to married heterosexual partners, domestic
partnerships are not equal to marriage? legal
distinctions between heterosexual and same-sex couples
relegate lesbian, gay, and bisexual Californians to
second-class status and constitute an impermissible use
of government power to stigmatize same-sex couples and
their families with a brand of inferiority.
California's Recognition of Same-Sex Couples : The issue of
legal recognition of same-sex couples in California dates back
two decades. Before the 1980s, same-sex couples had no legal
recognition in California - or virtually anywhere else. As
families, same-sex couples were essentially invisible to the
law. In 1984, however, the City of Berkeley extended employee
benefits to the same-sex partners of municipal employees, and in
1985 West Hollywood became the first governmental entity to
offer legal recognition to same-sex couples among the general
public by establishing a legal status called "domestic
partnership." Through the status of domestic partnership,
same-sex couples could obtain not only limited protections for
themselves and their children, but also, for the first time,
government recognition as family units. By 2000, eighteen
California local governments had established domestic
partnership registries-namely, the cities of West Hollywood,
Laguna Beach, San Francisco, Berkeley, Sacramento, Davis, Palo
Alto, Santa Monica, Oakland, Long Beach, Cathedral City, Santa
Barbara, Arcata, Petaluma, and Palm Springs, as well as Marin
County, Santa Barbara County, and the state's largest local
government, the County of Los Angeles.
Prior Related State Legislation-Domestic Partnership: The State
of California took notice of this emerging movement. In 1999,
the Legislature enacted AB 26 (Migden), Ch. 588, Stats. of 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. In 2001 and 2002,
the Legislature broadened the rights of domestic partners in AB
25 (Migden), Ch. 893, Stats. of 2001, and AB 2216 (Keeley), Ch.
447, Stats. of 2002. In all, at least thirteen statutes have
been enacted to provide legal protections to domestic partners
AB 19
Page 5
in California.
The most comprehensive set of rights and responsibilities for
registered domestic partners was enacted in 2003 by AB 205
(Goldberg). That bill became fully operative on January 1,
2005, and it has been upheld by the courts against challengers'
arguments that granting legal protections to same-sex couples is
inconsistent with Proposition 22. Even so, the domestic partner
laws fall short in that they preclude joint filing of income
taxes, fail to treat earned income as community property for
state income tax purposes, and deny access to certain long-term
care benefits. In addition, domestic partners are denied the
protections available under more than 1,100 federal statutes
relating to marriage. The federal benefits afforded to
opposite-sex, married couples include such basic benefits as
social security, Medicare, federal housing assistance, food
stamps, veterans' benefits, military benefits, tax benefits and
federal employment benefits.
Recognition in other states : In 1993, the state of Hawaii
Supreme Court became the first in the nation to hold that the
state could not, on equal protection grounds, exclude same-sex
couples from marriage without a compelling reason. The state
legislature subsequently passed a law creating a new status of
"Reciprocal Beneficiaries," under which certain limited benefits
were made available to same-sex couples. With that law in
place, the voters then passed a constitutional amendment giving
the legislature authority to define "marriage" in whatever way
it saw fit, and the legislature then recodified its existing
definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, while
continuing to grant "reciprocal beneficiaries" as a limited set
of parallel benefits. In 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled
that Vermont's Equal Benefits Clause prohibited the Vermont
Legislature from denying to same-sex couples the rights,
benefits, and privileges granted to married heterosexual
couples. The legislature responded by passing a comprehensive
Civil Unions law that until this past week was the only such law
in the country. Connecticut recently became the second state in
the country to enact a Civil Unions statute.
The Federal DOMA : In 1996 Congress passed, and President
Clinton signed, the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA),
which among other things says that no state is required under
federal law to give effect to same-sex marriages contracted in
other states.
AB 19
Page 6
California's Proposition 22 : A group of citizens led by the
late State Senator Pete Knight placed an initiative on the March
2000 California ballot to prohibit California from recognizing
any same-sex marriages contracted in other states or countries.
The measure passed with 61% of the vote and became codified as
Section 308.5 of the Family Code. However, as explained in more
detail below, a superior court judge has recently entered a
judgment declaring Proposition 22 invalid under the state
Constitution.
Other States' Laws Enacted in Light of the Federal DOMA : In
light of the federal DOMA, other states have also enacted
measures prohibiting recognition of marriages entered into by
same-sex couples in other jurisdictions. Some states have gone
so far as to enact into their constitutions provisions that
purport to prohibit recognition of relationships between
same-sex couples other than marriage, such as domestic
partnerships or civil unions.
Efforts to Amend the Federal Constitution : In 2003,
Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado introduced a
resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives seeking to amend
the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a
woman. Senator Wayne Allard of Colorado introduced a companion
measure in the Senate. Although President Bush has expressed
support for those efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution, those
measures have thus far failed to garner the necessary level of
support in Congress.
Massachusetts Marriage Ruling : The Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court in November 2003 and February 2004 ruled the
Massachusetts definition of marriage violated that state's
constitutional equal protection provisions. In response to this
advisory opinion, the state legalized same-sex marriage and
began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on May 17,
2004.
San Francisco : In February 2004, the City and County of San
Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
From February 12 through March 11, 2004, 4,037 same-sex couples
from 46 states and eight countries married in San Francisco.
However, on March 11, 2004, the California Supreme Court ordered
San Francisco to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex
couples while the court considered the legality of the County's
AB 19
Page 7
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 very issue.
San Francisco Marriage Litigation : Two lawsuits were brought
against the state in San Francisco Superior Court contending
California's statutory exclusion of same-sex couples from
marriage is unconstitutional. On March 14, 2005, the San
Francisco Superior Court issued its ruling in the coordinated
marriage cases, concluding that same-sex couples are denied
equal protection by marriage laws that prohibit them from
marrying. The trial court held that California's exclusion of
same-sex couples from marriage constitutes discrimination on the
basis of gender and interferes with the fundamental right to
marry the person of one's choosing. Under the court's
reasoning, California's statutory exclusion of same-sex couples
from marriage should thus be subject to the strictest level of
constitutional scrutiny. But according to the court, the
marriage exclusion could not survive even the lowest level of
constitutional scrutiny-that is, review to determine whether the
law has even a rational basis. The court explained that
California could not demonstrate any rational basis for denying
same-sex couples the right to marry. The court emphasized that
so-called "separate but equal" systems have long been rejected
by the courts as unconstitutional. It is expected the Superior
Court's decision in the coordinated marriage cases will be
appealed. The appeal process could take one, two, or more
years.
The Key Legal Issues :
1. The first legal question: Does this bill violate
Proposition 22?
The first major legal question presented by this legislation is
whether it conflicts with Prop. 22. As discussed below, the
answer to this question depends upon how broadly the proposition
AB 19
Page 8
is read. Under a more narrow reading, Prop. 22 applies only to
marriages contracted out of state-that is, it simply prevents
California from recognizing marriages between same-sex couples
entered into outside California. Under a more broad reading,
Prop. 22 prohibits marriages between same-sex couples whether
performed inside or outside of the state.
Proposition 22 has, as noted above, been declared
unconstitutional by the Superior Court in San Francisco in the
coordinated marriage cases. Depending on how the appellate
courts rule in those cases, the entire consideration of
Proposition 22's meaning that follows may be beside the point.
If the Superior Court's ruling is upheld on appeal, a
Proposition 22 concern would appear to evaporate.
a) The "out-of-state marriage" reading of Proposition 22
Proponents of this bill argue Prop. 22 was designed to protect
state sovereignty. The ballot arguments in support of Prop. 22
made clear the proposition was directed at preventing
recognition of same-sex marriages performed outside the state.
Under this narrow reading, the Legislature may properly permit
partners of the same sex to marry within California, even if it
may not recognize same-sex marriages contracted in other states
absent a new vote of the people.
A recent opinion of the Second Appellate District of the Court
of Appeal, issued March 30, 2005, supports this narrower reading
of Prop. 22. In the case of Armijo v. Miles , the appellate
court considered Prop. 22's meaning in the course of rejecting
the argument that Prop. 22 prevents the Legislature from
enacting protections for same-sex couples. The court stated
"Proposition 22 was crafted with a prophylactic purpose in mind.
It was designed to prevent same-sex couples who could marry
validly in other countries or who in the future could marry
validly in other states from coming to California and claiming,
in reliance on Family Code section 308, that their marriages
must be recognized as valid marriages."
b) The "complete ban" reading of Prop. 22
Prop. 22 may also be read more broadly, however, as a general
ban on same-sex marriage in California. A recent opinion of the
Third Appellate District, issued April 4, 2005 in the case of
Knight v. Superior Court, took this view of Prop. 22 in one
AB 19
Page 9
portion of its opinion. Although the Third Appellate District
emphasized that Prop. 22 was focused on preventing recognition
of out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples, the court's
opinion included dicta that stated "California will not
legitimize or recognize same-sex marriages from other
jurisdictions" and "California will not permit same-sex partners
to validly marry within the state."
2. The larger legal question: Is a total ban of same-sex
marriage constitutional?
Regardless of Prop. 22's reach, Family Code sections 300 and
308.5 raise critical constitutional questions. Indeed, the
superior court in San Francisco in the coordinated marriage
cases has recently declared both statutes unconstitutional.
Three points were important to the court's constitutional
analysis. First, the history of California's definition of
marriage clearly shows an explicit intent to discriminate
against lesbians and gay men and to exclude same-sex couples
from marriage. Second, there are two landmark rulings from the
California Supreme Court that bear directly on the question of
the constitutionality of a definition that excludes same-sex
couples, and suggest that California's current statute banning
same-sex marriage may likely be struck down if the issue is
heard by the State Supreme Court. And third, there is an
undeniably strong trend in rulings from other state supreme
courts, and from the U.S. Supreme Court itself, suggesting that
the statute likely could not, and ultimately will not, withstand
constitutional scrutiny.
A. History of Family Code Section 300
Prior to 1977, California law defined marriage as a relationship
between two "persons." In 1977, this gender neutral language
was changed to the current gender specific language by the
legislature and then-Governor Jerry Brown. The history of the
1977 amendment is important because is indicates a clear intent
by policy-makers to exclude lesbians and gay men from the right
to marry their chosen partners under California law. Such
apparent animus against a minority, and specifically against gay
men and lesbians, has been held constitutionally suspect under
the federal constitution. ( Romer v. Evans , 517 U.S. 620
(1996).)
B. State Constitutional Authority for Evaluating the Equal
AB 19
Page 10
Protection Question
(i) California's two independent constitutional provisions
guaranteeing equality
The California Constitution contains two independent equal
protection provisions. Article I, Section 7 (a), provides "[a]
person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without
due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws. . ."
For nearly three decades, the California courts have held that
the equal protection clause protects gay and lesbian persons. In
the landmark decision of Gay Law Students v. Pacific Telephone
and Telegraph , 24 Cal.3d 458 (1977), the California Supreme
Court expressly held that subdivision (a) of Article I, section
7 guarantees lesbians and gay men, as a class, equal protection.
In addition, Article I, section 7 (b) provides: "A citizen or
class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities
not granted on the same terms to all citizens." Under
California's current marriage laws, heterosexual couples and
their families are an identifiable "class of citizens" who are
granted rights, privileges, and immunities that are denied to
another identifiable class of citizens: gay and lesbian couples
and their families.
(ii) California's seminal case on equal protection and the
importance of marriage: Perez v. Lippold
In 1948, California's Supreme Court was the first in the nation
to hold that a law prohibiting persons from marrying outside
their race violated the constitution. Perez v. Lippold , 32
Cal.2d 711 (1948) preceded the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in
Loving v. Virginia , 388 U.S. 1 (1967) on the same question by
nearly 20 years. Perez examined the California statute that
provided, "no license may be issued authorizing the marriage of
a white person with a Negro, mulatto, Mongolian or member of the
Malay race." The Perez opinion held that "liberty," within the
meaning of the state's due process clause, included the "right
of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common
occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry,
establish a home, and bring up children. . . " (Emphasis
added.) Given the fundamental nature of the right to marry, the
Court held that any infringement of that right "must be based
upon more than prejudice and must be free from oppressive
AB 19
Page 11
discrimination to comply with the constitutional requirements of
due process and equal protection of the laws." More,
importantly the Court held that while the state has authority to
prohibit marriage between specific individuals when there is a
legitimate state concern, such legislation would have to be
specific to the individuals in question, and could not use
"arbitrary classifications of groups or races" as a substitute.
(Emphasis added.)
C. Other constitutional authority
Three state supreme courts have addressed the question of
whether a state law that defines marriage so as to exclude same
sex partners violates their respective state constitutions.
Importantly, in each case, the court has ruled in favor of the
same-sex couples. The most recent and most relevant decisions
are those from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
(i) Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health: The Massachusetts
Cases
(a) Goodridge I: The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
ruled in 2003 that laws prohibiting same-sex marriage violate
the Massachusetts Constitution. Noteworthy portions of the
court's opinion include:
The marriage ban works a deep and scarring hardship on
a very real segment of the community for no rational
reason. The absence of any reasonable relationship
between, on the one hand, an absolute disqualification
of same-sex couples who wish to enter into civil
marriage and, on the other, protection of public
health, safety, or general welfare, suggests that the
marriage restriction is rooted in persistent
prejudices against persons who are (or who are
believed to be) homosexual. 'The Constitution cannot
control such prejudices but neither can it tolerate
them. Private biases may be outside the reach of the
law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give
them effect.' Limiting the protections, benefits, and
obligations of civil marriage to opposite-sex couples
violates the basic premises of individual liberty and
equality under law protected by the Massachusetts
Constitution." (Emphasis added and citation omitted.)
AB 19
Page 12
(b) Goodridge II: Three months later, in February 2004, the
Supreme Judicial Court issued an advisory opinion to the state
legislature in Massachusetts and stated: "The history of our
nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever,
equal." Even where a state grants substantially similar rights
to same-sex "civil unions," the court found that refusing to
recognize these unions as "marriage" is a "considered choice of
language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex,
largely homosexual, couples to second-class status." (Emphasis
added.) To permit such a distinction would amount to
"maintaining and fostering a stigma of exclusion that the
Constitution prohibits."
(ii) Recent U.S. Supreme Court cases: Finally, two cases from
the U.S. Supreme Court decided by 6-3 majorities, have recently
addressed issues relevant to the pending bill. In Romer v.
Evans , 517 U.S. 620 (1996), the Court overturned Colorado's
Amendment 2, which would have amended the Colorado Constitution
to exclude lesbians and gay men from obtaining legal protection.
The Court specifically noted that animus against a political
minority is an improper motive under the U.S. Constitution's
Fourteenth Amendment. The Court stated "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."
More recently, in Lawrence v. Texas , 123 S.Ct. 2472 (2003), the
U.S. Supreme Court struck down a state homosexual sodomy law on
the ground that the "liberty" protected by the Fourteenth
Amendment includes private, consensual adult sexual relations.
The Court did not need to decide whether gay men and lesbians
have a constitutional right to marry, and the Court expressly
left that question open. In dissent, Justice Scalia argued that
the majority's opinion would logically lead to recognition of
marriage rights, as well, just as he had argued in dissent in
Romer that Romer would lead to the result the Court ultimately
reached in Lawrence.
D. Rationale offered for opposite-sex only marriage laws so far
unaccepted by high courts
The primary rationale that Hawaii, Vermont, and Massachusetts
have offered in unsuccessful defense of their laws prohibiting
same-sex marriage are similar to the main argument offered in
AB 19
Page 13
opposition to the current bill, that being that only
heterosexuals can procreate and optimally rear children.
Opponents of same-sex marriage insist that "marriage" has always
been defined as a relationship between a man and a woman, the
primary purpose of which is procreation and the raising of
children. While a strong argument can be made that marriage has
been traditionally defined in this way, in Perez v. Lippold , as
noted above, the California Supreme Court held that tradition
alone, no matter how longstanding, cannot justify excluding a
class of couples from marriage. Indeed, such a reading of law
would lead to the seemingly absurd conclusion that heterosexual
couples that do not, or cannot, procreate should be barred from
marriage and its corresponding benefits.
Closely related to the argument that only heterosexual couples
can procreate is the argument that only marriage between a man
and a woman can create a stable home for child rearing. Few
would dispute that the promotion of stable marriages is sound
public policy. For example, the provision of benefits to
married spouses reinforces marital commitment, thereby helping
to maintain stable families that benefit children. But such
policies would benefit same-sex couples raising children just as
much as they benefit opposite-sex couples. Opponents of
same-sex marriage, however, contend that, while it is possible
for same-sex couples to rear a child, heterosexual parents
provide the "optimal" setting for child-rearing. However, in
light of the state's determination that homosexual couples could
be "excellent" parents (a fact borne out by scientific study and
research noted by the court) this reasoning, too, seems suspect.
California already allows same-sex couples to adopt by statute,
and the California Supreme Court has upheld second-parent
adoptions by domestic partners. In Sharon S. v. Superior Court
(Annette F.) (2003) 31 Cal. 4th 417, 438-39, California's high
court rejected the argument that affirming second parent
adoptions "would offend the State's strong public interest in
promoting marriage" and stated instead: "[O]ur decision
encourages and strengthens family bonds."
So far, no state high court has found adequate justification
under state law for treating homosexual couples differently than
heterosexual couples in defining marriage, even under a
constitutionally lenient "rational basis" test. This appears to
be where California's courts ultimately may arrive, as the trial
court opinion in the coordinated marriage cases discussed above
demonstrates.
AB 19
Page 14
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Many groups and individuals wrote in
support of this measure. Some supporters assert that although
the enactment of recent domestic partnership legislation
provides tangible benefits for couples, "it also sets up a
separate and unequal system for gay and lesbian people.
Moreover, domestic partnerships do nothing to assist bi-national
couples, tax discrimination, federal employees and a multitude
of scenarios faced by same-sex couples that extend beyond the
borders of our state." Other supporters underscore the
beneficial impact the status of marriage gives to the physical,
mental, and economic well-being of individuals: "the benefits
of marriage are many, reaching far beyond legal benefits to
include physical, mental, and economic benefits." Still other
supporters address the concern opponents raise about children
writing: "Some feel awkward explaining to their children the
concept of two men or two women marrying. Our own congregations
are examples of predominantly straight communities, which have
grown to become fully accepting of gay and lesbian couples and
their families. We have found that the children in our
congregations, raised by accepting parents in inclusive
communities, take the love and commitment between two people at
face value."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: Many groups and individuals wrote in
opposition to this measure. These groups and individuals oppose
the bill because, they believe, it violates the will and vote of
the people and the California constitution. In addition,
opponents write: "Federally funded programs, employee health
plans, Medi-Cal benefits, and school curriculum would have to be
altered at taxpayer expense reflecting the newly sanctioned
'marriages' and new definition of 'family.'" Other opponents
maintain that "homosexuals want to destroy marriage as an
institution - not benefit from it" and that marriage is a sacred
institution with unique attributes to be realized and shared
only by the union of a man and woman. Still others state their
concerns for children and an overall slippery slope of moral
degradation within our society in general by writing: "Adults
should not put their sexual desires ahead of the needs of
children. Studies show us that children need a mom and a dad.
Society should not gamble with the lives of children by
permitting gay marriage." Opponents claim that the homosexual
union to be an "unnatural and dangerous" one, contrary to the
AB 19
Page 15
union between a man and a woman and that if AB 19 passes, "the
underlying principles of everything that built the greatest
nation in history will vanish. By abandoning our culture's
basic principles of morality, the bill will leave no moral
rationale to prevent multiple marriages, communal families, or
exploitation of the physically weak or the politically
powerless."
RELATED PENDING BILLS : On December 6, 2004, Assembly Member
Haynes and Senator Morrow introduced identical constitutional
amendments in their respective houses. ACA 3 (Haynes) would add
Section 7.5 to Article I of the California Constitution.
Section 7.5(a) reaffirms existing law by stating that "only
marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in
California, whether contracted in this state or elsewhere."
This language thus reiterates Family Code section 300 and
Proposition 22. However, Section 7.5(b) of the proposed
constitutional amendment states that the "rights,
responsibilities, benefits, and obligations of a marriage shall
only be granted, bestowed, and conferred upon a man and a woman
joined in a valid marriage, and may not be conferred upon any
other union or partnership." Sect. 7.5(b), that is, would, if
passed by the people, seemingly negate California's domestic
partner laws, including AB 205, which went into effect this
year.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Equality California (Sponsor)
AIDS Legal Referral Panel
AIDS Project Los Angeles
Alameda County Human Relations Commission
American Academy of Pediatrics, California District
American Civil Liberties Union
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees
Americans for Democratic Action, Southern California Chapter
American Humanist Association
American Jewish Congress
Anti-Defamation League
Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO, Los Angeles
Chapter
AB 19
Page 16
Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern California
Asian Americans for Civil Rights and Equality
Asian Law Caucus
Atascadero Democratic Club
Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
Bay Area Municipal Elections Committee
Being Alive Los Angeles
Beth Chayim Chadashim Congregation
Bienstar Human Services
California Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League
California Association of Human Relations Organizations
California Coalition for Civil Rights
California Council of Churches and California IMPACT
California Democratic Party
California Faculty Association
California Federation of Teachers
Californians for Justice
California Immigrant Welfare Collaborative
California National Organization for Women
California Safe Schools Coalition
California School Employees Association
California State Controller Steve Westly
California State Treasurer Phil Angelides
California Teachers Association
California Women's Agenda
Center for Third World Organizing
Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
Centro Legal De La Raza
Charles Houston Bar Association
Child Care Law Center
Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere
Chinese for Affirmative Action
Christ the Shepard Lutheran Church, Altadena
Christ the Good Shepard Lutheran Church, San Jose
City and County of San Francisco
City of Los Angeles Human Relations Commission
City of West Hollywood
Coalition for Economic Equity
Coalition of Black Trade Unionists, Northern California Chapter
Coalition of Labor Union Women
College Community Congregational United Church of Christ, Fresno
Communication Workers of America, AFL-CIO, District 9
Communication Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Local 9000
Communities for a Better Environment
Community United Against Violence
AB 19
Page 17
Conference of Delegates of California Bar Associations
Congregation Kol Ami, West Hollywood
Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund
Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence
Eleanor Roosevelt Democratic Club, Orange County
Elections Committee of the County of Orange
Equal Rights Advocates
Equality Campaign, Inc.
Feminist Majority
Filipinos for Affirmative Action
First Amendment Project
First Congregational United Church of Christ, San Francisco
Fremont Congregational United Church of Christ
Gay & Lesbian Adolescent Social Services, Inc.
Gay & Lesbian Alliance of the Central Coast
Gay & Lesbian Medical Association
Glory Tabernacle Christian Center, Long Beach
GLSEN Orange County Chapter
Golden Gate Lutheran Church, San Francisco
Gray Panthers
Holy Redeemer Lutheran Church, San Jose
Housing Rights Inc.
Human Rights Campaign
Human Rights/Fair Housing Commission of the City and County of
Sacramento
Immigration Equality
Instituto Laboral De La Raza
Intergroup Clearing House
Irvine United Congregational Church
Japanese American Citizens League
Jewish Labor Committee
Justice Matters Institute
L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center
La Familia Counseling Service
La Raza Centro Legal
Lambda Legal
Lambda Letters Project
Lawrence Ellis and Associates
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area
Legal Aid Society - Employment Law Center
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children*
Lesbian and Gay Lawyers Association of Los Angeles
LGBT Caucus, California Democratic Party
LGBT Greens, Los Angeles
Log Cabin Republicans
AB 19
Page 18
Los Angeles County Bar Association, Family Law Section
Love Sees No Borders
Lutheran Church of Our Redeemer, Sacramento
Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute
Metropolitan Community Church, Los Angeles
Metropolitan Community Church, San Diego
Metropolitan Community Church, San Francisco
Metropolitan Community Church, West Hollywood
Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund
Multicultural Education Training and Advocacy, Inc.
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People,
California State Conference
National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter
National Black Justice Coalition
National Center for Lesbian Rights
National Center for Youth Law
National Conference for Community and Justice
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
National Lawyers Guild, San Francisco Bay Area Chapter
National Lesbian and Gay Law Association
New Hope Metropolitan Community Church, Santa Rosa
Northminster Presbyterian Church, El Cerrito
Older Women's League of California
Online Policy Group
Out and Equal
People for the American Way
PFLAG | National Office
PFLAG | Central Coast Chapter
PFLAG | Long Beach
PFLAG | Los Angeles
PFLAG | Marysville
PFLAG | Southern Pacific Region
PFLAG | Oakland-East Bay
PFLAG | Palm Springs/Desert
PFLAG | Palos Verdes/South Bay
PFLAG | Sacramento
PFLAG | San Diego County
PFLAG | San Francisco
PFLAG | Southern Pacific Region
PFLAG | Temecula Valley
PFLAG | Ventura County
Pioneer Congregational United Church of Christ, Sacramento
Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California
Planned Parenthood Golden Gate
Plymouth United Church of Christ, Oakland
AB 19
Page 19
Pride at Work AFL-CIO, National Office
Pride at Work AFL-CIO, Southern California
Progressive Christians Uniting
Progressive Jewish Alliance
Protection & Advocacy, Inc.
Public Advocates
Rock The Vote
SAC Legal
Saint George's Episcopal Church, Laguna Hills
Saint John's Presbyterian Church
Saint Mark's United Methodist Church, Sacramento
Saint Paul Lutheran Church, Oakland
Saint Paulus Lutheran Church, San Francisco
San Diego Democratic Club
San Diego LGBT Center
San Francisco AIDS Foundation
San Francisco Labor Council, AFL-CIO
San Francisco LGBT Community Center
San Francisco NOW
San Francisco Zen Center
San Luis Obispo County Democratic Central Committee
San Mateo County Board of Supervisors
Santa Clara County Bar Association
Santa Cruz County Clerk Gail Pellerin
Scouting for All
Sebastopol City Council
Service Employees International Union Local 99
Service Employees International Union Local 535
Service Employees International Union Local 790
Seventh Avenue Presbyterian Church, San Francisco
Shepard of the Hills Lutheran Church, Berkeley
Silicon Valley Atheists
Socially Active Youth of California
South Hayward Parish
Southern California Lambda Medical Association
Stonewall Democratic Club of Greater Sacramento
Tenderloin Housing Clinic
The Center Orange County
The Workmen's Circle
Thirty-Third Assembly District, California Democratic Party
Town of Fairfax, California
Transgender Law Center
Unitarian Universalist Community Church of Santa Monica
Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry California
UNITE HERE, Western States Regional Joint Board
AB 19
Page 20
United Church of Christ, Northern California/Nevada Conference
United Church of Christ, Southern California Conference
United Lesbians of African Heritage
United Staff Workers
United Teachers Los Angeles
United University Church, Los Angeles
University Lutheran Church, Palo Alto
Ventura County Rainbow Alliance
West Hollywood Presbyterian Church
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
Yolo County Supervisor Mariko Yamada
Youth Force Coalition
Zuna Institute
Many Individuals
Opposition
A. Rodak Painting and Decorating
Anderson Appraisal Service, Inc.
Arcade Church of Sacramento
Arden Church of the Nazarene
Area Favorites
Beth Shalom Messianic Jewish Congregation
Booth Chiropractic, Inc.
Automotive Management Placement
California Catholic Conference
California Family Alliance
Calvary Chapel East Anaheim
Calvary Chapel of El Cajon
Calvary Chapel of Guadalupe
Calvary Chapel of Santa Maria
Campaign for California Families
Campaign for Children and Families
Capital Christian Center
Capitol Resource Institute
Cerritos Republican Club
Champion Life Church
Cherry Valley Grace Brethren Church
Chinese New Life Zion Church
Christian Church Zion
Christian Coalition of San Diego County
Church "House of Prayer"
Community Bible Church
Concerned Women for America
Cornerstone Church
AB 19
Page 21
Cover Graphics, Inc.
Crenshaw Die and Manufacturing
Crossroads Bible Church
Davis Christian Assembly
Downs Energy
Dyson & Associates
East Clairemont Southern Baptist Church
El Retiro San Inigo
Estrada Professional Services
Evangelical Baptist Ukrainian Church
Evangelical Bible Book Store
Evangelical Free Church of Fremont
Evangelical Free Church of Hamilton City
Evangelical Reformed Church
First Baptist Church of Redwood Valley
First Baptist Church of Taft
First Slavic Evangelical Baptist Church of Sacramento
First Ukrainian Baptist Church of Santa Barbara
First Ukrainian Church of Christians of Evangelical Faith
Grove Community Church
Hope Chapel
Idyllwild Bible Church
Immanuel Evangelical Church
Impact Community Church
Independent Baptist Church
Inyokern Baptist Church
JC Graphics
JC Resource Center
J.P.H. Professional Sciences, Inc.
Joseph Dean Knapp Insurance and Financial Services
Kristi Freeman, D.V.M., Inc.
L & L Trucking Company, LLC
Light of the Gospel Missionary Church
Lighthouse Coastal Community Church
Lighthouse Regional Church
Living Waters Christian Fellowship
Living Word Calvary Chapel
Melchizedek Church
Mid Valley Learning Center
Mike Hourigan Construction
Morgan Hill Presbyterian Church
My Lord's Salvation Ministries, Inc.
New Hope Baptist Church
New Hope Gospel Ministries
New Life Presbyterian Church
AB 19
Page 22
New Song Calvary Chapel
Norwalk First Church of the Nazarene
Oasis Christian Fellowship
Ojai Valley Baptist Church
PACE Technologies
Pam's Pool & Leisure
Peace Lutheran Church
Peninsula Christian Fellowship
Pioneer Baptist Church
Praise Chapel Christian Fellowship of Baldwin Park
Praise Chapel Christian Fellowship of Concord
Quail Lakes Baptist Church
Revival Slavic Christian Center
River Oak Grace Community Church
Russian Baptist Church
Russian Cultural Center of Sacramento
Russian Speaking Forum
Sacramento Mission Church FWB
Saddleback Church
Saddleback Covenant Church
Sanctuary Full Gospel Fellowship
Second Slavic Baptist Church
Sequoia Heights Baptist Church
Shadow Mountain Community Church
Shield of Faith Fellowship of Churches International, Inc.
Shropshire H.V.A.C. Repair & Service
Skyline Wesleyan Church
Slavic Baptist Church
Slavic Baptist Church "Bethel"
Slavic Baptist Church The Cornerstone
Slavic Evangelical Churches
Slavic Missionary Church, Inc.
South Valley Christian Church
South Valley Community Church
St. John's Mission of the Charismatic Episcopal Church
St. Mark Lutheran Church
Start to Finish Roofing
Sunset Chinese Baptist Church
Tazza da Caffe/BL Foods
Traditional Values Coalition
Ukrainian Church of The Evangelical Christian Baptists
Valley Christian Center
Western Garden Nursery
Western Ukrainian Evangelical Baptist Convention, Inc.
Woodland United Fellowship
AB 19
Page 23
Word to Russia
Many Individuals
Analysis Prepared by : Drew Liebert / JUD. / (916) 319-2334