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