TWO CALIFORNIA LAWS REGARDING SEXUAL MINORITIES

Bill AB-205 to allow same-sex marriage

Bill AB-196 for transsexual persons

Sponsored link.

Proposition 22:

In the year 2000, California voters passed Proposition 22, by a vote of 61.4% to 38.6%. The Proposition, also known as the "California Defense of Marriage Act" modifies Section 308.5 of the Family Code to read: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." ₉

Many felt that this proposition limited any state recognition of same-sex relationships. This appears to be mistaken. In reality, the proposition has two effects. It prevents same-sex couples from:

Proposition 22 did not limit the ability of the legislature to grant some state privileges and obligations enjoyed by all married couples to committed gay and lesbian couples. The only limitation was that the state cannot actually marry same-sex couples. The state has been free to create a system similar to the civil unions in Vermont if they wish.

Geoff Kors, executive director of the gay-positive California Alliance for Pride and Equality, said: "Polling shows people moving closer to same-sex marriages and supporting giving rights and responsibilities to same-sex couples." ₁

Bill AB-205 introduced in the state legislature:

Early in 2003, Jackie Goldberg (D-Los Angeles) of the five-person Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Caucus introduced bill AB-205 the "Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003." As passed and signed into law, it granted domestic partners "the same rights [that are] granted to and imposed upon [married] spouses" by the state of California.

Many Fundamentalist Christian groups are describing AB 205 as a "homosexual marriage" bill which conflicts with Proposition 22. For example:

These groups appear to be in error.

The Family Research Council's prophecy came true. The Assembly passed AB 205 by a vote of 41 to 32. This is one vote more than the minimum necessary for passage. Voting was completely along party lines. All 41 "yes" votes came from Democrats. All 32 "no" votes came from Republicans. Seven Democrats abstained.

Maranatha Christian Journal reported that: "The bill would give the state's 18,000 registered homosexual couples the same benefits as married couples in such matters as financial support, child custody, debt assumption and community property, according to The Sacramento Bee." ₂

The bill was considered by the Senate Appropriations Committee on 2003-AUG-18. They proposed and passed amendments which were subsequently approved by the Assembly by the same vote of 41 to 32 during the week of AUG-31. Governor Davis had announced on AUG-16 that, if it reaches his desk, he would sign the legislation into law in order to help ensure "fairness for all Californians." He said: "This bill not only provides additional rights for domestic partners, it also imposes significant new obligations such as shared responsibility for debts and financial support for children. As governor I will continue to do everything within my power to honor the dignity, humanity and privacy of every Californian regardless of their ethnicity, religion, national origin, gender or sexual orientation."

Geoffrey Kors, executive director of Equality California, a group which promotes equal rights for gays and lesbians, said: "When this bill is signed it will be a truly historic day for everyone who supports civil rights." ₅

After approval by the legislature, Randy Thomasson, executive director of the conservative group Campaign for California Families, said: "This is a day that will be remembered with anger and disgust." Apparently referring to the Proposition 22 plebiscite, he said: "[Bill] AB 205 utterly rejects the vote of the people of California - 4.6 million white, black, Latino and Asian voters who demanded that the rights, privileges and benefits of marriage be protected for a man and a woman, as it should be. The Democrat politicians who jammed this through have proved they are against marriage and against democracy. They have created gay 'marriage' by another name and utterly rejected the vote of the people. This will go to court as an unconstitutional hijacking of the people's vote to protect marriage with Proposition 22."

Religious and social conservatives appear to have a dilemma:

AB-205 becomes law and is challenged:

Governor Gray Davis signed the bill into law on 2003-SEP-19. ₈

The Campaign for California Families, a group opposed to equal rights for gays and lesbians, initiated a lawsuit (Knight v. Superior Court, S133961) which sought to prevent the law from going into effect. They claimed that it violates Proposition 22. This appears to be a hopeless case on their part. Proposition 22 consists of only 14 words, and only defines which marriages are recognized in the state. It states "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." ₁₁ Proposition 22 in no way prevents the legislature from granting some or all of the benefits given to married couples and their children to registered same-sex couples and their children. It only prevents the state from recognizing and/or registering their marriages. _11,12

The law went into effect on 2005-JAN-01. The California secretary of state revealed that, by 2005-APR, about 29,000 California couples has registered as domestic partners and have thereby obtained many benefits and protections for themselves and their children.

As expected, both the trial court and the 3rd District Court of Appeal rejected the lawsuit. The latter ruled that Proposition 22 was "intended only to limit the status of marriage to heterosexual couples and to prevent the recognition in California of homosexual marriages." It did not conflict with the "Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003." The court noted that by 1999, California had legislation in place which permitted same-sex couples or couples older than 62 years old to register as domestic partners. Thus, and Proposition 22 didn't express "an intent to repeal our state's then-existing domestic partners law." Thus it would not have implications for any future legislation which protected domestic partners. ₁₄

Randy Thomasson, spokesperson for the Campaign for California Families said that they would appeal the decision.

Jenny Pizer, senior counsel for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a gay positive group, said the court ruling "confirms the common-sense understanding that people in California have that domestic partnership and marriage are different."

AB-205 found constitutional by the Supreme Court:

On 2005-JUN-29. the California Supreme Court let the domestic partnership law stand. "Without comment, the unanimous justices upheld appellate and trial court rulings that the sweeping measure does not conflict with a voter-approved initiative defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman."

A new proposition to strip rights and protections from domestic partners:

When the 3rd District Court of Appeal upheld the law, Randy Thomasson, spokesperson for the Campaign for California Families said that they plan to create another Proposition to deprive same-sex couples and their children of the rights and protections given them them under the 2003 act. He said: "This ruling gives impetus to the push for a constitutional amendment to protect marriage from the clutches of judges and politicians."

In 2005-JUN, the Attorney General's office received a draft for the new Proposition. The next step is for the attorney general to write a ballot title and summary. Californians could vote on the Proposition as soon as the June 2006 ballot.

Peter Henderson, a spokesperson for the California Family Council, said his group is one of a coalition of groups promoting the Proposition. He said: "This decision is why we believe the initiative process is so important to give voters a direct say through direct democracy on issues of this importance."

The proposed ballot measures are also aimed at overturning the decision Judge Richard Kramer's ruling that Proposition 22 is unconstitutional.