THE QUESTION Should a provision be added to the Family Code providing that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California? PROVISION This initiative statute would provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Marriages performed in other states and countries would not be legal in California if they did not meet this criterion. BACKGROUND Current California law states that marriage arises from a civil contract between a man and a woman. California law recognizes a legal marriage that takes place outside of the state as valid in California. For example, California now recognizes marriages performed in Utah where the spouses are only required to be 14 years of age, although our age limit is higher. At the present time, no state recognizes marriages between people of the same sex. However, the U.S. Constitution requires all states to give full faith and credit to the laws and judicial proceedings of other states. In 1996, the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was signed into law. The act declared that only marriage between a man and a woman is recognized for federal purposes. In addition, the act allowed states to ignore each other's legal same-sex marriages. To date, 30 other states have passed laws to ban same-sex marriage or prohibit recognition of such marriages performed in other states. Proponents of state DOMA laws point to the federal act. Opponents, however, claim that DOMA laws are unconstitutional because they violate equal protection and interstate travel rights, as well as the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. The proponent of Proposition 22, state Senator Pete Knight, introduced similar measures in the legislature in 1996 and 1997 but was not successful in obtaining their passage. Court decisions in other states: Three same-sex couples challenged a Hawaii state law that allowed only men and women to marry. The case went to the state Supreme Court, which ruled in 1993 that the state's denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples might violate the state constitution's guarantee of equal protection. A trial court later confirmed that the state had no "compelling" reason to maintain a discriminatory practice. However, in December 1999 the state Supreme Court ruled that the case was nullified when the people passed a state constitutional amendment to prevent same-sex marriages in 1998. In a similar case, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled in December 1999 that same-sex couples are entitled to the same benefits and protections as heterosexual wedded couples. The high court stopped short of granting homosexuals the right to marry, giving the Vermont legislature "a reasonable period of time" to decide whether to rewrite its definition of marriage or to establish the rights and benefits through a domestic partnership arrangement. AB 26: In October 1999, a domestic partnership measure was signed into law in California. Although AB 26 does not address the issue of same-sex marriages, it provides some limited rights to same-sex couples. The law provides a statewide registry for same-sex couples and for heterosexual couples at least 62 years old and guarantees hospital visitation rights. In addition, public employees will have access to health insurance for their domestic partners. FISCAL EFFECT The Legislative Analyst estimates that this measure would likely have no direct fiscal effect on state and local governments. IMPACT OF YES OR NO VOTE A YES vote means that only marriage between a man and a woman would be valid or recognized in California. A NO vote means that California law would continue to: (1) define marriage as based on a civil contract between a man and a woman; and (2) generally recognize legal marriages that took place in other states as valid in California. SUPPORTERS SAY
OPPONENTS SAY
SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION Official ballot arguments in support are signed by Jeanne Murray, Field Director, 60 Plus Association; Gary Beckner, Executive Director, Association of American Educators; Thomas Fong, President, Chinese Family Alliance; Dana S. Kruckenberg, Board Member, California School Board Leadership Council; Amy Williams, First Vice-President, San Jose-Edison Parent Teacher's Organization; and Star Parker, President, Coalition for Urban Renewal and Education. Official ballot arguments in opposition are signed by Antonio R. Villaraigosa, Assembly Speaker, California State Legislature; The Right Reverend William E. Swing, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of California; Krys Wulff, President, American Association of University Women, California; Gil Garcetti, District Attorney, County of Los Angeles; and Delaine Eastin, California State Superintendent of Public Instruction. For more information: Supporters: Protection of Marriage Committee/Yes on 22, 916-441-1010, email campaignhq@protectmarriage.net, www.protectmarriage.net Opponents: Carol Ramirez, No on Knight Campaign, 415-227-1020, email campaign@noonnight.org, www.noonknight.org
|
