Thank you Governor Schwarzenegger

When Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the same sex marriage bill, AB849, the reasons he gave were not the strongest ones he could have offered. He said redefining marriage is too important to be done by the legislature, especially since the people of California overwhelmingly supported a referendum defining marriage as an opposite sex institution. But the Governor need not hide behind the popular referendum. There are substantial reasons to veto this bill, apart from the obvious fact that it is a poke in the eye to the electorate.

The bill changed marriage from “a civil contract between a man and a woman” to “a civil contract between two persons.” This is not an innocent semantic adjustment. This little change in wording changes marriage from the pre-eminent gender-based social institution to something completely gender-neutral. And it wrongly implies that marriage is nothing but a contract. If that were true, all the issues surrounding marriage could be adjudicated using ordinary contract law. We would not need a whole separate law of marriage and divorce, administered by a separate family court. The fact is, marriage has unique features that are not fully covered by contract.

Dividing the responsibility for the care of minor children is not a suitable subject for contracts. We can not treat children like property. They are persons with rights of their own, not objects to which other people have rights. Family law courts have developed a whole series of methods of taking the interests of minor children into account.

Marriage has unique social purposes that can not easily be replaced by a series of contracts. Marriage binds couples to each other. But marriage also binds children to parents. Marriage assigns children to their biological parents, and assigns to those parents the rights and responsibilities for the care of the child. These purposes apply to opposite sex couples in a way that they simply cannot apply to same sex couples.

Family law courts are already struggling with assigning parental rights and responsibilities in dissolving lesbian partnerships. There is a very old paternity rule, dating back to the English common law. A woman’s husband is presumed to be the father of any child born to her during the course of their marriage. This rule binds the children to those particular adults as their parents. That man has both rights and responsibilities for those children, even if he is not in fact their biological father.

That rule can not work for a same sex couple. There is always a third party in the background, as an additional parent to the child. There can not be a presumption of “paternity” in a lesbian custody case. The genetic father is typically, but certainly not always, an anonymous sperm donor. In one of the recent disputed lesbian custody cases, Kristine H v Lisa R. the biological mother tried to prevent her estranged partner from having contact with the child. In another California case, Elisa B. v Emily B., the biological mother tried to force her estranged partner to pay child support. The court’s rulings amount to having the non-biological mother stand-in for the father. The biological mother must allow her child to have regular visits with a person who has no genetic relationship to him or her. The biological mother is entitled to receive child support payments from the estranged partner, who again, has no genetic connection with the child.

Sometimes gay marriage advocates attempt to circumvent this problem by making subtle restatement of the ancient rule. They reword it by saying, “a child born during the life of a union is presumed to be the child of both partners.” This simply won’t do. There can not be a presumption of parenthood in a same sex couple. In fact, there is a presumption of non-parenthood. A same sex couple can not have a child unless somebody gives them one. Every child in the household must have at least half of their genetic material donated by a third party.

The law makes this possible by cutting the biological father out of the loop. The law makes sperm donors “legal strangers” to the children conceived with their sperm. (I doubt that men would donate their sperm if they thought the woman might come after them for child support, or that their child might someday come after them for a relationship.) But why should the law provide this barrier between children and their fathers? What social good is served by allowing women to make a plan that permanently deprives their child of a relationship with his or her father?

Marriage routinely and organically connects children to the people most likely to have an interest in them. Marriage evolved to meet the needs of opposite sex couples, who naturally and organically, make babies. Changing marriage to accommodate same sex couples will necessarily change the way we assign children to parents. Instead of a simple, easily applied rule of parentage, we will have to create a set of institutions that must operate on a case by case basis. The law will have to evolve, in ways we may not be able to foresee perfectly.

In the 1970's, California led the way in the no-fault revolution in divorce laws. Advocates of this unprecedented change to family law assured the public that no harm would be done: children would be better off living with divorced happy parents than with quarreling married parents. We now have plenty of evidence to disprove that rosy promise.

Now, the California state legislature is trying to foist an even more radical social experiment on the people of California. We don’t need any more experiments with family forms. Governor Schwarzenegger is right to veto the same sex marriage bill.

That would be these 6 pieces of GLBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender) legislation, signed on the same day, 9/29. The descriptions were extracted from Senate and Assembly Floor Analyses of pending legislation available at LAO.gov.

• SB 565 by Senator Carole Migden (D-San Francisco) - Property tax reappraisal exclusion: domestic partners.
Prior to this bill, there was no domestic partner exclusion that equates to the interspousal exclusion. This bill establishes an exclusion from reassessment for transfers of real property between registered domestic partners. The author indicated that the bill is intended "to guarantee equality for all Californians, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, and to further the state's interests in protecting Californians from the potentially severe economic and social consequences of abandonment, separation, the death of a partner, and other life crises."
• SB 973 by Senator Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica) - Public employees' retirement: domestic partners.
Bill amends the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), the State Teachers Retirement System (STRS), and the County Employees Retirement Act of 1937 to entitle retired members to elect to change optional retirement allowances to provide for their domestic partners.
• AB 228 by Assemblymember Paul Koretz (D-West Hollywood) - Transplantation services: human immunodeficiency virus.
Prohibits health care service plans (health plans) and health insurers from denying coverage for organ or tissue transplantation services on the basis that an enrollee, subscriber, insured, or policyholder is infected with HIV.
• AB 1142 by Assemblymember Marvyn Dymally (D-Compton) - HIV/AIDS: African-Americans: statewide initiative.
This bill establishes the Statewide African-American Initiative to address the disproportionate impact of HIV/AIDS on the health of African-Americans by coordinating prevention and service networks around the state in an effort to increase the capacity of core service providers.
• AB 1586 by Assemblymember Paul Koretz (D-West Hollywood) - Insurers: health care service plans: discrimination.
This bill adds additional language to existing anti-discrimination provisions under the Health and Safety Code and the Insurance Code to clarify that state law prohibits insurance companies and health care service plans from discriminating on the basis of gender in the creation or maintenance of service contracts or the provision of benefits or coverage. Defines the term "sex," in existing law that prohibits health care service plans (health plans) and insurers from specified discriminatory acts, to have the same meaning as "gender," as defined under the Penal Code, as specified.
• AB 1400 by Assemblymember John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) - Unruh Civil Rights Act: marital status and sexual orientation
The Unruh Civil Rights Act (Act) provides that all persons, regardless of their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges and services in all business establishments of every kind. This bill clarifies that marital status and sexual orientation are among the characteristics that are protected against discrimination by business establishments under the Act. This bill also imports into the Act definitions of the terms "disability," "religion," "sex," and "sexual orientation" from the Fair Employment and Housing Act, and includes, in enumerating the above characteristics, the perception of those characteristics and association with a person who has or is perceived to have those characteristics as being within the protected categories. These definitions will be integrated into other related provisions of the Act.

What about this FairOpinion? Do you share Arnold's ideology, that domestic partners should have all the rights of married heterosexuals?

He is almost begging the GLBT lobby to put this on the ballot. See this, from the San Diego Union-Tribune:

The governor said public attitudes about same-sex marriage might well have changed in the five years since Proposition 22 was approved with 61 percent of the vote. One public opinion poll recently suggested that Californians were evenly split on the issue.
"If they go back to the people, it could easily be that it will win, that it will pass, that we will have marriage amongst gay couples," Schwarzenegger said.
He did not respond directly when asked what position he would take if an initiative to legalize same-sex marriage were placed on the ballot.
"I personally think that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. But I think a gay couple should have all the rights that a marriage has," he told the Union-Tribune editorial board, which regularly hosts newsmakers to discuss current events and invites reporters and editors from the newsroom.

I hope Arnold's propositions will pass. They will make a huge difference for the future of CA.

Yes they will put us deeper in debt.

Senate Republican Leader Dick Ackerman of Irvine said his members rejected the idea of an infrastructure bond this year because they believe California has overextended its debt capacity.

According to the nonpartisan legislative analyst's office, the percentage of the state's budget that goes to pay off debt has reached 6%. Over the next few years even more debts will come due. By 2009, according to the analyst, paying back debt will account for nearly 7% of the state budget.

Schwarzenegger, he (State Finance Director Tom Campbell) said, has told his advisers that they shouldn't blink at talk of a $9 billion or $10 billion bond when "we should be talking about $60 billion or $70 billion."

All that's needed to launch California into a bold new era of borrow and build, Campbell said, is to first get the annual operating budget under control.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.