Gay Marriage by Any Other Name . . .

The Weekly Standard ^ | 10/29/2001 | Beth Henary

[Pokey78]

In California the supporters of gay marriage move ahead with two new bills. Only Proposition 22 stands in their way.

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATORS ARE moving to change the legal definition of family through two new bills. The first, AB 1338, proposed by Democratic assemblyman Paul Koretz, was heard in committee for the first time last week. AB 1338, otherwise known as the California Family Protection Act, would create a civil union law for California, extending the protections already given to married couples to same-sex partners. The Koretz bill dramatically expands upon a law California governor Gray Davis signed Oct. 14, which grants 13 new rights to state-registered domestic partners.

A staffer for Koretz says the bill seeks to promote stable families and protect children of homosexuals. Calling the legislation a "parallel to marriage" comparable to the Vermont civil union law, the staffer says civil unions go further to provide these protections than domestic partnerships do.

Koretz's bill would establish obligations of support during and after the relationship as well as grant child custody and visitation rights. It would also allow same-sex couples to file joint state income tax returns and take marital tax exemptions.

Under current California law, same-sex couples and heterosexual couples in which one of the partners is over 62 can register as domestic partners with the California secretary of state. Either partner can end the relationship by sending notice to the other, and an individual can change domestic partners every six months.

The other anti-marriage bill was the brainchild of assemblywoman Carole Migden. Migden, who also authored the legislation that set up the domestic partners registry in 1999, recently pushed AB 25 through the legislature. Her bill grants domestic partners the rights to sue for wrongful death, to adopt each other's children, and to make emergency medical decisions, among many others.

The potential legal problem for the civil union bill and other legislation aimed at bestowing upon homosexual couples the rights enjoyed by married couples is California's Proposition 22. Passed in March 2000, Prop. 22 was a citizen initiative that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. It passed with 61 percent of the vote.

In an informational packet about his bill, Koretz maintains that Prop. 22 does not affect civil unions.

"It [Prop. 22] simply restricted the definition of the word 'marriage' in California law. . . . The Family Protection Act of 2001 is about something altogether different: not whether California should recognize same sex marriages entered in other states, but whether California will allow same sex couples to enter civil unions (rather than marriages) in this state."

Koretz's civil union bill is not eligible for committee vote until January 2002, but for Migden's AB 25 the issue of constitutionality is much more immediate. Migden's chief of staff Alan Lofaso says that Prop. 22 concerns extraterritorial unions and, further, that "domestic partnership is not marriage. It is far less than marriage, providing only 13 benefits as opposed to the well over 1,000 benefits associated with legal marriage."

But Randy Thomasson, executive director of Campaign for California Families, a group that opposed Migden's bill, argues that its passage cheapened marriage in the eyes of the law. He said those seeking to expand rights to domestic partners are trying an end-run around Prop. 22 by technically focusing on the word "marriage," giving short shrift to what he calls "the spirit of what the people meant." Migden's bill, Thomasson believes, will not survive constitutional scrutiny.

Article II, section 10(c) of the California state constitution states that the legislature may amend or repeal referendum statutes, but only if the amendment or repeal is "approved by the electors" or "the initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without [the electors'] approval." Proposition 22 did not include that provision, so it can only be amended by another referendum.

Legal friends of the Campaign for California Families are now looking to take action against Migden's bill on constitutional grounds, as well as on precedent embedded in California case law.

The question is at what point marriage--in the legal sense--becomes indistinguishable from the sum of rights afforded homosexual couples. This was, after all, the issue addressed by voters in March 2000 with Prop. 22.

If Koretz and Migden have their way, what California voters made illegal last year will be legalized under another name.


Beth Henary is an editorial assistant at The Weekly Standard.

[Red Dawn]

God, I just got nauseous picturing them on their honeymoon

[petuniasevan]

One more reason to be glad I'm FROM California - 2400 miles FROM! ;>D

[Red Dawn]

Maybe NAMBLA wanted equal rights

[Sabertooth]

But how can they now turn around and say, yes, Prop 22 was also about banning domestic partnerhips, when they specifically said just the oppposite during the campaign to pass it???

You lie like a sack.

Prop 22 was about protecting marriage from those who just don't have a clue. Protecting marriage also means not surrendering the back door to those who want to take all of the proper prerogatives of marriage into something that decent people find distasteful, even if they can't take marriage by name.

This is another overt attempt by Davis and his his spiteful cohort to make marriage utterly meaningless.

Go ahead, wave the pink flag, I know you're proud. Do it where it's no one's business, like homosexuals actually did originally ask for. Problem is, you don't want to make it no one's business, you want to make it everyone's. You don't want to keep what you do behind closed doors, you want public sanction.

You want to conduct a perverse experiment on children, leaving them in a home where two sad and pathetic adults can't lift their heads up from their mutual narcissism long enough to realize that the child is neither consenting nor an adult.

Not healthy, pal. Pendulum's swinging back hard on this one.

[Imperial Warrior]

Following this precedent, Richard Gere could finally legally marry his gerbil, Frisky Diver. What's next, man-toaster marriages?

[Nitro]

Not for me, I just use my toaster-oven!!

[weegee]

Under current California law, same-sex couples and heterosexual couples in which one of the partners is over 62 can register as domestic partners with the California secretary of state. Either partner can end the relationship by sending notice to the other, and an individual can change domestic partners every six months.

Any stats on how frequently they are changing spouses under this existing provision? Does any divorce need to be filed?

[FormerLib]

All the more reason to pass a Constitutional Amendment to protect the decent people in other areas of the country from being forced to bow before the unholy!

[Looking for Diogenes]

But Randy Thomasson, executive director of Campaign for California Families, a group that opposed Migden's bill, argues that its passage cheapened marriage in the eyes of the law.

Groups that are concerned with defending marriage should attack the real problem - no-fault divorce. The reason there is so little difference between marriage and civil union is that marriage is no longer a lifetime commitment. If people think children need a mother and a father, this is the best way to ensure the children have both.

[nightdriver]

"A staffer for Koretz says the bill seeks to promote stable families and protect children of homosexuals."

"...children of homosexuals?"

How do homosexuals have children? Did my biology teachers play a dastardly trick on me?

[Imperial Warrior]

Hmmm, I guess prostitutes could be considered "temporary domestic partners", at least until the money runs out.

[Jimbaugh]

Click the banner above to see what has been going on for years.
There is a homosexual plan and it is working.

Here is the information on the GAY AGENDA. Everyone need to know that they will stop at nothing to implement that AGENDA.