Same-Sex Marriages

Since January 1, 2000, more than 25,000 couples have registered their domestic partnerships in California. Same-sex couples are seeking the same rights, protections, and monetary benefits as married couples. As a result, many people think the definition of marriage ought to be changed. Since the Californian people took the initiative to define a "valid" marriage under Proposition 22 the definition of "marriage" should not to be changed without voter approval. California has granted equal protection to same-sex couples under the Domestic Partnership Act (AB205), and changing the definition of marriage will not obtain any more rights for domestic partners because the supremacy clause bars California from superseding federal law. Finally, changing the definition of a valid marriage negates the people's intent, and silences their popular voice in order to satisfy a small group of activists.
The State of California has granted equal protection under the Domestic Partnership Act (AB 205). However, Assemblyman Mark Leno claims in the California Marriage License Non-Discrimination Act that marriage is a "pernicious practice of (sic) discrimination" (AB 1967, 2004). Lambda Legal, a gay rights organization, lists numerous rights signed into law under AB 205, which counter Leno's claim. Now both martial partnerships and domestic partnerships have the following rights, protections, and benefits:

Rights and duties to one's partner;
Property rights and obligations;
Protection of children;
Right and protection in death related matters;
Employment rights and benefits;
Right to act on behalf of and receive information about your partner;
Rights in judicial and other official proceedings;
Exemption from transfer tax on deeds and other transfers;
Right of franchise, license, and other permits;
Rights in non-tax financial matters;
Miscellaneous provisions (except those under Prop 34);
Special benefits provided to public employees and their families;
Conflicts of interest and required disclosures (except where federal conflicts occur);
Discrimination protections (except where federal conflicts occur); and
Termination of the partnership (except no court proceedings to terminate).

The extension of the above rights defeats Assemblyman Leno's claim that marriage is a practice of pernicious discrimination. Effective January 1, 2005, the Domestic Partnership Act (AB 205) will extend the rights and duties of married persons to persons registered as domestic partners. Finally, the California legislature has recognized same-sex couples, and taken action to promote equality for them and their families.
While AB205 extends numerous rights and protections to same-sex couples it cannot overcome the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution. Since marriage is not mentioned in the constitution it is a privileged status regulated by the states. However, neither California nor Californians can over turn federal laws that withhold rights to same-sex couples. Neither can the Californian legislature or the Californian people force the federal government to allow same-sex partners to file federal taxes jointly. Consequently, federal laws prevent the long awaited equality, and not the California people or legislature. AB 205 can do no more than provide that "domestic partners shall use the same filing status as is used on their federal income tax returns."
While Assemblyman Leno would like to change the definition of marriage under AB 1967 he cannot cause any effective changes to the people's initiative to limit marriage. California voters defined a valid marriage as a union "between a man and a woman" under Proposition 22. It was the Californian people who took the initiative to collect enough signatures to get the definition of a valid marriage on the ballot. It was the Californian people who raised their voices and by majority defined a "valid" marriage as being between a "man and a woman." When AB205 was passed opponents took the State of California to court. The Knight Court said "marriage consists of a union between a man and a woman" (Knight v. Schwarzenegger). While a valid marriage in California consist of a union between a man and a women this definition does not prevent the distribution of rights, protections, and benefits to same-sex couples. Therefore, the legislature is permitted to extend rights to same-sex couples, but it may not amend the people's initiative. Judge McMaster ruled that "the court must guard the people's referendum power." The state legislate cannot unconstitutionally overturn the people's referendum.
Gay rights activists argue, "Marriage laws… are an unconstitutional abridgement of the civil rights of gays and lesbians" (AP). Yet, the distribution of rights to same-sex couples under the Domestic Partnership Act undermines this claim. While it is true that same-sex couple do not have exactly every single right that married couples have in California, the short fall in rights lays in the realm of federal law, and not state law. It is not the state that is creating the disparity. The issue is not solely about the rights of gays and lesbians. Same-sex couples have received all the rights California can grant. The real issues are the people's initiative and right to vote, and federalism. Assembly Bill 1967 will attempt to overturn the people's initiative, vote, and intent in order to satisfy a small group of politically active powerful Californians.
Leno's proposed bill is an undermining affront to the democratic process and the people's intent. Changing the definition of marriage will only invalidate the efforts and intent of the people to define a "valid" marriage. If "marriage" is made overbroad and meaningless, then the people's intent to define marriage has been overrun by carefully worded convoluted speech. If the intent of the people has no merit, then the vote of the people has no real meaning either because the people did not know the meaning and real intent of their vote when they placed it. Apparently, the people's vote only applied to interstate marriages and not intrastate marriages. As with the legislature, the intent of the people ought to be considered when laws are created for the people. The California Marriage License Non-Discrimination Act should not be passed as legislation, but should be placed on the ballot. The people have rights too, and ought to have a say in how marriage is be defined in California.
Supporting the traditional definition of marriage is not discriminatory towards same-sex couples. Everyone should receive rights and protections under the law. However one activist group should not be unfairly favored over the entire voting body. "THE TRUTH IS, we should respect EVERYONE'S freedom to make lifestyle choices, but draw the line at re-defining marriage for the rest of society," especially without voter approval (Proposition 22). If we allow our legislature to use overbroad Humpty Dumpty logic and declare that words mean just what they "choose them to mean --neither more nor less," then the law is no longer concise and meaningful in the State of California.