Sacramento, CA

San Francisco Assemblyman Mark Leno recently helped draft Assembly Bill 43–The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act. The bill basically argues that allowing the voters to decide the fate of a minority group–in this case the gay and lesbian community–goes against the State Consitution, and that, as such, the passage of Proposition 22 in 2000 should not be a legal determining factor in deciding the fate of gay marriage in California. They alos cite groundbreaking earlier actions of the California Supreme Court which paved the way for the elimination of such discrimination for other minority groups. For instance, in 1948 California became the first state to abolish laws prohibting interracial marriage, stating that,

“marriage is … something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the state; it is a fundamental right of free men … Legislation infringing such rights must be based upon more than prejudice and must be free from oppressive discrimination to comply with the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection of the laws“ (Perez v. Sharp).

Assembly Bill 43 seeks to eliminate discrimination by ammending various California Codes–such as Section 300 and 301 of the Family Code–to redefine marriage as a contract between two persons instead of between a man and a woman. However, the Bill will not effect Section 308.5 of the Family Code, which incidentally happens to be the Code directly related to Proposition 22’s refusal to acknowledge gay and lesbian marriages from OTHER states. Unfortunately, by purposely not addressing passages directly related to Proposition 22, drafters of the Bill have cast a suspicious light on it as a whole. Instead of noticing all of the positive things that it could accomplish for the gay and lesbian community and its likely ability to pave the way for such futue legislation in the Federal Government as well, all that the public sees is a crafty way of getting around legislation that was decided on by the majority of voters in 2000. It doesn’t matter to anyone that such legislation should never have been brought before voters. It doesn’t matter that “You don’t put a minority group’s rights up to a vote for the people,” or that “It’s up to the Legislature and courts to ensure that minorities’ rights are protected in this country” (Geoff Kors, Director of Equality California).

It certainly isn’t fair, but the fact of the matter is that the State of California ALREADY DID let Californians decide!! They can’t now repeal that decision without causing Californian voters to lose faith in their votes EVER meaning anything. This would be a dire mistake to make in a state where so many young people already feel that their vote is meaningless. The passage of Proposition 22 is the perfect example of this actually. When it was on the ballot, I was a senior in high school and everyone there believed that it was destined for failure. We all felt that in a state as liberal as California, there was no way that something like that would pass. On the day the results were given back, I remember sitting in my French class and everyone was left agape in shock when our teacher told us that it had passed. It was completely unfathomable until he also explained that the election had one of the lowest voter turnouts in the state’s history–especially amongst young adults who typically vote more liberally anyway. No one really thought that their votes meant anything so no one really voted. To repeal it now would be akin to saying, “Even if your vote does accomplish something the government can always overturn it with an Assembly Bill.”

I’m not at all saying that we should just let things be. After all, I completely support gay and lesbian marriage. Everyone has a Constitutional right to be happy. However, I don’t think that this is the right way to go about it. Supporters of gay and lesbian rights need to make the public aware that their actions are only designed to help the homosexual community–not to hinder or harm the heterosexual one. To do so, they need to bring the issues back into the public light and have everything out in the open for examination. It is the only way to keep people from being suspicious of some secret nefarious agenda. This sadly cannot be accomplished by waving a magic wand and passing an Assembly Bill behind people’s backs. It has to happen by bringing the matter back up for the public to decide on. Officials have to admit that it was a mistake to draft the legislation in the first place and the public has to admit that it was a mistake to pass it. Since the problem was created by giving the issue over to public scrutiny, it can only justly be ammended by allowing the public the chance to rectify it.

Furthermore, I think that this is the reason behind the Governor’s reluctance to pass Assembly Bill 43. He is likely to veto it because he knows that it cannot be solved by slipping it in so nonchalantly. In addition, I think it is disgusting that people are trying to bully him into signing it when he has already done so much for the gay and lesbian community here in California. Over the past few years, he has expanded civil rights protection in the employment and housing industries. He has also extended various domestic partnership rights to the community, including the ability to check the “married” box on state tax forms. It made me sad to see pictures of signs calling him a coward for trying to help the community as much as he is legally able to. In my opinion, he is doing everything that he is capable of doing. This is not a case of rallying Republican support or playing the political field, it is merely an instance of doing what is legal and just. That doesn’t mean that anyone has to like it–it NEEDS to be opposed. People just need to be aware of the right arena to oppose it in. Instead of protesting the Governor’s decision to DO HIS JOB by supporting state voters, they should instead be focusing on educating those voters so that the problem can be solved where it was created. For now, all I can say is that Governor Schwarzenegger is completely justified in saying, “It would be wrong for the people to vote for something, and for me to then overturn it…I don’t do that, I will not do it. And so they can send that bill down as many times as they want, I won’t do it.” And frankly, we shouldn’t want or expect him to do otherwise…

Sacramento, California State Legislation, Assembly Bill 43, California Law, California Family Code, gay marriage, gay rights, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor Schwarzenegger, Republican Party, politics, religious freedom, civil marriage, Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, Mark Leno, California State Constitution, Proposition 22, voter turnout, youth voter turnout, California Supreme Court, discrimination, civil rights, interracial marriage, Perez v. Sharp, Equality California, equality, Geoff Kors, special interest groups