(04-11) 04:00 PDT Sacramento -- The latest attempt by a Bay Area state lawmaker to legalize same-sex marriage cleared a legislative committee Tuesday, but the fate of the bill remains in doubt with the governor likely to veto the measure.
The legislation, AB43, is about a civil rights issue that has been ignored far too long, said Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco.
"The time has come for California to honor its commitment to afford the right of equality for all residents," he told the Assembly Judiciary Committee.
But opponents of the bill argued the state Legislature has no business redefining marriage especially after voters in 2000 approved a ballot initiative to reinforce the notion that marriage is an institution between a man and a woman.
The Assembly Judiciary Committee sided with Leno, voting along party lines with seven Democrats voting "yes," while three Republicans voted "no."
The bill will now be heard by the Appropriations Committee, which is chaired by Leno.
But the biggest hurdle to overcome will probably be Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who vetoed an identical measure last year saying voters had already spoken with their approval of Proposition 22 in 2000.
Aaron McLear, Schwarzenegger's press secretary, said Tuesday that the governor has not taken a position on AB43, but noted "he has said in the past that he would fulfill the wishes of California voters who have spoken on this issue, and they were not in favor of it."
Leno argued that, unlike previous years, there is growing support for legalizing same-sex marriage, both in the Legislature and the public.
So far, 41 lawmakers in both houses have signed on as co-authors and recent polls indicate more Californians are open to the issue than ever before, Leno said.
But the bill's opponents -- largely representing conservative and religious groups -- argued again that most Californians don't want to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. The critics of the bill also said the state Constitution bars the Legislature from overturning laws enacted by voters, such as Prop. 22. However, Leno argued that while Prop. 22 deals only with recognizing marriages performed outside California, his bill deals with marriages performed in the state and thus would not be in conflict with the 2000 ballot initiative that the voters approved.
Karen England, executive director of the conservative Capitol Resource Institute, said she was disheartened by the committee's vote.
"I'm thoroughly disappointed that the Bay Area is trying to take its views on marriage and force it down on the rest of California," she said.
and in Washington State....Partnership Bill Passes in Wash. State
By RACHEL LA CORTE, Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
(04-11) 02:46 PDT Olympia, Wash. (AP) --
Nearly a year after the state Supreme Court upheld Washington's ban on same-sex marriage, the state Legislature passed a measure to give gay and lesbian couples some of the rights that come with marriage.
The measure passed 65-35 on Tuesday. The state Senate approved the bill last month, and it now heads to Gov. Chris Gregoire, who is expected to sign it into law.
"It is an important step, I believe, for turning back the horrendous law that this Legislature passed in 1998, to deny gay and lesbian families the right to marry," said state Sen. Ed Murray, who is one of five openly gay lawmakers in the Legislature.
That 1998 law, the Defense of Marriage Act, restricts marriage to unions between a man and a woman. A divided state Supreme Court upheld that law last July in a 5-4 decision, overruling two lower courts, which had found the same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional.
The domestic partnership bill would create a domestic partnership registry with the state, and would provide enhanced rights for same-sex couples, including hospital visitation rights, the ability to authorize autopsies and organ donations and inheritance rights when there is no will.
To be registered, couples would have to share a home, not be married or in a domestic relationship with someone else, and be at least 18.
Unmarried, heterosexual senior couples would also be eligible for domestic partnerships if one partner were at least 62. Lawmakers said that provision was included to help seniors who are at risk of losing pension rights and Social Security benefits if they remarry.
Opponents argued it was a "marriage light" bill that would dilute traditional marriage.
"We are chipping away at the very foundations of this institution and of society," said Republican state Rep. Bill Hinkle. "This is taking us down a road we do not need to go."
In December, New Jersey adopted civil unions for same-sex couples, joining Connecticut and Vermont. Massachusetts allows gay couples to marry, while California has domestic partnerships that bring full marriage rights. Hawaii has a reciprocal benefits law that gives same-sex partners some rights, in areas of insurance, property, pension and hospital visitation.
Labels: politics; human rights