Rights verses Rights

Since January 1 2000, more than 25,000 couples have registered their domestic partnerships in California. Same-sex couples are seeking the same rights and monetary benefits as married couples. As a result, many people think the definition of marriage ought to changed. Since the Californian people took the initiative to define a “valid” marriage under Proposition 22 the definition of “marriage” ought not to be change without vote approval. California has granted equal protection to same-sex couples under the Domestic Partnership Act, and changing the definition of marriage will not obtain any further rights to 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 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 Californian signed into law under AB 205 that counter Leno’s claim. Now both martial 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. The Domestic Partnership Act (AB 205) extends the rights and duties of marriage to persons registered as domestic partners on and after January 1, 2005. Finally, the California legislature has recognized same-sex couples sought to protect them and their families from discrimination.

While AB205 extends numerous rights and protections to same-sex couples it cannot overcome the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution. Thus, 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 equality in the institution of marriage, 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 (AB 1967) would like to change the definition of marriage he cannot cause an effective change to Proposition 22. California voters defined a valid marriage as a union “between a man and a woman” under Proposition 22. The California people took the initiative to collect enough signatures to get the definition of marriage on the ballot. Afterward, the people voted to define a “valid” marriage in as being between a “man and a woman.” The Knight Court said “marriage consists of a union between a man and a woman” (McMaster, 2004). Furthermore, “the court must guard the people’s referendum power.” (McMaster). Under the Californian constitution, the legislature cannot over turn the people’s referendum.

Gay rights activists argue, “Marriage laws… are an unconstitutional abridgement of the civil rights of gays and lesbians” (AP). Yet, it’s obvious that California has granted equal rights to same-sex couples under the Domestic Partnership Act. 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. It is not the state that is creating the disparity. The issue is not solely about the rights of gays and lesbians. They 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 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. California granted equal rights to gays and lesbians under the Domestic Partner Act. Changing the definition will only invalidate the intent of the people’s popular vote to define a “valid” marriage. If “marriage” is made overbroad and meaningless, then the people’s intent has been overrun by carefully worded convoluted speech. As a result, their vote has no real meaning because they did not know the meaning of their vote. Apparently, their vote only applied to interstate marriages and not intrastate marriages. 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 will 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.