California
assembly committee rejects ban on gay marriage

A California assembly committee on Tuesday rejected a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage and strip away a long list of rights granted to domestic partners in recent years. A state senate committee was likely to turn down an identical proposal later in the day. The assembly judiciary committee voted 6-3 to reject the proposed amendment by Republican assemblyman Ray Haynes despite claims that the proposal would strengthen the intent of voters who approved Proposition 22 five years ago. That ballot measure was designed to prevent California from recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. Other laws ban same-sex marriages from taking place in California. "When the people said only that marriage could be between a man and a woman, they knew exactly what they were talking about," Haynes said. "The words were clear. The meaning was clear. The intention was clear." He said the legislature and the courts had "eviscerated" the meaning of Proposition 22 and made up legal arguments to determine it was unconstitutional. Opponents of the proposed amendments said that during the campaign fight over the ballot measure Proposition 22 supporters denied that it was an attempt to repeal domestic partners' rights. "This [constitutional amendment] will do nothing to protect a single family," said Geoffrey Kors, executive director of Equality California. "What it will do is rip away protections that families now have [and] leave children without health insurance, leave couples without any legal recourse to protect themselves." Since 1999 the legislature has approved a series of bills recognizing domestic partnerships and granting domestic partners most of the rights given married couples, including the right to sue for wrongful death of a partner and to adopt a partner's child. Democratic assemblyman Lloyd Levine said the Haynes amendment amounted to "legalizing discrimination." "The fact is plain and simple," he said. "There is a group of people who, for whatever reason, do not like gays and cannot tolerate the idea of two women sleeping together or two men sleeping together. To put that into the constitution...is simply unconscionable." But Haynes said to call the amendment discrimination "is to take the word and turn it on its ear." "The essence of this [amendment] says that any man, regardless of [his] sexual orientation, can marry any woman, regardless of her sexual orientation," he said. "There is no discrimination on them." He said the amendment would still leave domestic partners--which can include same-sex couples as well as older, unmarried heterosexuals--some rights, including hospital visitation rights. He also contended the amendment would restrict benefits and rights granted by the state and would not prohibit, for example, a company from giving health insurance coverage to the domestic partners of its employees. But Democratic assemblyman Dave Jones disagreed. "There's no language that limits that to the state," he said. Tuesday's hearings came two weeks after the assembly judiciary committee approved a bill by Democratic assemblyman Mark Leno that would allow same-sex marriages. They also followed a ruling by a San Francisco judge striking down the state's bans on same-sex marriages. (AP)