Lawmakers in the State of California returned to work in Sacramento today with legislation allowing same-sex marriage on the Senate agenda.
But with only four weeks to complete its work and a major budget battle at hand it is unclear whether the marriage bill will make it to a vote on the floor.
The measure passed the Assembly in June.
Even if the bill makes to a floor vote and passes Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has vowed to veto it, as he did an identical bill in 2005.
Both bills were authored by Mark Leno (D-San Francisco). The 2005 bid passed both the House and Senate - the second legislative body in the nation to approve a measure allowing same-sex couples to marry.
Schwarzenegger said in vetoing it that the issue should be decided by voters.
Called the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act it would amend the Family Code to define marriage as a civil contract between two persons instead of a civil contract between a man and a woman, and again reaffirms that no religious institution would be required to solemnize marriages contrary to its fundamental beliefs.
California law allows same-sex couples to register as domestic partners, which gives them many state protections. However, domestic partnership remains a separate institution from marriage and shuts out same-sex couples from the universal recognition and consideration married couples enjoy, LGBT activists say.
Meanwhile, the California Supreme Court will hear arguments later this year in three cases wrapped together on the issue of the constitutionality of preventing same-sex marriage. On Friday attorneys in the case submitted answers to a series of questions posed by the court earlier this year.
The justices sought the answers after both sides in the case filed their initial briefs in June, saying the briefs failed to address three key issues.
First, the court asked for a detailed description of the differences between the legal rights accorded by domestic partnerships and those of marriage under California law. California has one of the nation's most inclusive domestic partner laws providing many of the rights of marriage, but not all.
The second question asked for the lawyers' positions on what marriage rights, if any are enshrined in California's constitution. The question is important because only a constitutional amendment could alter those - not the legislature nor a voter initiative.
That question led to the third, involving Proposition 22, an initiative passed by voters in 2000. "Do the terms 'marriage' or 'marry' themselves have constitutional significance under the California constitution," the court asked.
No comments:
Post a Comment