AB 849 OPENING STATEMENT
Assemblyman Mark Leno

Assembly Floor
September 6, 2005

September 6, 2005— Assemblyman Leno addresses members of the California State Assembly during the debate on his landmark marriage equality bill, AB 849. The historic measure passed both houses of the state legislature before being vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger.

AB 849, The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, is at its core about affording all Californians the dignity and respect of their human birthright.

It will amend Section 300 of the California Family Code to define marriage as a civil contract between two persons while at the same time protecting in statute any religious institution’s right to not recognize or solemnize these marriages.

AB 849 is based on the concept found in our state constitution that a citizen may not be granted rights not granted on the same terms to all citizens and the same concept found in our U.S. Constitution that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The bill is also founded on the assumption that we all share the same hopes and dreams, fears and frustrations, joy and aspirations for ourselves and our families – that we are, indeed, one human family. As the NAACP stated in its letter of support for AB 849, “different laws for different people have no place in our society.”

When the CA Supreme Court ended the ban on inter-racial marriage in 1948, our justices stated that marriage is more than a civil contract to be regulated by state law. They said that marriage is a fundamental right of all citizens. They also said that any legislation infringing upon that fundamental right must be “based upon more than prejudice and must be free of oppressive discrimination to comply with the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection under the law.”

But when this legislature added gender limitations to Section 300 of the Family Code in 1977, it was specifically to deny same sex couples their fundamental right to marry. Our opponents claim that there is nothing discriminatory in the current law, that everyone has the right to marry as long as it is with someone of the opposite sex. But, as the MA high court ruled, the right to marry without the right to marry the person of one’s choice is no right at all.

In the year since the state of MA has legally issued marriage licenses to committed and loving same sex couples the number of heterosexual marriages has increased – from an average of 37,000 per year to over 41,000 in the most recent year. If anything, opposite sex couples may have received a boost in their enthusiasm for the institution.

In the same year period, a recent Boston Globe poll indicates that popular support for marriage equality within that state has increased from 40% to 56%. Clearly, after marriage licenses are issued and the hyperbolic protestations subside, life peacefully if more equitably goes on.

Members, this is a bill whose time has come. I ask for your aye vote.