California marriages go civil

Timothy Kincaid

August 20th, 2010

Yesterday the California state assembly approved SB 906, which will make the following changes to California’s marriage law:

300. (a) Marriage Civil marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, established pursuant to a State of California marriage license issued by the county clerk, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary. Consent alone does not constitute civil marriage. Consent must be followed by the issuance of a license and solemnization as authorized by this division, except as provided by Section 425 and Part 4 (commencing with Section 500).

and

400. Marriage Civil marriage may be solemnized by any of the following who is of the age of 18 years or older:
(a) A priest, minister, rabbi, or authorized person of any religious denomination. No person authorized by this subdivision, or his or her religious denomination, shall be required to solemnize a marriage that is contrary to the tenets of his, her, or its faith. Any refusal to solemnize a marriage under this subdivision shall not affect the tax exempt status of any entity.

The bill goes on to revise the rest of the law by replacing reference to “marriage” with “civil marriage.”

Officially this bill does nothing, but the symbolism is interesting. It says that the State of California isn’t interested in how your church defines marriage, only in the civil aspect. Further, it assures churches and clergy that they need not conduct any marriages that they don’t find appropriate to their faith, even though such assurances are unnecessary due to the US Constitution’s religious protections.

And the wing-nuts are furious.

You’d think that ensuring and emphasizing protection for clergy would be welcomed. But wing-nuts don’t want such protection; it distracts from their deceptive talking points. They want to be able to scare people into thinking that their church will be forced to conduct same-sex marriages and have discovered that most voters don’t really understand that the First Amendment already protects them. This revision would make it harder to lie.

As the Ruth Institute, the National Organization for Marriage’s college outreach, laments

The real intent behind this bill is to make it appear as though it eliminates one of the main objections to same-sex marriage, that it jeopardizes religious freedom, in what gay activists hope will be an effort to get gay marriage on the ballot in California in 2012. They think that doing this will make gay marriage seem more acceptable to the voters of California and make it easier for such an amendment to pass. The idea is that if this bill passes, they can claim that allowing same-sex marriage won’t have any affect on religious freedom.

And anything that makes it more difficult for NOM and their allies to deceive voters is a threat to their power. Going into a potential 2012 constitutional amendment to reverse Proposition 8 (assuming that this isn’t all resolved through Perry v. Schwarzenegger by then), they didn’t want to have to defend “civil marriage” or lose one of their biggest scare points.

The bill passed with support of virtually all Democrats along with two Republicans. It had previously passed the State Senate but will return for a concurrence vote before going to the governor for signature.

Pomo

August 20th, 2010

wow… I think this is actually a big deal for the future of marriage equality in CA. I hope other states follow suit.

Rossi

August 20th, 2010

I don’t know who belongs to which party, but here’s the list of votes:

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0901-0950/sb_906_vote_20100819_0459PM_asm_floor.html

Lindoro Almaviva

August 20th, 2010

This whole bulls1t could have been axerted if the government had done its job and kept religious institutions from performing civl marriages like the rest of the world does. Instead, now we have a whole generation of people (already sick with feelings of self- entlitement) to grow up confused about what marriage is. .

If people had to go to the justice of peace to solemnize their marriage before their pastor is allowed to officiate a church ceremony, we would not have the stupid comments that this lowlife Galagher spews with impunity; and if she did, people would be better informed.

I still do not know why someone has not challenged this in court.

JakeInPHX

August 20th, 2010

Is the Governator inclined to sign this?

I’ve been trying to find an answer to that question, perhaps been looking in all the wrong places.

Wow, things is movin’ FAST.

Larz

August 20th, 2010

On the face of it, “civil marriage” looks to be defined as between a man and a woman. I don’t see where we are all thrilled by this.

octobercountry

August 20th, 2010

This topic came up on a popular gay blog today, and I was quite surprised at all the negative comments it received (the posting about this bill had nearly 100 comments all told). There were a lot of complaints about the legislation, saying that it “pandered to the right” and the like.

But man, this can only be a good thing. Let’s face the facts: the majority of the population is woefully uninformed about the differences between a marriage recognised by the state, and marriage as performed by the clergy. One of the KEY POINTS made by the anti-gay groups, again and again, is that marriage equality will infringe on religious rights—that if gay marriage is permitted, churches will be FORCED to perform them.

This is an outright lie, but of course we know that lies are bread and butter to the foes of equal rights. The constitution GUARANTEES that churches are never obliged to marry people they don’t wish to—but a lot of people don’t seem to understand that, and readily fall for the lies of NOM and the like.

Is this bill unnecessary? Is it a waste of time and money, to reiterate something that is already in the constitution? Absolutely, no question. But if putting this out there in plain language reassures people that their church will not have to host gay weddings, why not do it? It can only have a positive effect on the acceptance of marriage equality on the civil front.

Burr

August 20th, 2010

It’s calling their bluff so they look even more like the ridiculous bigots they are.

werdna

August 21st, 2010

Larz wrote: “On the face of it, “civil marriage” looks to be defined as between a man and a woman. I don’t see where we are all thrilled by this.”

I’d imagine that’s because the amendment of the California Constitution which Prop 8 inserted is still in effect. There’s really no other option, for the time being, anyway…

Donnchadh

August 21st, 2010

This bill does not entirely clean up the messy mix of church and state in defining marriage. No law in a secular government should refer to “A priest, minister, rabbi, or authorized person of any religious denomination.”
It would be better to remove all mention of religious marriage, or even all mention of marriage and have the law only use civil unions, or let a a marriage be officiated simply by having witnesses.

gary47

August 21st, 2010

A repeal vote absolutely must go forward for 2012. We will not see the Perry case hit SCOTUS earlier than 2014, and there’s so assurance they will uphold Walker’s ruling. The current high court has 4 guaranteed votes again marriage equality.

In any case, This proposed change in State law is a silly distraction.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 2006: NARTH Official Recommends Peer Shaming for Gender-Variant Elementary School Children

Today In History, 2007: Sen. Larry Craig's Airport Mens Room Bust Revealed

Born On This Day, 1961: Tom Ford

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Emphasis Mine

Today In History, 1954: Miami Mayor Calls for Anti-Gay Crackdown

Today In History, 1995: GOP Presidential Candidate Sen. Bob Dole Returns Donation from Log Cabin Republicans

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.