SEC. 3.
The Legislature finds and declares as follows:(a) Civil marriage is a legal institution recognized by the state in order to promote stable relationships and to protect individuals who are in those relationships. The institution of marriage also provides important protections for the families of those who are married, including not only any children or other dependents they may have, but also members of their extended families.
(b) From 1850 to 1977, California’s marriage statutes used gender-neutral language, without reference to “man” or “woman,” in providing that marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract to which the consent of the parties capable of
making the contract is necessary.
(c) In 1948, the California Supreme Court became the first state court in the country to strike down a law prohibiting interracial marriage. It was the only state supreme court to do so before the United States Supreme Court invalidated all those laws in 1967. The California Supreme Court held that “marriage is ... something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the state; it is a fundamental right of free men ... Legislation infringing such rights must be based upon more than prejudice and must be free from oppressive discrimination to comply with the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection of the laws” (Perez v. Sharp (1948) 32 Cal.2d 711, 714-715). The California Supreme Court explained that “the right to marry is the right to join in marriage with the person of one’s choice” (Id., at p. 715).
(d) In 1977,
the Legislature amended the state’s marriage law to replace the gender-neutral description of marriage with language specifically limiting marriage to a “civil contract between a man and a woman.” The Legislature’s express purpose for this amendment was to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying. The gender-specific description of marriage that the Legislature adopted in 1977 specifically discriminated in favor of heterosexual couples and discriminated against, and continues to discriminate against, same-sex couples.
(e) Other governments have recognized that fundamental fairness requires that same-sex couples be permitted to marry on the same terms as heterosexual couples. Massachusetts, Canada, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, and South Africa permit same-sex couples to marry. Israel recognizes the marriages of same-sex couples entered into in foreign jurisdictions.
(f) By excluding same-sex couples from marriage, California’s marriage law discriminates against members of same-sex couples based on their sexual orientation and based on their gender. The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage is based in significant part on, and perpetuates, gender stereotypes about the roles of men and women in families and in society.
(g) California’s discriminatory exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage harms same-sex couples and their families by denying those couples and their families specific legal rights and responsibilities under state law and by depriving members of those couples and their families of a legal basis to challenge federal laws that deny access to the many important federal benefits and obligations provided only to spouses (Smelt v. County of Orange (9th Cir. 2006) 447 F.3d 673, 684-685). Those federal benefits include the right to
file joint federal income tax returns, the right to sponsor a partner for immigration to the United States, the right to social security survivor’s benefits, the right to family and medical leave, and many other substantial benefits and obligations.
(h) Other jurisdictions have chosen to treat as valid or otherwise recognize marriages between same-sex couples. California’s discriminatory marriage law therefore also harms California’s same-sex couples when they travel to other jurisdictions by preventing them from having access to the rights, benefits, and protections those jurisdictions provide only to married couples.
(i) California’s discriminatory exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage further harms same-sex couples and their families by denying them the unique public recognition and validation that marriage confers.
(j) The Legislature has an interest in encouraging stable relationships regardless of the gender or sexual orientation of the partners. The benefits that accrue to the general community when couples undertake the mutual obligations of marriage accrue regardless of the gender or sexual orientation of the partners. Despite longstanding social and economic discrimination, many lesbian, gay, and bisexual Californians have formed lasting, committed, and caring relationships with persons of the same sex. These couples share lives together and participate in their communities together, and many raise children and care for other dependent family members together. Permitting same-sex couples to marry would further California’s interests in promoting family relationships and protecting family members during life crises. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual Californians have the same interests in marriage and in personal autonomy and privacy, including marrying the person of one’s choice, as heterosexual
Californians.
(k) Despite the intentions of California’s domestic partnership statutes to reduce discrimination on the bases of sex and sexual orientation and to help California move closer to fulfilling the promises of inalienable rights, liberty, and equality contained in Sections 1 and 7 of Article I of the California Constitution, relegating same-sex couples to the status of domestic partnership while prohibiting them from marrying (1) causes severe and lasting harms to same-sex couples, their children, and their extended families; (2) stigmatizes same-sex couples, their children, their extended families and all gay, lesbian, and bisexual Californians in violation of the California Constitution; (3) violates California public policy by enabling and promoting discrimination by private actors and institutions on the basis of sexual orientation, contrary to California’s compelling interest in eradicating discrimination based on sexual
orientation; and (4) puts same-sex couples and their families at risk of illegal discrimination by state and local government agencies and officials.
(l) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act to end the pernicious practice of marriage discrimination in California. California’s discriminatory exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage violates the California Constitution’s guarantees of due process, privacy, equal protection of the law, and free expression by arbitrarily denying equal marriage rights to lesbian, gay, and bisexual Californians. California’s exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage serves no legitimate government interest and is contrary to the public policies of California. The harms caused by prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying in California cannot be remedied, as required by the California Constitution, by any measure short of permitting same-sex couples to marry in California.
(m) This act is in no way intended to alter Section 308.5 of the Family Code, which prohibits California from treating as valid or otherwise recognizing marriages of same-sex couples solemnized outside of California.