'Marriage' to become museum piece

'Marriage' to become museum piece
Critic says lawmakers' plan would 'functionally abolish' institution

A proposal that already has earned the support of state senators in California would make marriage a museum piece, effectively relegating the biblically-mandated institution to the same category of usefulness as the rotary-dial telephone, opponents say.

"If S.B. 11 becomes the law, marriage will be functionally abolished," said Randy Thomasson, a spokesman for the Campaign for Children and Families. "Awarding marriage rights to people who shack up but refuse to get married is completely ridiculous."

The plan that has been endorsed by the Democrat-controlled California State Senate is one promoted by a lesbian state senator, Carole Migden, of San Francisco.

It would give an unmarried man and woman who are living together the rights of marriage, Thomasson said. It was approved by the Senate 22-13, with all Democrats in support and all Republicans opposed.

The plan that gives all the rights of marriage to heterosexual "domestic partners" ages 18 and up now goes to the state Assembly, and if approved there, would go to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has not taken a position on the plan.

"Why get married if you can get all the legal rights and benefits of marriage without being committed?" Thomasson asked. "This bad bill severely weakens the institution of marriage and will motivate unwed parents to remain uncommitted. We call upon Gov. Schwarzenegger to veto this nonsensical bill that robs marriage of its uniqueness and honor.

"No one should get marriage rights unless they get married. S.B. 11 makes a mockery of this sacred institution," he said.

Thomasson noted that not one Republican senator spoke against the bill during the floor session.

"Once again, pro-family Californians are angry at the Democrat politicians for attacking marriage and deeply frustrated with the Republican legislators for not speaking up to defend the sacred institution of marriage," he said.

"This is yet another wake-up call to why people who are financially blessed need to support the VoteYesMarriage.com amendment to protect marriage rights for marriage," said former Assemblyman Larry Bowler. "If VoteYesMarriage.com raises $2.5 million to qualify for the ballot, crazy bills like S.B. 11 will be defeated and marriage will be fully and permanently protected for one man and one woman."

The move is seen as another step towards creating full-blown same-sex "marriage" licenses for homosexuals. That plan already has been proposed in A.B. 43 in the state Assembly.

That group later voted 42-34 to pass A.B. 43, flouting the will of California voters by choosing to reject the 2000 initiative that defined marriage as between one man and one woman.

"The arrogant majority in the California legislature have decided that they know better than the people by voting to force A.B. 43 on California," declared Karen England, Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute. "The people of California clearly decided this issue when they passed Proposition 22. It is outrageous for legislators to waste time and money debating an issue that Californians have decided."

Several lawmakers expressed their opposition to A.B. 43 by declaring their support for traditional marriage, England noted.

"Assemblyman Chuck DeVore eloquently argued that this is not an issue of rights, but is a fundamental question of the purpose of marriage. Assemblyman Doug La Malfa expressed his dismay that there are no longer any institutions so sacred that they are untouchable by the liberal California legislature," her announcement said.

Also speaking out against A.B. 43 were Assembly members Anthony Adams, Joel Anderson, Sharon Runner, Bill Maze, Mike Villines and Ted Gaines.

"Especially alarming was the tone of lawmakers as they argued in favor of A.B. 43. The contempt lawmakers have for the constituents they supposedly represent is appalling," continued England. "Instead of respecting the decision voters made with the passage of Proposition 22, lawmakers chided them for being 'discriminatory' and 'bigoted.'"

"Assemblywoman Laura Richardson declared that even if her constituents voted for Proposition 22, she must make the right decision and override their decision," CRI said.

Officials have noted that A.B. 43 would violate the California Constitution, which specifically prohibits the Legislature from overturning voter-approved initiative statutes, such as Proposition 22, the Protection of Marriage Initiative, from seven years ago.

Gov. Schwarzenegger has indicated he would veto A.B. 43 if it reaches his desk. But the other plan, if approved, would set up a formal recognition of "domestic partnerships," among heterosexual couples. It would not be much of a leap for the argument then to be made the same rules should apply to homosexuals.

Migden in 1999 pushed through a bill allowing couples to "register" with the state as "domestic partners" already.

A report in the Sacramento Bee said S.B. 11 would allow the heterosexual couples to file joint state income tax returns as well as provides access to other all state provisions normally provided to married couples.

Midgen told the newspaper that it would be "fair" for California to "respond to the emerging new definition of marriage and family."

The newspaper cited a Sacramento pair, Jessica Heskin and Bob Stephens, as people the bill would help. They are both 41, and have been living together for two years. They are raising Alyssa, Heskin's 11-year-old daughter from a previous marriage.

Heskin told the Senate committee that the bill is "basic rights" protection.

"If I were to pass away, even though Bob has helped raise and financially support Alyssa and been her only father figure, he has no legal standing," she said.

She said she doesn't get married because she disapproves of marriage because homosexuals "can't get legally married."

Among the issues that remain unresolved is the cost. The Senate analysis concluded it would cost the state more to provide medical, dental, vision and retirement benefits to its employees' dependents under the plan.

The marriage amendment campaign has noted that although Californians voted to protect marriage for a man and a woman when they passed Proposition 22, judges and politicians have been working to overturn that. Supporters of traditional marriage believe a constitutional amendment protecting marriage as being between a man and a woman only is the best opportunity for long-term protection.

The organization is trying to raise $2.5 million to collect a million signatures to put the issue on the 2008 ballot.