Same-Sex Marriage in California - Overview and Issues
Introduction
The traditional and still dominant view in the United States is that marriage is a legally recognized union of one man and one women. This view is deeply embedded in moral and religious beliefs. An alternative view, with roots in the civil rights movement and the political activism of the 1960s, takes the position that marriage is a body of rights which should be extended, as a matter of fairness and equality, to couples who do not fit the one man/one woman definition. Many in the gay liberation movement have made the right to marry a key plank in their campaign for equal rights under the law. A compromise position is the the concept of domestic partnership or civil union, in which all or most of the legal rights of marriage are extended to same-sex couples, but not the name "marriage" itself.
The traditional view of marriage has been challenged by judicial and legislative actions in Vermont, Massachusetts and the Canadian province of Ontario, and by developments in California (described below). In 1999 the Vermont Supreme Court ordered the state to extend the legal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples (Baker v. State of Vermont), and in 2000 the Vermont legislature created the status of "civil union" to meet the court's mandate. In 2003 Ontario's high court ordered the Canadian province to allow same-sex couples to marry (Halpern v. Attorney General). In late 2003 the Massachusetts high court ruled, in Goodridge v. Department of Health, that same-sex couples could not be excluded from the benefits of marriage under the Massachusetts constitution, and in early 2004 ruled further that "civil union" status would not pass constitutional muster. On May 17, 2004 Massachusetts became the first state in the union to permit same-sex marriage.
These challenges to traditional marriage law gave new force to a wave of legal action, already well under way, to affirm the one man/one woman definition. In two states, Hawaii and Alaska, state court decisions questioning the traditional definition were quashed by state constitutional amendments reaffirming the status quo. In 1996 Congress weighed in with the Defense of Marriage Act, denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages. Many states passed their own "defense of marriage acts"--more than 37 by late 2003. In early 2004 support mounted for the Federal Marriage Amendment (H.J. Res. 56), a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage, but on July 14, 2004 the proposed amendment failed to clear the U.S. Senate. Though the Federal Marriage Amendment did not pass Congress, those who oppose gay marriage have continued to push their legislation. Rep. Dan Lungren on March 17 2005 introduced a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Lungren's measure declares that marriage is a legal union of one man and one woman and it removes the authority of the state and federal courts from saying differently. And states around the country continue to grapple with same sex marriage cases, including Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, New Jersey and Washington.
Not so obviously, case law is contributing to the ongoing ferment in marriage law. When same-sex couples in established relationships break up and legal issues arise, the courts are turning to marriage law for guidance in deciding such thorny issues as child custody and the division of property. Indirectly and incrementally, precedents are accumulating that have the effect of extending some of the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex unions.
Those who see same-sex marriage as a civil rights issue take the view that the legalization of same-sex marriage is part of an inevitable process of extending rights to disadvantaged groups. Many see a parallel to a 1948 case, Perez v. Sharp (32 Cal. 2d 711), in which the California Supreme Court overturned a law banning interracial marriage. The decision was controversial in its time and unprecedented--the California Supreme Court was the first state high court to so rule. Those who oppose same-sex marriage contend that gay people are not a disadvantaged group under accepted legal definitions, and are not entitled to special treatment. Opponents see the legalization of same-sex marriage as an attack on the family and the social order, and cast the issue in moral and religious terms.
California Developments
1999-2004
In 1977 the California legislature explicitly defined marriage as a legal tie between a man and a women. The pertinent text is: "Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary." (Family Code Sec. 300.) This status quo position was strengthened in March 2000 when voters passed Proposition 22, an initiative statute which states: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." (Family Code Sec. 308.5.) The vote for the initiative was 61.4% to 38.6%.
While California law affirms the traditional definition of marriage, it also recognizes domestic partnership. AB 26, passed in 1999, established a domestic partnership registry, granted hospital visitation privileges to registered domestic partners equal to those of spouses and other immediate family members, and gave health benefits to domestic partners of state employees. California's domestic partnership system was considerably strengthened in 2003 with the passage of the Domestic Partners Rights and Responsibilities Act (AB 205), which extended to registered domestic partners virtually all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage. The 1999 and 2003 laws were vigorously opposed. Foes questioned the legality of the laws, which they viewed as blatant steps towards the legalization of gay marriage in the state.
Many observers took note when, on April 20, 2004, the Assembly Judiciary Committee of the California legislature approved AB 1967, legalizing same-sex marriage. While the bill did not pass the full Assembly, the Judiciary Committee's action marked the first time that a state legislative committee in the United States had voted to approve same-sex marriage. The vote was eight to three, with eight Democrats voting yes and three Republicans voting no.
In February and March 2004 developments in San Francisco captured the public's attention. In a February 10 announcement, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom proclaimed that same-sex marriage would be permitted in San Francisco. He justified the action on the ground that not allowing same-sex couples to marry was a denial of equal protection under the California constitution. At Mayor Newsom's direction, San Francisco officials modified the marriage license forms to make them gender neutral, and within days hundreds of same-sex couples were being married at San Francisco City Hall. Initial attempts to stop the marriages in court failed, but on March 11, 2004, after more than 3,000 marriages, the California Supreme Court called a halt and declared its intention to rule on the issue of whether San Francisco acted outside the law in refusing to enforce the marriage provisions of the state Family Code. In an August 12, 2004 decision on two cases (Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco and Lewis v. Alfaro), the court ruled that San Francisco had indeed acted outside the law and that the same-sex marriages San Francisco had performed were invalid. However, the court explicitly deferred the question of the constitutionality of California's statutes limiting marriage to a union between a man and a woman. As of March 2005 case documents and oral arguments related to the decision were online at the California Supreme Court.
San Francisco's actions drew national and international attention to the city, and several jurisdictions in other states followed San Francisco's example in permitting same-sex marriages. These developments engendered both praise and severe criticism, including a statement by President George Bush that he would support the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment banning gay marriage.
2005
Litigation
In September 2004 suits challenging the constitutionality of California's heterosexual marriage laws were consolidated in a proceeding (Marriage Cases, CJC-04-004365) before San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer. In a March 14, 2005 decision Judge Kramer ruled that California's same-sex marriage ban violated the California constitution. He found that the ban violated the "basic human right to marry a person of one's choice," and that "No rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners." His ruling is a "tentative decision," and must be affirmed in the appellate process before it is implemented.
Gay rights activists along with Attorney General Lockyer asked the state Supreme Court to bypass the appellate court and hear the marriage cases directly, thus speeding up the appellate process. The court denied the request on August 10, 2005, however, and offered no comment. A final decision by the California Supreme Court is expected sometime in 2006.
On April 4, 2005 a state appellate court denied a challenge to the expanded domestic partnership law, ruling that the law does not violate Proposition 22. The case, Knight v. Superior Court, was brought by conservative groups who insist that the law unlawfully allows homosexual partners all of the rights of a legally defined marriage. The court found that the law did not alter the legal doctrine of marriage and that to declare it invalid would violate equal protection rights guaranteed under the state constitution. Opponents of the domestic partners benefits law publicly vowed to appeal the ruling.
Ballot Initiatives
On May 19, 2005, opponents of gay marriage launched the Voters Right to Protect Marriage Initiative, which would prevent legislators and judges from maintaining benefits for domestic partners and from allowing same-sex marriage. The constitutional amendment would strip most of the privileges the state has provided for domestic partnership unions while still allowing same-sex couples to register as domestic partners. Opponents remarked at the severity of the proposition, as it attempts to reduce not only the possibility of gay marriage but partnership rights as well. The plan's supporters claim that judges and lawmakers have no right to change the definition of marriage. They say they hope to get the proposal on the June 2006 ballot, which would require almost 600,000 signatures from voters to qualify the measure.
In July, a measure to ban same-sex marriage met with controversy when state attorney Bill Lockyer released the official title and summary for the initiative. Supporters of Elimination of Domestic Partnership Rights targeted Lockyer's language in the summary, which they claim is inaccurate and prejudicial. Lockyer's summary includes a description of possible legal impacts to gay partners' property rights child custody and adoption rights, inheritance collection and health and death benefits collection. Gay rights groups applauded Lockyer's description and consider it fair. Supporters of the proposition lost a court battle over the language of the measure's title and the summary. Superior Court Judge Raymond Cadei ruled on Aug. 18 that the title accurately captured the chief effect of the measure. Cadei ordered some small changes to the summary but left the core of the summary intact. Supporters aim to have the initiative placed on the June 2006 primary ballot.
Legislative Action
In December 2004 Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) introduced AB 19, which redefined marriage in state law as a civil contract between two persons. Leno said that he sees injustice in the current marriage restrictions and claimed that Proposition 22 only prohibits California from recognizing same-sex marriages performed outside the state. He said the Legislature retains the authority to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry within California. AB 19 passed two committees in late April 2005. However, the Legislature failed to pass AB 19 on June 2nd, 2005, voting 37-36 for the bill, four votes shy of the number needed for approval.
On September 1, 2005, the Senate passed AB 849, also authored by Mark Leno, which would legalize same-sex marriage across the state. AB 849 defined marriage as gender neutral and did not require any religious organization to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples. The bill passed the Assembly on Sept. 6 by a vote of 41-35 with all Republicans and several Democrats opposed. In a controversial move, Governor Schwarzenegger announced his intention to veto the bill on the grounds that the issue should be decided in the courts. The bill's supporters stalled in delivering AB 849 to the governor as part of an email and phone campaign to the governor's office on the bill's behalf. Gay rights proponents hoped to convince Schwarzenegger of the rightness of same-sex marriage. Gay marriage opponents promised to challenge the measure in court if the governor signed the bill. Schwarzenegger officially vetoed the bill on Sept. 29, 2005. However, he also promised that he would not support any attempt to curb the state's current domestic partner benefits. Both the Republican backed Voters Right to Protect Marriage initiative and Elimination of Domestic Partnership Rights initiative would effect these benefits if passed.
Background Resources
Axel-Lute, Paul.
Same-Sex Marriage: a Selective Bibliography of the Legal Literature. Newark, N.J.: Rutgers Law Library, 2004-
Extensive site with narrative information as well as citations and links to resources.
California’s New Domestic Partnership Law: an Overview. Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, [2004?]
Compares the 2003 law to existing California marriage law. Gay Marriage: Should Same-Sex Unions Be Legally Recognized? (CQ Researcher v. 13, no. 30). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, Sept. 5, 2003.
Excellent general overview of the legal issues.
Pinello, Daniel R.
Gay Rights and American Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Analyzes how federal and state appellate courts treated the civil rights claims of lesbians and gay men between 1981 and 2000. Includes case narratives on child custody, visitation, adoption and foster care.
Public Opinion
"Californians More Tolerant Than Nation over Same-Sex Marriage," Los Angeles Times Poll, Apr. 26, 2004.
"California Voters Disapprove of Same-Sex Marriages, But Do Not Support Constitution Amendment to Bar Them; Majority Opposes San Francisco Granting Same-Sex Marriage Licenses," Field Poll, Release #2109, Feb. 26, 2004.
"Californians Weigh Same-Sex Marriage," Los Angeles Times Poll, Feb. 25, 2004.
"Gay Marriage (Law and Civil Rights)," Polling Report, 2003?-
Excerpts from a range of polls dating back to 1998 posted to the Polling Report's online service, PollingReport.com.
"Same-Sex Marriage," California Opinion Index, Aug. 2003.
Reviews data from a 2003 Field Poll, incorporating selected data from earlier Field Polls dating back to 1977.
Newspaper Articles
Gledhill, Lynda.
"Governor's gay-rights moves please no one: Marriage bill vetoed, partner benefits preserved," San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 30, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle
Lawrence, Steve
"Schwarzenegger Vetoes Gay Marriage Bill," San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 29, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle
Buchanan, Wyatt.
"Schwarzenegger aides to meet with gay leaders: Same-sex marriage bill isn't on agenda, spokeswoman says," San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 16, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle
Buchanan, Wyatt.
"Gay rights advocates still trying to change Schwarzenegger's mind," San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 13, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle
Nevius, C.W.
"Time favors gay-marriage proponents," San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 10, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle
Davis, Aaron C.
"Same-sex marriage bill stalled by backers: Two-week wait before proposal goes to Governor: Buys rallying time," Contra Costa Times, Sept. 9, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)
Skelton, George [Opinion].
"Gov's taken himself out of the game on same-sex marriage," Los Angeles Times, Sept. 8, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)
Egelko, Bob.
"Governor's hands were tied in gay marriage veto: Opponents of bill say it contradicts ballot measure passed in 2000," San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 8, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle
Sanders, Debra.
"A marriage of convenience," San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 8, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle
Buchanan, Wyatt.
"A day after Assembly’s OK, Schwarzenegger pledges to kill same-sex marriage bill: Despite impending veto, it's been momentous year in struggle for rights," San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 8, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle
Gledhill, Lynda.
"Gay marriage up to governor now: Landmark legislation clears Assembly by narrowest of margins on second try," San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 7, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle
Gledhill, Lynda; Buchanan, Wyatt.
"Bill to let gays wed wins state Senate OK: Leno's measure faces fight in AssemblyBill," San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 2, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)
"Gay-rights groups are getting bills passed: Same-sex marriage, key measure, faces Senate showdown," San Diego Union-Tribune, Aug. 30, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)
Egelko, Bob.
"The battle over same-sex marriage: Lockyer's summary of anti-gay marriage measure upheld: Sponsors felt ballot wording distorted intent of proposal," San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 19, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle
Egelko, Bob.
"High court says no to same-sex marriage review," San Francisco Chronicle, Aut. 11, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle
"Lockyer sued over title of same-sex initiative: Gay marriage ban's backers see intent to deceive voters," San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 3, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle
Buchanan, Wyatt.
"Lockyer approves ballot petitions: Same-sex marriage bans need 600,000 signatures each," San Francisco Chronicle, July 28, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle
Buchanan, Wyatt.
"Foes of same-sex marriage plan lawsuit over wording of measure," San Francisco Chronicle, July 26, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle
Leff, Lisa.
"Signature-gathering can begin for Calif gay marriage ban," San Francisco Chronicle, July 26, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle
Leff, Lisa.
"Judge rules marriage law constitutional," Ventura County Star, June 17, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)
Hubbell, John M.
"Gay marriage bill fails by 4 votes in state Assembly: Sponsor Leno charges legislators treat same-sex couples 'like second-class citizens'," San Francisco Chronicle, June 3, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle
Egelko, Bob.
"Lockyer asks court to uphold state's ban," San Francisco Chronicle, June 1, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle
Yamamura, Kevin.
"Drive opens against gay marriage: Proposal for a ballot measure wouldn't let lawmakers or judges set same-sex benefits," Sacramento Bee, May 20, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)
Hubbell, John M.
Coalition seeks male-female marriage definition: New ballot push for constitutional amendment," San Francisco Chronicle, Apr. 28, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle
Hubbell, John M.
"Party-line vote on same-sex marriage: Dems advance bill defining couple as "two persons"," San Francisco Chronicle, Apr. 27, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle
Vogel, Nancy.
"06 Ballot Is a Goal for Foes of Gay Marriage: Wary of legislation allowing same-sex matrimony, opponents aim for an initiative," Los Angeles Times, Apr. 27, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)
"Gay marriage decision final," Ventura County Star, April 16, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)
[Opinion]
"Pointing to discrimination: Court finds rights are fewer, lending strength to case for same sex marriage," San Jose Mercury News, April 11, 2005
NewsBank (UCB)
Coronado, Ramon.
"Partners law passes court test," Sacramento Bee, Apr. 5, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)
Romney, Lee.
"Court Denies Challenge to Domestic Partners Law: An appellate panel rules that a new state statute extending rights does not constitute same-sex marriage or violate Proposition 22," Los Angeles Times, April 5, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)
"Same-sex marriage likely to be issue in 2008," Ventura County Star, April 1, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)
Coronado, Ramon.
"Partner law faces test in court: Critics say law on same-sex unions is unconstitutional," Sacramento Bee, Mar. 26, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)
Wasserman, Jim.
"Opponents of same-sex marriage say law is illegal," Ventura County Star, March 26, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)
Doyle, Alicia.
"Whether gays should wed a topic of debate," Ventura County Star, Mar. 25, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)
Egelko, Bob.
"When tradition, emotion and the law collide: On both sides, courts struggle with rationales," San Francisco Chronicle, Mar. 20, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle
Whitney, David.
"Lungren measure aims to halt gay marriage: constitutional change would block courts," Sacramento Bee, Mar. 18, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)
Egelko, Bob.
"Legal outcome could hang on sex-bias issue: Does marriage law discriminate based on gender precept?" San Francisco Chronicle, Mar. 16, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle
Egelko, Bob.
"Judge strikes down ban on same-sex marriage; the ruling: Law violated 'basic human right,'" San Francisco Chronicle, Mar. 15, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle
Egelko, Bob
S.F. gay marriages head to court: Judge will begin hearing arguments Wednesday on constitutionality of California's ban on same-sex unions," San Francisco Chronicle, Dec. 21, 2004.
San Francisco Chronicle
Sample, Herbert A. and Jim Sanders.
"Measure aims to let gays marry inside state," Sacramento Bee, Dec. 8, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)
Martin, Mark.
"The battle over same-sex marriage: Leno's measure divides Democrats, legalization bill draws opposition among moderates," San Francisco Chronicle, Dec. 7, 2004.
San Francisco Chronicle
Egelko, Bob.
"Couples use Lockyer's words against him: Judge to decide if ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional," San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 24, 2004.
San Francisco Chronicle
Marech, Rona.
"Gays Cautious about New Partners Law: Some Opt out, Fearing Legal or Financial Troubles," San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 20, 2004.
San Francisco Chronicle
Egelko, Bob.
"Same-Sex Marriage Foes Win Right to Proceed with Suits: Ruling Allows Groups to Defend State Law Barring Gay Nuptials," San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 17, 2004.
San Francisco Chronicle
Romney, Lee.
"Same-Sex Marriage Court Fight Takes Shape: San Francisco and Couples' Lawyers Outline Strategies: Lockyer Is Mum on Defense Plan,"
Los Angeles Times, Sept. 4, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)
Egelko, Bob.
"S.F., Gays Argue for 'Marriage Equality': Court Briefs Charge State Ban based on 'Archaic Stereotypes,'"
San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 3, 2004.
San Francisco Chronicle
Egelko, Bob.
"Top State Court Voids S.F.'S Gay Marriages: a Mayor Overruled: Newsom found to Violate California Law by Issuing Same-Sex Licenses," San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 13, 2004.
San Francisco Chronicle
Chiang, Harriet.
"The Battle over Same-Sex Marriage: after the Wedding Bells, Gays Face Maze of Legal Obstacles," San Francisco Chronicle, Apr. 26, 2004.
San Francisco Chronicle
Marech, Rona.
"The Battle over Same-Sex Marriage: Panel OKs Bill on Gay Marriage: State Measure Would Redefine Family Code," San Francisco Chronicle, Apr. 21, 2004.
San Francisco Chronicle
Kravets, David.
"Calif. Supreme Court Asks What to Do with S.F. Same-Sex Marriages," San Francisco Chronicle, Apr. 15, 2004.
San Francisco Chronicle
Dolan, Marura.
"Is Gay Marriage Ban Constitutional? Analysts, Citing Various State High Court Rulings, Disagree on How the Issue Is Likely to Be Resolved," Los Angeles Times, Mar. 28, 2004, p. B1.
Newsbank (UCB)
Marech, Rona.
"The Battle over Same-Sex Marriage: Straights Working to Win Legal Rights For Gay Couples," San Francisco Chronicle, Mar. 20, 2004.
San Francisco Chronicle
Egelko, Bob.
"San Francisco Court Urged to Let Gay Weddings Go On," San Francisco Chronicle, Mar. 19, 2004.
San Francisco Chronicle
Lochhead, Carolyn.
"Escalating Fight Rivets, Divides Nation: Both Sides Claim the Advantage as Watershed Issue Engulfs Politics and Personalities," San Francisco Chronicle, Mar. 14, 2004.
San Francisco Chronicle
Lattin, Don; and others.
"Religious Groups on Common Ground: Many Faiths Oppose Same-Sex Marriages," San Francisco Chronicle, Mar. 14, 2004.
San Francisco Chronicle
Hetter, Katia.
"Newsom to Peers: Read Constitution: Mayor Sees Courts Upholding His Anti-discrimination Stance," San Francisco Chronicle, Mar. 12, 2004.
San Francisco Chronicle
Chiang, Harriet.
"Battle over Same-Sex Marriage: Justices Don't Act Immediately on S.F. Case," San Francisco Chronicle, Mar. 6, 2004.
San Francisco Chronicle
Gordon, Rachel.
"The Battle over Same-Sex Marriage: Uncharted Territory: Bush's Stance Led Newsom to Take Action," San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 15, 2004.
San Francisco Chronicle
St. John, Kelley.
"Wedding Bliss Spreads to Steps of State Capitol: Same-sex Rally Draws 1,000 to Sacramento, " San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 15, 2004.
San Francisco Chronicle
Herel, Suzanne.
"San Francisco Not the First to Marry Couples of the Same Gender," San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 14, 2004.
San Francisco Chronicle
Chiang, Harriet; Gordon, Rachel; Rubenstein, Steve.
"Mad Dash to S.F. City Hall to Say 'I do': 2 Groups Trying to Halt Same-Sex Unions Must Wait Until Tuesday," San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 14, 2004.
San Francisco Chronicle
Gordon, Rachel.
"S.F. Defies Law, Marries Gays: Legal Battle Looms: City Hall Ceremonies Spur Constitutional Showdown, Injunction Threat," San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 14, 2004.
San Francisco Chronicle
Marech, Rona.
"S.F. Defies Law, Marries Gays: Tears and Cheers: Surprise Ceremonies Are 'Dream Come True' For Those Tying the Knot," San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 13, 2004.
San Francisco Chronicle
Gordon, Rachel.
"Newsom's Plan for Same-sex Marriages: Mayor Wants to License Gay and Lesbian Couples," San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 11, 2004.
San Francisco Chronicle
Crary, David.
"Gay rights advocates have a seesaw week," Ventura County Star, Apr. 24, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)
Mehren, Elizabeth.
"Same-sex marriage: 11 States Back Bans on Gay Unions; Georgia, Ohio Bar Partner Benefits Most measures draw robust support. One activist sees mandate for Congress to take heed," Los Angeles Times, Nov. 3, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)
Lochhead, Carolyn.
"GOP Urges a Vote on Same-sex Marriage Ban: Some See It as Effort to Stress Gay Issues," San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 28, 2004.
San Francisco Chronicle
Dewar, Helen; Cooperman, Alan.
"Senate Scuttles Amendment Banning Same-Sex Marriage," Washington Post, July 14, 2004.
Washington Post
"Should the Constitution Be Amended to Define Marriage?" Roll Call, Mar. 29, 2004, p. B4, B6.
Contents: "Marriage Amendment Is Necessary, by Marilyn Musgrave. "Constitution Shouldn't Limit People's Rights," by Jerrold Nadler.
Hulse, Carl.
"Amendment's Words Tweaked: GOP Backers Say New Version Lets States Permit Civil Unions," San Francisco Chronicle, Mar. 23, 2004.
San Francisco Chronicle
Sandalow, Marc.
"Political Parties Skittish about Hot-button Issue - Democrats: United against Bush But Divided over Granting Full Marriage Rights," San Francisco Chronicle, Mar. 22, 2004.
San Francisco Chronicle
Lochhead, Carolyn.
"Political Parties Skittish about Hot-button Issue - Republicans: Bush Is Finally Pushing Constitutional Ban; GOP Only Lukewarm," San Francisco Chronicle, Mar. 22, 2004.
San Francisco Chronicle
Hulse, Carl.
"Senate Hears Testimony on a Gay Marriage Amendment," New York Times, Mar. 3, 2004, p. 26.
Canellos, Peter S.
"Call For an Amendment: Bush Seeks Marriage Amendment From Both Sides, Danger of Alienating Moderates," Boston Globe, Feb. 25, 2004.
Boston Globe
Allen, Mike; Cooperman, Alan.
"Bush Plans to Back Marriage Amendment: Constitution Would Specify Man, Woman (Bush Hears His Base?)," Washington Post, Feb. 11, 2004.
Washington Post
Send comments to igsl@uclink.berkeley.edu.
Introduction
California Developments
Selected Websites
Background Resources
Public Opinion
Newspaper Articles
- California/San Francisco
- Federal Marriage Amendment