STATE POLITCAL ACTIONS

CALIFORNIA ACTION ALERTS, ETC.

San Francisco Chronicle, September 28, 2000
( http://www.sfgate.com  )
Davis Vetoes Bills That Would Have Expanded Domestic-Partner Law
Lynda Gledhill, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau
       Sacramento -- Gov. Gray Davis stuck to his word yesterday and vetoed two
bills that would have expanded domestic-partner benefits.
       The Democratic governor had previously said he did not want to consider
any expansion of the state's domestic-partner laws, which he signed a year
ago.
       "As I said when I vetoed an earlier bill by this author, I would be
pleased to consider reasonable changes to the Domestic Partner Act next
year,'' Davis said in his veto message of a bill by state Sen. Tom Hayden,
D-Los Angeles.
       And on another subject that Davis has set forth a strict policy, he
vetoed eight bills yesterday that he said would expand gambling in the state.
       Hayden's bill would have included domestic partners in relationships
covered by the Family and Medical Leave Act.  Another bill by Assemblywoman
Carole Migden, D-San Francisco, would have made technical changes to the
portion of the law allowing seniors to register as domestic partners.
       Last year, Davis signed a bill creating a domestic-partner registry and
benefits for state employees.
       A domestic partner is defined as a member of a couple, over 18 years of
age, "who have chosen to share one another's lives in an intimate and
committed relationship of mutual caring.''
       Since the statewide registry started at the beginning of the year, 5,523
partnerships have been logged, according to the secretary of state's office.
       Migden and supporters of expanded benefits for gay and lesbian couples
say they will be back next year with more comprehensive reform.
       "While this is disappointing, we cannot lose sight of the fact that we
had a banner year last year,'' said Eric Astacaan, the lobbyist for the
California Alliance for Pride and Equality.
       Hayden's measure was a modified version of a bill Davis vetoed last
spring.  At the time, he said it was too broad because it included people who
live together but are not related or in a committed relationship, such as
roommates.
       The revised version that Davis vetoed yesterday would have included only
domestic partners, people caring for grandparents and siblings.
       "I guess (Davis) is trying to teach us a lesson to not be in a hurry, but
this affects the lives of a lot of people,'' said Hayden, who is leaving
office because of term limits.  "And the people affected can't wait -- they
have to pay bills every day and go to work while a loved one is home sick.''
       Existing law requires employers to allow family leave only for a birth,
adoption or serious illness of a child, to care for a parent or spouse with a
serious illness or because of the employee's health.
       Davis' refusal to consider even technical changes mirrors other stances
the self-described centrist has taken.  . . .

SOURCE: 
Sacramento Bee, February 12, 1999
P. O. Box 15779,Sacramento,CA,95813 
(Fax 916-321-1109 ) (E-MAIL: opinion@sacbee.com ) 
( http://www.sacbee.com ) 

Legislators blast measure to ban marriages of gays
By Patrick Hoge, Bee Capitol Bureau.

     Announcing their opposition to a March 2000 ballot measure that would ban
same-sex marriages, Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa and various legislators held
a press conference Thursday to celebrate "National Freedom to Marry Day."
     "I think it's critical that we recognize and work to strengthen all of
California's diverse families," said Villaraigosa, D-Los Angeles.
     Among those with Villaraigosa at the Capitol were two Los Angeles gay men
celebrating 20 years together; a Methodist minister who defies his church to
marry gay couples; openly gay Assemblywoman Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica;
and Assemblymen Gil Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, and Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento.
     They were officially drawing attention to some 75 celebrations of gay
marriage that are scheduled to occur across the country today.
     But Villaraigosa quickly began criticizing the same-sex ban initiative
being pushed by state Sen. William "Pete" Knight, who collected 482,044 valid
signatures to qualify it for the 2000 primary election.
     "People are tired of wedge-issue politics," said Villaraigosa, adding
that he will reintroduce legislation to prohibit discrimination on the basis
of sexual orientation under the state Fair Employment and Housing Act.  "That
kind of initiative is the wrong way to go," he said.
     But Knight, R-Palmdale, responded that if his initiative does become a
"wedge issue," it will be the fault of people like Villaraigosa who make it a
gay-rights topic.
     "My sole purpose is to maintain the definition of marriage" as between
one man and one woman, Knight said.
     "It's a definition that has benefited society for thousands of years," he
said.
     Knight launched his ballot effort after the Legislature rejected bills he
sponsored with the same goal in 1996 and 1997.  Qualifying the measure cost
just under a half-million dollars, financed mostly with grass-roots donations
from 10,000 contributors, according to a spokesman.
     Knight said he wants to bar California from recognizing marriages other
than those that meet his definition, even if they are recognized by other
states.  He has said sanctioning same-sex unions would require legal
recognition for polygamy and other forms of non-traditional marriage.  He
complained that government would be forced to promote and teach about those
relationships in public school.
     Kuehl countered Thursday that Knight's effort seeks to ban just gay
marriages – not those involving people under 15 years of age or marriages of
first cousins, for example.
     "I personally believe that my community ought to be able to legally
marry," said Kuehl, adding that those who oppose such marriages are simply
prejudiced.
     In her remarks, Kuehl made a veiled reference to a recent incident in
which a woman with a prayer group that gathered in the Assembly chambers
draped cross-covered scarves over Kuehl's desk and the desk of Assemblywoman
Carole Migden, D-San Francisco, who is also a lesbian.  Migden was not at
Thursday's event, but sent a statement of support.
     "I felt just awful about it," said Kuehl later.  "It felt like somebody
had written 'faggot' on my desk."
     Assemblyman Bill Leonard, R-San Bernardino, who had invited the prayer
group to the chambers but was not present at the time, later apologized to
Kuehl.
     Villaraigosa called the incident "appalling" and "offensive," adding that
closer controls are apparently needed on groups using the Assembly chambers
when legislators are not in session.
     Asked why he hasn't introduced a bill to legalize same-sex marriages,
Villaraigosa said state voters are not ready, and much can be done to protect
gay people's rights without facing the question head-on.
     "Same-sex marriage is not exactly ripe yet with the California
electorate," he said.  "The way you knock down a big elephant is a little at a
time."
     Villaraigosa cited the following bills currently seeking to do that:
     AB 26, by Migden, to require health insurers and health maintenance
organizations to offer domestic partner coverage plans for small businesses.
The bill would also establish a state domestic partner registry and require
hospitals to extend visitation rights to domestic partners.
     SB 75, by Sen. Kevin Murray, D-Culver City, to provide for registration
of domestic partners with the secretary of state, and provide procedures for
termination of partner unions.
     AB 107, by Assemblyman Wally Knox, D-Los Angeles, to allow state and
local agencies to extend health benefits to the domestic partners of public
employees.



San Francisco Examiner, January 12, 1999
( http://www.examiner.com  )
Domestic partners bills get green light
Proposals vetoed by Wilson are expected to be signed by Davis
Robert Salladay, EXAMINER CAPITOL BUREAU
    SACRAMENTO -- Fifteen months before California considers an initiative
banning gay marriages, the Democratic-controlled Legislature is moving quickly
to allow domestic partnership benefits for same-sex couples, legislation Gov.
Davis told one lawmaker he would sign.
     But there is no talk of legalizing gay marriages, even among the most
liberal of lawmakers.  As a statewide poll released Monday showed, politicians
know voters support domestic partnerships but strongly dislike the idea of
same-sex marriages.
     The survey by the Public Policy Institute of California mirrors the
public pronouncements of Democrat Davis, who said during the campaign that
Californians weren't ready for gay marriages but that he supported health-and-
workplace benefits for gay couples.
     The institute's survey of 2,022 adult Californians showed 64 percent
supported the proposed ballot initiative to ban gay marriages, while 58
percent of those surveyed nevertheless favored health benefits for same-sex
couples.
     Even in the Democratic-dominated Bay Area, the poll showed 54 percent
support for the anti-gay marriage initiative, while 65 percent said they would
like to see workplace benefits to the partners of gay and lesbian employees.
The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.
     Similar polls taken about two years ago showed a majority of Californians
opposed gay marriages and domestic partnerships.
     "It shows that people's instincts are to be fair and to provide support
and recognition to families," said Evan Wolfson, director of the Marriage
Project for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.  "The fact that
people are not yet with us on marriage shows we have work to do.  But people
are reachable if we get out there and engage."
     Buoyed by comments from Davis during the campaign, three state lawmakers
have introduced domestic-partnership bills for the 1999-2000 session.  Former
Gov. Pete Wilson, a Republican, vetoed every domestic partner bill that landed
on his desk during his two terms.
     Two of the newly introduced bills would set up a domestic partnership
registry for couples and require that HMOs offer domestic partnership benefit
packages to companies that request it.  One of those bills would allow same-
sex couples to pass on the power of attorney after death.  A third bill would
allow cities and counties to offer domestic partnership benefits to their
employees.
     Marriage would still hold greater value under law.  Opposite-sex couples
would retain, for example, the right to sue if a partner is killed
negligently, and they would keep certain property tax benefits under
Proposition 13, among many other benefits of marriage.
     Lawmakers say Davis is backing their efforts.
     "He's already told me he'd sign my bill," said Assemblywoman Carole
Migden, D-San Francisco, one of the authors.  "He made his distinction:  He is
for domestic partnership benefits.  Californians are as well, and Americans
are.  That's just good public policy."
     As a University of California regent, Davis voted to extend domestic
partnerships to UC employees.  Davis spokesman Michael Bustamante said Davis'
view had not changed from the campaign.
     In a May radio interview, candidate Davis even seemed open to the idea of
gay marriages someday, saying: "I believe in time I can convince people that
there is a societal value in people living in committed relationships, be they
straight or gay. . . . But we need to have that discussion in an environment
that's positive, not negative."
     A 1977 California law defines marriage as "a personal relation . . .
between a man and a woman."  But because the U.S. Constitution requires all
states to give "full faith and credit" to the laws of other states, California
could some day be forced to recognize gay marriages.
     The Vermont Supreme Court, for example, is considering a case that could
legalize same-sex marriages.  Legal scholars believe California may have to
recognize Vermont gay marriages as legal, just as California recognizes
marriages between cousins in some Southern states.
     The anti-gay marriage initiative, which recently qualified for the March
2000 ballot, was proposed by state Sen. Pete Knight, R-Palmdale, who twice
failed to pass similar legislation.  Davis, acting as president of the Senate
when he was lieutenant governor, cast a tie-breaking vote in 1997 to kill one
of Knight's bills.
     The Knight "Definition of Marriage" initiative says simply, "Only
marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
     "My objective is not to divide anybody in the state of California,"
Knight said.  "My objective is to maintain the definition of marriage. . . . I
think the definition that a marriage is between a man and a woman is one that
has been good for civilization since time immemorial."