The General Assembly Judiciary Committee passed SB 1140 on a 7-1 vote late Tuesday afternoon.
State Sen. Mark Leno says his legislation is meant to protect churches that refuse to perform same-sex ceremonies from being threatened with the loss of their tax-exempt status in the future. Should the bill become law, it would define marriage as “a personal relation arising out of a civil, and not religious, contract.”
The bill, which passed the Senate nearly three weeks ago, may soon come before the full General Assembly for a floor vote.
Ron Prentice, executive director of the California Family Council, pointed out that the bill was drafted by the gay-activist group Equality California — and its only real purpose is to get same-sex marriage on the legislative fast track should the U.S. Supreme Court strike down the state’s current constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
11 Comments
The whole issue has always been s-s marriage as a civil ceremony. Why would any gay or lesbian couple wanting to be married in the sight of God surrounded by friends and family try to force a ceremony in a church that reviles them? Divorced Catholics would be crazy to seek their church to conduct their second marriage. A Christian bride knows that in some churches pastors will not preside over her marriage to a non Christian. It is and has always been about civil s-s marriage. This California Bill just provides clarity and protections.
Things missing from the definition-
Male- Female
# of participants
“Senator Leno’s bill is essential to protecting our freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment,” said The Rev. Dr. Rick Schlosser, Executive Director of California Council of Churches IMPACT. “It is as imperative that we protect the religious freedom to not solemnize marriages between same-sex couples for clergy and congregations who oppose it on the basis of their faith tradition as it is to protect the religious freedom of those who do support marriage equality. California Council of Churches IMPACT represents faith traditions on both sides of this question and this bill perfectly codifies legal protection for all our faith communities,” he said.
When the crazies who have bankrupted California face the post-meltdown electorate, oh my.
Bankrupted, by the way, both financially and- what is infinitely more important- morally.
The next step is that the state will not recognize marriages performed by churches that insist marriage is a heterosexual institution. Then the state will not allow them to call their ceremonies marriages. Then the state will teach our children that those churches are evil. This is the PC secular liberal trajectory.
'Senator Leno’s bill is essential to protecting our freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment'
You don't need a bill redefining marriage to do that. You need a bill stating that religious institutions are under no obligation to perform marriages that are contrary to their beliefs. Judging from the Reverend's use of the phrase 'marriage equality', that pretty much tells us where he stands on the issue. With the above definition in place, people could still sue for so called discrimination.
Mark Leno is one of the reasons why California is in the ditch. He was brought morally bankrupt ideology to California in an effort to actualize his utopian society.
The sad part is that he fools the people of California into think he's doing a good job.
typo: he has brought a*
Leno authored SB 48, to add transgenders and homosexuals to history textbooks. It prohibited content that "reflected adversely" on them.
The LA Times, which advocates for SSM, published an editorial opposing the bill. Joe Plumber was busy making a living or raising children, and the politicians knew where their campaign contributions were coming from, so they passed the bill.
Now California teachers must indoctrinate K-12 children, presenting transgenders and homosexuals for them to admire.
Was not Proposition 8 a vote of the people of CA making marriage the union of one man and one woman in the state constitution. Therefore this bill be this sodomite Leno is unconstitutional.
How can a CA legislature overule a vote of the people who amended their constitution?
John:
Precisely the same way the CA legislature can continue to draw paychecks even after failing to submit a balanced budget.
The same way Obama can refuse to defend DOMA.
For these folks the law is simply something that exists to be ignored when inconvenient.
A very dangerous game indeed.