On the Issue : Irreconcilable Differences on Gay Marriage

Prompted by Hawaii, which may become the first state to legalize same-sex unions, the California Legislature is debating strongly held perceptions about marriage.

The California Assembly has passed a bill, sponsored by William J. “Pete” Knight (R-Palmdale), that would deny recognition of same-gender marriages that might be approved in other states. An emotional debate on what should be the basis of marriage has begun.

Should California recognize same-sex marriages?

Los Angeles City Councilman Mike Feuer:

“In my view, the state ought to recognize serious relationships where people are prepared to make a genuine commitment to each other. . . . I think the Knight legislation is motivated by ignorance and fear, contrary to the claims of its proponents. This is legislation designed to promote family values, but by dehumanizing its targets erodes one of the most basic values that all of us in society share and that is the sanctity of love.”

Assemblyman William J. “Pete” Knight:

“I don’t believe Hawaii judges should be directing public policy in California. . . . Secondly, it’s going to have an economic impact on California. . . . If California wanted to make that decision, California should make that decision on its own. . . . [Same-sex marriages] would undermine the basic unit in society, which is a man and a woman, a tradition of unity of time immemorial.”

Taylor Flynn, American Civil Liberties Union attorney for lesbian and gay rights:

“I think that Knight’s bill is unconstitutional. . . . It violates the right to travel between states, and it violates the equal-protection laws. . . . To allow same-sex couples to marry would also mean they would have the same responsibilities as heterosexual couples, such as alimony and child support. . . . What the people who are trying to pass the bill don’t realize is the problems you would have if people who have property rights or a bank loan [moved] to a different state because of their work and all their rights would be gone.”

The Rev. Louis Sheldon, head of the Anaheim-based Traditional Values Coalition:

“Absolutely not. . . . The state has no vested interest in allowing people of the same sex to be married. The state is interested in population growth and parenting. Same-sex marriage is a dead-end street for the state. Homosexuality is not an immutable characteristic to be entitled to a special status in the law. . . . Same-sex love is a contradiction of the word love in the context of marriage. . . . Marriage is generational. Homosexuality is not.”

Sky Johnson, public policy and communication director for the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Community Services Center:

“I say yes. . . . The issues here are about commitment, responsibility, stability--the very things that some of the conservative foes say are so important. . . . There is a segment of the population that opposes it on religious grounds, but what this issue is about is civil marriage, not religious marriage.”