Bill Opposing Gay Marriages Weakened

A bill prohibiting California from recognizing same-sex marriages but also amended to sanction gay and lesbian unions as “domestic partnerships” won narrow approval of a Senate committee early Wednesday.

But the bill’s author, Assemblyman William “Pete” Knight (R-Palmdale), promised to try and strip the domestic partners amendments from the bill.

Knight complained that the amendments--called a “poison pill” in Capitol jargon--forced on his bill by Democrats turned the measure from an anti-gay marriages bill to one officially authorizing gay unions.

“The amendments make this a terrible bill,” Knight said.

Later in the day, a spokesman for Gov. Pete Wilson warned that Wilson would veto the bill if it contained the domestic partners amendments. Wilson vetoed a similar domestic partners bill two years ago.

Assemblywoman Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica), the Legislature’s first openly lesbian member, said she opposes the bill as amended because it falls short of granting full civil marriage rights to gays and lesbians.

“The message of this bill, as far as I am concerned, is: ‘Well, there are the real people, the human beings, and they get to get married. And then there is you guys. Instead of letting you get married, we’ll give you something a little bit less.’ ”

For Senate Democrats, the amendments were also a political payback to Assembly Republicans, who used a similar poison pill tactic last month.

In June, a Senate-passed bill to raise the minimum wage was stuffed so full of hostile amendments by Republicans that its Democratic author abandoned the bill.

The Knight bill teetered near defeat in the Senate Judiciary Committee until shortly after midnight, when two Republican opponents of gay marriages abruptly cast their votes for the amended measure.

Their votes kept the bill alive for another expected fight next month in the Democrat-dominated Senate Appropriations Committee.

As it arrived in the Judiciary Committee, the Assembly-approved bill would have prohibited California from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states.

No state has legalized such unions, but supporters of the bill said courts in Hawaii may do so soon. Knight suggested that California homosexuals would travel to Hawaii, marry and return to California legally eligible for tax, retirement, health and other benefits reserved for heterosexual spouses.

Gay and lesbian activists contend that refusal to sanction homosexual marriages denies them civil rights based on their sexual orientation.

In advance of the hearing, Democratic Sens. Nicholas Petris of Oakland and Jack O’Connell of San Luis Obispo said they support the sanctity of heterosexual marriage, but that homosexual partnerships merit recognition.

In an effort to make the Knight bill more acceptable, Petris proposed amendments that retained the ban on recognizing out-of-state gay marriages, but would allow homosexual couples to form legally recognized domestic partnership arrangements short of marriage.

Such partners would file a declaration of domestic partnership with the secretary of state, be required to support each other financially and share a common residence.

Benefits would include family rights to hospital visits, designation of partners as beneficiaries in certain wills, and establishment of conservatorships.

The amendments also would require public employers to include domestic partners in health care insurance, a major provision not included in the bill Wilson vetoed in 1994.

All five committee Democrats voted for the amendments over Knight’s protests. But only Democrats Petris, O’Connell and Chairman Charles Calderon of Whittier voted for the bill on the first roll call. Sen. Hilda Solis (D-El Monte) and President Pro Tem Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward) abstained.

The measure needed five votes for approval. Finally, six hours after the first roll call, Republicans Ray Haynes of Riverside, an outspoken opponent of gay rights, and Cathie Wright of Simi Valley voted for the bill. Wright had voted no on the first roll call.

Haynes angrily told a reporter later that he voted to keep the bill alive so Knight could try to remove the amendments next month.

He charged that the amendments were a Democratic effort to provide political “cover” for O’Connell, a Republican target in 1998 in a conservative-to-moderate district that includes parts of Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties.

“That whole drill was to try to protect Jack O’Connell politically. It won’t happen,” Haynes said. “We are going to hang this around Jack O’Connell’s neck as high as it can go.”

Haynes refused to elaborate, but indicated that Republicans would try to make gay rights an election issue against O’Connell.

“That’s a disappointing comment from a colleague and a friend,” O’Connell said later of Haynes. O’Connell said that two years ago he went on the record as being opposed to same-sex marriages.

“I think the bill yesterday is a fair bill,” O’Connell said. “It certainly is consistent with [my] philosophy in this area.”