A Letter from Mark Leno

Most readers of this publication probably know that the California State Legislature wrote a page in the history of civil rights when it passed a bill which would have provided equal marriage rights to all citizens of the state had Governor Schwarzenegger not vetoed it. For the first time in this country, an elected body of lawmakers held hearings and debated the constitutional, legal and moral question of denying marriage licenses to tax-paying, law-abiding adults whose choice of spouse happens to be someone of the same gender.

The debate will continue for many years to come. The issue will be deliberated by judiciaries, by legislatures and by the public. Those debates will consider the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law, the separation of church and state and the definition of marriage and family itself. Recent history recounts how the definition of marriage continues to evolve. The most revolutionary alteration to that definition occurred in the latter half of the 19th century which up until that time had been accepted as the union of economic interests. What then changed was that for the first time in history, women could sign contracts and own property independent of their husbands. Prior to that event, women were literally and legally the property of their husbands as was their labor. Opponents of this sea of change were aghast and direfully warned that if this were to occur, the sky would fall and civilization as we know it would come to an end. Of course, their predication was accurate and our world is so much the better for it. The civil rights of half of our nation's populace were suddenly advanced.

It was as recently as 1967 that couples of different ethnicities were forbidden their rights to be married in this country. Many of the same arguments used today in the discussion around marriage equality were used at that time to deny marriage licenses to mixed race pairings. In a now infamous speech, a Virginian judge pronounced that the ban on interracial marriage was necessary as our Creator had placed individuals of different races on different continents for good reason — so they would not intermingle, a rather laughable perspective today.

It was California's Supreme Court which first ended the miscegenation ban in 1948. Our high court in that decision opined that marriage was more than a civil contract to be regulated by state law. They said that it was "a fundamental right" of all citizens. Furthermore, our justices ruled that any infringement upon that fundamental right must be based upon more than prejudice and must be free of oppressive discrimination to comply with the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection under the law. Civil rights took yet another giant step forward.

So the question arises — how did California's visionary legislature succeed at a time when so much of the rest of this country is apparently moving in quite a different direction? As author of this legislation, let me suggest that our victory was based on the enormous strength of our coalition building. Our great fortune was that every civil rights organization in the state joined forces with our effort and reframed the issue and the debate as the civil rights battle that it indeed is. Working with our bill sponsor, Equality California, our endorsers included the California chapter of the NAACP, the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the United Farm Workers, Chinese for Affirmative Action, the Asian Law Caucus, the Anti-Defamation League, the National Organization for Women, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union and the California Council of Churches. Their leaders raised their voices, traveled to Sacramento to testify at hearings and lobbied their legislators. They held town hall meetings and communicated with their constituents.

Marriage equality was no longer a fringe issue used to deride lesbian and gay couples. This uncommon coalition of civil rights advocates had repositioned the question as mainstream. Thanks to the remarkable leadership of Mayor Gavin Newsom and City Attorney Dennis Herrera, the debate had already been publicly presented. Our civil rights coalition helped us take the necessary legislative next step.

As we prepare to re-introduce The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act on the first day of the next legislative session, Monday, December 4, we will continue to recount the stories of countless couples, families and children who suffer real pain and loss of dignity as a result of the inequity in current law. We will not rest until their civil rights are finally advanced one more step.

Mark Leno
Assemblyman 13th District, San Francisco
November 2006