Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 18:51:32 -0800
From: LmCAgayLOB@aol.com (by way of Doug.Case@sdsu.edu (Doug Case))
Subject: Testimony against AB 1982

WHY AB 1982 IS BAD PUBLIC POLICY
FOR CALIFORNIA

Testimony presented by
Laurie McBride
Executive Director
LIFE: Californias Lesbian/Gay and AIDS Lobby

The arguments presented in favor of AB 1982 are not merely misguided, they
are wrong for California.

AB 1982 does not maintain the status quo in California marriage law.  Current
law recognizes all legally valid marriages performed in the United State
regardless of their conformity to California law.

AB 1982 takes us back to the bigotry of miscegenation laws.  Until 1947
California did not recognize interracial marriages.  At other times Asian
American citizens were told they could not marry.  States, including
California, adopted the universal recognition of legal marriages to move away
from state-by-state distinctions based on bigotry.

The real harm to business will be the renewal of distinctions in marriage
law.  Many third party venders -- employers, lenders and businesses --
already recognize same gender unions, and treat them with the same regard as
any other marriage.  AB 1982 will force these companies to compromise their
internal policies, or risk suit from the "marriage police".

The author, Assemblyman Pete Knight, claims he is acting on behalf of all
Californians.  Today it should be obvious that he is actually engaging in
gratuitous gay bashing.  The authors office believes that gays and lesbians
should not be citizens of this State -- or at least not visible citizens.
 Members of his staff stated that if I wanted to get married and stay
married, I was welcome to go to Hawaii and stay there.

Proponents cite misleading statistics about promiscuity and disease.  The
vast majority of gay men are no more promiscuous than their heterosexual
counterparts.  But even if we were to accept their statements as true, just
for the sake of argument, they have left out the other half of the equation.

Lesbians have fewer STDs -- of any kind -- than any demographic in America,
including new born babies.  Lesbian relationships have been found to last
longer, and be more completely faithful than any other demographic.
 Certainly longer than the average six years of heterosexual relationships.
 Following the logic of the proponents of AB 1982, then, all of you would do
well to strive to become lesbians.

Civil marriage is a legal shorthand, a way of giving a couple a legal
address, allowing courts, hospitals, lenders, credit card companies and the
like to recognize the mutual regard and mutual responsibility the couple
shares.

Love is how we justify marriage today.  Not babies.  Children are the
individual couples choice.  Some proponents, including the author, have said
that marriage is about making babies.  If this were true, the bill would
contain some sort of "baby-test" for all couples.  No baby, no certificate.

I am married, in the eyes of my family and friends.  But not in the eyes of
my state.  And now Mr. Knight wants to make it impossible for my government
to recognize my marriage.  He wants to block the legal recognition of a
healthy, nurturing relationship of 11+ years.  He wants to interfere with my
ability to take responsibility for my partner.  In the past he has defamed
the idea of even limited recognition of domestic partnerships.  Now he would
close the door in the face of thousands of couples who want nothing more than
to have their commitments recognized by the State.

And he wants to put California taxpayers on the line, committing scarce State
resources to defend the constitutionality of his bias.

Mr. Knight, as well as those of you who would vote for this bill -- what you
do today is not a disagreement among friends and colleagues.  It is an act of
violence.  It is an attack.

Follow this path and you will be dividing the United States by love, allowing
some religious groups to dictate marriages civic meaning.  May I live to see
the day when your intent, your fears, and most of all, your prejudices will
no longer be tolerated.

Vote no on AB 1982.

[Note:  AB 1982 passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee by a 8-4 vote.  It
now goes to the Assembly floor for a vote next week.]