Next Monday the legislature will reconvene after their summer recess. Californians can then look forward to a marathon session of more attacks on their pocket books and freedom. One of the bills that’s working its way through the system is SB 54, by Senator Mark Leno. When the bill was introduced in January, it was designed to ban health insurers from charging individuals higher premiums based on their gender. The bill made it all the way through the Senate and into the Assembly—without any amendments—until June 30th, when it became a “gut and amend” bill. For those unfamiliar with the legislative jargon, a gut and amend essentially means that a bill’s content is completely removed and replaced with an entirely new subject, or the author is changed.
After its gut and amend, SB 54 went from a bill about healthcare to a bill that will require California to recognize out-of-state marriages performed prior to the passage of Proposition 8 last November 5th. It will also bestow upon out-of-state marriages that occurred after Proposition 8 the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage, while withholding the actual legal designation of “marriage.” Consequently, the state will retroactively recognize all out-of-state same-sex marriages prior to last November, and now California’s same-sex couples need only have their destination wedding in Iowa, and California will recognize all these marriages. Basically, SB 54 is an end-run on Proposition 8. The arrogance of pushing such a bill is mind-boggling, especially after Californians have twice overwhelmingly declared their intent to retain the traditional definition of marriage. How out of touch are Democrat lawmakers that they repeatedly force a radical social agenda on their unwilling constituents?
The truly subversive aspect of SB 54 is not necessarily what it does, but how its proponents are attempting to accomplish their goals. It’s expected that those who oppose Proposition 8 will continue to fight against it, using every means possible. But the democratic process is designed to allow for a fair, honest, open debate of laws and policies that will impact all of us. SB 54 made its way through the entire legislative process and then completely changed its topic with one committee hearing remaining. When does the public get to debate this bill? If proponents of same-sex marriage want to win the support of the public, shouldn’t they do so in a public, honest manner? This end-run on the legislative process will only serve to create fiercer opposition (as with the judicial imposition of same-sex marriage) and cynicism about the true motives of same-sex marriage supporters.
The capitol staffers I talked to about the gut and amend rules explained that although there is a provision in legislative rules for substantial amendments, the amendments must still be germane. According to Joint Rule 9: “A substitute or amendment must relate to the same subject as the original bill, constitutional amendment, or resolution under consideration.” But the staffers also noted that rules are only effective when they are actually enforced. It has been the practice of the Democrat majority to allow gut and amend bills pretty much at any point in the legislative process. It’s understandable that in some instances there may be a need to gut and amend a bill. However, such instances should be the exception to the rule and only as an emergency. SB 54 is an abuse of the rule; lawmakers and the public had debated a healthcare bill all session. Now, at the eleventh hour, the bill seeks to address one of the most controversial issues of our time. The gut and amend process is undermining the legislative process.
Undoubtedly SB 54 will pass the Assembly and gain concurrence in the Senate. The Democrat majority has taken every opportunity this year to express its disdain for the public’s position on marriage. But even if Governor Schwarzenegger disagrees with Proposition 8, he should protect the legislative process and veto SB 54 if it reaches his desk. Allow a full legislative debate on this matter and take into account the millions of Californians who have twice expressed their opinion on same-sex marriage. “Winning” this political battle by means of deception and subversion isn’t really a win.