-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/e33bcea8dcfef9f705916c3230e49f34.pdf
bb8269558e5b109a68286992db48b388
PDF Text
Text
FOIA Number:
2013-0028-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Intergovernmental Affairs
Series/Staff Member:
John Hart
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
9730
FolderlD:
Folder Title:
Same Sex Marriages
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
27
5
9
3
��= STATUS P
OONKRRKNCK
Office of Government Liaison
FrankJ. Monahan
Director
3211 4th Street N.E. Washington, D 20017-1194
C
(202)541-3140 F X (202)541-3313 TELEX7400424
A
�STATEMENT ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
Embaruocd umil July 24. 19% 6:00 AM
The Roman Catholic Church believes that marriage is a faithful, exclusive, and lifelong
union between one man and one woman, joined as husband and wife in an intimate partnership
of life and love. This union was established by God with its own proper laws. By reason of
its very nature, therefore, mamage exists for the mutual love and support of the spouses and
for the procreation arid education of children. These two purposes, the unitive and the
procreative, are equal and inseparable. The institution of marriage has a very important
relationship to the continuation of the human race, to the total development of the human
person, and to the dignity, stability, peace, and prosperity of the family and of society.
Furthermore, we believe the natural institution of marriage has been blessed and
elevated by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament. This means that Christian marriage is more
than a contract. Because they are married in the Lord, the spouses acquire a special
relationship to each other and to society. Their love becomes a living image of the maimer in
which the Lord personally loves his people and is united with them. Living a Christian
sacramental marriage becomes their fundamental way of attaining salvation.
Because the marital relationship offers benefits, unlike any other, to persons, to
society, and to the church, we wish to make it clear that the institution of marriage, as the
union of one man and one woman, must be preserved, protected, and promoted in both private
and public realms. At a time when family life is under significant stress, the principled
defense of marriage is an urgent necessity for the wellbeing of children and families, and for
the common good of society.
Thus, we oppose attempts to grant the legal status of marriage to a relationship between
persons of the same sex. No same-sex union can realize the unique and full potential which
the marital relationship expresses. For this reason, our opposition to "same-sex marriage" is
not an instance of unjust discrimination or animosity toward homosexual persons. In fact, the
Catholic Church teaches emphatically that individuals and society must respect the basic
human dignity of all persons, including those with a homosexual orientation. Homosexual
persons have a right to and deserve our respect, compassion, understanding, and defense
against bigotry, attacks and abuse.
We therefore urge Catholics and all our fellow citizens to commit themselves both to
upholding the human dignity of every person and to upholding the distinct and irreplaceable
community of marriage.
Most Reverend Joseph L. Charron, CPPS
Chairman, NCCB Committee on
Marriage and Family
Most Reverend William S. Skylstad
Chairman, USCC Committee on
Domestic Policy
�RESOLUTION:
To Call upon President Clinton to Veto Anti-Gay Marriage Legislation
Whereas the radical Right and the Republican Party have devised an election-year
strategy to divide the country with hot-button wedge issues such as the
prospect of same-sex marriages; and
Whereas any federal legislation prohibiting same-sex marriages is unnecessary and
inappropriate in that it is already impermissible for people of the same sex to
legally marry and that civil laws governing marriage and divorce have a/ways
been the province of The States; and
Whereas actively supporting legislation that would codify a public policy based on
prejudice and misinformation sends a dangerous message from the President
of the United States, signaling the acceptability of discrimination, and that
this might embolden those previously disposed to hatred and homophobia to
commit violent acts against those whom they perceive to be lesbian or gay;
Now, therefore, be it R E S O L V E D
that the Executive Board ofthe King County Democratic Central Committee (KCDCC)
calls upon President Bill Clinton to veto all anti-gay marriage legislation, including the
proposed Defense of Marriage Act;
And be it further R E S O L V E D
that the Executive Board ofthe KCDCC calls upon the Washington State Democratic
Party in convention this Saturday, June 1, 1996, to adopt this resolution.
-- submitted for consideration by the Harvey Muggy Lesbian/Gay Democrats -
��< • STAT KS n
=
•
^ ^ ^ n
Office of Government Liaison
CONKKRKlNOK
32ll 4lh Slrcel N.K
sS'+A-se
7
Washinglon. D 20017119-1 |202)r.li :fl40 FAX (202)541-3322 TELEX 7400424
C
O^-J^-^J?
^ T Z ^ / T ^ ' -
S >
�Background
Three gay and lesbian couples sought a mamage license in Hawaii. State officials denied
the applications because, as in other states, only male-female couples are eligible to marry in Hawaii.
The aggrieved couples filed suit in State court, seeking a declaration that the Hawaii marriage
statute, by restricting marriage licenses to male-female couples, violates the plaintiffs' right to
privacy and equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the Hawaii Constitution. The case,
captioned Baehr v. Lewin, was dismissed, and the plaintiffs appealed.
In May 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court. The
Supreme Court held that there is no "fundamentalright"to "marry" someone of the same sex under
the State Constitution's guarantee of privacy. Nevetheless, the court held that by denying couples
of the same sex the legalrightsand benefits that flow from marital status, the Hawaii marriage
statute violates the State Constitution's guarantee of equal protection unless the State can
demonstrate that (a) compelling state interests justify unequal treatment, and (b) the statute is
narrowly drawn to accomplish those interests. Since the trial court earlier had dismissed the case
on the pleadings, i.e., without hearing any evidence, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the
trial court to give the State an opportunity to prove whether the Hawaii marriage statute meets this
two-pronged test. The case is currently pending in the trial court where it awaits further submissions
by the parties and eventual trial.
�cmiuo
o. ruouiu
rui_iL.i
r ax-^u^-^uo-uooz
nay
^
^
RAFHR V VfTTKR. THE HAWAII SAME-SEX MARRIAGE CASE - A QUICK SUMMARY
In 1990, three same-sex couples applied for marriage licenses and were denied. In 1991,
they sued the State of Hawaii in state court, challenging the constitutionality, under the Hawaii
State Constitution, of a marriage law that would deny them therightto many. The trial court
granted the State's motion to dismiss the case for failure to state a legitimate legal claim.
The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the case to the Hawaii Supreme Court. In early
1992, the plaintiffs and the State presented their arguments orally before the Supreme Court.
Briefs were alsofiledby the ACLU Foundation of Hawaii, the Lambda Legal Defense and
Education Fundi arid the Rutherford Institute.
;
In May 1993, the Supreme Court shocked everyone with its decision, Baehr v. Lewin
8S2 P.2d 44 (1993).: The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs had potentially made a valid legal
claim, and that the case should be sent back to the trial court to be given a full trial. The Court
held, paradoxically! (1) that there was no fundamentalrightto same-sex marriage in the Hawaii
State Constitution, but that (2) a maniage law that limits marriage to mal'e-female couples is sex
discrimination, and; can only be justified if the State shows a "compelltng istate interest" for it.
This standard, known as "strict scrutiny," puts the burden of proof on the state, and is very tough.
The State Attorney General filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Supreme Court denied.
The decision unleashed afirestormof controversy which has only grown since 1993. As
of mid-1996, the trial court had not yet heard the case. Meanwhile, much else has happened.
In 1994 the Hawaii State Legislature responded by passing a law condemning the decision
of the Hawaii Supreme Court, restating the male-female definition of marriage, and setting up the
first Commission on Sexual Orientation on the Law. This group began meeting in late 1994, but
was successfully challenged on church-state grounds, and abolished by the legislature in its 199S
session. At that time, the legislature created the second Commission, appointed by the Governor,
charged to consider the pros and cons of giving marital status and benefits to same-sex couples.
The second Commission met during the fall of 1995 and, in a 5-2 decision, recommended the full
legalization of same-sex marriage and/or a marriage-like domestic partnership bill. The minority
vigorously challenged both the process and the content of the majority's recommendations. The
report ofthe Commission was issued in December of 1995 and drew national attention.
Meanwhile, early in 1995 the LDS Church (Mormons)fileda petition to intervene as a
third party in the case, claiming that the State was not willing to wholeheartedly defend its own
law. The trial court denied their petition, and this denial was affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Nine state legislatorsfileda similar petition in early 1996, were denied, and have also appealed.
In the 1996 legislative session, the Senate passed a Domestic Partnership bill 14-11, and
the House passed a male-female marriage Constitutional Amendment 37^14, but both bills died.
The case has been set to go forward in the First Circuit Court of Honolulu on September 10th.
�O
'B
;4-23-96 09:29AM F O WC
RM SC
January 31, 1996
WASMINCTON STATE CATHOLIC CONFERENCE
The Honorable Larry Sbeahan
Chair. House Law and Justice Comminee
John L. O'Brien Building, # 331
P.O. Box 40600
Olympia, Waahington 98S04
Dear Represeniative Sheahan and Committee Members:
RE: HB 2262 - SAME GENDER MARRIAGES
The Waahington State Catholic Conference is generally in support of HB 2262.
At this time there is no such legal reality as "same gender" marriages, "hoinosexual marriages" or "gay and
lesbian marriages". However, the prospect that the Sute may find itself in a legally untenable position
regarding its own mamage laws Invites this legislation and the surrounding debate. Proponents and
opponents of "same gender maniage" could probably agree that If and when another State chooses to
recognize "same gender mamages", the "full faith and credit laws" will present a difficult legal reality for
States who don't make such clear and definitive decisions. If this law were to pass, It would certainly lead
to legal action. That may be an unavoidable and necessary first step.
The intention of HB 2262 is to clarify that the State of Washington does not legally define such "same
gender" partnership as a marriage and proposes to make clear that such an arrangement is prohibited and
"shall not be recognized as a valid mairiage in this state". Why should we do this?
Our reflections for the debate:
No government to date has redefined the institution of marriage. None should. Marriage between a man
and a woman Is a fundamental institution of civil society. It is the basis for healthy individuals, a stable
community and a responsible society. The Suto chooses to honor particular conncts, but it has givea
special attention and privilege to the marriage contract because mamage between a man and a woman is
inherently natural, predates all civil recognition, and is essential to our social well being. Because this
formal marriage commitment is so essential to our biological and social future, it has been aad continues to
be preserved, protected, and promoted by the laws of the State.
The relationship between a woman and a man is complementary. The natures of woman and man, equal
yec unique, complement one another, and In marital love humanize and civilize each other and society. No
same-sex relationahip can realize the genuine potential of a relationship between a man and a woman. Nor
should society expect it to do so, Because of the obvious complementary natures ofa woman and a man.
society reaps many benefits,
A committed, faithful, life-giving, and lifelong relationship between a man and a woman is the best
environment for children. AU the research proves this. Despite the heroic efforts of single parents raising
children, the normative, best experience for healthy children is the stable two parent family, which
provides the love and example of a woman and a man. The marriage law and the natural law connect sex,
commitment, and children. We hold parents responsible for supporting and educating their children, both
within marriage and even If the marriage breaks down. If the law weretoredefine mairiage and send a
message that mairiage has no relationship to sex, commitment, or children, it will only add to the current
problems in our society and perhaps undermine the healthy relationships that exists.
419 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE SOUTH SUITE 608
SEATTLE, WA 98104
206«3e2-*a21 SEATTLE
�04-23-96 09:29AM F O WC
RM SC
?07
House Law and Justice Committee - HB 2262
Page 2
Our society has a tradition of protecting individual rights and respecting the pluralism reflected in our
communities. We respect the private choices of others, even if we disagree with them. We accord each
individual equal rights and dignity before the law. We know the difference between humanrightsand civil
rights. We know the difference between males and females. We know the difference between tolerance
and endorsement. We know the difference betweenfriendshipand marriage. We must act accordingly.
There are other arguments which could be presented. Some of us would appeal to religious or moral
beliefs regarding human sexuality, human sexual behavior and our relationships to each other and to God.
They are strong belieft and they inform our arguments. But in our current cultural milieu they are
sometimes dismissed as irrelevant or prejudiced. That is truly unfortunate.
Perhaps, the best we can do at this point is to ask all of us to move the discussion beyond arguing privacy,
individual rights, orreligiousbeliefs. Perhaps we could find common ground by focusing instead on the
common good...the well being of our children, tradiuonal family values, and our social structures.
This is a difficult and, at times, contentious debate. We pledge our honesty and civility to the effort.
Thank you for your dedicated service.
Sincerely,
Edward Dolejsi
Executive Director
Washington State Catholic Conference
on behalf of:
Archbishop Thomas Murphy
Archdiocese of Seattle
Bishop Francis George, O.M.I.
Diocese of Yakima
Bishop William Skylstad
Diocese of Spokane
�?02
34-23-96 09:29AM F O WC
R M SC
T O : P u t o r a l L e a d e r * - Sept. 7, 1 9 9 5
FROM: R o m u Catholic Blmhops of
WaiUngten State
MUMINOTO* mri omouc ownnNCt
RE: Church Taachlni oa Human
Dlfnicy tad Baxualiry u d i u
Impact on lAgialatlve laiUathraa
Introduction:
A primary' responsibility of Bishops in tbe Roman Catholic Church Is to preach the Gospel to all people.
Wc exercise this responsibilicy especially with the priests who are oux co-workers, as well as with
deacons, religious and laity who share in the teaching minutry of the Bishop. It is rtsmial to have a
spirit of unity among all Involved in the teaching mission of the Church which preserves the core truths
and values of tbe Gospel and the tradition of the Church.
Wc are blessed to live at a lime when the teachings of the Church are accessible to us in many ways. We
have the benefit of our long and rich tradition of faith, and especially the Vatican II and poit-conciliar
documents. We are the beneficiaries of the patpf;hi*m nf th* rathnHr Church which Pope John Paul II
calls "a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial
communion," (Apostolic Constitution, Fidei Depo»imm. John Paul II. October 11, 1992)
It is importani that as Bishops we share with you the teaching of the Catholic Church os issues that are
the basis for discussion, political action, and decision making in our own individual lives, as well as in
the life of our communiry. At this time, we choose to offer some reflections on the teaching of the
CaUiolic Church regarding (1) The Dignity of the human person; (2) the Family; (3) Human rights; (4)
Human rights and homosexual persons, and; (5) Church teaching on Human Sexuality. It is only when
we have a grasp and appreciation of the teaching of the Church that we can respond with faith and
assurance to the questions that confront us in today's world.
I. Church Teaching:
A. The Dignity ofthe Human Peraon:
Each and every human being has a basic dignity because all men and women are created in the image of
God.
(cf. CurEchism r.f the r.thnliq Church. Librerii Editn;e V«[ic»fu. United SuirJ Cttholic Conference, 1994, 1700-I7JJ)
The Catholic Church respects the dignity of all people. "The human person made in the image and
likeness of God can hardly be adequately described by,,,his or her sexual orientation. Everyone living on
the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but has challenges to growth, strengths,
taJents and gifts as well. Today the church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human
person when she refuses to consider the person as heterosexual or homosexual and insists that every
person has a fundamcnu! identity: a creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life."
(l-i-nrr nn thr f . n . nf Hnmrnrtwn! Pfrtnnt Congregsdon for che Doctrine of the Filth. 1986) We emphasize that each
person is made in the image and likeness of God and cannot be adequately defined in terms of his or her
seftua! orientation alone.
B. The Pamily:
The Catholic Church affirms the preeminent role of the family in society. "The family is the original
cell of social life. It is the natural society in which husband and wife are called to give themselves in
love and in the gift of life," fCiteehi^m of the Citholic (>rch. 2207) A healthy family with a loving
mother and father is the best environment for raising children. Certainly the current reality does not
always provide such nurturing opportunities. Nevertheless, our public policies should suppon and
promote that ideal.
»'1OCCi0t«-rAL^|NU£ SOUTH JJITI I
�G4-23-96 09:29AM FO WC
R M SC
-2C. Hunan Rights;
The Catholic Church advocates and defends the human rights of every person. It is a fundamental human
right, regardless of sexual orientation, to be ueated with dignity and respect. The Catechism nf the
Catholic Church recalls the words of the Vatican II Constitution pn the Church in the Modem Wnrlri
which tells us: "Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the
grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language or religion must be curbed and eradicated as
incompatible with God's designs." (Vatican ll. CoMtimrion on the rhurch tn the Modem Wnrid 29 2) Unjust
discrimination and violence towards individuals because of their sexual orientation arc wrong. The
Church continues to request that public laws and actions reflect that understanding.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church goes on to state: "(Homosexual persons) must be accepted with
respect, compassion and sensitivity, Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be
avoided."
(C.reehUm nf Ihe r»thnlle Chmrh IMM
D. Human Rights and Homosexual Persons:
Without doubt, homosexual persons endure harassment. "It is deplorable that homosexual persons have
been and are the object of violent malice in speech and action. Such treatment deserves condemnation
from the church's pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers
the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be
respected In work, in action and in law." (Vatican Coaerctauca fur tbe Destrins af tht faith. 1992).
£. Human Sexuality:
The Church emphasizes the goodness of sexuality as an integral and essential component of the human
person. Yet, men and women are expected to use the gift of sexuality, as well as all the gifts of being a
human being, with responsibility and accountability according to God's plan. "God inscribed in the
humanity of man and woman the vocation, and thus the capacity and responsibility, of love and
communion...Physical, moral, and spiritual difference and complimentariiy are oriented towards the
goods of marriage and the flourishing of family life," tcntechitm of th» cathniic Church. 2331,2333)
As Cardinal Basil Hume of England said so clearly in his recently published Note on Church Teaching
Conceminy Homosexual People. \99'>: -First, the church has always taught that the sexual (genital)
expression of love is intended by God's plan of creation to find its place exclusively within marriage
between a man and a wom-n. The church therefore cannot in any way equate a homosexual partnership
with a heterosexual marriage. Second, the sexual (genital) expression of love must be open to the
possible transmission of new life. For these two reasons the church does not approve of homosexual
genital acts,"
The Catechism ofthe Cathniic Phurrh i j clear in its teaching on chastity and sexuality. The "carnal
union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman...is gravely contrary to the dignity of
persons and of human sexuality which is namrnlly ordered to the good of spouses and the generation
and education o f c h i l d r e n . " (C»tr:hisni ^f Hit Curhnli; Church. 2333}
"Homosexualitv refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or
predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex...Its psychological genesis remains largely
unexplained...(Our) tradition h;is always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.'
They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed
from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."
(Catechism of the Cmholk Church. 2337)
�04-23-96 09:29AM FO WC
R M SC
P4
0
- 3II. Proposed Initiativea 166 and 167: Description and Brief Commentary
We have summarized Church teaching on the above Issues because such teaching helps us address two
Initiatives that are being proposed for consideration by citizens of Washington State between now and
December of 1995 that would establish new public laws pertaining to homosexual persons. The two
Initiatives are:
1-166: ShaU Government be prohibited from according rights or protections
baaed on sexual orientation, and Behools from presenting homosexuality
as acceptable?
M 6 7 : Shall government be prohibited from placing children for adoption or
foster eare with any homosexual or with cohabiting unmarried persons?
As Catholic Bishops, we are often asked to take a specific position on proposed Initiatives when
proponents and opponents seek our endorsement and/or practical political assistance for their efforts.
Proponents of Initiatives 166 and 167 are now seeking signatures through December of 1995 to ask the
people to establish new public laws pertaining to homosexual persons in Washington State.
There will be many arguments put forward by proponents and opponents of these two proposed
Initiatives. We recognize and share the frustration of people on how best to respond to legitimate
anxieties and concerns. However, Initiative proposals are often presented with dubious legal and societal
impact. At times, the contentious process that accompanies Initiative electioneering in our State tends to
obscure the fundamental moral issues important to us as believers.
We believe that Initiatives 166 and 167 are inadequately crafted. Both proposals could benefit from civil,
responsible dialogue and amendment. Unfortunately, amendments are not possible in the Initiative
process.
Initiative 166: This Initiative is similar to an Initiative we opposed last year, but the debate that
ensued caused confusion and misunderstanding about our teaching and the reason for our position. This
Initiative would eliminate the use of sexual orientation as a basis for legal protections against
discrimination, but it fails to distinguish between sexual orientation and sexual activity. Supporting the
Initiative, therefore, would cause us to condemn homosexuals as well as their sexual activity. This is not
acceptable. The Initiative would probably void anti-harassment laws which we have supported and
further the harsh rhetoric that accompanies this issue. Opposing Initiative 166, on the other hand, would
give the appearance of condoning homosexual conduct to those who do not distinguish between the
orientation and the activity. This is also unacceptable.
Initiative 166 also prohibits schools from presenting homosexuality as appropriate behavior. Schools
should not present homosexual behavior as acceptable, nor should they condemn homosexual persons for
who they are.
�G4-23-96 09:29AM F O WC
R M SC
?05
-41-167: This Initiative would prohibit the State from placing children for adoption and foster care into
the custody of homosexual persons or a heterosexual couple who are living as domestic partners.
Initiative 167, like Initiative 166, makes no distinction between orientation and behavior.
We must hold up the ideal of children experiencing love and growth in the traditional family. Our own
Catholic agencies only place children in home settings consonant with our teaching. There arc many
children waiting and needing loving homes, and we are troubled that the Initiative may make it more
difficult and time consuming to place them. Further, the definitions do not appear to distinguish between
"those who practice homosexuality and those who acknowledge" a sexual desire for a person of the same
gender. This lack of clarity makes it difficult to either oppose or suppon this Initiative,
We hope that our summary of Church teaching and reflections will help shape the debate on these
Initiatives. While people of good will may disagree with the application of these principles, we hope our
reflections will help people appreciate the teaching and tradition of our Church in a thoughtful and
prayerful way. We share the teaching of the Church and our reflections to help people discern the human
impact of policy decisions and the moral implications of the choices we make.
III.
Our Pastoral Rellectton oo tbe Proposed Initiatives:
The teaching of the Catholic Church continues to distinguish between homosexual orientation and
engaging in homosexual genital activity, As Catholic Bishops we are aware that every person
regardless of sexual orientation needs spiritual, social and emotional nourishment. We recognire our
obligation of offering pastoral care to all people, while at the same time fulfilling our responsibility as
teachers within the Catholic faith community.
The Catholic Church is especially concerned with the "well-being" of children. Our constant efforts to
assure their basic human needs, our involvement in adoption, foster care, day care and education speak
directly of our commitment to children, particularly to those most in need. It is wrong to teach children
that immoral behavior is .icceptable. To place children intentionally in adoptive and foster care homes
where immoral behavior is acknowledged as appropriate is wrong. To have our State engage in these
activities is also wrong. Our Church understands all too well the tremendous need for quality foster and
adoptive homes for so many of our children. We ask the strong and loving families in our parish and
faith communities to consider their call to share their love and faith with a child who needs a home.
At this time, as Catholic Bishops, we find ourselves in the position ef neither
supporting nor opposing the proposed Initiatives 166 and 167 in thair entirety.
We are each called, as citizens and disciples of Jesus, to make moral judgments and to assess the social
consequences of these two Initiatives. Ir is obvious, at times, this can be a difficult and complex task.
For this reason, it will require each of us to understand our Church's teaching and tradition, lo be
informed regarding the issues, and to turn to God in prayer. As you form your conscience in this manner
on these Initiatives, be assured of our prayers for you and the people of our State.
Thomas J. Murphy
Archbishop of Seattle
Francis E. George. OMl
Bishop of Yakima
William S. Skylstad
Bishop of Spokane
�ii-'t a.i:oU t- A y
A
ib
443 062a
CA CATHOLIC CONF
10
April 9, 1996
^v^nM
MEMBERS
«/ Lotf
AMftla
Ai-endiocCM af Ual A n ^ a i c i
Rofitf CjftlirtiJ Mahonir
Bilftop 5l«**«n E. BUire
B j h o p TTUXTIBJ 1. Curry
Bllhop A r r r t n d o X . O c h o i
HiinoQ /eieph H . Sonon*
Buhop IOSD J. W r d
Bithop CHbina Z a * l i
CAUFOtniA
CATHOLIC
CONFERIHCE
The Honorable Charles M . Calderon
Chair, Senate Judiciary Committee
State Capitol, Room 4039
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE:
A B 1982 Knight: (Domestic Relationships)
b
w
Dear Senator Calderon,
DiocKM of F r u n a
Bilhap /ohn T. Snirtboct
Diverge of
Bishop S y l v o i t f D Rynr
niaciai nf Or»nr«
Bi'hop Norm i n F. McF v i a n d
B'uhop M i chad p D r b m l l
D K M K of 5aa B c n i r r f ' M
Biihap QcnJd R. Bam a
D i « c n c of San O l c f «
Buhop ftoben ^ . Anxn
flahop G i l b t f t F- C h t v a i
A r c a d i o c o c a f Saa F r a a o s n
Ardlbnhop W i l l i e J. U - » t U
Biihop PstnCK J. Mrtjrmdi
Bishap Ca/Ln
5cvilla
Bishop John S Cum m i n i
Dtaccsa t f S a c n n t t o U
Slihop WdiUra )c WdsortJ
Bbhop K. Pisrv QuMaina
Big hop C. Ptn'ck Zi«n«vi
D i a c o a «r S l n c k l o i
Qnhop Ooinn) H , ICuuni
Mam Hi u: CMkc4k E p v d i T
•fOur U J y a f L e b u M
nf l ^ a A n B l a
Suhop Jobn 0 . Chedid
E
Uifhop Jofan 5 Cummwu
Biikop Syfvoon- D. K y "
1
Bii^op MtcA*«j p. D r v v U
Rc*efcad Monviflaor
£. June* P c f a M i
The California Catholic Conference supports AB 1982 by Assemblyman Knight.
The lasting commitment of mairiage, while distinct from family, is nonetheless its
bedrock. The passage of this bill will clearly strengthen that bedrock and consequently
family life itself. There has been much press that division over single-sex "marriage" is
basically a conflict between homosexual and heterosexual rights. This is not the case.
Recognition of single sex "marriage" would be damaging to society, because it would
further weaken the institution of marriage.
The state has a compelling responsibility to support and bolster marriage and
family and has done so throughout history. The state in fact is indebted to family, for it
is in the arms of family that citizens learn language, responsibility, loyalty and honor.
Indeed the strength of society and of the state itself rests on the health and stability of
family life, and the state has traditionally recognized its vested interest in supporting
strong, stable, committed marital relationships between men and women, which provide
a stable and nurturing environment for children. To this end government extends to
married men and women and their families benefits that aid them in their essential role
of preparing future citizens and understands the importance of doing everything possible
to reinforce this cornerstone of society.
The benefits accorded to families by government and society are not primarily
benefits rendered to individuals who are married. It is impossible to justify special
benefits to married couples i f these benefits are seen first and foremost as benefits to the
spouses themselves. Why should the single person be denied benefits extended to
individuals living together whether married or not? Only in the context of a relationship
that intends to or has produced future citizens is the state able to justify special benefits.
A relationship between two people is essentially a private concern and not the
business of the state. Opponents of AB 1982 hope to provide for more stable relationships
by defeat of the measure. The cart is before the horse. Law will never lend permanence
to a relationship. Law may demand acceptance of responsibility for the consequences of
a relationship that is already there, but law will never effect permanence of the
relationship itself. In marriage the couple, on the basis of a pre-existing commitment,
enter a legally enforceable contract to support each other in times of illness or
unemployment; to share community property obligations and joint responsibility for debts
incurred by a spouse so that they may jointly provide for offspring that may result from
the union.
C«lheiTi] Squjnr • 1010 I Uh Sircc<. Suiio 200 • Sicpimemo, Califomb DJSI4.3807
(916) 1.13-dMl « K^JC: (916) 443-5M9
© 002
�The definition of marriage in the California Code is "a contract arising from a relationship between
a man and a woman." With this definition in mind, the Governor in a veto message in 1994 said: "We
need to strengthen, not weaken, the institution of marriage. In virtually every culture, marriage has been
deservedly celebrated as a relationship demanding commitment and unselfish giving to one's family especially to one's children. Government policy ought not to discount marriage by offering a substitute
relationship that demands much less-and provides much less than is needed both by the children of such
relationships, and ultimately much less than is needed by society."
Several years ago an attempt was made in our legislature to redefine marriage as "a contract
arising from a relationship between two persons." It got nowhere—to the credit of the Democratically
controlled legislature. The possible change of that age old concept in the state of Hawaii or elsewhere will
create public policy havoc in that state. It would be absurdity to undermine our own policy by granting
recognition to "marriages" which deviate from our own definition. A quick flight to Hawaii would allow
for disregard of public policy and California legislation and create chaos due to the confusion arising from
two different definitions for the same term. Even in Hawaii there is an initiative effort underway to test
this judicial and legislative action against the will of the people.
1 recognize that many will see our position as a denial of legitimate rights to gay men and women.
I regret this. Single sex marriage is not just a gay issue but one that affects all society. I also regret it
because we believe that the establishment and protection ofthe legitimate rights of homosexual men and
women is an important challenge facing us as a state. We have spoken out consistently and repeatedly in
the past coademning violence and ballot initiatives that would have resulted in unjust discrimination
against homosexual men and women. All of these issues touch upon legitimate civil and social rights of
the gay and lesbian communities, but I cannot believe that the recognition of single-sex mamages
constitutes a civil right for any community in the state, or that this equation should be enshrined in law.
I ask you to give this matter long and thoughtful consideration. Mamage and family are critically
weakened already. Passage of this measure will at least keep them from being further undermined, and
will allow the people of our state and their elected officials to debate the issues on their merits rather than
having our public policy and law detennined by bodies outside the state. We ask that you support AB
1982.
Sincerely yours,
Reverend Monsignor E. James Petersen
Executive Director
EJP/dp
cc:
Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee
Assemblyman William J. FCnight, author
Mikki Sorensen, Consultant
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
White House Office of Records Management
Chief of Staff
Clerk's Office
Correspondence Office
Office of the Counsel to the President
Domestic Policy Council
Office of Intergovernmental Affairs
Office of Legislative Affairs
National AIDS Policy Office
Office of Oval Office Operations
Office of the Press Secretary
Office of Public Liaison
Office of Speechwriting
Automated Records Management System
Tape Restoration Project
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2013-0028-F
Description
An account of the resource
President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) into law on September 21, 1996. The Act declared that no state shall be required to recognize a same-gender marriage performed in another state. DOMA also defined marriage as only between a man and a woman for purposes of Federal law. This collection consists of files and email accounts from the White House staff related to The Defense of Marriage Act. The collection also contains records related to Hawaii Supreme Court’s Baehrs vs. Lewin, and California’s Proposition 22. The collection consists of clippings, emails, letters, memoranda, notes, press releases, and talking points concerning DOMA, same sex marriage, and domestic partnerships.
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Office of Records Management
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Clinton Presidential Records: Automated Records Management System
Clinton Presidential Records: Tape Restoration Project
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
112 folders in 7 boxes
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36606">Collection Finding Aid</a>
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Same Sex Marriage
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Office of Intergovernmental Affairs
John Hart
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2013-0028-F
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 4
<a href="clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36606" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/5634507" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog</a>
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Preservation-Reproduction-Reference
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
5/19/2015
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
5634507
42-t-20130028F-004-013-2015