California 2013-2014 Regular Session Status: Enacted

SB 1306 — Marriage.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 82, Statutes of 2014.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. ✓
    Passed Senate
  4. ✓
    Passed Assembly
  5. ✓
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 21, 2014. Enacted.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 70% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

High

How often bills like it became law.

  • Enacted

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 1 sponsor

    1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 4 recorded votes so far.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

Summary

An existing provision of the California Constitution, which has been held unenforceable, states that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in this state. An existing statutory provision likewise provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in this state. This bill would repeal that statutory provision. Existing statutory law provides that marriage is a personal relationship arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman. Under existing law, a marriage contracted outside this state that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted is valid in this state, except that a marriage between 2 persons of the same sex contracted outside this state is valid in this state only if the marriage was contracted prior to November 5, 2008. This bill would instead provide that marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between 2 persons, and would make conforming changes with regard to the consent to, and solemnization of, marriage. The bill would also delete the limitation on the validity of marriages contracted outside this state between 2 persons of the same sex. Under existing law, a reference to "husband" and "wife," "spouses," or "married persons," or a comparable term, includes persons who are lawfully married to each other and persons who were previously lawfully married to each other, as is appropriate under the circumstances of the particular case. The bill would delete references to "husband" or "wife" in the Family Code and would instead refer to a "spouse," and would make other related changes. Existing law establishes, except as specified, a rebuttable presumption of decreased need for spousal support if the supported party is cohabiting with a person of the opposite sex. This bill would make that rebuttable presumption of decreased need for spousal support applicable if the supported party is cohabitating with a "nonmarital partner." This bill would declare that the purpose of the act is to clarify that laws relating to marriage and the rights and responsibilities of spouses apply equally to opposite-sex and same-sex spouses and that the changes are not intended to affect existing decisional law otherwise interpreting the laws amended in the act.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 82, Statutes of 2014.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m.

  4. In Senate. Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.

  5. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 54. Noes 16. Page 5743.) Ordered to the Senate.

  6. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  7. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 7. Noes 1.) (June 10).

  8. Referred to Com. on JUD.

  9. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

  10. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 25. Noes 10. Page 3327.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  11. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  12. Ordered to second reading.

  13. Read third time and amended.

  14. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  15. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 5. Noes 2. Page 3092.) (April 8).

  16. Set for hearing April 8.

  17. Referred to Com. on JUD.

  18. Read first time.

  19. From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 24.

  20. Introduced. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

  • Leno · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 6 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Leno

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

SB 1306 Leno Senate Third Reading By WIECKOWSKI

Passed 54 Yea · 16 Nay · 9 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 501309
Democratic 4000
Republican 0300
Total 541609
% of votes cast 68%20%0%11%
How each member voted (79)
Member Party Vote
Achadjian — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brown — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Linder — Not Voting
Logue — Nay
Mansoor — Nay
Perea — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Cooley — Not Voting
Daly — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Campos — Yea
Hall — Yea
Holden — Yea
Levine — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Garcia — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Gray — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Medina — Yea
Fong — Yea
Chau — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Nestande — Yea
Bocanegra — Yea
Pan — Yea
John A. Pérez — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Alejo — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Dababneh — Yea
Donnelly — Nay
Eggman — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Ridley-Thomas — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Ting — Yea
Williams — Yea
Allen — Nay
Salas — Nay
Fox — Nay
Gorell — Not Voting
Chávez — Not Voting
Hagman — Not Voting
Harkey — Not Voting
Bigelow — Nay
Conway — Nay
Melendez — Not Voting
Olsen — Nay
Wagner — Nay
Waldron — Nay
Weber — Not Voting
Wilk — Not Voting
Dickinson — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Yamada — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay
Jim Patterson — Nay
Lorena Gonzalez — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Roger Hernández — Yea
V. Manuel Pérez — Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Grove, Shannon Republican Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 7 Yea · 1 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 6102
Democratic 1000
Total 7102
% of votes cast 70%10%0%20%
How each member voted (10)
Member Party Vote
Alejo — Yea
Maienschein — Not Voting
Wagner — Nay
Chau — Yea
Garcia — Yea
Gorell — Not Voting
Wieckowski — Yea
Dickinson — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

3rd Reading

Passed 25 Yea · 10 Nay · 5 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 241003
Democratic 1002
Total 251005
% of votes cast 63%25%0%13%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Block — Yea
Huff — Nay
Knight — Nay
Leno — Yea
Lieu — Yea
Nielsen — Nay
Steinberg — Yea
Torres — Yea
Walters — Nay
Wright — Not Voting
Correa — Yea
Evans — Yea
DeSaulnier — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
De León — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Lara — Yea
Liu — Yea
Wyland — Nay
Cannella — Yea
Corbett — Yea
Hill — Yea
Anderson — Nay
Beall — Not Voting
Monning — Yea
Morrell — Nay
Pavley — Yea
Roth — Yea
Vidak — Nay
Wolk — Yea
Fuller — Nay
Galgiani — Yea
Yee — Not Voting
Beth Gaines — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Nay
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Not Voting
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Not Voting
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 5 Yea · 2 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 4200
Democratic 1000
Total 5200
% of votes cast 71%29%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Leno — Yea
Lara — Yea
Monning — Yea
Anderson — Nay
Corbett — Yea
Vidak — Nay
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

civil-rights
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does SB 1306 do?
An existing provision of the California Constitution, which has been held unenforceable, states that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in this state. An existing statutory provision likewise provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in this state. This bill would repeal that statutory provision. Existing statutory law provides that marriage is a personal relationship arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman. Under existing law, a marriage contracted outside this state that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted is valid in this state, except that a marriage between 2 persons of the same sex contracted outside this state is valid in this state only if the marriage was contracted prior to November 5, 2008. This bill would instead provide that marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between 2 persons, and would make conforming changes with regard to the consent to, and solemnization of, marriage. The bill would also delete the limitation on the validity of marriages contracted outside this state between 2 persons of the same sex. Under existing law, a reference to "husband" and "wife," "spouses," or "married persons," or a comparable term, includes persons who are lawfully married to each other and persons who were previously lawfully married to each other, as is appropriate under the circumstances of the particular case. The bill would delete references to "husband" or "wife" in the Family Code and would instead refer to a "spouse," and would make other related changes. Existing law establishes, except as specified, a rebuttable presumption of decreased need for spousal support if the supported party is cohabiting with a person of the opposite sex. This bill would make that rebuttable presumption of decreased need for spousal support applicable if the supported party is cohabitating with a "nonmarital partner." This bill would declare that the purpose of the act is to clarify that laws relating to marriage and the rights and responsibilities of spouses apply equally to opposite-sex and same-sex spouses and that the changes are not intended to affect existing decisional law otherwise interpreting the laws amended in the act.
Who sponsors SB 1306?
SB 1306 is sponsored by Leno.
What is the current status of SB 1306?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 21, 2014. Enacted.
Where can I track SB 1306?
Track SB 1306 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 1306

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SB 1306

Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →