The new law, Mr. Knight says, violates California's Proposition 22, which states, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Mr. Knight argues that because domestic partnerships offer some of the same features as marriage, the new domestic partnership law violates Prop. 22.
It's true, of course, that domestic partnership offer some of the benefits of marriage. But there are still many benefits of marriage that are not included under the domestic partnership law. Lambda Legal has a nice chart comparing California domestic partnerships to marriage.
No one should be surprised by this legal challenge. Nor should anyone be surprised that the argument chosen by Mr. Knight is the exact argument that will be made if the Federal Marriage Amendment passes. The proposed Federal Marriage Amendment reads as follows:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
Mr. Knight's argument about the California law is weak, because California's Prop. 22 prohibits gay marriage, not the incidents of marriage. But if the Federal Marriage Amendment is adopted, the same argument that civil union laws and domestic partnership laws violate the federal constitution will be much stronger. Although the Alliance for Marriage and others assert that the Federal Marriage Amendment will not prohibit legislatively created civil unions or domestic partnerships, you can be sure that, if it passes, any meaningful civil unions or domestic partnerships will be challenged (and may well not withstand the challenge) using the same logic that Mr. Knight is using to attack the new California law.
