A San Francisco plan that could be the last step needed to eliminate marriage from society is being advanced in the California State Senate, with SB 1066 by Sen. Carole Migden, a Democrat, gaining approval from the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“This bill functionally abolishes marriage,” warned Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families. “Why get married, since you can get all the ‘goodies’ of marriage without the commitment of marriage?”

The state legislature, which earlier approved a marriage-by-another-name plan for same-sex couples despite a decision by voters that marriage should be limited to one man and one woman, now is moving beyond even that, pro-family organizations say.

The plan, according to Concerned Women for America of California, “extends California domestic partnerships to any two persons who share a common residence and are over 18. This means that all marriage benefits would be given to mere roommates…”

“The California legislature has already given away marriage benefits to same-sex couples without the consent of the people by passing existing domestic partnership laws,” the group said. “Migden asserts that SB 1066 is ‘a very practical expansion that absolutely reflects the new family unit today.'”

But, the group said, instead “it is an expensive experiment with California’s children, who are at greater risk of abuse, behavioral problems and poor academic performance in cohabitating situations.”

The California Family Council concluded such a plan would make marriage “virtually meaningless.”

And Thomasson is urging pro-family residents to “pick up the phone and oppose SB 1066.”

“This California bill … would award EVERY right and benefit of marriage between a husband and wife … to a man and a woman who are shacking up and outright refuse to marry,” he said.

He said the state’s family code already grants such rights to same-sex duos, despite the 2-1 vote of Californians in 2000 on Proposition 22 that defined marriage as involving only one man and one woman, a result that was affirmed by the 1st District Court of Appeals in San Francisco earlier.

“Migden, a San Francisco Democrat, won’t admit that SB 1066 rewards cohabitants for not getting married,” Thomasson said in a statement. “Here’s what Migden told Associated Press.”

“Families are changing. Young people are often having children and not rushing to marry. Straight couples and families should have the same rights as gay couples and families,” she told the wire service, Thomasson said.

“If SB 1066 becomes law, young couples will go to county government offices and be asked whether they would like a marriage license or a ‘domestic partnership.’ Word will get around that the domestic partnership is ‘easier.’ Why get married…?” Thomasson said.

This, he said, is the critical issue behind the VoteYesMarriage campaign, which is proposing a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as involving only one man and one woman.

Those participating in the agenda to radicalize marriage in California by including same-sex couples have been working on it since the 2000 vote affirmed traditional family values.

The battle reached a peak in 2004 when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom arbitrarily issued same-sex marriage licenses.

The courts eventually concluded he didn’t have the power to create his own definition of marriage and the licenses issued to same-sex duos during that time were invalidated. However, several participants in the campaign sued, and that case challenging the state’s marriage laws recently was argued before the state Supreme Court.

Six different cases stemming from the San Francisco situation were consolidated on the appeal, and Mathew D. Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University’s School of Law, was one of those arguing on behalf of traditional marriage.

Staver said the fundamental constitutional right to marry includes rights and obligations that cannot be eliminated, because they come from the inherent nature of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

“Marriage is more than a private relationship between two people who love each other,” he said. “While it is a private relationship, marriage serves a public purpose to preserve society’s interest in procreation and to provide the optimal environment for children.”


Related special offers:

Get Ann’s latest and hottest book, “Godless: The Church of Liberalism”

“The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom”

“The Gay Agenda: It’s Dividing the Family, the Church, and a Nation”

“Betrayed by the Bench”

Gov. Arnold ‘terminates’ man-and-woman marriage plan

Mayor faces trial for same-sex marriages

60% of polled Americans:
No homosexual marriage

It’s ‘gay’ marriage in Massachusetts

Poll: Massachusetts opposes ‘gay’ marriage

‘Gay’ marriage ruling’s consequences ‘dire’

‘Gay’ marriage ban struck down in Massachusetts

Bush to block ‘gay’ marriage

Poll suggests backlash on ‘gay’ issues

Court strikes down Texas sodomy law

Supreme Court hears ‘right to sodomy’ case

High court to give ‘gays’ their own ‘Roe’?

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.