CA Trans* Certificate Bill Vetoed Thursday, September 21, 2000 / 03:51 AM For reasons as yet quite unclear, California's Democratic governor refused to sign a measure that would have helped transsexuals document their post-op gender. California Governor Gray Davis (D) on September 20 vetoed a bill clarifying the process for transsexuals to legally document their post-surgical gender, particularly if they were born outside the state. Assemblymember John Longville's (D-Rialto) AB 1851 provided for a Certificate of Sex Change designed to expedite the process of changing other documents. It's not easy to understand Davis' need to quash this move. Davis' veto message had three basic points. First, he said AB 1851 was unnecessary because transsexuals can already legally change their names, driver's licenses and passports. He seems to believe this is considerably easier than it's proven to be for transsexuals in real life; as Longville's legislative consultant Kristin Wingate said earlier in the bill's history, "While Californians can now change their birth certificates to reflect a new sexual identity, it is difficult, and sometimes impossible to do so." Boyce Hindman, administrator of the Lambda Letter Project, which lobbied hard for the bill from before its introduction, wrote that, "The fact is that a birth certificate is required when applying for a passport. In addition, if the person presenting the birth certificate has a different name or sex than shown on the birth certificate, he or she must also submit a court order noting the old name and gender and officially recognizing the new name and gender." For those born outside the state, the process is still more complex, because revised birth certificates are issued by the county of birth, and a California court can't order another state's county clerk to issue a new birth certificate. To assist with this dilemma, AB 1851 provided for courts to order California's State Registrar to issue a Certificate of Sex Change which could have served in lieu of a new birth certificate and provided a basis for the county of birth to issue a new birth certificate. But Davis wrote that this function "is inconsistent with the State Registrar's statutory responsibility," as if that statutory responsibility were not subject to amendment through legislation. The governor also expressed concern for transsexuals' medical confidentiality "since the [proposed] Certificate of Change of Sex does not result in the sealing of the person's original birth certificate, or in the issuance of a new birth certificate." Again, for those born out of state those steps are both in the hands of the county of birth and cannot be achieved directly by a California court. Getting the bill through the legislature, was no easy task. It passed the Assembly but then failed a Senate committee vote in August. However, it was later given a second chance, passed out of committee and passed by the Senate. AB 1851 fared better than its more potent companion, Assemblymember Fred Keeley's (D-Santa Cruz) AB 2142, which would have added gender identity as a category protected from discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. It died in a Senate committee after passing the Assembly. The Bay Area Reporter believes it was actually the negative recommendation of an openly lesbian aide to the governor that stopped that bill's progress, although the newspaper was unable to obtain comment from the aide herself. Both AB 1851 and AB 2142 are likely to be reintroduced next year, although Davis' opposition will make it more difficult to advance them.
	PlanetOut News Staff © 1995-2000 PlanetOut Corporation. All copyright & trademark rights reserved.
	[home] - [info.] - [links] - [list] - [e-mail] Arctic Fox DesignEmail: webmaster@ftminfo.net