Amid the same-sex marriage license furor at San Francisco's City Hall, a California legislator has quietly introduced a bill in Sacramento that could represent a greater threat to the traditional view of marriage as the union of one woman and one man.

The legislation, AB 1967 by Assemblyman Mark Leno of San Francisco, attempts to create a historic transformation of the institution of marriage with a few simple changes in the California Family Code. It would remove the words "woman," "man," "male" and "female" from the code's description of marriage and substitute "person" or "persons."

The bill drew quick opposition from the California Catholic Conference and several other statewide organizations committed to protecting traditional family values.

Representatives of those groups rejected Leno's contention that the bill would not overturn Proposition 22, a defense of marriage initiative approved by the voters in March 2000.

"The Catholic conference will oppose AB 1967," said Ned Dolejsi, executive director of the conference. "It flies in the face of state law. The people passed Proposition 22 by an overwhelming majority."

Proposition 22, supported by more than 61 percent of voters, states: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." That language now appears in the state law as Section 308.5 of the Family Code.

In addition to removing the words "man" and "woman" from the description of marriage in sections 300-302 of the code, the Leno bill declares, "Where necessary to implement the rights and responsibilities of spouses under the law, gender-specific terms shall be construed to be gender-neutral, except with respect to Section 308.5."

The bill then describes the reason for this exception in this way: "The Legislature finds and declares that this act does not amend or modify Section 308.5 of the Family Code, which addresses marriages from other jurisdictions, as enacted by an initiative measure."

Leno told Catholic San Francisco, the San Francisco archdiocesan newspaper, "Proposition 22 amended Section 308 of the Family Code which specifically deals with how marriages performed outside of California are defined. I am not trying to touch Section 308."

Before Proposition 22 was passed, that section simply said that any marriage validly contracted under the laws of another state is valid in California.

"Leno's got it wrong," said Randy Thomasson, executive director of Campaign for California Families. He said Proposition 22 was carefully worded to cover all marriages.

"The word 'recognized' prohibits recognition of out-of-state homosexual marriages," he said. "The word 'valid' prohibits courts from inventing homosexual marriage within California. ... It ties the hands of activist judges as well as legislators."

Leno's reading of the law is "a farce," said Ben Lopez, a lobbyist for the Traditional Values Coalition. "Proposition 22 clearly states that marriage is only between one man and one woman. It says nothing about where the marriage comes from."

The two opponents of AB 1967 pointed out that under the state constitution the Legislature cannot overturn an initiative approved by the people. Leno agreed but said that was irrelevant since his bill does not change Proposition 22.

Thomasson said California law provides the proponents of same-sex marriage with a way of changing the law -- at the ballot box.

He said Leno is not taking that route because "he knows the people of California, the mothers and fathers and grandparents, will not support his attack on marriage."

Leno said he was not attacking traditional marriage, but he believes current California marriage law is unconstitutional and he is concerned about equal rights, love and federal benefits for same-sex couples.

He said he found San Francisco's issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples "of great support." He did not go through the process himself, he said, because "my partner died 10 years ago."

"All American citizens should have the same rights, benefits and responsibilities if they enter into committed relationships," he said.

Dolejsi said, "It's unfortunate, on the heels of the unprecedented advances that the gay and lesbian lobby on domestic partnerships made last year, that now they feel the need to once again go after a marriage bill, flying in the face of Proposition 22 passed only four short years ago."

-- CNS