Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lgbtq Pride Resolution topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
California Assembly adopts HR 43, proclaims June 2025 Pride Month and recognizes 14 honorees
Summary
Assemblymember Ward, chair of the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus, introduced House Resolution 43 on the Assembly floor Wednesday, asking members to designate June 2025 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer Pride Month and to honor Californians who have advanced LGBTQ rights.
Get email alerts on the Lgbtq Pride Resolution topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assemblymember Ward, chair of the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus, introduced House Resolution 43 on the Assembly floor Wednesday, asking members to designate June 2025 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer Pride Month and to honor Californians who have advanced LGBTQ rights.
The resolution was debated on the floor and adopted by the Assembly after a voice vote. Ward said, "I rise today to present HR 43 to officially recognize June 2025 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Pride Month." Supporters described Pride as both celebration and a call to defend rights they said are under renewed attack.
The adoption came after multiple floor statements in favor from members representing caucuses across the Legislature. Assemblymember Ramos, speaking on behalf of the California Native American Legislative Caucus, said, "We stand together as 1." Assemblymember Zavar, speaking for the California Legislative Jewish Caucus, listed recent national developments and said the caucus would "stand strong and proud with the LGBTQ plus community in solidarity." Assemblymember Mark Gonzalez said Pride is "not about glitter, rainbows, or parades" but about protest and protection of rights. Several other members — including Assemblymembers Avila Farias, Lee and Bridal — urged support for the resolution and for LGBTQ Californians.
One member spoke in opposition. Assemblymember De Maio said the resolution "lets down the LGBT community" and described parts of the measure as divisive; he said he would vote no. After debate, the clerk opened the roll for coauthors; 49 coauthors were recorded. The Assembly then took a voice vote; the speaker announced, "The ayes have it. The resolution is adopted."
The Assembly also held a Pride Month ceremony on the floor, recognizing 14 honorees for contributions to the LGBTQ community across the state. Honorees introduced or escorted to the floor included Susan Kathleen Jester, Joanna and Kathy Martinez, Juan Acosta, Bishop Benita A. Ramsey, Anthony Foster, Richard Ayub, Jess Anthony Sanchez, Julia Seidner, Molly O'Neil, Caroline (Cara) [as transcribed], Nick Arnzend, Sergio Campanone, Susan Ford, and Jenny Beiser. The chamber also welcomed guests from the International Imperial Court System, which marked its 60th anniversary in the gallery.
Votes at a glance: the Assembly adopted HR 43 (House Resolution 43 by Assemblymember Ward) by voice vote and recorded 49 coauthors before adoption. Separately, the Assembly approved a rules committee resolution to suspend joint rule 61(a) to permit the committee on appropriations to meet and consider Assembly Bill 1533; the roll call on that suspension closed with a tally of 56 yes, 0 no (the motion required 54 votes). On the second-day consent calendar the Assembly recorded unanimous roll calls of 70 yes, 0 no for items read (including Senate Bill 61, Senate Bill 66, Senate Bill 846, Senate Bill 229 and Senate Concurrent Resolution 3 as listed on the calendar).
The body’s actions were procedural and symbolic—HR 43 is a commemorative resolution rather than a statutory change—but the debate highlighted differing views among members about the tone and content of public commemorations. The chamber’s ceremony and the list of honorees were part of the formal observance on the Assembly floor; the resolution directs recognition and does not itself create a new program or funding.
The Assembly also granted unanimous consent to refer AB 1533 (Wicks) to the Appropriations Committee, and the rules committee’s joint-rule suspension was recorded to allow further consideration of that bill in committee.
