BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  AB 25
                                                                  Page  1

          ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
          AB 25 (Migden)
          As Amended May 31, 2001
          Majority vote 

           JUDICIARY           8-2         LABOR & EMPLOYMENT           5-2
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Steinberg, Corbett,       |Ayes:|Koretz, Negrete McLeod,   |
          |     |Dutra, Jackson, Kehoe,    |     |Goldberg, Migden, Shelley |
          |     |Longville, Shelley, Wayne |     |                          |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
          |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
          |Nays:|Robert Pacheco, Harman    |Nays:|Mountjoy, Pescetti        |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           
          APPROPRIATIONS      14-7                                        
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Migden,  Alquist, Aroner, |     |                          |
          |     |Cedillo, Corbett, Correa, |     |                          |
          |     |Goldberg, Papan, Pavley,  |     |                          |
          |     |Simitian, Thomson,        |     |                          |
          |     |Wesson, Wiggins, Wright   |     |                          |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
          |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
          |Nays:|Bates, Ashburn, Daucher,  |     |                          |
          |     |Maldonado, Robert         |     |                          |
          |     |Pacheco, Runner, Zettel   |     |                          |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           SUMMARY  :  Expands the group of individuals who may register as  
          domestic partners, and confers various new legal rights on all  
          registered domestic partners.  (All further references to  
          domestic partners refer to registered domestic partners.)   
          Specifically,  this bill  :  

          1)Expands the group of individuals who may register as domestic  
            partners to include opposite sex couples where one of the  
            persons is over the age of 62.  Current law allows opposite  
            sex couples to register as domestic partners only where both  
            partners are over the age of 62.

          2)Authorizes a person adopting the child of his or her domestic  








                                                                  AB 25
                                                                  Page  2

            partner to use existing procedures for stepparent adoption.

          3)Requires health plans and disability insurers to offer  
            employers coverage for domestic partners of employees, in the  
            same manner as other dependents.  If an employer has purchased  
            coverage of domestic partners through a group health plan or a  
            group disability insurer, the bill requires that the health  
            plan or disability insurer enroll domestic partners in the  
            same manner as other dependents. 

          4)Extends to domestic partners the same state tax preferences  
            for health care costs that are available to spouses and  
            dependents of employees.

          5)Authorizes a domestic partner, to the same extent as a spouse,  
            to file a claim for disability benefits on behalf of his or  
            her partner when the partner is mentally unable to do so.

          6)Authorizes an employee entitled to use sick leave to care for  
            a child, stepchild, parent or spouse, to use sick leave to  
            care for a domestic partner, or a child of the domestic  
            partner.

          7)Extends to a domestic partner the same entitlement as a spouse  
            to receive unemployment benefits if the reason for leaving his  
            or her employment is to move with a domestic partner to a new  
            location from which it is impractical to commute.

          8)Extends to domestic partners the right currently given to  
            family members and others to make medical treatment decisions  
            on behalf of a partner if the partner is in a health facility  
            and is incapable of giving informed consent. 

          9)Authorizes a domestic partner to participate fully and have  
            standing to appear in conservatorship proceedings and be  
            appointed as conservator in the same manner as the spouse of a  
            conservatee or proposed conservatee.  Includes a domestic  
            partner as a family member for the purposes of certain duties  
            and prohibitions relating to conservatorships.

          10)Allows a domestic partner the right to inherit property if  
            one partner dies without a will, and to be appointed as  
            administrator of his or her deceased partner's estate, in the  
            same priority position as a surviving spouse.  Revises the  
            statutory will form to include domestic partners in the class  








                                                                  AB 25
                                                                  Page  3

            of beneficiaries to whom a testator may leave assets and  
            property.

          11)Authorizes a domestic partner to bring a cause of action and  
            recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress  
            and wrongful death, to the same extent that spouses are  
            entitled do so under California law.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  According to the Assembly Appropriations  
          analysis:

          1)The Franchise Tax Board estimates annual General Fund revenue  
            losses of about $1 million related to the tax provisions of  
            this bill.

          2)Potential annual costs of about $100,000 to the Unemployment  
            Insurance Fund for payment of unemployment benefits to  
            eligible domestic partners.

          3)Any increased costs to the Secretary of State to register  
            additional domestic partnerships would be minor and would be  
            covered by registration fees.

          4)Potential additional state costs to continue health benefits  
            for those surviving domestic partners who also receive a  
            retirement allowance and for their children.

           COMMENTS  :  This bill seeks to expand the group of individuals  
          who can register as, and confer a number of new legal rights on,  
          domestic partners, to the same extent such rights are guaranteed  
          to married couples.  In commenting on the need for this measure,  
          the author states:

               "[U]ntil the enactment of AB 26 in 1999, same sex  
               couples and their families received no recognition  
               under California law.  Even with the enactment of the  
               domestic partner registry with hospital visitation  
               rights and health benefits for public employees, few  
               substantive benefits are available to domestic  
               partners who register.  [This bill] would extend to  
               domestic partners substantive legal and economic  
               benefits that married spouses enjoy."

          In 1999, the Legislature enacted and Governor Davis signed into  
          law AB 26 (Migden), Chapter 588, Statutes of 1999, California's  








                                                                  AB 25
                                                                  Page  4

          first domestic partnership statute.  AB 26 defines domestic  
          partners as "two adults who have chosen to share one another's  
          lives in an intimate and committed relationship of mutual  
          caring" and who file a Declaration of Domestic Partnership with  
          the Secretary of State.  (Family Code section 297.)  Persons who  
          may register as domestic partners are same sex couples over the  
          age of 18, or opposite sex couples over the age of 62, who are  
          not blood relatives, not married to others, not members of  
          another domestic partnership, and who share a common residence,  
          and agree to be jointly responsible for each other's basic  
          living expenses incurred during the partnership.  AB 26 narrowly  
          defines the legal effect of creating a domestic partnership and  
          expressly provides that registration of the domestic partnership  
          does not establish any rights except those provided in  
          legislation.  (Family Code section 299.5.)

          On March 7, 2000, California voters passed Proposition 22,  
          adding Section 308.5 to the Family Code, to read:  "Only  
          marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in  
          California." 

          The California Alliance for Pride and Equality (CAPE), the  
          bill's sponsor, states that the bill will provide to registered  
          domestic partners several basic rights that currently only  
          married couples have under California law.  According to CAPE,  
          "AB 25 will recognize registered domestic partners as  
          appropriate family members who should be consulted by medical  
          professionals for treatment decisions if and when a patient is  
          unable to make his or her own decisions.  ? For couples in an  
          enduring relationship, the partner is the appropriate person for  
          the state to designate as the decision-maker during a period of  
          incapacity ?." 

          In addition, CAPE states that "[g]ranting the right to sue for  
          negligent infliction of emotional distress or wrongful death  
          recognizes that the suffering of the surviving domestic partner  
          is real and direct. ? Many partners would be affected both  
          financially and emotionally by their partner's death.  They  
          deserve compensation from a wrongful and negligent third party."  
           Finally, CAPE argues that the bill appropriately recognizes the  
          roles of a domestic partner as soulmate, caretaker, and  
          confidant, and reinforces their legitimacy.  "Absent these clear  
          guidelines, domestic partners are often caught in the middle of  
          disagreements and sometimes litigation regarding families and  
          partners' rights." 








                                                                  AB 25
                                                                  Page  5


          The Traditional Values Coalition (TVC) argues that the bill is  
          an attempt to circumvent the will of the majority of  
          Californians who voted for Proposition 22 which, they claim,  
          "declared that the rights and privileges of marriage should not  
          be extended to other forms of so-called 'unions.'"  According to  
          TVC, "[a]ny Domestic Partnership is an automatic threat and  
          deterrent to the institution of marriage?." 

          TVC also argues that the bill will result in a proliferation of  
          frivolous emotional distress cases.  According to TVC, since  
          domestic partnerships are more easily dissolvable than  
          marriages, "the chances for unfounded claims of emotional  
          distress would increase" and "[t]he mere personal grudge of one  
          partner in such a union against the other can be used as a  
          defense justifiable for a claim of 'emotional distress.'"  In  
          addition, TVC states that the bill's provision granting  
          inheritance rights is unnecessary.  Finally, TVC argues that the  
          concept of domestic partnerships is an attempt to circumvent the  
          law prohibiting homosexual marriages, and is an affront to the  
          concept of marriage.  "Once all the rights currently afforded to  
          those relationships of the opposite sex are granted to those of  
          the same sex, the concept of marriage will have lost its  
          meaning, purpose, and legitimacy."  
           

          Analysis Prepared by  :  Saskia Kim / JUD. / (916) 319-2334



                                                                FN: 0001407