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