BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  AB 205
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   April 1, 2003

                           ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
                               Ellen M. Corbett, Chair
                   AB 205 (Goldberg) - As Amended:  March 25, 2003
           
          SUBJECT  :   DOMESTIC PARTNERS: ADDITIONAL RIGHTS AND  
          RESPONSIBILITIES

           KEY ISSUE  :  SHOULD MOST OF THE RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES  
          AVAILABLE TO MARRIED COUPLES SOLELY UNDER STATE LAW BE EXTENDED  
          TO REGISTERED DOMESTIC PARTNERS?

                                      SYNOPSIS
          
          This bill seeks to confer additional legal rights and  
          responsibilities on registered domestic partners by extending  
          most of the rights and responsibilities available to married  
          couples solely  under state law to registered domestic partners.  
           While the bill extends, most, but not all, of the rights and  
          duties available to married couples under state law to domestic  
          partners, it does not extend the many rights available to  
          married couples under federal law, the California Constitution,  
          or initiative statutes which are not and cannot be extended  
          under this bill.  As a result, while the bill results in more  
          equity with respect to how domestic partners are treated under  
          the law, it does not provide full equality between the two  
          groups. 

          Specifically, the bill provides that domestic partners, former  
          domestic partners, and surviving domestic partners shall have  
          the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject  
          to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law  
          as are granted to and imposed upon spouses, former spouses and  
          widows or widowers in a civil marriage.  The measure also  
          provides that domestic partnerships may be terminated by either  
          commencing dissolution proceedings in superior court or filing a  
          Notice of Termination of Domestic Partnership with the Secretary  
          of State, provided that specified conditions are met.

          Supporters argue that the measure provides more equity to  
          domestic partners and point out that registered domestic  
          partners are currently afforded approximately fifteen rights  
          under law, while married couples are provided hundreds of rights  
          and responsibilities.  They also state that the bill provides  








                                                                  AB 205
                                                                  Page  2

          crucial protections for children who deserve to have a fully  
          legalized relationship with both of their parents and deserve to  
          have parents who have a recognized legal relationship to each  
          other.  Opponents, on the other hand, argue that the bill  
          creates gay marriage and California voters decided against gay  
          and lesbian marriages when they approved Proposition 22.   
          Therefore, they argue, equalizing domestic partnerships violates  
          the will of the people.  They further point out that many rights  
          are already available to domestic partners through wills,  
          durable power of attorney forms and other private contractual  
          agreements, suggesting that these agreements are a suitable  
          substitute.

           SUMMARY  :  Seeks to extend most of the rights and  
          responsibilities available to married couples solely available  
          under state law to registered domestic partners.  Specifically,  
           this bill  :  

          1)Provides that registered domestic partners shall have the same  
            rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the  
            same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law as  
            are granted to and imposed upon spouses in a civil marriage.  
            (All further references to domestic partners refer to  
            registered domestic partners.)

          2)Provides that former domestic partners shall have the same  
            rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the  
            same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law as  
            are granted to and imposed upon former spouses in a civil  
            marriage.

          3)Provides that a surviving domestic partner, following the  
            death of the other partner, shall have the same rights,  
            protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same  
            responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law as are  
            granted to and imposed upon a widow or a widower of a civil  
            marriage.

          4)Provides that the rights and obligations of domestic partners  
            with respect to a child of either of them shall be the same as  
            those of married spouses and the rights and obligations of  
            former or surviving domestic partners with respect to a child  
            of either of them shall be the same as those of former or  
            surviving spouses in a civil marriage.









                                                                  AB 205
                                                                  Page  3

          5)Repeals existing law providing for termination of a domestic  
            partnership under specified circumstances and instead provides  
            that a domestic partnership may be terminated in one of two  
            ways: (1) Filing a Notice of Termination of Domestic  
            Partnership with the Secretary of State provided that certain  
            conditions are met (similar to those required in a summary  
            dissolution under Family Code section 2400), including, among  
            other things, that there are no children involved and the  
            domestic partnership is not more than five years in duration;  
            or (2) Commencing proceedings for dissolution, nullity, or  
            legal separation in superior court. 

          6)Requires the Secretary of State to notify currently registered  
            domestic partners of the bill's changes to law and makes  
            related and conforming changes to the definition of "domestic  
            partner" and the law relating to domestic partners. 

           EXISTING LAW  :  

          1)Sets forth procedures for the establishment, registration and  
            termination of a domestic partnership and provides that the  
            only persons who may register as domestic partners are  
            same-sex couples over the age of 18 or opposite sex couples  
            where one of the partners is over the age of 62.  (Family Code  
            section 297  et   seq.  )

          2)Provides specified rights to registered domestic partners as  
            described below.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :   The bill as currently in print is keyed fiscal.  


           COMMENTS  :  This bill seeks to extend most of the rights and  
          responsibilities available to married couples solely under state  
          law to domestic partners.  In support, the author states: 

               This bill seeks to extend to registered domestic partners  
               most, but not all, of the protections provided under  
               California law to different-sex couples who marry and the  
               corresponding obligations imposed upon them.  However,  
               even this step would not provide equal treatment to gay  
               and lesbian couples and their families.  The bill would  
               not, and cannot, extend any of the one thousand federal  
               rights.  It does not ensure recognition by other states  
               when a family travels.  It does not even extend all of  








                                                                  AB 205
                                                                 Page  4

               the protections offered to married couples under  
               California law, due to limits imposed in certain areas by  
               our constitution and laws passed by voter initiative. 

               This bill nonetheless would provide a critical, urgently  
               needed measure of equity to registered domestic partners.  
                These couples today enjoy less than twenty rights under  
               California law.  Yet they experience the same range of  
               life challenges as married couples do.  They pool their  
               financial resources to make ends meet.  They raise their  
               children.  They care for elderly relatives.  They cope  
               with illness, incapacity and, eventually, death.  Some of  
               them separate and disagree about their respective  
               obligations.  There is no good reason to deny these  
               couples the legal rights and duties that have been  
               designed to help families care for each other and cope  
               with crises.  

               Granting the substantial rights and proportional  
               responsibilities provided for by this bill will further  
               the State's interest in promoting stable and lasting  
               family relationships.  It will not, however, create  
               equality.  Far from it.  Until same-sex couples have  
               access to the full range of legal protections at both the  
               state and federal level, through the same institution  
               with all of the same ceremonies and respect as  
               different-sex couples, they will continue to experience  
               very substantial economic and practical hardships and  
               discrimination.  Though it will not create equality, this  
               bill nonetheless will improve the lives of many thousands  
               California families in tangible, important ways.  
           
          Purpose of the Bill.   This bill extends most of the rights and  
          responsibilities of marriage available under state law to  
          domestic partners.  The author indicates that the purpose of the  
          bill is to ensure that domestic partners have the opportunity to  
          obtain the rights, protections, benefits, responsibilities,  
          obligations, and duties of a number of laws, such as laws  
          relating to: 

                 Domestic relations, including, but not limited to,  
               rights and obligations of financial support during and  
               after the relationship, community property, and evidentiary  
               privileges;









                                                                  AB 205
                                                                  Page  5

                 Child custody, visitation, and duties of financial  
               support of children;

                 Title and other incidents of the acquisition, ownership,  
               or transfer of real or personal property during life or at  
               death, as well as laws relating to access to student family  
               housing, senior citizen housing, and rent control  
               protections;

                 Obligations to make disclosures regarding spousal  
               relationships and to take other steps to prevent conflicts  
               of interest and self-dealing;

                 Government benefits, including, but not limited to,  
               workers' compensation, public assistance, transfer of  
               licenses upon death, and the ability to apply for absentee  
               ballots and other documents for a spouse; 

                 Taxes, including, but not limited to, joint filing of  
               income tax returns, marital tax exemptions, estate tax  
               exemptions, and non-reassessment of real property upon a  
               spouse's death; 

                 Health insurance coverage for family members, family  
               care and medical leave, bereavement leave, coverage of  
               family members under medical, dental, life, and disability  
               insurance, and spousal pension rights and death benefits; 

                 Legal claims related to, or dependent upon, family  
               status, including, but not limited to, claims for loss of  
               consortium, and victim's compensation;

                 Anatomical gifts, consent to autopsy and disposition of  
               remains, and rights of burial in family cemeteries; and  

                 Laws prohibiting marital status discrimination.

           Bill Extends Many, But Not All, Rights and Responsibilities of  
          Marriage to Domestic Partners.   It is important to note that not  
          all of the rights and responsibilities available to and imposed  
          upon married couples will be extended to domestic partners under  
          this bill.  First, this bill deals only with the rights and  
          responsibilities available to married couples under state law,  
          not federal law.  Thus, none of the important legal rights  
          conferred under federal law to married couples - 1,049 federal  








                                                                  AB 205
                                                                  Page  6

          protections, benefits and responsibilities, according to the  
          U.S. General Accounting Office - would be extended to domestic  
          partners under this bill.  Examples of federal protections,  
          benefits and responsibilities extended to married couples, but  
          not to domestic partners, are contained in the chart below.  

          Second, this measure does not give to domestic partners the  
          assurance that their partnerships will be legally recognized in  
          other states, a significant benefit conferred on married couples  
          under the doctrine of lex celebrationis, explained below. 

          Third, this bill does not impact those rights and  
          responsibilities available to married couples under the  
          California Constitution, initiative statutes, or those statutes  
          that have been established in other ways that cannot be changed  
          by the Legislature with a bill passed by a simple majority vote.  
           For example, this bill will not extend Proposition 13's benefit  
          to spouses concerning property tax reassessment to domestic  
          partners.  So, upon the death of one partner, which results in a  
          transfer of the decedent's interest to the survivor,  
          reassessment would be triggered for domestic partners, but not  
          for spouses.  Other examples are included in the chart below. 

          The following is an overview of many of the rights and duties  
          extended to married couples that AB 205 does not affect, and  
          therefore will not be granted to domestic partners under this  
          bill, as well as those rights and duties granted to married  
          couples that will be extended to domestic partners under the  
          bill (please note that space constraints prevent an exhaustive  
          list):

           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |AB 205 Does Not Affect (therefore, these will not be        |
          |granted to domestic partners):                              |
          |------------------------------------------------------------|
          | Who may marry in California                               |
          | Which out-of-state marriages are recognized in California |
          |                                                            |
          |  Whether other states will recognize California domestic  |
          |  partnerships                                              |
          |------------------------------------------------------------|
          |  1,049 rights and duties provided under federal law such  |
          |  as Social Security; Medicare; federal housing and food    |
          |  stamp programs; federal taxes; Veterans' benefits;        |
          |  federal civilian and military benefits;  the federal      |








                                                                  AB 205
                                                                  Page  7

          |  Family and Medical Leave Act and other federal employment |
          |benefit laws.                                               |
           ------------------------------------------------------------ 


















































                                                                  AB 205
                                                                  Page  8


           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |AB 205 Does Not Affect (therefore, these will not be        |
          |granted to domestic partners):                              |
          |------------------------------------------------------------|
          |  The state constitutional guarantees for protection of    |
          |  separate property (see Cal. Const., Art. I,  21 and Cal. |
          |  Const., Appx. I, Art. XI,  14).                          |
          |------------------------------------------------------------|
          | Spousal exemptions from federal gift and estate tax or    |
          |  federal income, gift or estate taxes                      |
          | The exemption from property tax on the homes of survivors |
          |  of veterans who died on active duty (see Cal. Const.,     |
          |  Art. XIII,  4)                                           |
          |  The partial exemption from property tax provided         |
          |  survivors of certain veterans (see Cal. Const., Art.      |
          |XIII,  3(p))                                               |
          |                                                            |
           ------------------------------------------------------------ 

           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |AB 205 Extends These Rights/Duties to Domestic Partners:    |
          |------------------------------------------------------------|
          |                                                            |
          | Joint ownership of property acquired during the           |
          |  partnership, with rights of survivorship                  |
          | Equal management and control of property acquired during  |
          |  the partnership                                           |
          |  Joint obligation for debts incurred during the           |
          |  partnership and attachment of jointly owned property by   |
          |  creditors                                                 |
          |------------------------------------------------------------|
          |                                                            |
          | Presumption of parenthood regarding child born during the |
          |  partnership or through alternate insemination             |
          | Judicial determination of custody and support of children |
          |  born during the partnership                               |
          |  Ability to authorize medical treatment of partner's      |
          |  children                                                  |
          |------------------------------------------------------------|
          |                                                            |
          | Right to control disposition of remains, authorize        |
          |  autopsy, make anatomical gifts, and authorize exhumation  |
          | Identification of partner on death certificate            |
          | Protection of survivor's interest in joint property       |








                                                                  AB 205
                                                                  Page  9

          |  following partner's death                                 |
          |  Ability to avoid probate of jointly owned property       |
          |------------------------------------------------------------|
          |                                                            |
          | Ability to file joint state income tax returns and to     |
          |  obtain tax treatment that takes partnership into account  |
          |  Exemption from transfer tax on deed or other writings    |
          |  transferring, dividing or allocating joint property among |
          |  partners pursuant to termination of partnership           |
          |------------------------------------------------------------|
          |                                                            |
          | Evidentiary privilege regarding confidential              |
          |  communications among partners                             |
          |  Privilege not to be forced to testify against            |
          |partner                                                     |
          |                                                            |
           ------------------------------------------------------------ 

           California's Domestic Partnership Law: Specific Rights Granted.    
          In 1999, California enacted AB 26 (Migden), Ch. 588, Stats. of  
          1999, California's first domestic partnership statute.  This  
          statute, which forms the backbone of California's domestic  
          partnership law, was substantially broadened when AB 25  
          (Migden), Ch. 893, Stats. of 2001, was enacted.  Under the  
          scheme created by AB 26, domestic partners were granted limited  
          rights in the areas of hospital visitation and health benefits  
          if one of the partners is a state employee.  

          Then, in 2001, AB 25 conferred over a dozen new legal rights,  
          privileges and standing on all domestic partners, including,  
          among other things, the right to recover damages for negligent  
          infliction of emotional distress; the right to assert a cause of  
          action for wrongful death; the right of a domestic partner to  
          adopt a child of his or her partner as a stepparent; the right  
          to make health care decisions for an incapacitated partner; and  
          the right to be appointed as administrator of a decedent's  
          estate, in the same manner and priority as a spouse.  Last year,  
          California also enacted AB 2216 (Keeley), Ch. 447, Stats. of  
          2002, which established intestate succession rights of domestic  
          partners by expanding the legal rights of a domestic partner to  
          include the right to inherit property if one partner dies  
          without a will.

           Use of Private Contractual Agreements to Provide Rights to  
          Domestic Partners.   Opponents of this measure note that many  








                                                                  AB 205
                                                                  Page  10

          rights are already available to domestic partners through wills,  
          durable power of attorney forms and other private contractual  
          agreements.  These private agreements may be used, they point  
          out, by same-sex couples to govern the rights and obligations of  
          their relationships.  Using property agreements and private  
          contracts does not, however, provide a same-sex couple with  
          unlimited rights.  Such agreements are limited in effect.  For  
          example, private contracts have no legal effect on benefits  
          granted by the state such as tax benefits and other obligations  
          including, parentage, custody and visitation arrangements, and  
          child support obligations.

          Additionally, whether or not the law would intervene to protect  
          unmarried partners who enter into private contractual agreements  
          to govern the rights and obligations of their relationships is  
          dependent on whether an enforceable written or oral contract is  
          found to exist.  In  Marvin v. Marvin  (1976) 18 Cal.3d 660, the  
          court held that agreements between non-marital partners would  
          fail only to the extent that they rest on an explicit  
          consideration of meretricious sexual services.  In  Whorton v.  
          Dillingham  (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 44, the court upheld a contract  
          between an unmarried couple relating to earnings and property  
          rights, noting that even if sexual services are part of the  
          relationship, the portion of the contract supported by  
          independent consideration will be enforced.  In  Jones v. Daly   
          (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 500, however, the court found that the  
          performance of meretricious sexual services was an inseparable  
          part of the consideration for the agreement, leaving the court  
          no choice but to find the agreement unenforceable.  As a result,  
          it appears that contracting is not an adequate substitute for  
          extending the rights and responsibilities of marriage available  
          under state law to domestic partners.

           Congressional Action: The Defense of Marriage Act.   In 1996,  
          Congress enacted H.R. 3396, the "Defense of Marriage Act  
          (DOMA)," which allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex  
          marriages should they ever become legal in another state.   
          Specifically, DOMA states that "no State, territory, or  
          possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be  
          required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial  
          proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe  
          respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that  
          is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State,  
                                                     territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising  
          from such relationship."  (Defense of Marriage Act, Pub. L. No.  








                                                                  AB 205
                                                                  Page  11

          104-199, 110 Stat. 2419 (1996) (codified as amended at 1 U.S.C.  
           7, 28 U.S.C.  1738C)).  DOMA goes on to define "marriage,"  
          for purposes of Federal law, as a legal union between one man  
          and one woman as husband and wife. With respect to Federal law  
          and programs, this definition of marriage is controlling. 

           Proposition 22: California's Defense of Marriage Act.   In 2000,  
          California joined a number of other states in enacting a  
          "mini-DOMA" when voters passed Proposition 22, the California  
          Defense of Marriage Act.  Proposition 22 added Section 308.5 to  
          the Family Code, to read: "Only marriage between a man and a  
          woman is valid or recognized in California."  Proposition 22 did  
          nothing to change who may marry in California; existing law  
          already provided that applicants seeking a marriage license must  
          be a man and a woman.  Instead, it restricted the kind of  
          marriage that may be recognized in California to a marriage  
          between a man and a woman.  In fact, ballot arguments in favor  
          of Proposition 22 evidenced an intent to prevent recognition of  
          out-of-state same-sex marriages in California. 

          Under the general rule for determining the validity of a  
          marriage, known as lex celebrationis, a marriage is valid if it  
          is valid according to the law of the place where it was  
          celebrated. California law specifically provides "[a] marriage  
          contracted outside this state that would be valid by the laws of  
          the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted is valid  
          in this state." (Family Code section 308.)  Proposition 22  
          altered this policy with respect to marriages of same-sex  
          couples.  Passage of the initiative means that if a same-sex  
          couple, legally married in another state, moves to California,  
          their valid marriage will not be recognized in California.

           Proposition 22 and Extending Most of the Rights and  
          Responsibilities of Marriage Available Under State Law to  
          Domestic Partners.   Opponents of the measure argue that the  
          passage of Proposition 22 precludes California from extending  
          the rights and responsibilities of marriage available under  
          state law to domestic partners.  The Committee on Moral Concerns  
          argues that "California voters decided against gay and lesbian  
          marriages ? [and therefore] equalizing domestic partnerships  
          violates the will of the people."  On this same point, the  
          Campaign for California Families states that the "people of  
          California have spoken loud and clear that they want marriage  
          protected.  In March 2000, more than 61 percent of the voters  
          voted to protect marriage rights for only a man and a woman."








                                                                 AB 205
                                                                  Page  12


          The California Constitution limits the amendment of initiative  
          statutes by requiring voter approval for any amendments to or  
          repeal of an initiative statute unless the text of the  
          initiative provides otherwise.  In this case, amendment or  
          repeal of Proposition 22 requires voter approval.  Whether or  
          not the bill amends Proposition 22 and therefore requires voter  
          approval under the Constitution turns on whether the bill "adds  
          to or takes away from" Proposition 22.  (See Franchise Tax Bd.  
          v. Cory (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 772.)  
           
          On this point, the author states, "AB 205 does not pertain to or  
          affect marriage in any way, or affect which parties may marry  
          under California law, or what marriages will be treated as valid  
          in California.  ? Even with the passage of AB 205, domestic  
          partnership will remain quite distinct from marriage in a number  
          of ways: It will continue to be entered into and, for many  
          people, exited in a different way than marriage; It may not be  
          recognized outside of California; The federal government will  
          not recognize domestic partners for the 1,049 federal rights and  
          benefits associated with marriage, such as social security,  
          Medicaid, and federal taxes; [and] it will not grant same-sex  
          couples the full social and symbolic equality of marriage."   
          Further, the proponents also add: 

               The California Constitution bars the Legislature from  
               amending or repealing any initiative law passed by the  
               voters.  A proposed law will violate that provision only  
               if it will add or take away provisions put in place by  
               the initiative, or will alter the scope or effect of the  
               initiative.  AB 205 runs no risk of offending this  
               constitutional command because Proposition 22 solely  
               concerns marriage, and no section of this bill would  
               repeal, amend, thwart or change in any way the laws  
               governing marriage and married couples.  The bill does  
               use existing marriage law as the model for the new legal  
               rights and responsibilities to be imposed by separate  
               statutes upon registered domestic partners.  The legal  
               effect of the bill would, however, be separate and  
               independent from the marriage laws.  It would apply to a  
               different group of people, who would interact with  
               different governmental agencies using different  
               procedures in order to bring themselves within the  
               requirements of the domestic partnership law.









                                                                  AB 205
                                                                  Page  13

           Other States' Actions.   In Vermont, the State Legislature  
          enacted legislation allowing same-sex couples to enter into  
          civil unions that carry many of the benefits and  
          responsibilities of traditional marriages.  The Legislature  
          acted in response to the State Supreme Court's ruling in  Baker  
          v. State  (1999) 170 Vt. 194 holding that the state has an  
          obligation under the Vermont Constitution to extend to same-sex  
          couples the common benefit, protection and security that Vermont  
          marriage law provide opposite-sex couples. 

          According to the author's office, other states are considering  
          related measures including Colorado (House Bill 1141 provides  
          guidelines for eligible same-sex couples to receive the same  
          benefits and protections as heterosexual married couples under  
          Colorado laws) and Connecticut (House Bill 6389 extends the  
          rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples and  
          H.B. 6388 establishes a category of civil unions similar to  
          Vermont's landmark law).  The author's office also indicates  
          that Hawaii, Massachusetts and Rhode Island have introduced  
          civil union bills as well.

           ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT  :  The sponsor of the measure, the  
          California Alliance for Pride and Equality, states that the bill  
          "will grant domestic partners important responsibilities that  
          will help them care for each other and their families, including  
          community property, financial support obligations, assumption of  
          parenting responsibilities, and mutual responsibility for debts.  
            The bill will provide crucial protections for children who  
          deserve to have a fully legalized relationship with both of  
          their parents, and deserve to have parents who have a recognized  
          legal relationship to each other."  

           ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION  :  The Committee on Moral Concerns  
          opposes AB 205, stating that the bill will "expand domestic  
          partnership laws to be equal with marriage, thus creating gay  
          marriages. ? Contrary to the bill's language, California has a  
          legitimate interest in not legalizing gay marriages or expanding  
          domestic partner laws.  In all of human history, every major  
          society and major religion has considered homosexuality and  
          rejected it as unnatural, immoral, and dangerous.  Today's  
          science has proved that the wisdom of the ages is correct."

          The Campaign for California Families also opposes this measure,  
          writing that the bill will "essentially create homosexual  
          'marriage' in California by awarding virtually all the rights of  








                                                                  AB 205
                                                                  Page  14

          marriage to 'domestic partners,' which are overwhelmingly  
          homosexual couples. ? This bill is homosexual 'marriage' and no  
          one should think otherwise."
           
          REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION  :   

           Support 
           
          California Alliance for Pride and Equality (sponsor)
          AIDS Legal Referral Panel
          AIDS Project Los Angeles
          Alianza Network Services (Tustin)
          American Civil Liberties Union
          American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees
          Anti-Defamation League 
          Attorney General Bill Lockyer
          California Commission on the Status of Women
          California National Organization for Women
          California Nurses Association
          California School Employees Association
          California State Employees Association
          California STD Controllers Association
          Central American Resource Center
          City and County of San Francisco
          Claremont United Church of Christ, Congregational
          Coalition LA
          Congregational Church of Belmont
          Congregation Kol Ami (West Hollywood)
          Consumer Attorneys of California
          Dominican Sisters of San Rafael
          Equal Rights Advocates
          Family Builders by Adoption
          First Congregational Church, UCC (Pasadena)
          First Congregational Church of Long Beach
          First Congregational United Church of Christ (San Bernardino)
          First Presbyterian Church (Baldwin Park)
          First Presbyterian Church (Palo Alto)
          Gay & Lesbian Community Services Center of Orange County
          Gray Panthers
          Holy Redeemer Lutheran Church (San Jose)
          Human Rights Campaign
          Human Rights/Fair Housing Commission (Sacramento)
          Le Mesa Community Church (Santa Barbara)
          Irvine United Congregational Church
          Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc.








                                                                  AB 205
                                                                  Page  15

          Legal Aid Society - Employment Law Center
          Legal Services for Children, Inc.
          Little Brown Church of Sunol
          Metropolitan Community Church Los Angeles
          Metropolitan Community Church in the Valley (North Hollywood)
          Metropolitan Community Church of the Coachella Valley
          Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF)
          Mira Vista United Church of Christ (El Cerrito)
          National Association of Social Workers
          National Conference for Community and Justice (Santa Barbara)
          National Conference for Lesbian Rights
          National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
          National Latina/o Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender  
          Organization
          National Organization for Women (San Fernando Valley - Northeast  
          LA Chapter)
          Niles Congregational Church
          Northminster Presbyterian Church of El Cerrito
          Older Women's League of California
          Pacific Pride Foundation
          Pioneer Congregational Church (Sacramento)
          PFLAG-San Francisco
          San Diego Democratic Club
          Santa Barbara County Democratic Central Committee
          St. Paul Lutheran Church (Oakland)
          Secretary of State Kevin Shelley
          Stonewall Democratic Club of Greater Sacramento
          Stonewall Democratic Club of West Hollywood
          The Lambda Letters Project
          The Center of San Diego County
          Transgender Law Center
          Trinity Lutheran Church (Alameda)
          University Lutheran Chapel (Berkeley)
          West Hollywood Presbyterian Church
          Wesley United Methodist Church (Fresno)
          900 Individuals

           Opposition 
           
          Brotherhood of St. Andrew
          Campaign for California Families 
          Capitol Resource Institute
          CleansingStream Ministries
          Committee on Moral Concerns
          Concerned Women for America








                                                                  AB 205
                                                                  Page  16

          First Baptist Church of West Sacramento
          Ironwood Christian Academy
          Montebello Church of the Nazarene
          Open Doors Ministries International, Inc.
          Rancho Christian Center
          Traditional Values Coalition
          Numerous Individuals
           
          Analysis Prepared by  :    Saskia Kim / JUD. / (916) 319-2334