BILL ANALYSIS
AB 205
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 205 (Goldberg)
As Amended June 3, 2003
Majority vote
JUDICIARY 9-4 APPROPRIATIONS 17-7
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Corbett, Dutra, Hancock, |Ayes:|Steinberg,, Berg, Kehoe, |
| |Laird, Longville, | |Corbett, |
| |Montanez, Nunez, Vargas, | |Diaz, Firebaugh, |
| |Lieber | |Goldberg, Leno, |
| | | |Nation, Chan, Nunez, |
| | | |Pavley, |
| | | |Ridley-Thomas, Simitian, |
| | | |Wiggins, Yee, Laird |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Harman, Bates, Pacheco, |Nays:|Bates, Daucher, Haynes, |
| |Spitzer | |Maldonado, |
| | | |Pacheco, Runner, |
| | | |Samuelian |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Seeks to extend most of the rights and
responsibilities available to spouses 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. (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.
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
AB 205
Page 2
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law as are
granted to and imposed upon a widow or a widower.
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 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.
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: a) 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, b) Commencing proceedings for dissolution, nullity, or
legal separation in superior court.
6)Requires the Secretary of State (SOS) 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.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
analysis, General Fund revenue loss of up to several million
dollars annually from the joint filing of tax returns by
domestic partners. The SOS estimates one-time costs of
about $50,000 to revise forms, prepare and mail the required
notifications, and modify software.
COMMENTS : This bill seeks to extend most of the rights and
responsibilities available to spouses solely under state law to
domestic partners. In support, the author states the bill:
?[provides] 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,
AB 205
Page 3
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.
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, including, among others, laws
relating to: 1) domestic relations, including, but not limited
to, rights and obligations of financial support during and after
the relationship, community property, child custody, visitation,
and duties of financial support of children; 2) title and other
incidents of the acquisition, ownership, or transfer of real or
personal property during life or at death; 3) government
benefits, including, but not limited to, workers' compensation,
public assistance, and the ability to apply for absentee ballots
and other documents for a spouse; 4) taxes, including, but not
limited to, joint filing of income tax returns, marital tax
exemptions, estate tax exemptions; and, 5) 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.
It is important to note that not all of the rights and
responsibilities available to and imposed upon spouses will be
extended to domestic partners under this bill. First, this bill
deals only with the rights and responsibilities available to
spouses under state law, not federal law. Thus, none of the
AB 205
Page 4
important legal rights conferred under federal law to spouses -
1,049 federal protections, benefits and responsibilities such as
Social Security and Medicare, according to the U.S. General
Accounting Office - would be extended to domestic partners under
this bill. 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
spouses.
Third, this bill does not impact those rights and
responsibilities available to spouses 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.
Opponents of this measure argue that many rights are already
available to domestic partners through wills, durable power of
attorney forms and other private contractual agreements which
can be used by same-sex couples to govern the rights and
obligations of their relationships. Such agreements, however,
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 such private agreements is
dependent on whether an enforceable written or oral contract is
found to exist. 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.
In 2000, California voters approved 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,
AB 205
Page 5
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. 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.
Opponents of the bill argue that the passage of Proposition 22
precludes California from extending the rights and
responsibilities of marriage available under state law to
domestic partners. 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."
Analysis Prepared by : Saskia Kim / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
FN: 0001745