BILL ANALYSIS SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE Martha M. Escutia, Chair 2003-2004 Regular Session AB 205 A Assembly Member Goldberg B As Amended June 3, 2003 Hearing Date: July 1, 2003 2 Family and Government Code; and 0 Revenue and Taxation Codes 5 GMO:rm SUBJECT Domestic Partnerships: Rights and Responsibilities DESCRIPTION This bill would: recast the amendments made to the Domestic Partnership Act by various bills enacted over the last four years, that granted to registered domestic partners specified, but limited, rights and benefits; and extend to registered domestic partners substantially all rights, benefits, and obligations of married persons under state law, with the exception of rights, benefits, and obligations accorded only to married persons by federal law, the California Constitution, or initiative statutes. BACKGROUND AB 26 (Migden), Chapter 588, Statutes of 1999, enacted the Domestic Partnership Act, established the statewide domestic partnership registry, provided registered domestic partners hospital visitation rights, and granted health benefits to domestic partners of state employees. In the following year, SB 2011 (Escutia, Chapter 1004, Statutes of 2000) qualified registered domestic partners for housing in specially designed accessible housing for senior citizens. Two years later, AB 25 (Migden, Chapter 893, Statutes of 2001) granted 12 new rights and benefits to registered domestic partners, including the right to sue for wrongful death, to use employee sick leave to care for an ill (more) AB 205 (Goldberg) Page 2 partner or partner's child, to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapacitated partner, to receive unemployment benefits if forced to relocate because of a partner's job, and to adopt a partner's child as a stepparent. SB 1049 (Speier, Chapter 146, Statutes of 2001) permitted San Mateo County to offer death benefits to surviving domestic partners of county employees. In 2002, the following bills were enacted: AB 2216 (Keeley, Chapter 447), granting a domestic partner inheritance rights if his or her partner dies without a will; AB 2777 (Nation, Chapter 373) added Los Angeles, Santa Barbara and Marin Counties to those permitted to offer death benefits to surviving domestic partners of county employees; SB 1575 (Sher, Chapter 412) added domestic partners to those exempted from the prohibition on receiving from a will or trust that one helped to draft; and SB 1661 (Kuehl) granted six weeks of paid family leave to employees to care for a sick spouse or domestic partner. AB 1338 (Koretz, 2001) would have established civil unions for domestic partners in California, but the bill was held in the Assembly Judiciary Committee. This bill continues the march towards parity in rights and benefits between registered domestic partners, as currently defined, and married couples, under state law. CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW Existing law establishes rules relating to valid marriages, and specifies the rights and obligations of married persons. Existing law , Proposition 22, established by initiative that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Existing law 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.] The law allows domestic partnerships only to same-sex couples over the age of 18, or to opposite-sex couples where at least one of the domestic partners is over the age of 62 and is eligible for AB 205 (Goldberg) Page 3 old-age social security benefits, 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. A domestic partnership, once registered, may be terminated by either party by sending a notice to the other party, and filing a Notice of Termination of Domestic Partnership to the Secretary of State. A domestic partnership also is terminated if one partner dies or marries. Existing law grants domestic partners specified rights, similar to those granted married persons. This bill would expand the rights of and impose responsibilities on registered domestic partners, similar to the rights and responsibilities conferred on married couples by state law. (See Comment 2a for details on additional rights.) This bill would require that domestic partners submit to the jurisdiction of the superior courts as a condition of registration as domestic partners, and give them access to the courts to resolve issues such as child custody, support, and visitation, termination of the domestic partnership and division of partnership property and other related issues similar to those that arise in dissolution or nullity of marriage or in legal separation. This bill would make the filing of an intentionally and materially false Declaration of Domestic Partnership with the Secretary of State a misdemeanor. The bill would make these changes effective on January 1, 2005, require the Secretary of State on three separate occasions to inform domestic partners of these changes, and require the Department of General Services to notify all state agencies to review and change their public-use forms to reflect appropriate references to domestic partners or partnerships wherever references to married persons or marriages are made. COMMENT 1. Need for the bill AB 205 (Goldberg) Page 4 According to the official Census, there were 5,877,084 married couples in California in 2000, and over 811,000 households composed of two or more unmarried adults. Of the latter, almost 100,000 are households headed by same-sex partners. Since the enactment of the Domestic Partnership Act (Act) in 1999, there have been 20,319 domestic partnerships registered, of which 797 have been terminated. [Data from the Secretary of State, current to 6/13/03.] Supporters of AB 26 in 1999 argued that the concept of domestic partnerships had been well established in many California cities since 1984, and that passage of the Domestic Partnership Act solidified what was already strong public support for the recognition of domestic partnerships as legitimate, socially responsible relationships. Fifteen other states now confer limited rights or benefits to domestic partners, and, most notably, Vermont recognizes domestic partnerships as "civil unions." Seven states are considering legislation to allow same-sex marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships similar to California's. The author's office provided anecdotal information that highlight the problems encountered by domestic partners today, despite the some 15 rights and responsibilities that have been granted to them by legislation enacted in the last four years (see Background). One anecdote involved a person who was denied the right to make funeral arrangements for her partner who died in an accident, despite 11 years of partnership, and their daughter, born during the partnership to the partner who died, taken by the deceased partner's family for two months until a court resolved the issue of custody. Another involved the domestic partner of a victim of the 9/11 terrorist attack, who encountered problems making a claim against the victims' compensation fund. Yet another involved one partner left with twin children conceived by artificial insemination and born during the domestic partnership, unsupported by the other partner who left the partnership with her own child and who makes a comfortable living. The case of Sharon Smith, the surviving partner of Diane Whipple who was killed in the notorious dog-mauling case in San Francisco, was brought AB 205 (Goldberg) Page 5 to this Legislature's attention when she was ruled ineligible to bring a wrongful death suit against those responsible for her partner's death. In these anecdotes, the problems all revolve around the same issues that could arise if the partnerships were marriages instead of domestic partnerships. Thus, the author argues that AB 205 is needed: Same sex couples and senior couples in California who are registered domestic partners are currently granted approximately fifteen separate rights and responsibilities. There remain hundreds of provisions of state law that grant certain privileges or responsibilities to married couples, and treat unmarried couples, even those registered as domestic partners, as legal strangers. There is simply no good reason to deny those additional rights and duties to registered, committed domestic partners and their children. Granting these rights and responsibilities will further the state's interest in promoting stable and lasting family relationships, and will protect family members from the economic and social consequences of abandonment, separation, the death of loved ones, and other life crises. It will also protect couples, the children they are raising, third parties, and the state from numerous harms and costs. 2. New rights and responsibilities This bill would provide that, effective January 1, 2005: registered domestic partners (here used interchangeably with domestic partners) shall have the same rights, protections and benefits, as well as the same obligations, responsibilities, and duties of married persons (spouses) under state law; former domestic partners would have the same rights and obligations that former spouses now have; and surviving domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections and benefits as are granted to a AB 205 (Goldberg) Page 6 surviving spouse of a decedent. a. Rights and responsibilities found in statutory, case, common, regulatory law as well as in government policy with respect to married persons This bill would grant to domestic partners the same rights, protections and benefits as well as duties, obligations or responsibilities provided spouses under statutory, case, or regulatory law, court rules, or as provided by governmental policy or other sources of law, including those rights and obligations with respect to a child of either of the partners, former partners, or surviving partner. Some of these rights and obligations, as applied to domestic partners, would be: the right to financial support during and after the relationship has terminated; joint ownership of property (similar to community property), and equitable division of the partnership's property upon termination of the partnership by dissolution or legal separation; custody, support and visitation of children of either or both partners born before or after the registration of the partnership or adopted after the registration of the partnership; the right to make anatomical gifts, consent to autopsy and make funeral arrangements for a deceased partner, and for a deceased partner to be buried in family cemeteries; the right to benefits, such as family care and medical leave, medical, dental, life and disability insurance, pension and death benefits for surviving partners of firefighters and police officers; the mutual responsibility for debts to third parties incurred during the partnership; protection from discrimination in housing and employment, and entitlements to benefits accorded spouses of employees or applicants; the right to exercise the "marital communication" privilege, provided by the Evidence Code; the right to receive government-provided or AB 205 (Goldberg) Page 7 government-regulated benefits, such as workers' compensation, public assistance, transfer of licenses upon death of a domestic partner; the ability to apply for an absentee ballot for a partner; the ability to make legal claims that are dependent on family status, such as claims against victims' compensation funds; the fiduciary nature of the partner's duties towards each other; and other rights and responsibilities derived from case law, government regulation or policy. b. Rights and responsibilities conferred only by federal law not applicable to domestic partners This bill contains declaratory language recognizing that the state has no control over federal laws or rights, benefits, or responsibilities conferred by those laws on spouses. However, the bill also states that to the extent that California has adopted, refers to, or relied upon federal law in conferring any right or responsibility on spouses, registered domestic partners would be treated under state law as if the federal law recognized domestic partners. Thus, if federal law abolished inheritance taxes with respect only to spouses, and the state law is based upon the federal law, the state law would apply both to spouses and to registered domestic partners under this bill. Any inheritance tax assessable against a registered domestic partner would be limited to that which would be imposed by federal law on inheritance from an unrelated adult. c. Right to access the courts for dissolution, legal separation, or nullity Under this bill, the application for registration as a domestic partnership would include the partners' consent to the jurisdiction of the superior court for the purpose of a proceeding to obtain a judgment of dissolution or nullity of the domestic partnership or for legal separation of the partners. AB 205 (Goldberg) Page 8 This is a major step towards recognizing the legal relationship formed between domestic partners, and the complications that arise from the termination of long-term domestic partnerships. Also, taking unresolved issues to court under the current rules governing legal separations and dissolutions or nullity of marriage would be a more organized approach to dealing with these complications, especially where children and property are involved. Under this bill, the partners' consent to the jurisdiction of the court would be effective regardless of whether one or both of the partners had left the state or had maintained domicile in the state. Supporters argue that this provision, which is different from the state's requirement that a married petitioner be a resident of the state for six months and the county for three months, is necessary, so that registered domestic partners who had moved to a state that did not permit dissolutions of domestic partnerships could return to the California courts to dissolve their partnerships. Suggested technical amendment: In order to ensure that the courts may also be accessed for proceedings other than for a judgment of dissolution, nullity or legal separation (as in actions to set aside a termination resulting from the filing of a Notice of Termination, etc.), proposed Section 298(c) should be amended as follows: On page 7, line 10, after "partnership" insert: or for any other proceeding related to the partner's rights and obligations d. Right to custody and visitation of children One of the major issues family courts have had to deal with in recent years is the right to custody and visitation of a domestic partner who is not the biological parent of the partners' child, when the partnership terminates. The family courts of the state have been building a body of law dealing with the same problems that traditional families have had with child custody, but applied to parents of the same sex. AB 205 (Goldberg) Page 9 In Curiale v. Reagan (1990) 222 C.A.3d 1597, the court denied visitation rights to plaintiff who provided support for three years for her lesbian partner and their child, conceived by artificial insemination from an anonymous donor. In that case, the court found that jurisdiction to adjudicate custody depends on some proceeding properly before the court in which custody is at issue, such as dissolution, guardianship, or dependency. "The legislature has not conferred upon one in plaintiff's position, a nonparent in a same sex bilateral relationship, any right of custody or visitation upon the termination of the relationship." ( Id., at 1600.) In another case, Nancy S. v. Michele G. (1991) 228 C.A.3d 831, a partner who was listed as the "father" on the birth certificates of her two children shared with plaintiff was allowed visitation only with plaintiff's consent because, as plaintiff successfully argued under the Uniform Parentage Act, she (plaintiff) was the sole parent of the two children and thus entitled to custody and that her consent was necessary for any visitation by defendant. The court in that case found that defendant was neither a parent under the Uniform Parentage Act nor a de facto parent to the children, nor could plaintiff claim visitation rights under the doctrine of in loco parentis . This bill intends to ensure that the courts are accessible to domestic partners, by placing them on par with married persons (spouses) in child custody, visitation and support matters, even though one of the partners is not the biological or adoptive parent of the child. However, the specific authorizing provision, proposed Family Code Section 298(c), only requires the parties to consent to jurisdiction of the superior courts for the purpose of obtaining a judgment of dissolution or nullity of the domestic partnership or for legal separation of the partners. While this may take care of the courts' problem as in Curiale, the consent may not be sufficient if the partner who is the biological parent of the child resists a petition for visitation or for joint custody and raises the provisions of the AB 205 (Goldberg) Page 10 Uniform Parentage Act that gives the biological or adoptive parent the right to sole custody of a child, as in Nancy S. In order to avoid this potential problem, the bill could be amended to expressly give the courts authority to treat a domestic partner as a biological or adoptive (if the partner had not adopted the child) parent of a child so that the Uniform Parentage Act may be applied fairly to a domestic partner who is not the biological parent of a child. However, application of Section 4 of the bill (proposed Section 297.5) to current Family Code Section 7613(a), which makes husband and wife legal parents of a child conceived by artificial insemination of the wife by a man not her husband without the need for the husband to adopt the child, would probably suffice in the absence of express language in AB 205. [ Johnson v. Calvert (1993) 5 Cal. 4th 84 (holding that spouses who use a surrogate to have a child are both legal parents of the child); In re Marriage of Buzzanca (1998) 61 Cal. App. 4th 1410 (holding that spouses who use a surrogate to have a child are both legal parents even if neither spouse has a biological relationship to the child).] Even if the domestic partner who is not the biological or adoptive parent of the child is so treated, the court still will apply the best interest of the child standard when making custody and visitation determinations. e. Right to community property upon termination of domestic partnership This bill would repeal the current provision dealing with joint property of the domestic partnership and instead confer the same rights and obligations on domestic partners, former domestic partners, and surviving domestic partners, that current law confers on married couples. The current provision requires the partners' property to be apportioned according to any agreement the partners may have had prior to acquisition of the property. This bill would do away with the need to enter into such agreements, and treat AB 205 (Goldberg) Page 11 such property as property of married couples would be treated. 3. Terminating a domestic partnership would be similar to terminating a marriage This bill would provide an expedited or simplified procedure for terminating a registered domestic partnership (similar to a summary dissolution procedure) as well as the normal procedure that requires a petition in superior court (similar to a petition for dissolution, nullity or legal separation). a. Termination by sending notice to the Secretary of State Under existing law, a registered domestic partnership is terminated by the death of one partner, by a written notice sent by one partner to the other that he or she is terminating the partnership, by the marriage of one partner, or by the partners no longer having a common residence. The law requires at least one partner to file with the Secretary of State a Notice of Termination of Domestic Partnership, and the partner who provided a copy of the Declaration of Domestic Partnership to a third party for the purpose of qualifying for a benefit to provide a copy of the Notice of Termination to that third party within 60 days. This bill would repeal this law, and instead create two procedures for terminating a domestic partnership. The first procedure is akin to a summary dissolution proceeding, which allows married couples who have marriages of short duration, have no children, have little or no assets and little or no debts, and have no real property interests to simply file a joint petition for dissolution of their marriage, for which the court enters a judgment six months later, unless either party revokes the petition. AB 205 adopts this summary dissolution proceeding, including that the parties waive their rights to any AB 205 (Goldberg) Page 12 support from the other and that the legal effect of this truncated procedure is the same as a judgment of dissolution of a domestic partnership, except that the process would substitute for the Notice of Termination that is filed with the Secretary of State. Thus, registered domestic partners who meet the same requirements as married couples that qualify for the filing of a summary dissolution may terminate their partnership simply by filing the Notice of Termination with the Secretary of State, avoiding the need to access the courts. Suggested technical amendments: For clarity and brevity, the following technical amendments are suggested: On page 8, strike out line 19 and in line 20 strike out "pursuant to" and insert:described in On page 8, strike out line 28 and in line 29 strike out "pursuant to" and insert:described in On page 8, line 38, strike out "spousal" and before the period insert: by the other domestic partner b. Termination by judgment of dissolution, nullity or legal separation This bill would also permit a domestic partner to terminate a registered domestic partnership by filing a petition for dissolution or nullity of the partnership, or a petition for legal separation of the domestic partners. The language of the bill would give registered domestic partners the same rights and responsibilities as married couples in this process, except that the residency requirement (six months in state, three months in county of residence) would not apply. All procedures applicable to the dissolution, nullity, or legal separation of married persons would otherwise be applicable to domestic partners, including rights of appeal and entry of judgment nunc pro tunc. c. Action to set aside the termination of domestic partnership AB 205 (Goldberg) Page 13 As in the case with summary dissolutions, this bill would permit a domestic partner to institute an action to set aside the termination of the domestic partnership via the filing of a Notice of Termination, on the grounds of fraud, duress, mistake or any other ground recognized in law or equity. The court may then set aside the termination resulting from the filing of the Notice with the Secretary of State. Suggested technical amendments: This provision of the bill [proposed Section 299(b)] is tied to the Notice of Termination of the domestic partnership and not to the judgment of dissolution or nullity or legal separation obtained through a regular petition in superior court. The following amendments are suggested to clean up the language of this provision. On page 9, lines 18 and 19, strike out "this section" and insert: subdivision (b) On page 9, line 20, after "action" insert:in superior court On page 9, line 22, strike out "shall" and insert:may 4. Legal unions from other jurisdictions to be recognized as domestic partnerships and treated as California registered domestic partners AB 205 would recognize legal unions of the same sex that was validly formed in another jurisdiction as substantially equivalent to registered domestic partnerships in the state, whether or not the legal union is called a domestic partnership, and thus accord those legal unions the same status, rights, and obligations. 5. Legislative Counsel states AB 205 would not amend Prop. 22 In an opinion dated March 24, 2003, the Legislative Counsel states that the enactment of AB 205 would not AB 205 (Goldberg) Page 14 constitute an amendment of Proposition 22, the California Defense of Marriage Act, which enacted Section 308.5 of the Family Code. Section 308.5 states that "[o]nly marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California" and that therefore, AB 205, if enacted, would not require the approval of the voters. The opinion concludes that "nothing in the language of the initiative statute [Family Code Section 308.5], nor in the ballot arguments in support of the initiative, indicates any intent or requirement that the Legislature be limited in its authority to enact new laws regarding the rights and obligations of domestic partners? Therefore, following the enactment of AB 205, the definition of marriage under California law would be unchanged. Same-sex partners in California would not be allowed to marry but would only be authorized, as they are today, to enter into a domestic partnership. The procedures and criteria for creating and terminating the two relationships would continue to be different? [AB 205] would merely prescribe the rights and obligations that would inure to parties to a domestic partnership. At the same time, the rights and obligations of parties to a marriage would be unchanged." 6. Application to tax return filing As to the filing of a state tax return, this bill would permit registered domestic partners to file either a joint return or file separately by applying the same standards applicable to married couples under federal income tax law. The staff is informed that the Franchise Tax Board is already in the process of adopting rules relating to this provision. This bill will be heard next in the Senate Committee on Revenue and Taxation. 7. Notices to be sent by Secretary of State; government forms to be conformed The bill would require the Secretary of State to send several notices out to registered domestic partners and to provide a notice attached to an application regarding the changes to the domestic partnership law that will AB 205 (Goldberg) Page 15 take effect January 1, 2005. The notice would let registered domestic partners know that unless they terminate their domestic partnership according to the law existing prior to that date, they will be subject to the new provisions governing registered domestic partnerships, and may not terminate their relationship without seeking a court ordered dissolution. In addition, this bill would require the Director of the State Department of General Services to provide notices to all state agencies and management personnel that when government forms are revised, appropriate references to domestic partners and domestic partnerships are to be included. 8. Opponents' concerns Opposition to the bill comes mainly from groups that believe AB 205 is "an attempt to circumvent the will of the majority? of Californians with their overwhelming passage by 62% of Proposition 22." [Letter from Traditional Values Coalition, dated June 26, 2003.] The California Federation of Republican Women, while recognizing that "AB 205 is not a 'marriage' bill," acknowledges that AB 205 "sidesteps California Family Code Section 308.5." Others add that the financial cost of this bill is significant. "However, in these difficult fiscal times we must point out that the bill will not save the state money, as it claims. Public and private costs will increase as domestic partners gain government and private job benefits, add divorce proceedings to court costs, seek tax benefits, and incur more health care needs." [Committee on Moral Concerns letter, dated February 13, 2003." Lastly, the California Catholic Conference, opposes this bill, while pointing out that they had not opposed the earlier bills that recognized domestic partnerships because they were "based on compassion for certain needs of individuals in long term relationships." The group states that "AB 205 moves beyond those needs to appropriate a battery of rights for which there can be no AB 205 (Goldberg) Page 16 justification other than to include same-sex unions in the social and contractual arrangements reserved for marriage. In effect, this subtly changes the definition of marriage? the people of California recently defended our current definition of marriage as a long-honored and time-tested tradition. Conversely, to promote same-sex civil unions by granting them the same exalted status that civil marriages enjoy will test the limits of social cohesion in an already fractured and highly complex society.?[AB 205] would open the door to unnecessary and ill-advised changes in public policy." 9. Supporter's views This bill is supported by a long list of organizations, local governments, public officials, and individuals. A sampling of their statements follow. "By strengthening the legal ties that bind domestic partners, AB 205 will ultimately reinforce the bond of loyalty and responsibility that comes with lifelong companionship. Granting these rights will further the state's interest in promoting stable and lasting family relationships." [Letter from Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante, dated May 23, 2003.] "The state has a significant interest in supporting strong families that are able to support themselves, care for children, access timely medical care, and buy homes. Enabling individuals to responsibly support and protect their families requires that these individuals be given the same legal rights, obligations and protections as families led by married couples." [Letter from the Aids Project Los Angeles, dated February 27, 2003.] "AB 205 sets forth clear rights and privileges that will allow individuals who are in committed relationships to take appropriate responsibility and protect their economic rights. This measure provides the opportunity and avoids the financial and emotional disruptions that occur when legal rights are not clearly provided." [Letter from California School Employees Association, dated June 23, 2003.] "We appreciate that the Domestic Partner Rights and AB 205 (Goldberg) Page 17 Responsibilities Act of 2003 is a major step forward for California, providing legal protection of families. The rights, benefits, and obligations that will be extended to domestic partners and their children under AB 205 are vital to those living without such guarantees." [Letter from the First Presbyterian Church of Baldwin Park, dated February 25, 2003.] Support: Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante; Secretary of State Kevin Shelley; Office of the Attorney General; AIDS Legal Referral Panel; AIDS Project Los Angeles; Alianza Network Services; American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU); American Association of University Women-California; American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), AFL-CIO; Anti-Defamation League; Asian Law Caucus; Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom (BALIF); Being Alive Los Angeles, Inc.; Billy DeFrank LGBT Community Center; California Commission on the Status of Women; California Conference of Local AIDS Directors (CCLAD); California Faculty Association (CFA); California Independent Public Employees Legislative Council; California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO; California National Organization for Women; California Nurses Association; California School Employees Association; California State Employees Association; California State Teachers' Retirement System; California STD Controllers Association; California Teachers Association; CAlifornia Women's Agenda (CAWA); Central American Resource Center; Chinese for Affirmative Action (CAA); City and County of San Francisco; City of West Hollywood; Claremont United Church of Christ, Congregational; Coalition California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc.; Coalition LA; Congregational Church of Belmont; Congregation Kol Ami (West Hollywood); Congregation Sha'ar Zahav (San Francisco); Consumer Attorneys of California; Eleanor Roosevelt Democratic Club; Elections Committee of the County of Orange (ECCO); Equal Rights Advocates (ERA); Family Builders by Adoption; First Congregational Church, UCC (Pasadena); First Presbyterian Church (Baldwin Park); First Presbyterian Church (Palo AB 205 (Goldberg) Page 18 Alto); Gay & Lesbian Community Services Center of Orange County; Gray Panthers; Holy Redeemer Lutheran Church (San Jose); Human Rights Campaign; Human Rights Watch; Human Rights/Fair Housing Commission of the City and County of Sacramento; Irvine United Congregational Church; Japanese American Citizens League (JACL); Le Mesa Community Church (Santa Barbara); Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc.; Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area; Legal Aid Society Employment Law Center; Legal Services for Children, Inc.; Little Brown Church of Sunol; Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center; Love Sees No Borders (Sunnyvale); Mayor of the City of Los Angeles; Metropolitan Community Church Los Angeles; Metropolitan Community Church in the Valley (North Hollywood); Metropolitan Community Church of the Coachella Valley; Metropolitan Community Church of San Francisco; Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund; Mira Vista United Church of Christ (El Cerrito); National Association of Social Workers (NASW-CA); National Central for Lesbian Rights (NCLR); National Conference for Community and Justice (NCCJ); 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 (Fremont); Northminster Presbyterian Church of El Cerrito; Older Women's League of California; Our Family Coalition; Out & Equal Workplace Advocates; Pacific Pride Foundation; Parkside Community Church (Sacramento); People For the American Way; Pioneer Congregational Church (Sacramento); PFLAG-San Francisco; PFLAG-San Jose/Peninsula Chapter; PFLAG-Ventura County; Redwoods Presbyterian Church (Larkspur); San Diego Democratic Club; Santa Barbara County Democratic Central Committee; Southern California HIV Advocacy Coalition; Southern California Nevada Conference United Church of Christ; St. Paul Lutheran Church (Oakland); Stonewall Democratic Club of Greater Sacramento; Stonewall Democratic Club of West Hollywood; Tenderloin Housing Clinic; The Center of San Diego County; The Lambda Letters Project; The Sexual Orientation Bias Committee of the Los Angeles AB 205 (Goldberg) Page 19 County Bar Association; Transgender Law Center; University Lutheran Chapel (Berkeley); Wesley United Methodist Church (Fresno); West Hollywood Democratic Club; West Hollywood Presbyterian Church; Zuna Institute; 916 individuals Opposition: California Catholic Conference; Campaign for California Families; Committee on Moral Concerns; Eagle Forum of California HISTORY Source: The Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Legislative Caucus and Equality California Related Pending Legislation: AB 17 (Kehoe) would prohibit the state from contracting with a vendor or contractor that does not provide the same benefits to domestic partners of employees that they provide to spouses of employees. This bill is also scheduled to be heard in this Committee today. AB 1082 (Laird) would expand the coverage of health benefits provided by a local contracting agency to those domestic partnerships that existed prior to January 1, 2000, if the local agency had adopted a local definition of domestic partnership prior to passage of the Domestic Partnership Act. This bill will be heard in this Committee on July 8, 2003. Prior Legislation: See Background Prior Vote: Asm. Jud. (Ayes 9, Noes 4); Asm. Appr. (Ayes 17, Noes 7); Asm. Flr. (Ayes 41, Noes 32) AB 205 (Goldberg) Page 20 **************