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
**************