BILL ANALYSIS
AB 54
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 2, 1997
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Martha Escutia, Chair
AB 54 (Murray) - As Amended: March 31, 1997
SUBJECT : DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP.
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD THE STATE ADOPT A STATUTORY SCHEME FOR THE
REGISTRATION OF DOMESTIC PARTNERS?
SUMMARY : This bill would authorize state recognition of domestic
partners. Among other things, it requires that domestic partners
share a common residence, agree to be jointly responsible for each
other's basic living expenses, be at least 18 years of age, and
file a Declaration of Domestic Partnership (DDP) with the
Secretary of State. It also requires health facilities to allow a
patient's domestic partners and relatives of a domestic partner.
Specifically, this bill :
1) Defines domestic partners and provides that a domestic
partnership shall be established when all of the following occur:
a) Both persons have a common residence.
b) Both persons agree to be jointly responsible for each
other's basic living expenses during the domestic
partnership.
c) Neither person is married or a member of another domestic
partnership.
d) The two persons are not related by blood in a way that
would prevent them from being married to each other in this
state.
e) Both persons are at least 18 years of age.
f) Both persons file a Declaration of Domestic Partnership
(DDP) with the Secretary of State.
2) Provides for the registration of domestic partners with the
Secretary of State by: a) requiring the Secretary of State to
provide forms for establishing and terminating domestic
partnerships; and b) allowing the Secretary of State to
establish, regulate and charge fees for the actual costs of
processing the above forms.
3) Prohibits a person from filing a new DDP until at least six
months after the date that a Notice of Termination of Domestic
Partnership (NTDP) has been filed with the Secretary of State
(unless the previous domestic partnership ended as the result
of the death of one of the partners).
4) Requires health facilities to allow a patient's domestic
AB 54
Page 2
partners, the children of the patient's domestic partner, and
the domestic partner of a patient's parent or child to visit
with the patient.
5) Adds references to domestic partners to the numerous references
to a spouse, other relatives or the spouses of other relatives
throughout the
Probate Code provisions regarding conservatorship and statutory
wills (e.g., Probate Code sections providing who shall receive
notice of proceedings; who may qualify as, or nominate, a
conservator; whose living expenses may be paid from the estate of
a conservatee; and who may be named as a beneficiary in a
statutory will).
EXISTING LAW :
1) Does not provide for state recognition of unmarried
individuals.
2) Provides a statutory scheme within the Probate Code for the
appointment, description of rights and responsibilities, and
termination of appointment of conservators and guardians.
3) Provides for a statutory will with appropriate forms.
4) Does not require health facilities to allow non-family members
to visit with a patient.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : This bill essentially mirrors legislation introduced by
Assemblyman Katz and vetoed by the Governor in 1994 (AB 2810) and
reintroduced by Assemblyman Katz and held in this Committee in
1995 (AB 627) to provide for the statutory recognition of domestic
partners in California.
According to the 1990 U.S. Census report, there were a total of
10,399,700 households in California. Of these, 495,223
(approximately 5%) consist of unmarried couples. Of the
households consisting of unmarried couples: a) 93% are
opposite-sex couples; and b) 7% are same-sex couples.
There are approximately 35,000 senior citizen couples in
California, which constitutes approximately 7% of the total number
of unmarried partners.
According to the author, the growing numbers of non-traditional
families make the recognition of domestic partnerships
increasingly imperative. The author states:
"While there is much talk today about the need for strong
families and family values, most of this talk fails to
recognize that there are currently hundreds of thousands of
families in California that do not consist of a married couple.
We simply cannot afford to ignore these families."
AB 54
Page 3
The California Medical Association (CMA) supports those provisions
of the bill that establish rights for non-marital partners in the
conservatorship process and permit hospital visitation. CMA
states that:
"Recognizing the changing nature of interpersonal
relationships, many hospitals have already changed their
visitation policies and no longer restrict visitors to
'immediate family only.' It is the position of CMA that all
health care facilities should remove such restrictions. There
is no acceptable justification that exists for refusing a sick
or dying individual the emotional comfort of visits from a
non-spousal partner or companion."
The California State Employees' Association (CSEA) states that a
growing number of state employees, and Californians as a whole,
are living in family
relationships that do not mirror the traditional ideal. Many
households are headed by single women; others include emotional
and financial partnerships between two people who have not
married, whether of the same or opposite sex. CSEA states that
this bill simply would recognize that the family unit exists in
more than one form.
California National Organization for Women (NOW) believes this
bill will ensure that cohabitating couples are treated like
families. NOW states that this bill provides for the protection
of committed, loving families.
LIFE, California's Lesbian/Gay and AIDS Lobby states that under
current law gay and lesbian couples may not enter into civil
marriage contracts. Yet, many lesbian and gay couples need to
enter into a state recognized civil contract to properly care for
each other and their children. This bill would provide these
unmarried couples with the option of registering as domestic
partners, affording each: hospital visitation rights and
conservatorship rights.
They have found that the impact of not having a state sanctioned
relationship can be devastating. If a partner is hospitalized,
the other partner does not have hospital visitations rights or the
right to make decisions regarding care. Under current law the
partner, regardless of the length of the relationship or
commitment, has the legal standing of a roommate. With regard to
conservatorship, one's family has the jurisdiction to obtain legal
custody of a person before the long-term partner. In the climate
of homophobia that many gay and lesbian couples must live in, the
threat of separation becomes real when long-term disease or mental
incapacity becomes an issue. Recognized domestic partner policy
is crucial for committed couples who have no other options.
Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California (PPAC) strongly
supports this bill. They believe this legislation would encourage
the supportive public climate necessary to ensure social,
economic, and political rights for all individuals.
AB 54
Page 4
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) believes that this bill
will "begin the process of ending marital status discrimination in
current state law." The ACLU concludes that this legislation will
recognize the "reality of the family relationships of many of our
state's residents and ending the disadvantageous treatment now
afforded these non-married couples."
The California Nurses Association (CNA) also supports this bill,
stating that many persons reside with and have a deep, caring
relationship with another person who for whatever reason is not
their spouse or family member.
The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) believes that
"the least California can do for all people is legally empower
them to rely on one another in health care emergencies and other
critical situations."
The Traditional Values Coalition (Coalition) opposes this bill
because the Coalition believes it lays the foundation for the
overturning of the marriage codes in all 50 states which they say
is a stated objective of the Gay and Lesbian Task Force. The
Coalition claims that there are economic considerations, once you
offer domestic partners legal status, and many businesses will be
hurt. In opposing domestic partnerships, the Coalition argues
that "there is more likely to be greater understanding of the need
for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a
woman." They also state that "there is no expectation or intent
that these relationships be
monogamous such as is expected of spouses."
The Committee on Moral Concerns (CMC) opposes this bill because it
believes the recognition of domestic partnerships devalues family
commitment and lends an air of legitimacy to the "most dangerous
lifestyle in America." CMC asserts there are three categories of
people who will use the provisions of this bill and makes the
following claims:
a) The most numerous group who will register under this bill,
would likely be homosexual and lesbian couples. As it relates
to them, they argue there is no primary caretaker/primary
breadwinner relationship as with married couples. Each already
is free and able to get his or her own job, write a will and
live with whom he or she pleases. For this group, they claim,
there is no need for this bill.
b) The second group of individuals who CMC states will register as
domestic partners are heterosexual couples. However, they
argue, if these traditional couples are unwilling to commit to
each other in a real marriage, the taxpayer supported state
government should not commit to their relationship either.
c) The last group whom CMC predicts will register are roommates.
CMC states that it would be a violation of the constitutional
right to privacy to attempt to determine the intimacy level of
roommates to see if they fall into one of the first two
categories. Therefore, they will be covered by various
AB 54
Page 5
domestic partner job benefits that will follow if this bill
becomes law.
The Secretary of State opposes this bill because he argues it is
inappropriate for his state agency to develop and operate a filing
program for domestic partnership registration. He also argues
that the bill does not provide adequate funds to offset
substantial costs he says his office will incur to develop
regulations and distribute and process domestic partnership forms.
Issues :
1) Should the filing of domestic partnerships be made at the local
rather than state level?
In opposing this bill, the Secretary of State urges the bill be
amended to require that domestic partnerships be filed at the
local level rather than at the Secretary of State's Office. He
states his office is not familiar with the filing and recording of
these types of "vital statistics," whereas localities have
traditionally recorded and maintained these records. He also
notes that currently the cities of North Hollywood, Sacramento,
and San Francisco provide for filing of domestic partnerships with
their city or county record units. In addition, he suggests that
requiring domestic partners to register with the state rather than
localities would be more burdensome for them than the procedure
provided married couples, "who can walk into a local governmental
facility to obtain a marriage license."
2) Should the proposed statutory registration scheme pre-empt
local ordinances?
As noted above, several local governments already provide for the
filing of domestic partnerships. In prior versions of this
legislation, a provision had been added stating the state
registration scheme shall, from some date forward, pre-empt all
local ordinances covering domestic partners except those
that offer rights in addition to those provided under the state
scheme.
The author's office has indicated a willingness to adopt an
amendment in committee clarifying that the state registration
process shall pre-empt all local domestic partner ordinances
except those that offer rights in addition to those provided under
the state scheme.
Prior Related Legislation : AB 167 of 1991 (Burton): Would have
removed the requirement that individuals who wish to marry be of
opposite sexes. Held in the Assembly Judiciary Committee.
AB 2810 of 1994 (Katz): Original version of this legislation.
Vetoed by the Governor, who wrote in his veto message that "the
changes sought can all be made without creating in law a
substitute for marriage."
AB 627 of 1995 (Katz): Reintroduction of original legislation.
AB 54
Page 6
Held in this Committee.
AB 1982 of 1995 (Knight): Would have prohibited California from
recognizing same gender marriages from other states. Dropped by
the author in the Senate.
SB 1159 (Hayden) and AB 1209 (Knox) of 1995: Would have allowed
CalPERS to recognize domestic partners for health benefits. Died
in PERS Committee.
SB 2075 of 1996 (Haynes): Similar to AB 1982 of 1995. Died on the
Senate Floor.
AB 3332 of 1996 (Kuehl): Would have provided domestic partner
benefits for school employees under CalPERS and STRS. Died in
PERS Committee.
Current Related Legislation : AB 427 (Knox): Same as AB 1209 of
1995.
AB 800 (Margett): Prohibits California from recognizing same
gender marriages from other states should they become legal.
AB 1059 (Migden): Requires health insurers to offer domestic
partnership benefits under their plans.
SB 841 (Hayden): Prohibits the state from contracting with any
contractor that does not provide domestic partner benefits that
are of equal value to those benefits provided to spouses.
SB 911 (Knight): Identical to AB 800.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support Opposition
American Assoc. of Retired PersonsCommittee on Moral Concerns
Older Women's League of CA Bill Jones, Secretary of State
American Civil Liberties Union Grace Lutheran Church & School
CA Medical Assoc. God's Family Church
National Assoc. of Social WorkersTraditional Values Coalition
CA's Lesbian/Gay & AIDS Lobby Fellowship of Fundamental
Baptists
& Institute of Northern CA
CA School Employees Assoc. Hamilton Square Baptist Church
Faculty Assoc. of CA Community Lucerne Christian Conference
Center
Colleges, Inc. Iglesia Biblica Fundamental
American Jewish Congress
CA Nurses Assoc.
CA Arts Advocates
Friends Committee on Legislation
of CA
United Transportation Union
Unity Pride Coalition of
Ventura County
AB 54
Page 7
CA State Employees Assoc.
Congress of CA Seniors
La Mesa-Foothills Democratic Club
Area Agency on Aging
Santa Barbara Stonewall
Democratic Club
County of Orange - Human
Relations Commission
Southern CA Physicians for
Human Rights
Southern CA Psychiatric Society Committee
on Gay, Lesbian, and Bi Issues
CA Commission on Aging
Triple-A Council of California (TACC)
Planned Parenthood of California
Analysis prepared by : Drew Liebert / ajud / (916) 445-4560