BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                             


 ------------------------------------------------------------ 
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                    SB 75|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                         |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                         |
|(916) 445-6614         Fax: (916) |                         |
|327-4478                          |                         |
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 
  
                              
                    UNFINISHED BUSINESS
                              

Bill No:  SB 75
Author:   Murray (D), et al
Amended:  8/30/99
Vote:     21

  
  SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE  :  6-3, 4/20/99
AYES:  Burton, Escutia, O'Connell, Peace, Sher, Schiff
NOES:  Haynes, Morrow, Wright

  SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE  :  Senate Rule 28.8

  SENATE FLOOR  :  23-14, 5/25/99
AYES:  Alarcon, Alpert, Bowen, Burton, Chesbro, Dunn,  
  Escutia, Figueroa, Hayden, Hughes, Johnston, Karnette,  
  Murray, O'Connell, Ortiz, Peace, Perata, Polanco, Schiff,  
  Sher, Solis, Speier, Vasconcellos
NOES:  Brulte, Johannessen, Johnson, Kelley, Knight,  
  Leslie, Lewis, McPherson, Monteith, Morrow, Mountjoy,  
  Poochigian, Rainey, Wright
NOT VOTING: Baca, Costa, Haynes

  ASSEMBLY FLOOR  : 41-38, 9/2/99 - See last page for vote
 

  SUBJECT  :    Domestic partnerships

  SOURCE  :     Author

 
  DIGEST  :   This bill enacts the Domestic Partnership Act of  
1999 (the Act).  It defines who "domestic partners" are,  
provides for the registration and termination of domestic  
partnerships, and specifies some rights that would be  
                                                 CONTINUED





                                                       SB 75
                                                       Page  
2

accorded to domestic partners, such as patient visitation  
in a health facility and participation in conservatorship  
proceedings as the domestic partner of the conservatee. 

The bill preempts any local ordinance or law authorizing  
the creation of a domestic partnership, as specified, on or  
after July 1, 2000, except that ordinances or laws which  
add to the rights of domestic partners established under  
this bill would be retained.

The bill establishes that any domestic partnership entered  
into outside of this state, which would be valid by the  
laws of the jurisdiction under which the domestic  
partnership was created, shall be valid in this state.

Lastly, the bill would make changes to the current  
Statutory Will form to provide for the selection of  
domestic partners as beneficiaries of the Will.

  Assembly Amendments  (1) make clarifying changes, and (2)  
added co-authors.

  ANALYSIS  :   Existing law provides for the creation of valid  
marriages, specifies the rights and obligations of spouses  
during marriage, and provides the procedure for the  
termination of marriage and the division of marital  
property and obligations after death or marriage.

This bill would define the term "domestic partners" and  
require that a domestic partnership meet all of the  
following:

1.Both persons have a common residence.

2.Both persons agree to be jointly responsible for each  
  other's basic living expenses during the partnership.

3.Neither person is married or a member of another domestic  
  partnership.

4.The two adults are not related to each other such that  
  they could not be married to each other under existing  
  law.








                                                      SB 75
                                                       Page  
3

5.Both persons are at least 18 years of age. 

6.Both file a Declaration of Partnership with the Secretary  
  of State, as provided.

7.Both persons are capable of consenting to the domestic  
  partnership.

8.Neither person has previously filed a Declaration of  
  Partnership with the Secretary of State pursuant to this  
  division that has not been terminated under Section 299  
  or the Family Code.
  
  This bill would require the Secretary of State to provide  
forms for the registration and termination of domestic  
partnerships, to distribute such forms in each county, and  
to establish and charge fees for the actual costs of  
processing these forms.  Termination of a partnership would  
occur under one of the following scenarios: 

1.One partner serves on the other a written notice by  
  certified mail that he or she is terminating the  
  partnership;

2.One of the domestic partner dies;

3.One of the domestic partners marries;

4.The domestic partners no longer have a common residence.

A Notice of Termination of Domestic Partnership would be  
filed with the Secretary of State by certified mail, the  
date on which the notice of termination is received by the  
Secretary of State shall be deemed with actual termination  
date of the domestic partnership, unless the termination is  
caused by the death or the marriage of the domestic  
partner, in which case, the actual termination date would  
be the date indicated on the termination form, and all  
third parties to whom a copy of the Declaration of  
Partnership had been given would have to be notified.   
Failure to provide third party notices would not delay or  
prevent the termination of the domestic partnership.
  
  The bill would expressly provide that registration of the  







                                                       SB 75
                                                       Page  
4

domestic partnership would not establish any rights except  
those specifically provided in the bill, and that upon  
termination of the partnership the partners shall incur  
none of the obligations to each other that the bill would  
establish.
  
  The filing of a Declaration of Domestic Partnership shall  
not change the character of property, real or personal, or  
interest in real or personal property owned by either  
domestic partner or both of them prior to the date of  
filing of the declaration.

The bill further specifies that the formation of a domestic  
partnership does not:

1.Create any interest in the other's real or personal  
  property.

2.Allow acquiring any interest in the other's property  
  unless expressly provided in the title of ownership.
  
  The bill provides that any interest of property acquired by  
the partners where title or possession is shared shall be  
held in proportion of interest assigned to each partner at  
the time of acquisition of the property/

The formation of a domestic partnership would not effect  
the individual tax liability of each partner, as specified.
  
  The bill would recognize domestic partnerships validly  
entered into and recognized in other jurisdictions and  
would preempt all local ordinances and laws creating  
domestic partnerships within the state on or after July 1,  
2000, permitting the retention or adoption only of those  
policies, ordinances, or laws that provide rights to  
domestic partners in addition to those provided by this  
bill.

The bill would require health facilities to allow domestic  
partners, their children, and the domestic partner of a  
patient's parent to visit a patient in the facility, except  
where no visitors are allowed or other specified  
conditions.








                                                       SB 75
                                                       Page  
5

The bill would make changes in the Probate Code to accord  
domestic partners the right to be notified of  
conservatorship proceedings, to give domestic partners  
preference in the court's selection of a conservator, and  
generally to participate in all actions concerning a  
conservatee who is a domestic partner.

This bill would define "domestic partners" as "two adults  
who have chosen to share one another's lives in an intimate  
and committed relationship of mutual caring."

"Basic living expenses" would be defined as the costs of  
food, shelter, utilities, and all other costs directly  
related to the maintenance of the common household of the  
common residence of the domestic partners.  It also means  
"any other cost" such as medical care, if some or all of  
the cost is paid as a benefit because a person is another  
person's domestic partner.

The Secretary of State would have the primary  
responsibility of preparing and distributing forms to be  
used for registering domestic partnerships, primarily the  
Declaration of Domestic Partnership and the Notice of  
Termination of Partnership. 

A Declaration of Domestic Partnership must be filed by each  
person who wants to be a domestic partner.  The declaration  
must contain specified information, be notarized and signed  
by both partners.

The formation of a domestic partnership shall not, in and  
of itself, create any interest in or rights to, any  
property, real or personal, owned by one partner in the  
other partner, including, but not limited to, any rights  
similar to community property rights or "palimony" rights  
under common law.

The Secretary of State would be required to establish fees  
for the processing of the forms for the registration and  
termination of domestic partnerships and register each  
Declaration of Domestic Partnership on a registry and  
return a copy of same to the domestic partner.

This bill is double-jointed with AB 239 (Kaloogian),  







                                                       SB 75
                                                       Page  
6

dealing with trusts.

  Similar Legislation  :

AB 26 (Migden) is an almost identical bill, except AB 26  
goes further than SB 75 in the following respects:

1.AB 26 would require a statement of veracity to accompany  
  the Declaration of Domestic Partnership to be registered  
  with the Secretary of State, a violation of which would  
  be a misdemeanor.

2.AB 26 would require a group health care service plan and  
  a policy of disability insurance that provides hospital,  
  medical, or surgical benefits to offer coverage to  
  employers and guaranteed associations for a domestic  
  partner of an employee, subscriber, or insured.

3.  AB 26 is currently on Assembly Third Reading file.

AB 2810 (Katz) passed the Senate Floor 21-17, 8/23/94 and  
was vetoed by the Governor.  AB 627 (Katz) - 1995 session,  
failed in Assembly Judiciary Committee.  AB 54 (Murray) -  
1997 session, died on the Assembly Floor.

  Background  :

This bill is a resurrection of AB 54 (Murray) of the 1997  
session, which died on the Assembly Floor.  Similar bills  
were introduced in 1994 [AB 2810 (Katz), vetoed] and in  
1995 [AB 627 (Katz), failed in the Assembly Judiciary  
Committee].  All bills would have recognized domestic  
partnerships in California.

According to the 1990 census, there are approximately  
500,000 unmarried couples in California, 93 percent of  
which are heterosexual couples and 7 percent are same-sex  
couples.  Of the 500,000 unmarried couples, 35,000 are  
senior citizen couples who are not married because of  
social security or other pension restrictions. 

Already there are hundreds of cities and municipalities,  
colleges and universities, private employers, labor unions,  
and even the U.S. House of Representatives that recognize  







                                                       SB 75
                                                       Page  
7

and/or provide benefits to domestic partners. 

In California, among the local governments with domestic  
partnership policies are the Cities of Alameda, Berkeley,  
Laguna Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, Petaluma, Sacramento,  
San Diego, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, West Hollywood, City  
and County of San Francisco, Counties of Los Angeles,  
Marin, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, and the Santa Cruz Metro  
Transit System.  Ten university systems, including the  
University of California, the University of Southern  
California, Golden Gate University, and the California  
Institute of Technology, Pasadena have similar policies.  

In the California private sector, 129 for-profit,  
not-for-profit and union organizations have chosen to  
provide benefits to domestic partners, including such  
organizations as Levi Strauss & Co., Novell, Kaiser  
Permanente Foundation Health Plan, Inc., International  
Brotherhood of Teamsters #70, Southern California Gas Co.,  
Ticketmaster Group, Inc., Dow Chemical, Mattel, Eastman  
Kodak, IBM, Northwest Airlines, Pacific Stock Exchange,  
Patagonia, Inc., Paramount Pictures, Seagate Technology,  
Inc., Silicon Graphics, AFSCME #57 and #827, Consumers  
Union, Bank of America, Apple Computer, Viacom, CBS, ABC,  
PBS, FOX, Disney Corporation, and Warner Brothers.

  FISCAL EFFECT  :    Appropriation:  No   Fiscal Com.:  Yes    
Local:  Yes


  SUPPORT  :   (Unable to reverify at time of writing)

American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) --  
California; 
California Professional Firefighters
Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San  
Francisco; California Alliance for Pride and Equality  
(CAPE)
United Transportation Union, AFL-CIO
California Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO
East Bay Municipal Utility District
California School Employees Association (CSEA)
Gay and Lesbian Center of Los Angeles
Southern California Women for Understanding







                                                       SB 75
                                                       Page  
8

AIDS Healthcare Foundation
California Nurses Association
Asian Pacific Gays and Friends (West Hollywood)
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
California Child, Youth and Family Coalition (CCYFC)
Older Women's League of California (OWL)
Congress of California Seniors
National Organization for Women (NOW)

  OPPOSITION  :    (Unable to reverify at time of writing)

Secretary of State Bill Jones
Committee on Moral Concerns
Institute for Creation Research
Capital Research Institute
New Life Christian School
Lila McCarty
Marilyn Gaines
Committee on Moral Concerns
Institute for Creation Research
Burton Wesenberg
Capital Research Institute, Roy and Sherry Schippman

  ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT  :   The author states that SB 75 is  
"designed to aid, strengthen, protect, and promote  
committed family relationships." 

The statistics stated in the background section were  
provided by the author.  According to those numbers,  
hundreds of thousands of Californians cohabit without the  
benefit of marriage, yet their relationships could be as  
stable as the married couples around them.  Especially to  
senior citizens, cohabitation with a trusted friend, male  
or female, could give them companionship, security and  
independence they so need at this time of their lives. Yet,  
many would not, or could not, marry due to restrictions on  
social security or other pension benefits that would affect  
their incomes.

Although some accommodations are already available under  
existing law for "friends" to be regarded as "relatives,"  
recognizing the status of domestic partners as being more  
than mere "friends" would give heterosexual and same-sex  
partners some basic rights in those areas where having  







                                                       SB 75
                                                       Page  
9

someone trustworthy and who has made a commitment to care  
for a partner could make a difference - in areas of health  
care and conservatorships.  SB 75 would do precisely that.

To encapsulate the contents of support letters, however,  
the following are some excerpts:

"CCFYC members believe in the dignity of all family forms  
and therefore support the recognition of domestic  
partnerships.  This legislation recognizes the importance  
of state-sanctioned bonds between two people who have  
chosen to make a life together.  Children and youth being  
raised in domestic partnerships are entitled to the same  
community support accorded other families."  --   California  
Child, Youth and Family Coalition  

"Individuals have often been prohibited from visiting a  
hospitalized person with whom they have established a  
domestic partnership because they are not considered  
"family."  Non-relative partners have no legal standing in  
conservatorship proceedings.  SB 75 secures such visitation  
and conservatorship rights."  --  California Federation of  
Teachers  

"There are too many reasons to mention why two people find  
it necessary to live together without marrying.  When one  
does not provide for recognition of this arrangement, one  
runs the risk of imposing great hardships and  
discrimination on the domestic partners?.Older men and  
women often live without marriage for economic reasons.  It  
seems unreasonable to expect people on limited income to  
live on less income because they decide to marry.  Then  
there are the older friends who have lost a spouse --  
either men or women -- who find for reasons of  
companionship as well as economy that living together is  
best for them?" --  Older Women's League of California

  "People in nontraditional relationships should not be  
denied the very simple and basic rights which are afforded  
others.  If these are close and stable relationships which  
people entered into knowingly, then domestic partners  
should not be punished.   These include seniors who may  
not, for a variety of reasons, be able to be married in a  
traditional way.  We see this bill as a way to treat  







                                                       SB 75
                                                       Page  
10

domestic partners in a reasonable and fair way." --  
  Congress of California Seniors

  "This bill will give families the right to care for each  
other in times of crisis and need by allowing partners to  
visit each other in the hospital, make decisions for each  
other when one is incapacitated?.Nurses routinely witness  
the pain that domestic partners suffer when they are denied  
access to their loved one in the hospital.  It is confusing  
and disorienting to all parties involved, including the  
nurse assigned to care for the patient.  Because there are  
no clear guidelines, nurses are often caught in the middle  
of disagreements regarding families and partners' rights.   
This bill will promote responsibility and mutual support  
between two committed adults and will clarify some of the  
ambiguities surrounding responsible parties." --  California  
Nurses Association
  
"I was fortunate enough to rent a room in a house from a  
gay couple for four years.  They built a home of laughter  
and love that was far more positive than the home I grew up  
in.  From watching them negotiate differences, seeing their  
commitment grow and deepen, I learned how to make  
commitments myself, and how to keep them?. It baffles me  
that my marriage of seven months should somehow be "worth"  
more than their eleven years together.  My husband and I  
have not?undergone these tests?My friends' relationship  
should be worth more than ours, not less. They deserve to  
be married, but SB 75 will do." --   Kaitlin Duck Sherwood,  
Palo Alto  

  ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION  :   Opponents of this bill state  
that the bill is unnecessary, as the proposed domestic  
partners can now do what this bill would allow them to do.   
They further state that the historical family arrangement  
works best for society, and that domestic partnership  
recognition would devalue true family commitments.

"Our society now suffers from high rates of divorce,  
spousal and child abandonment, child neglect, and  
illegitimacy.  We cannot afford to further devalue the  
family with a new easy-in, easy-out semi-marriage.  This  
bill will hurt children." --   Committee on Moral Concerns,  
Sacramento







                                                      SB 75
                                                       Page  
11


  "?.The ramifications of such a misguided attempt to  
legislate morality would be far-reaching and its results  
would be devastating? This not only puts undue burden on  
our business, but also violates our First Amendment Right  
to be separate from government interference?" --  Institute  
for Creation Research, El Cajon

  "?. strongly opposes SB 75 which will undermine the  
institution of marriage and family.  By and large,  
"domestic partners" are overwhelmingly same-sex couples.   
By equating homosexual partner, or any unmarried partner,  
with the time-honored status of married spouse, the  
institution of marriage will be weakened and  
undermined?..SB 75 is unnecessary, and will only serve to  
undermine the uniqueness of marriage between a man and a  
woman?" --  Capitol Resource Institute, Sacramento
  
  ASSEMBLY FLOOR  : 
AYES: Alquist, Aroner, Bock, Calderon, Cardenas, Cedillo,  
  Corbett, Davis, Ducheny, Dutra, Firebaugh, Floyd,  
  Gallegos, Hertzberg, Honda, Jackson, Keeley, Knox, Kuehl,  
  Lempert, Longville, Lowenthal, Mazzoni, Migden, Nakano,  
  Papan, Romero, Scott, Shelley, Steinberg, Strom-Martin,  
  Thomson, Torlakson, Vincent, Washington, Wayne, Wesson,  
  Wiggins, Wildman, Wright, Villaraigosa
NOES: Aanestad, Ackerman, Ashburn, Baldwin, Bates, Battin,  
  Baugh, Brewer, Briggs, Campbell, Cardoza, Correa, Cox,  
  Cunneen, Dickerson, Florez, Frusetta, Granlund, Havice,  
  House, Leach, Leonard, Machado, Maddox, Maldonado,  
  Margett, McClintock, Olberg, Oller, Robert Pacheco, Rod  
  Pacheco, Pescetti, Reyes, Runner, Soto, Strickland,  
  Thompson, Zettel
NOT VOTING: Kaloogian


RJG:jk  9/2/99   Senate Floor Analyses 

               SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  SEE ABOVE

                      ****  END  ****