BILL ANALYSIS ------------------------------------------------------------ |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 75| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ------------------------------------------------------------ VETO 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 : 23-13, 9/7/99 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, Costa, Haynes, Johannessen, Kelley, Knight, Leslie, Lewis, Monteith, Morrow, Mountjoy, Poochigian, Wright NOT VOTING: Baca, Johnson, McPherson, Rainey 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 GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE: "I am returning Senate Bill 75 without my signature because it is overly broad. "However, I have signed Assembly Bill 26, which under specified conditions will allow domestic partners to formalize their relationships through registration with the Secretary of State, allow medical benefits to be extended to domestic partners of state employees, and provide hospital visitation for domestic partners. 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 SB 75 Page 12 Pacheco, Pescetti, Reyes, Runner, Soto, Strickland, Thompson, Zettel NOT VOTING: Kaloogian RJG:jk 1/5/00 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END ****