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  ****