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 ****