Archive Version of
Partners Task Force for Gay and Lesbian Couples Online from 1995-2022 Demian and Steve Bryant originally founded Partners as a monthly newsletter in 1986. By late 1990 it was reformatted into a bi-monthly magazine. Print publication was halted by 1995 when Demian published Partners as a Web site, which greatly expanded readership. In 1988, the Partners National Survey of Lesbian & Gay Couples report was published; the first major U.S. survey on same-sex couples in a decade. In 1996, Demian produced The Right to Marry, a video documentary based on the dire need for equality that was made clear by the data from the survey mentioned above. The video featured interviews with Rev. Mel White, Evan Wolfson, Phyllis Burke, Richard Mohr, Kevin Cathcart, Faygele benMiriam, Benjamin Cable-McCarthy, Susan Reardon, Frances Fuchs, Tina Podlodowski, and Chelle Mileur. Demian has been the sole operator during the last two decades of Partners. Demian stopped work on Partners Task Force in order to realize his other time-consuming projects, which include publishing the book “Operating Manual for Same-Sex Couples: Navigating the rules, rites & rights” - which is now available on Amazon. The book is based on the Partners Survey mentioned above, his interviews of scores of couples, and 36 years of writing hundreds of articles about same-sex couples. It’s also been informed by his personal experience in a 20-year, same-sex relationship. Demian’s other project is to publish his “Photo Stories by Demian” books based on his more than six decades as a photographer and writer. |
The California domestic partner registration followed Hawaii’s footsteps in offering more legal status than a couple could obtain with wills, powers of attorney and relationship agreements. In 2011, Hawaii greatly enlarged the scope of same-sex couple recognition and instituted full Civil Unions.
Two other states offer a registry that also has substantive benefits: See the chart below for U.S. states that offer full, legal marriage When the California registration first became law on January 1, 2000, it offered very limited benefits. It was expanded, on January 1, 2002, to include about a dozen benefits. It was again expanded on January 1, 2003 to include scores of benefits and responsibilities. The second expansion of the bill (AB-205) was filed by Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg (D-Los Angeles). A third expansion (SB-1827) ocured on September 30, 2006, which allowed registered domestic partners to jointly file state income taxes and have their earned income treated as community property for state tax purposes. The State of California now recognizes health care premiums and expenses for domestic partners as deductible health care expenses. If an employee registers with their same-sex partner through the State of California, there are no state taxes or S.D.I. on the premiums. Federal taxes and F.I.C.A., however, are still applied.
Judge Loren E. McMaster disagreed. The ban on same-sex marriage says, in its entirety, that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The judge, in a September 8, 2004 ruling, pointed out that while marriage is a “keystone of civilized society predating government regulation,” the rights and regulations that apply to marriage are constantly changing. The one-sentence voter initiative, he reasoned, referred only to the classification of marriage itself, and did not limit the state’s ability to provide rights and benefits to unmarried couples. In 2000, when conservatives were campaigning to pass Proposition 22, they repeatedly insisted that the initiative referred only to marriage, and would not block domestic partner rights or other benefit programs. Randy Thomasson, of the Campaign for California Families (CCF), now states “McMaster has trashed the vote of the people who said they want everything about marriage to stay for a man and a woman. The clear and plain reading of these marriage-attacking bills was to create homosexual marriage by another name.” CCF, along with Sen. Pete Knight, appealed the ruling. On April 4, 2005, a state appeals court held that California’s domestic partner law does not conflict with the initiative that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. The Court of Appeal panel in Sacramento noted that voters who approved Prop. 22 were informed that it was “intended solely to preserve the status of marriage in California for persons of the opposite sex” and weren’t told anything about limiting civil unions or domestic partnerships. On June 29, 2005, the domestic partner law legal challenge came to a halt when the state Supreme Court denied a hearing to right-wing, conservative, religious groups that had sought to overturn the law. [Knight v. Superior Court, S133961] On August 1, 2005, the California Supreme Court ruled that country clubs must offer gay members who register as domestic partners the same discounts given to married ones. The court ruled that the policy constitutes “impermissible marital status discrimination.” This decision might also apply to other businesses, such as insurance companies and mortgage lenders. The case involved the policy at the Bernardo Heights Country Club in San Diego, which allowed only the children, grandchildren and spouses of married members to golf for free. Birgit Koebke, 48, an avid golfer, who pays about $500 a month in membership fees, challenged the policy after being told that her longtime lesbian partner could only play as a guest six times a year while paying up to $70 per round. While businesses might once have claimed a legitimate business interest for maintaining different policies for married couples and gay members who cannot legally wed, such distinctions are no longer justified under a sweeping domestic partner law that took effect in California on January 1, 2005, the court said. Writing for a five-judge majority, Justice Carlos Moreno stated: “The Legislature has made it abundantly clear than an important goal of the Domestic Partner Act is to create substantial legal equality between domestic partners and spouses. We interpret this language to mean that there shall be no discrimination in the treatment of registered domestic partners and spouses.”The ruling reversed two lower courts that sided with the country club. But the court also said that the lesbian couple, who have been together since 1993 and registered partners since 1998, was not entitled to seek damages “for being subject to discriminatory treatment” before the domestic law kicked in. On April 12, 2006, the California Supreme Court again refused to hear an appeal challenging the state’s domestic partner law. The high court’s dismissal reaffirmed current legal protections for same-sex couples and their families. Opponents of domestic partner rights had appealed the January 2006 ruling from the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento, charging that California’s law makes domestic partners equivalent to spouses and therefore violates the voter-approved ban on gay marriage, Proposition 22.
As of October 2001, 16,000 couples had registered and were able to utilize the expanded status. As of September 3, 2003, more than 22,000 same-sex and senior opposite-sex couples had registered. Faced with uncertain tax obligations, and fearing other legal or financial obligations, some committed same-sex couples have opted out of the new comprehensive domestic partnership law. They rightly perceive that it offers too few benefits at too high a cost. As of December 2004, there were 25,525 active domestic partnerships in California. By March 2005, 948 couples registered. At least 241 have ended their legal relationship. In December 2004, anticipating implementation of the law’s expansion, 1,188 couples dissolved their domestic partnerships. More than 2,500 broke off their legal ties in 2004, compared with 733 in 2003. Several hundred more have terminated their partnerships in 2005. Some couples dissolved their partnership because the relationship was over. Others, though they dissolved their legal partnership, they are still together. These couples were concerned about issues such as the burden of community debt, and the loss of public benefits. Under the expanded law, same-sex couples have many of the same state rights and responsibilities as legally married couples, including community property rights and obligations, child custody rights, the right to child support and alimony, extended family leave benefits and mutual responsibility for debts. There are huge gaps between the state and federal laws regarding the treatment of these domestic partnerships, which can lead to complications. Many registered because they have children and they wanted the legal protections the expansion offered.
However, by offering domestic partnership registration instead of legal marriage, California — like Hawaii and Vermont’s Civil Union — has created an apartheid, with one set of laws pertaining to opposite-sex couples, and another for same-sex couples. The registrations do not have any legal weight in the federal sphere, and, cannot be used for immigration purposes, for instance. To date, no other state has honored this status. The registration status offers an improved range of protections for same-sex couples who live in California. Once signed up, a registered couple can say they are no longer complete “legal strangers” — but have a legal relationship.
Eligibility:
The Registration can be obtained from the California Secretary of State’s Web site:
When first effective in January 1, 2000, this status provided:
The 2002 benefits include the ability to:
In September 2003, the benefits were once again, expanded. This expanded status is scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2005. Among the 2005 benefits:
A third expansion (SB-1827) ocured on September 30, 2006, which allowes registered domestic partners to jointly file state income taxes, and have their earned income treated as community property for state tax purposes. The “State Income Tax Equity Act” was sponsored by Equality California (EQCA) and authored by Senator Carole Migden (D-San Francisco). Also on September 30, 2006, a new law taxing those who register as domestic partners to pay $23 toward domestic violence programs specifically aimed at same-sex couples. The measure is likely the first of its kind in the nation and mirrors a similar surcharge on California marriage licenses that funds battered women’s shelters and other domestic violence services. A fourth expansion took effect on January 1, 2007. Eight new laws, addressing gay and lesbian issues, which include tax filings, court proceedings, discrimination protections, and funding for domestic-violence prevention among same-sex couples. Among the 2006 benefits:
On January 3, 2008, California domestic partners won the right to the same property tax breaks as husbands and wives under state law when the state Supreme Court turned down an appeal. The justices left intact an October ruling by the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento that allowed registered domestic partners to accept, or inherit, real estate from one another without new tax assessments. The state’s supreme court denied review of the case without comment or dissenting votes. Under the 1978 initiative — Proposition 13 — property taxes were rolled back to 1 percent of value and limited increases of 2 percent a year. It allowed counties to re-assess property to full market value when it was sold or changed ownership, often leading to a substantial tax increase. The initiative did not define changes in ownership. A 1979 law and subsequent ballot measure specified that transfers of property between husbands and wives at death or divorce, and transfers to children or grandchildren, would not be considered ownership changes, and were therefore protected from tax increases.
Domestic partners were granted the same rights as married couples under state Board of Equalization rules in 2003, and by a state law in 2005. Several county assessors challenged the tax break, however, the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento ruled in October that neither Prop. 13, nor subsequent measures, barred lawmakers from granting additional exemptions to changes in ownership. The court noted the Legislature’s declaration that the 2005 law was part of an effort to promote equality for all Californians, regardless of sexual orientation.
This domestic partnership status does not work as a model for America, because implementing an equivalent legal status to marriage requires duplicating 150-to-350 laws in each state, and more than 1,138 laws on the federal level. The whole idea is completely impractical. Further, domestic partnerships are usually not recognized outside of the issuing state. Because of the lack of portability, they create a patchwork legal status as a couple moves or vacations.
Registrations do not have any legal weight in the Federal sphere, and, to date, only California and New Jersey officially recognizes this kind of status from other states. Section 299.2, was added to the California Family Code, to recognize registrations and Unions from other state: 299.2. A legal union of two persons of the same sex, other than a marriage, that was validly formed in another jurisdiction, and that is substantially equivalent to a domestic partnership as defined in this part, shall be recognized as a valid domestic partnership in this state regardless of whether it bears the name domestic partnership.It will likely recognize some state registrations for same-sex couples, but not for those of opposite-sex couples. Also, this code specifically excludes recognizing a legal same-sex marriage. Which means — not only is it blatently oppressive — someone who has a legal marriage would be ineligible to apply for a California Registration, because one of the requirements is that the parties not be legally married. And if “substantially equivalent” actually means a set of benefits — and not just qualifying for them — it would exclude Hawaii, as it has very few benefits.
While registrations or Unions are an attempt to create equal treatment, they only reinforce a separate and totally unequal status, one we consider to be a manifestation of apartheid.
For a vast survey, please see our:
Legal Marriage Report: Global Status of Legal Marriage Return to: Domestic Partnership Benefits
|
© 2022, Demian None of the pages on this Web site may be reproduced by any form of reproduction without permission from Partners, with the exception of copies for personal, student, and non-commercial use. Please do not copy this article to any Web site. Links to this page are welcome. |