|
 State appeals court upholds domestic partner law
Jennifer Coleman, Associated Press
April 4, 2005
SACRAMENTO - California's domestic partner law, which gives registered partners many of the same rights and protections of marriage, does not conflict with a voter-approved initiative that defined marriage as between a manincome taxes. and a woman, a state appeals court held Monday.
The law, which was signed in 2003 by former Gov. Gray Davis and went into effect Jan. 1, represents the nation's most sweeping recognition of domestic partner rights after Vermont's recognition of civil unions for gay couples. It gra registered couples virtually every spousal right available under state law except the ability to file joint
The Campaign for California Families, along with Sennts . Pete Knight, challenged the law, saying it undermines Proposition 22, the 2000 initiative that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Knight, a Republican from Lancaster who died after the suit was filed, was the author of the measure, which passed with 61 percent of the vote.
The 3rd District Court of Appeal upheld a trial judge's earlier determination that "the Legislature's enactment of the domestic partners act did not constitute an amendment of the defense of marriage initiative" in a 26-page ruling issued Monday.
The three-judge panel held that the plain language of the 14-word initiative showed the measure was "intended only to limit the status of marriage to heterosexual couples and to prevent the recognition in California of homosexual marriages."
But the initiative didn't express "an intent to repeal our state's then-existing domestic partners law" or ban future legislation regarding domestic partners.
Marriage and domestic partnerships are not the same, as illustrated in the different rights accorded and the process of entering or ending those relationships, the court said.
"This confirms the commonsense understanding that people in California have that domestic partnership and marriage are different," said Jenny Pizer, senior counsel for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. "It's also an enormous relief for registered partners."
In 1999, the state allowed same-sex couples or couples over 62 years old to register as domestic partners. Three years later, the passage of AB205, which was authored by Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg, D-Los Angeles, extended to domestic partners nearly all the same rights as married couples.
In September, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed legislation that requires insurance companies to offer coverage to registered domestic partners. Schwarzenegger said last month that he doesn't "believe in gay marriage" but would not try to amend the state constitution if the Supreme Court rules a ban on same-sex marriages is unconstitutional.
A San Francisco San Francisco County Superior Court judge ruled last month that laws limiting marriage to one man and one woman was unconstitutional, as was Proposition 22 because it barred the state from recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. Both laws violate the civil rights of gays and lesbians because they "implicate the basic human right to marry a person of one's choice," Judge Richard Kramer wrote.
The ruling was immediately appealed and will likely go to the California Supreme Court.
There are now about 29,000 couples registered as domestic partners, according to the secretary of state's office.
Randy Thomasson, executive of the Campaign for California Families, said the decision would be appealed. In addition, he said opponents to same-sex marriage would move for another initiative that would end domestic partnerships.
"This ruling gives impetus to the push for a constitutional amendment to protect marriage from the clutches of judges and politicians," Thomasson said.
"If the bureaucracy will empty marriage of all its value, the people must override the bureaucracy," he said, "and protect marriage rights for a man and a woman, as is only natural and is best for the children."
The court said supporters of Proposition 22 could have easily barred the Legislature from enacting or extending domestic partnership laws by using language similar to that in other states. For example, in Nebraska, an initiative defining marriage as between a man and a woman also stated that domestic partnerships or civil unions between same sex couples would not be valid.
***************************
March 25,2005
Conservatives tell court domestic partner rights are illegal
By JIM WASSERMAN, Associated Press Writer SACRAMENTO, (AP) --
Lawyers for two groups opposed to same-sex marriage told a state appeals court Friday that a domestic partners law giving gay couples nearly the same rights as married spouses is illegal and should be overturned because lawmakers undermined the will of voters.
The law, which was signed by former Gov. Gray Davis and went into effect Jan. 1, represents the nation's most sweeping recognition of domestic partner rights after Vermont's recognition of civil unions for gay couples. It grants registered couples virtually every spousal right available under state law except the ability to file joint income taxes.
Opponents of the law told a three-judge appeals court panel that it violates a California ballot initiative that defined marriage as between a man and a woman, while supporters said the law was unrelated to the ballot measure. Proposition 22 passed five years ago with 61 percent support.
"What it does is it undermines Proposition 22," said Robert Tyler, attorney for the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund.
3rd District CoThe urt of Appeal did not indicate when it would rule. previously The court rejected requests to prevent the law from taking effect during the appeal.
The case follows a major victory for gay rights supporters last week when a San Francisco County Superior Court judge struck down Proposition 22 and California's ban on gay marriage, saying both laws violated the civil rights of gay
"The voters of the state are entitled to get what they voted on. No more and no less," said Deputy Attorney General Kathleen Lynch in defense of the domestic partners law. "How would a voter know they were going to vote on more?"The three justices repeatedly noted s and lesbians to marry whom they chose.
Tyler and an attorney for the Campaign for California Families argued that Proposition 22's victory in 2000 not only defined marriage, but implicitly barred lawmakers from granting marriage-style benefits to domestic partners. A Sacramento County Superior Court judge rejected that argument in December, ruling the two were entirely different issues.
Attorneys for the state and a dozen pairs of domestic partners said voters could only presume from the ballot measure that they were making a statement about marriage, not about domestic partnerships.
the simplicity of the 14-word ballot measure, saying it said nothing about rights of domestic partners nor the Legislature's ability to grant them.
Presiding Justice Arthur Scotland said the appeals court typically interprets laws based on plain meaning.
"If it's plain meaning, we use the plain meaning and stop there," he said.
The domestic partner law, authored by Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg, D-Los Angeles, one of six openly gay and lesbian members of the state Legislature, gives 29,000 registered same-sex partners nearly all the same rights as married couples except for the ability to file joint income taxes.
They have the right to buy, share and transfer property, take extended leave from work to care for one another, receive married-couple discounts on home and car insurance and assume responsibility to cover one another's debts. It allows access to divorce court to divide assets, seek alimony and gain child support payments. The law also gave couples legal status as parents over children born during their relationship.
A Field Poll taken as lawmakers debated the bill in 2003 showed 72 percent of California voters approved new rights for same-sex couples.
The new law followed a steady expansion of domestic partner rights in California, including a 1999 law making California the nation's first state to allow gays and lesbians, as well as elderly heterosexual couples, to register as domestic partners.
In 2001, lawmakers approved about a dozen rights for domestic partners, including the right to make medical decisions for an incapacitated partner and adopt a partner's child.
***************************************************
Procreation Center of Gay Marriage Debate
By David Kravets-- Associated Press Writer
Published 7:09 am PST Friday, February 25, 2005
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- For judges deciding whether gays and lesbians can marry, much of the legal analysis boils down to sex. Or to put a finer point on it, procreation.
Opponents of same-sex marriage, such as the Arizona-based Christian legal group Alliance Defense Fund, argue that the need to ensure the survival of the state and species is the historical and institutional foundation upon which marriage exists.
"The fundamental right to marry has always been about procreation," Alliance Defense Fund attorney Glen Lavy recently argued to San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer, who is expected to rule any day on California's same-sex marriage ban.
(Story Here)
|
|
|
