CA: State appeals court upholds domestic partner law

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 man 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 grants registered couples virtually every spousal right available under state law except the ability to file joint income taxes.

The Campaign for California Families, along with Sen. 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.

CA: State appeals court upholds... 'PETA'...domestic partner law?

"It's Dilution Stupid"recall an excellent-well written piece by that title that accuratly pointed out the point
that what they are doing is a violation of Copyright Law.
They want their fraudulatn product to be thought equal to
marriage -but it is NOT. (Never will Be) Want Americans decieved into thinking hteir behavior(Orientation) is Benign IT IS NOT. And when the S___ hits the Jacki politicians will insist it wasn't their damn fault-was ours
for believing and trusting in their judgement.

So now the voters of CF have to vote to undo the Gray Davis Marriage Lite Law.

The article does not mention that the marriage lite is not recognized under federal law either. No spousal visas, for social security death benefits, no joint tax returns.

Their goal is to "federalize" this abomination of marriage lite.

Like rust destroys any good weapon--so corruption has eaten
away at our government because we chose to spend our time
and efforts at more delightful tasks-and declared -It's good enough for government work.One day we may have need for that weapon and will never comprehend why it blew up
in our face for the dirt we have allowed collect in the
chamber,and the rust in the barrel.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.