California - Civil Partnerships in all but name

damien

http://www.newsday.com/mynews/ny-usgay024103073jan03,0,545937.story


America seems to becoming deeply divided. Mass, Vermont and California being so liberal and Virginia, Alabama and Texas being so backward as to state evolution does not happen.

SAN FRANCISCO - Along with the other gays and lesbians in California, the more-than 52,000 registered domestic partners still can't get married. But as of Saturday, if they split up, they'll have to divorce.

If they have children, they will automatically receive parental rights. Community property laws suddenly apply, just as for married spouses.

The changes are part of a law, put on the books by the legislature and former Gov. Gray Davis in 2003 and which took effect Saturday, that expands California's 5-year-old experiment with domestic partnerships.

The law's supporters and opponents agree it makes domestic partnership in California equivalent to marriage in almost all but name.

That puts the state once again at the forefront of the legal battles over gay unions. Same-sex couples affected by the law outnumber those covered under Vermont's civil unions or those who wed in Massachusetts, the only state allowing gay marriage.

California's registered domestic partners now share hundreds of state rights and responsibilities formerly granted only to married spouses: In order to split, partners must divorce. Alimony could be ordered by a court. All assets acquired during the partnership are carved down the middle. Debts are shared, too. Both partners automatically receive the legal protections of parents along with the right to custody and the duty to pay child support.

"California is way ahead of the curve," said Aimee Gelnaw, executive director for the Washington-based Family Pride Coalition, which promotes gay family interests. Conservative organizations agree with her about the law's sweep but not about its desirability. Robert Tyler, an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group, calls it a "counterfeit marriage statute." His group sued to block the law. It has lost so far but has an appeal pending.

"It is really marriage, in that it provides all of the rights and benefits that the state can grant ... for the marital union," he said. That, he said, is a "backdoor attempt by a radical legislature that is willing to disregard the will of the people in order to promote the desire of a few."

The law can't confer any federal benefits or obligations; not even Massachusetts' gay marriages have done that. Neither does California's law permit couples to file state income tax jointly. But it does provide that registered domestic partners receive "the same state rights, protections and benefits and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations and duties" as married spouses.

All that is more than some couples bargained for when they registered their partnerships. In recent months, the number of couples getting off the state's registry has increased.

Oakland attorney Frederick Hertz and his partner decided to terminate their registered partnership in November. Both are professionals with their own health insurance and other benefits. They have no children. The possibility of unforeseen tax consequences from the new law motivated their decision, said Hertz.

There are other reasons why remaining registered may not make sense, legal experts said. Many state benefit programs are available only to people with low incomes. Until now, if someone on the registry applied, the state could not consider the partner's income. Now, both incomes will count, just as for a married couple.