Same-Sex Rights in California: A Shifting Vision?

Today California is one state among 11 in the union where members of the same sex can register as domestic partners and be treated like married people, short of actually being able to tie the knot.

Advocates for same-sex unions in those 11 states are hopeful that soon their state will follow the lead of Massachusetts - the only state in the nation that recognizes gay marriage.

Five years ago and amidst controversy, Assembly Bill 205, authored by Jackie Goldberg (D-Los Angeles), made its way through the state Assembly and Senate to the desk of then-Gov. Gray Davis. The bill’s goal to grant the same rights and responsibilities married couples have to same-sex partners, who cannot marry legally in the state, had sweeping practical and symbolic implications.

One of the voices when it comes to perceived failings of the law is actually the woman behind it. In a Los Angeles Times editorial last year, Goldberg expressed unhappiness over unintended effects of the legislation.

“When the Legislature passed the bill in 2003, I told reporters that this 'separate and unequal' system was the best we could achieve and that I would have proposed allowing same-sex couples to marry if I'd thought that would pass. I never imagined that domestic partnerships might somehow be used as an excuse not to allow same-sex couples to marry,” wrote Goldberg.

Logistically, the bill, which officially went into law on Jan. 1, 2005, introduced new legal processing considerations for civil systems and services, including family courts, estate handlers and health care providers, among others.

For same-sex couples who desire to partake in the benefits and responsibilities, the first step is registering for an official domestic partnership.

According to the Secretary of State’s office, there have been nearly 50,000 filings for domestic partnerships, however, the information they offer does not distinguish between active and terminated registrations. The office cites following only the provisions of the legislation to explain why more in-depth statistics about domestic partnerships are not reported to the public.

In Case ‘n Point, a state bar newsletter, family law attorney Fred Hertz says the domestic partnership law is a dramatic legal change on the worldwide scale because the number of registered couples in California before and after the law’s implementation is great. Those who registered before Jan. 1, 2005, are retroactively entitled to the law’s provisions.

But it is the symbolic quality of the law that garnered the most controversial attention.

Groups such as the Traditional Values Coalition see the law as a means of circumventing Proposition 22, passed three years prior, which mandated that same-sex marriages were not to be recognized in the state. Other groups like the Catholic Conference, which describes itself as the official voice for public policy in California’s Catholic community, signed on in opposition. Attempts to reach official opposition for comment were unsuccessful.

Today, California citizens have opinions on the law that still reflect both sides of the controversy that heavily played out in the media back in 2003.

Antelope resident Judith McCarthy voted for Proposition 22.

“When the bill was introduced, I was definitely opposed to it. Marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman - that's how it is in California law too. All these years later, it has cost tax payers money just so gay people can get benefits that only married couples should get,” McCarthy said.

Others see it as a step towards fairness.

“[Same-sex partners] should have the law, since they can’t get married and sometimes are in situations where those benefits can really help them,” Tony Shughe of Sacramento said.

“You can be against the law, but that won’t prevent those situations.”

When it comes to legislation affecting the gay community, Eric Astacaan, a consultant for the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender caucus, which was involved with the law’s drafting, echoes a nationwide sentiment.

“Marriage equality is just a matter of time. Civil rights in this country have always been a long struggle ... the abolishment of slavery, and women’s right to vote ... it's just a matter of time," Astacaan said.

His work with the law was both civic and personal. He and his partner have a domestic partnership in California but are also considered married in Canada. Astacaan maintains Goldberg’s original rationale for the law.

"It made a significant change for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Californians. It's a positive step in the right direction, but not the full equality we all deserve. It is a virtual equality, but not the full equality, under state and federal government," he said.

"This is the closest effort to make sure that everyone gets equal protection under the law, because we couldn't get marriage."

For the law's author, the effort wasn’t satisfactory enough and she now sees the solution as simply allowing same-sex marriage.

Goldberg points out that Massachusetts has not experienced significant backlash since legalizing gay marriage.

She lists several problems encountered under California's new legislation, from the courts dealing with confusing child custody cases because the system works differently for domestic partners, to gray area in matters like assessing property after a partner passes on.

“We discover new problems all the time. This session, the Legislature is considering three bills to resolve other gaps, ambiguities and inequities - and that's not unusual. We have needed multiple pieces of legal patchwork every year since domestic partnerships went into effect,” wrote Goldberg in her Los Angeles Times editorial.

Recent and Projected Spending Trends

The real and projected amount-per-dollar spending by the Department of Fair Employment and Housing over a 5-year period.

Spending Trends (click to enlarge)

Bill Seeks to Extend Rights of Police Dogs

A dog as man's best friend is no better illustrated than in the relationship between a peace officer and canine partner; since in the line of duty, their lives depend on one another.

Recognizing that strong connection, Assemblyman Roger Niello, R-Fair Oaks, has proposed a bill that, if passed, would ensure canine peace officers receive the same travel accommodations that dogs for the disabled do.

Sponsored by the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department, Assembly Bill 2131's primary aim is to relieve police officers from the hassle of kenneling their canine partners while traveling on assignment.

The legislation would allow officers with canine units to travel with their canine partners, free of extra charges and with access to public accommodations.

Supporters of the bill say this is a good time to pass the legislation because many police officers were inconvenienced last year, trying to kennel their partners before they could help out during the destructive wildfires in Southern California.

Although there is no formal opposition to the legislation, some question the safety of allowing police dogs equal access to public places and facilities. Sacramento resident Jessica Baidwan said she thinks most police dogs will not attack bystanders because they are well-trained, but people need to be cautious about inadvertently provoking the dogs.

Sometimes police dogs attack the wrong person, with and without provocation.

According to an Oct. 2006 article in Sacramento Magazine, an elderly Sacramento woman was severely bitten by a police dog when she stepped out of her apartment during a search for a parolee. The dog was unresponsive to several efforts by officers to remove him until finally being pepper sprayed.

In Tulsa, Okla., last year a 12-year-old boy was also severely bitten by his neighbor’s canine partner while retrieving a football that landed close to where the dog was being loaded into a car.

Despite the occurrence of these rare but real attacks, no police dogs have fatally wounded anyone in the United States, according to the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department.

It is important to note that not all police dogs are trained to attack.

As the department’s deputy and canine officer, Todd Henry, said to Sacramento Magazine for the same article:

“There's a misconception about these dogs, that they're ferocious and dangerous, probably based on what people see on TV and in the movies."

However, some dogs are “sniffers,” they are trained to sniff drugs, carcasses and bombs.

Furthermore, since 1999 Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department has emphasized “stand off and bark” instead of “find and bite” training. This means that police dogs are trained to bark when they find the person or object they were trained to find, instead of biting or attacking.

Elk Grove resident Anne Gonzales said she doesn't think that police dogs would be a safety concern in public places as long as they are with their handlers.

"I can see that some people might have some questions over safety - if the dogs will attack them or whatever. But, it sounds like it would help officers and their dogs a lot," Gonzales said.

Assemblyman Niello recognizes that the bill poses some risks.

“Although police are highly-trained, they are still animals; they react to stimulus aside from their owner's commands even when they are under control of their owners,” he said.

However, he said he believes the benefits outweigh the risks.

Niello weighed both sides of the public safety issue, and he also considered how the bill would affect businesses.

“As a conservative Republican, I am not inclined to legislation that mandates things on local government,” Niello said.

Convinced the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department and statewide police departments could be greatly aided by the legislation, he decided this issue was an exception for him.

Al Cooper, a 30-year law enforcement lobbyist in California, sees the dogs as a major asset for the agencies.

“They become a part of the officer's life. In order for a dog to work properly and his partner to work to his full potential, they have to be in the most comfortable setting," Cooper said.

Working closely with the bill, legislative staff member Chelsea Minor believes its passage would benefit public safety. Minor emphasized the bond between canine officers and their handlers.

“[These] dogs shouldn't be with people besides their owners, both for their safety and that of the dog. These are highly trained dogs who should be able to travel with their owners,” Minor said.

Assemblywoman Jean Fuller, R-Bakersfield, said she wasn’t aware that police dogs don’t currently have the rights.

“It often takes a special kind of officer to take on a dog - it takes a real commitment. After a while, a dog is kind of like the officer's child. For this reason, I think it's important that these dogs stay with the officers at all possible times," Fuller said in a telephone interview.

Richard Kemp, a 12-year veteran of the Sacramento Sheriff Department's canine unit, has never experienced an issue with the accommodations for his canine partner.

He also thinks police handlers will not operate differently if the legislation passes.

“My job isn’t going to change a bit,” Kemp said.

Kemp explains that the public should not be concerned that they will see police dogs as often as they see seeing-eye dogs. Police dogs are kept in police cars unless they are working. Kemp said that if he stops to have lunch his dogs stays in the car, and that this would remain the same.

While on duty, Kemp said he is sensitive to bystanders that may be nervous that a police dog is present. He’ll either let them know his canine partner is safe, or create more space if he can afford to.

At a canine unit training session, Kemp spoke about what his bond with Clint, a young Belgian Malinois, means.

“These dogs may save our life tonight,” Kemp said as he surveyed the spread of officers and their canine partners.

Kemp also credits his canine partners with shifting the power in standoffs away from the perpetrators and to the officers. He says that many perpetrators know police likely will not shoot at them, but if they see a police dog, they’re much more inclined to surrender.

In Kemp’s home Clint has company of his own kind. There, all preconceptions of police dogs as ferocious beasts may be lost.

“My cocker spaniel bosses my (police) dog around,” Kemp said.

Like Deputy Kemp, Sgt. Mitch Peixoto of the Richmond Police Department found that when he was a canine handler most places accommodated him and his four-legged partner. While in full support of the bill, Sergeant Peixoto offered some caution.

"That does not mean that every handler should take advantage of the 'special access' – some police service dogs are friendlier than others so it would be up to each handler to know his partner's limitations," Peixoto said.