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.