“The plaintiffs seek only to be married, not to undermine the institution of civil marriage. They do not want marriage abolished. They do not attack the binary nature of marriage, the consanguinity provisions or any of the other gate-keeping provisions of the marriage licensing law. Recognizing the right of an individual to marry a person of the same sex will not diminish the validity or dignity of opposite-sex marriage, any more than recognizing the right to marry a person of a different race devalues the marriage of a person who marries someone of her own race.”

These words are part of the Massachusetts State Supreme Court’s majority opinion written by Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall last month, setting off the Massachusetts gay marriage maelstrom that left many in the GLBT community celebrating, the Massachusetts state legislature 180 days to find a solution, religious conservatives proclaiming the sky is falling, and an entire field of presidential hopefuls scrambling for a position.

The battle for ending discrimination against same-sex couples in the United States has been a long and arduous one. Often it has divided states and politicians, and caused a religious schism. But California, never to be one left sitting on the sidelines, is charging full steam ahead. On Jan. 1, 2005, under California Assembly Bill (AB) 205, the state will come one step closer to granting same-sex couples full marital rights.

California’s GLBT community has whole-heartedly embraced this groundbreaking legislation for the rights it gives same-sex couples, and the societal impact it has on the rest of the country. But many are asking: as we embrace these rights, are we prepared for the responsibilities?

The first recorded case for recognition of same-sex couples in marriages was Baker v. Nelson in Minnesota in 1971. Jack Baker, a young law student at the time, argued there was no gender-specific language in the Minnesota statute, and therefore it was evident that the legislature’s intent was to authorize marriage for same-sex couples as well, including that of his relationship with Mike McConnell. Further, the couple claimed that prohibiting them from marrying was a denial of their due process and equal protection rights under the Constitution.

The court simply stated that they did “not find support for [these arguments] in any decision of the United States Supreme Court.”

Other cases have followed similar lines of reasoning. The 1974 Washington case of Singer v. Civil Service Commission is almost identical to that of Baker v. Nelson. Singer also attempted to have a marriage license granted to himself and his partner, Paul Barwick. Like Minnesota, the marriage statutes in Washington did not specify gender issues. The Washington State Supreme Court found against Singer and Barwick. In fact, the court cited the case of Baker v. Nelson in its decision.

These court cases set a legal precedent against same-sex couples with respect to marriage, at least in relation to states with non-gender-specific statutes.

Some might wonder if gay marriage advocates were asking for too much too soon.

“By being so early in the fight, some people have wondered if it ensured their defeat,” suggests Jonathon Burris, an openly gay lawyer in Minnesota who has been practicing for over 25 years.

As court cases continue to be argued, opponents have put into place a number of legal barriers to same-sex recognition in marriage. The federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is an important example. DOMA does two things. First, it provides that no state shall be required to give effect to a law of any other state with respect to same-sex couple recognition in marriage.

Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Jon Davidson, one of the primary drafters and advisors on California’s AB 205, explains this idea of portability.

“When you get married and you go to other states, other states treat you as married,” he explains. “Other states are not required to recognize domestic partner registrations as they are marriages.… Because we still don’t know how domestic partnerships will be treated in other states, it is extremely important to protect yourself and your partner with other formal legal means. For example, every individual should have an advance directive in terms of a will and a durable health care power of attorney. For now, these are far more likely to be respected in other states.”

Burris concurs. “If your partner is being wheeled down the hallway on a gurney into the surgery room and the hospital staff denies you access, even if your partner is shouting, ‘He’s my domestic partner,’ that may not mean much to them. But if he shouts, ‘He has durable power of attorney,’ the staff will definitely know what that means.”

Also, if you are registered in California but move to another state or have property in that other state, having a will becomes even more important.

“In the U.S., when one person in a relationship dies, all property [outside of marriage] typically gets treated as separate property even if you don’t want it to,” Davidson explains. “The only way of making sure that your wishes are met is to have a will.… AB 205 takes care of a lot of survival issues, but we don’t know how that is going to play out outside of California.”

Second, DOMA defines the words ‘marriage’ and ‘spouse’ for purposes of federal law.

“AB 205 and domestic partnerships in general do not provide for any of the federal rights that come with civil marriage,” Davidson explains. “According to the United States General Accounting Office there are 1,049 federal laws that treat people based on their marital status. AB 205 only addresses state laws.”

While many states have enacted local DOMA laws, they remain in the minority.

On July 7, 2003, two men in Phoenix filed suit demanding a state marriage license. The couple says they have cohabited for over five years, but “want to be married first” before adopting children. One of the men also noted that he “used to think marriage was just a piece of paper. I thought that until I grew up and realized our true and legal rights.”

Because Arizona currently has a state Defense of Marriage Act, the couple has challenged its constitutionality under both the Arizona constitution and U.S. constitution. The couple is also arguing that the recent decision from the U.S. Supreme Court (Lawrence and Garner v. Texas) finding a right of privacy of engaging in sodomy also entitles them to marriage recognition from the state.

As U.S. House of Representative Member Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) said in an interview for this paper last month, “To have gay marriage in some [U.S.] states recognized but not in others is not sustainable politically. But I do think if you have gay marriage in several states, people will begin to see that their fears are unjustified.”

California Equity’s Executive Director Geoffrey Kors points out that California is in a unique position in the battle for the elimination of discrimination against same-sex couples in marriage.

“California has influence on a national level,” maintains Kors. “I think what happened in Vermont was tremendous, after the legal battles and the state fighting the courts. But California is a continent compared to Vermont.”

“Besides the physical size, the population, and the financial impact of California, California is a leader in many things,” says Davidson. “What happens in California has an added cultural importance.”

Both Kors and Davidson point to a fundamental difference in the process between the situations in Massachusetts and Vermont and the situation in California. In both Massachusetts and Vermont, it was the courts that demanded the state offer either full marriage or the full extent of benefits and responsibilities that come with marriage.

“California is the first time that same-sex couples have been given these rights by the will of the people,” Kors explains. “AB 205 has gone through our elected representatives and not the court system.”

“This was done by the regular legislative process,” says Davidson, “and reflected the will of the people without any judicial threat.”

One thing everyone makes clear: it’s not ‘gay marriage’— or, more specifically, the complete elimination of discrimination within the civil laws of marriage in California.

“I wish to hell it was a marriage bill,” said State Senator Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica), according to the Associated Press. “I wish [my partner] Barbara and I could get married.… But this is about adding a few benefits and responsibilities to the domestic partner law.”

With little over a year before it comes into effect, AB 205 is already making headlines around the country. And depending with whom you speak, different interpretations abound. During the final days of the legislation’s approval process, even national media discussed the California case.

“This bill is not marriage,” argues Eddie Gutierrez, Southwest Regional Media Manager for the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD). “This bill is about the protection of families, but AB 205 is not about same-sex civil marriage.”

Assemblymember Jackie Goldberg (D-Los Angeles), who wrote the AB 205 bill, emphasizes that the idea the bill grants same-sex couples marriage is a misnomer.

“The legislative counsel decided this was not marriage, that this was domestic partnership,” said Goldberg in a previous statement.

Many see AB 205 as being the next natural step toward the full elimination of discrimination against same-sex couples within marriage in California.

The concept of domestic partnerships has been well established in California for many years. In fact, beginning with Berkeley in 1984, numerous California cities enacted domestic partner registries.

In 1999, AB 26 was passed, establishing the statewide domestic partner registry and hospital visitation, and granting health benefits to domestic partners of state employees.

In 2001, AB 25 granted a dozen more rights and benefits to domestic partners, including the right to sue for wrongful death, to use employee sick leave to care for an ill partner or partner’s child, to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapacitated partner, to receive unemployment benefits if forced to relocate because of a partner’s job, and to use stepparent adoption procedures to adopt a partner’s child.

In 2002, AB 2216 granted rights to automatic inheritance of a specific portion of a partner’s separate property if the partner dies without a will. Senate Bill (SB) 2777 included domestic partners among the family members exempted from the current prohibition on receiving from a will that one helped draft. And SB 1661 granted six weeks of paid family leave to employees to care for a sick spouse or domestic partner.

In other words, registered domestic partners in California were granted a small but significant base of benefits and rights even prior to AB 205.

However, when AB 205 becomes effective, the legal situation of registered partners will change significantly. Registered partners will be entitled to a far greater number of the rights, benefits and obligations bestowed upon opposite-sex married spouses under state law.

Six years of steady personal and political battle have taken place since the initial establishment of a statewide domestic partner registry, hospital visitation and health benefits for domestic partners of state employees. But advocates and politicians alike are quick to point out that the language of AB 205 specifically stops short of full marital rights for same-sex couples.

The bill states: “Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.”

So if it isn’t outright marriage why are so many conservatives opposed to AB 205?

At first glance the bill seems to meet the beliefs of recently sworn-in Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. During the Recall Campaign, Schwarzenegger stated: “I am for equal rights for all. I do not support gay marriage. Marriage is unique to a man and woman. That said, I do believe that gay couples are entitled to full protection under the law and should not be discriminated against based on their relationship.”

In an interview with radio talk show host Sean Hannity, Schwarzenegger said he supported domestic partnerships but did not back “gay marriage.”

Campaign for California Families’ Randy Thomasson accused advocates of the domestic partner bill of playing games with words, insisting it is “gay marriage by another name.”

Thomasson said Schwarzenegger’s position won’t fly with the “pro-family” voters his group represents.

“You can’t say you support domestic partnerships and still claim you’ll protect marriage for a man and a woman. They’re mutually exclusive,” Thomasson stated. “Giving away the rights and benefits of marriage to homosexual sex partners is not pro-family and not pro-marriage.”

Many fellow conservative state Republicans agree.

State Senator Pete Knight (R-Palmdale) has already filed a lawsuit with the Sacramento County Supreme Court to stop the implementation of the new law.

Knight cited Proposition 22, the ballot initiative voters approved in 2000 confirming that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in the state of California.”

Mark Hoops, a local resident of San Diego, suggests that sometimes it is a matter of perception.

“It all depends on how it is printed and presented,” he offers. “If people understand the details involved, I think they are more likely to approve it. If you just use the term ‘marriage,’ there will be resistance.”

“People think that legal protections for our community means gay marriage,” says Gutierrez. “But the term ‘gay marriage’ is a one-stop-shop expression that blurs the line between civil marriage and religious marriage. These are two completely distinct issues. There is a great deal of confusion in the public when people use the term ‘gay marriage.’”

California Equality’s Kors puts the onus back on the state.

“Nowhere in California law will you find a group of people who are written into a law for the purpose of excluding them,” maintains Kors. “California’s laws on marriage are unique in their affirmative discrimination. The term ‘domestic partnership’ just doesn’t have the same cultural significance as marriage. We are talking about the right to decide if you want to enter into a relationship that has both the rights and responsibilities that come with it.”

But don’t get Kors wrong. He believes AB 205 is a huge step in the right direction. And so does California Freedom to Marry Coalition’s Sylvia Rhue.

“AB 205 is not marriage and it does not grant all of the rights of a married couple, but it is extremely important and historic for California same-sex partnerships,” notes Rhue.

AB 205 has a very clear set of rights and responsibilities that it confers on same-sex couples who register as domestic partners. That is why the legislature set the start date forward at Jan. 1, 2005: to give people a chance to think about it.

The question is, “Are same-sex couples thinking it through?”

Equality California, formerly California Alliance for Pride and Equality (CAPE), indicates that AB 205 will not change the method for entering into or the criteria for registering as domestic partners. Further, AB 205 will not change the termination procedure for domestic partners who have been together less than five years, and who have no children and no significant joint assets.

Local family law attorney Leigh Kretzschmar explains.

“The first people to look at AB 205 will be those people with assets and couples with children,” asserts Kretzschmar. “When people get together in a relationship and it involves children, those are the people who have the most struggle right now. Having children is a major life event where everyone wants to find out what the law is.”

Kretzschmar continues: “Also, people who have large assets and, like married couples, want to preserve their rights with respect to separate property will be looking carefully at [AB 205]. Those couples will be wanting what are commonly called pre-nuptial or post-nuptial agreements so that their intentions are reflected in the process.”

“These are the two groups — those with assets and those with children — who are going to see the greatest amount of impact on their day-to-day lives,” concludes Kretzschmar.

If a couple is already registered as domestic partners with the state of California under prior legislation, it is important to note that they do not need to register to be entitled to the new rights, benefits, and obligations conferred by AB 205. Instead, there is an “opt out” system. According to provisions in the bill, the Secretary of State will send out a letter on no less than three separate occasions to the mailing addresses of all registered domestic partnerships. The letters will advise the couples that they must terminate their registered domestic partnerships prior to Jan. 1, 2005, or they will automatically be rolled over and subject to the new rights and responsibilities.

What are some of the specific new rights and responsibilities?

AB 205 significantly expands the rights of gay couples beyond current laws, such as matters ranging from health and welfare benefits to the ability of one domestic partner to represent the other in death-related matters.

AB 205 will expand rights and legal protections in many other areas as well. For example, the law will provide financial support during and after the relationship as well as providing community property ownership protections. AB 205 extends protection from threats and crime against the families of public officials. The law allows a surviving spouse funeral rights as well as rights regarding autopsies and anatomical gifts.

To see how the laws regarding common property and surviving spousal rights may work, we need only look to the state of Washington.

Earlier this year, the state of Washington provided two examples of how a law like AB 205 can have serious financial impacts on a couple. A court in Washington, a state which does not even have same-sex couple recognition in marriage, recently ruled that same-sex couples who separate have the same rights as married couples when it comes to dividing assets.

The 10-year relationship between Yakima physician Julia Robertson and Seattle nurse Linda Gormley was “sufficiently marriage-like to provide equitable relief,” Yakima County Superior Court Judge Heather Van Nuys ruled last November.

Van Nuys said the women must divide their assets equally—a decision that amounted to a divorce. Despite the disparity of financial incomes and contributions, the court ruled that the assets should be split equally.

The Court cited the case of Vasquez v. Hawthorne, in which the Washington State Supreme Court ruled that a Seattle man’s 30-year same-sex relationship was enough like a marriage to grant him a share of his deceased partner’s estate.

While Washington works under the broader legal concept of a doctrine of equity, under California’s AB 205, these situations are covered legally.

Lambda Legal’s Davidson explains: “At present, if you do not have a will, then your property will be divided among your surviving blood relatives,” said Davidson. “Until AB 205, there is no such thing as legal common property in a same-sex relationship in California. Under AB 205, the death of one of the partners will be treated in the same way as a spouse. As long as the property is considered common property, it all goes to the spouse.”

One of the most significant areas AB 205 addresses is children. Specifically, the law addresses child custody and the advancement of visitation rights.

A recent Stanford University study reported that there are over 140,000 children in California with gay or lesbian parents. Protecting families has been a large part of the drive for AB 205. Equality California’s Kors lays out some critical elements in the protection of families under AB 205:

“One of the most significant elements of this bill,” says Kors, “is that the children are protected. Under the current laws, if something happens to one of the partners, the children can be left in a lurch.”

With AB 205 comes a whole host of protections for the parents of the child and the child itself. In short, the new legislation gives both partners in the relationship equal status as parents if they adopt or have a child while they are registered.

GLAAD’s Gutierrez avers that even the seemingly smallest of issues can be of huge consequence for a family on a day-to-day basis.

“Both parents will have the right to sign a permission slip for their school or, if the nurse calls and says that the child is ill and needs to go home, either parent has the right to pick the child up,” says Gutierrez. “And extremely important is the right for either parent to take the child to the doctor.”

For many it seems as though the media has been decidedly long on the discussion of the rights conferred by AB 205 and short on the responsibilities and obligations that come along with those rights.

Last month the Human Rights Campaign, the largest GLBT rights organization in the United States, released a series of ads targeted at educating the general public about the importance of recognition of full civil marriage licenses for same-sex couples.

The press release described the ad campaign as being “aimed at educating the public about the fundamental rights and benefits that are granted to couples in this country by obtaining a civil marriage license.”

Likewise, on Sept. 20, following then-Governor Gray Davis signing AB 205 into effect, nearly every major newspaper headline in California referenced “gay rights” without addressing the “gay responsibilities.” The Sacramento Bee announced “Davis Signs Expansion of Gay Partner Rights.”

Nowhere in the HRC campaigns or the general media does the issue of the responsibilities and obligations required of families who register under laws such as California’s AB 205 seem to surface clearly.

“What Davis signed into law [AB 205] is 100 percent about responsibilities,” declares Kretzschmar. “Right now when gays and lesbians get together and start building their lives, they have no formal framework to understand what laws apply, if any. AB 205 gives the lesbian and gay community a framework to understand what is expected of them. It shows the community what obligations are in terms of a marriage — and most of these are things that same-sex couples have taken for granted in one way or another. That is the subtle impact of AB 205.”

“I think the rights get focused on because they tend to, on the one hand, be more threatening to the population as a whole, and on the other, because the gay and lesbian population embraces and welcomes rights,” she adds. “But I think everyone is going to be looking at California and seeing how they do with the responsibilities — do we embrace and respect the responsibilities.”

And the list of responsibilities is long, says Burris, who assists same-sex couples in their legal procedures.

“The responsibilities are parallel to those of any spousal relationship,” says Burris, “from taxation to the emotional commitment. The last time I saw the listing, there are several hundred issues that would be impacted by marital status or non-marital status. People need to recognize that there are issues involved other than this ethereal concept of [marital] bliss.”

In cases of dissolution, the couple’s relationship will be considered “marriage-like.” California’s new law requires courts to treat domestic partnerships just as they would marriages in settling disputes over dissolution, financial support, community property, inheritance, child custody, debt assumption and many other matters.

Then-Governor Gray Davis was one of the few politicians to publicly speak out on the key responsibilities laid out in AB 205.

“This bill not only provides additional rights for domestic partners, it also imposes significant new obligations such as shared responsibility for debts and financial support for children,” Davis said of AB 205.

Local resident Hoops understands the importance of knowing all sides of the domestic partner bill.

“Before registering, we would first check out all the responsibilities involved,” Hoops notes. “I would want to know the details. I would definitely have an attorney look at things to make sure what we are doing is correct and clear.”

According to Kors, while couples have the same benefits of joint properties, for example, AB 205 will hold them accountable. As in the Washington cases, a person who has been in a committed long-term relationship cannot simply walk away with a disproportionate amount of the couple’s property.

Despite examples such as the Washington cases, many Californians still haven’t considered the total impact registering will have on their day-to-day lives.

As with any set of rights regarding the protection of families, and especially children, there comes a great deal of responsibility. Kretzschmar says AB 205 makes parents accountable.

One area that AB 205 addresses is the duties of financial support of children after the relationship has dissolved. Commonly called child support, for many same-sex couples this is something that has never even been considered.

“The moment that child is conceived, the moment that child is born,” explains Kretzschmar, “there are responsibilities that go to both partners. For example, a lesbian partner who says that she did not agree to legally adopt the child can no longer simply walk out. According to AB 205, she is just as much a responsible partner as if they were a different-sex married couple. Likewise, the biological mother cannot claim that she did not allow her partner to adopt the child.”

“If you have a child together, and even if you are not the birth parent,” offers Kors, “as long as you are registered under AB 205, you have the same responsibilities as a married couple. If you walk away, there are consequences.”

If the language sounds harsh, it is, to the extent that the law addresses one of society’s most treasured resources: children.

“Over the years, the courts and the legislatures have established a set of rules to help guide family relationships. You have every right to have children,” asserts Kors, “but you have every responsibility to care for them.” And that is what AB 205 is going to do for families headed by same-sex couples: make both partners responsible.

That being said, Lambda Legal’s Davidson points to a relatively long list of those who might want to think very carefully about whether to enter into a domestic partnership under AB 205.

“Domestic partnership is not a good idea for everyone,” argues Davidson. “For example, people in the military need to consult with advisors to gay service members to assess the risks of publicly registering to see if it could potentially lead to being threatened with a discharge.”

Another population of those who should consider very carefully the ramifications of registering are those who are enrolled in means-tested public support, such as housing or HIV medications. Under the new law, if you are registered as a domestic partner, the entire household income will be considered in the decision.

Davidson emphasizes it is important to understand that once couples are registered, there is a fundamental shift in financial responsibility.

“AB 205 is far more reaching in terms of the kinds of financial responsibilities both parties take on,” explains Davidson. “For those couples who register, there is a very real financial responsibility in terms of housing, for example. If one of you is on some sort of means-tested housing, you run a potential risk of being denied.”

These financial responsibilities include being liable for a partner’s debt incurred while the couple is together. And for those couples who dissolve their relationship, community property laws will play a huge factor under AB 205.

“Everything gained during the course of the union will become common property, unless specifically indicated otherwise in a formal [pre- or post-nuptial] agreement,” says Davidson. “And it will be split 50-50, just as it would be in a marriage.”

Even if one partner owns a piece of property going into the relationship, if any money is used during the course of the relationship that is considered to be shared finances, then under AB 205 the property becomes community property.

This is true even if there is no written or oral agreement. A couple may have what is called an “implied agreement.”

“An implied agreement is when a couple lives together and their incomes are co-mingled — that you pay for things based on whomever has the money at the moment,” explains Davidson. “Under AB 205, when the couple splits up, partners will be allowed alimony in the same way a married couple would be. For example, if one of the partners gave up their career to take care of the home, that makes the person eligible for alimony.”

Considering whether you register as a couple can even affect something as basic as financial aid for college. But there is a trade off, Davidson says. “Under financial aid rules for colleges, you will be treated as a financial unit. You may not qualify for student financial aid. On the other hand, you may have access to married student housing.”

Basically, Davidson avers, it boils down to the registration being a public record. And unlike marriage registrations, which can be difficult to find because they are filed by county, all domestic partner registrations are with the Secretary of the State in one location. And that makes them more accessible to the public.

“[Registration] is a public record,” notes Davidson. “If for some reason you don’t want people to know you are in a same-sex relationship or to have your address, you shouldn’t register. For example, people who are undocumented in this country — those who are in the country illegally — should know that there is a risk.”

Then there is the whole issue of extended family. While many same-sex couples’ families will rejoice with the couple, many families “back home” may wonder why the law is even needed. And as the state moves more toward same-sex couple recognition in marriage, issues such as what to call a partner arise.

How well would calling your same-sex partner your ‘husband’ or your ‘wife’ go over in Iowa or Nebraska, for example?

Mark Hoops, who has been in a relationship with his partner Frankie Rubalcava for seven years, tells how it might play out back in Omaha.

“I think they’re the type of people to think about it and if they can rationalize it — if they can logic it out — they’re ok,” says Hoops of his hometown. But, he adds with a laugh, “Folks on the farm would have something to talk about.”

“If anything, extending civil marriage to same-sex couples reinforces the importance of marriage to individuals and communities. That same-sex couples are willing to embrace marriage’s solemn obligations of exclusivity, mutual support and commitment to one another is a testament to the enduring place of marriage in our laws and in the human spirit.”

So wrote Massachusetts’ Chief Justice Marshall in the majority opinion last month.

Marshall may have been speaking to the 6.5 million citizens of the commonwealth, but her words resonate 2582 miles west. California is ready and willing to be among the leaders in the battle toward totally eliminating discrimination within the institution of marriage.

“There is a message going out to the country that California is on the road to ending discrimination,” asserts California Equity’s Kors. “And those in other parts of America are seeing that all relationships can be respected, including same-sex families.”

In a formal statement regarding AB 205, State Senator Kevin Murray (D-Culver City) said: “This is a simple way for two people, who, whether you like it or not, have a family and are raising children, to manage their family to the best of their abilities.”

“AB 205 forces a certain level of recognition of same-sex families,” says Kretzschmar, “but it also raises the bar for the next level of recognition.”

“I do think when more and more couples are in domestic partnerships, it makes us more visible and lets lots of other people into our lives,” argues Davidson. “It makes the idea less scary to the general population. Recognition of same-sex couples as equals to married couples is an ongoing educational process.”

GLAAD’s Gutierrez agrees. “The message we will continue to work on is that AB 205 is about the protection of families. We have an obligation to make our stories heard. The more the general public is allowed into our lives to hear our true stories the easier it is going to be to move toward civil marriage for same-sex couples.”

For Kretzschmar, though, a rose by any other name is not a rose.

“When you say that you are married, there is a real sense of belonging to a community at large,” claims Kretzschmar. “‘Domestic partnership’ sounds like a business and just smacks of a business relationship and not a personal one. Recognition is not just about the legal rights. There are so many more dynamics in the word ‘marriage.’ It feels emotional, political. It has a wide range of dynamics to it and that is why it is so threatening.”

And, for many, so necessary.

Even beyond the 1049 issues that are impacted on the federal level based on marital and non-marital status, beyond the social security rights and the immigration laws, Lambda Legal’s Davidson explains the more personal side of the issue.

“Marriage has a societal significance in that there is a way that people who are married are treated as opposed to those who are not,” avows Davidson. “Being in a relationship that is called a ‘domestic partnership’ doesn’t hold the same symbolic or cultural weight.”

For many, defining a same-sex relationship using language like ‘domestic partnerships’ does not bring the same societal respect and support. In many ways, argues Gutierrez, it is about the public getting to know the personal aspects of a couple’s relationship and feelings.

Davidson points to Canada (which legalized full rights for same-sex couples in marriage earlier this year) as an example of these feelings.

“When you talk to couples who live in Canada, beyond the federal rights and responsibilities, they say that it just feels different to be legally married,” Davidson says. “Not that they love each other any more or less, its just that you have entered into something that society deems as legally and socially the most significant commitment you can make to another person.”

Davidson cites a recent study of same-sex couples in their first year. In one part of the study, researchers found that relative to those couples who were not, couples who were in fully-disclosed civil unions were significantly more likely to get holiday greeting cards addressed to both of them from family and friends.

“You wouldn’t send a holiday card addressed to just one of your siblings if he or she is married,” declares Davidson. “You just wouldn’t even consider it.”

“That’s what it means to be denied the word,” claims Davidson.

Kretschmar thinks the study is the perfect example.

“Until there are no exceptions to how gays and lesbians as a family or a couple are treated under any circumstances, domestic partnership will not equal marriage,” she maintains. And, as nearly every advocate agrees, the complete elimination of discrimination against same-sex couples in marriage is the full goal. AB 205 may not be day-to-day recognition of a same-sex couple’s relationship as marriage in the most desired form, but most gay rights advocates will say it is a very important step in the right direction. At the very least, couples should begin to plan for January 1, 2005.