Little did the GLBT community know while celebrating Governor Davis’ signing of AB 205 that the battle for domestic partnership rights was only half over. Right wing conservatives quickly began plotting to keep the law from ever going into effect, threatening to gather signatures to force a referendum on the issue and filing a lawsuit challenging the validity of the legislation.

Signed into law on Sept. 19, AB 205 provides basic protections and imposes significant responsibilities on registered domestic partners in California. Protections for families headed by same-sex couples include: community property, mutual responsibility for debt, parenting rights and obligations such as custody and support, and the ability to claim a partner’s body after death. The law does not allow for joint tax filing and certain other protections under state law, and does not provide access to over 1,000 federal protections that married couples enjoy.

Despite its shortcomings the law was hailed as a milestone in GLBT civil rights, while conservatives cried out that it threatened the sanctity of marriage and was a violation of Proposition 22, the law that banned same sex marriages from being recognized in the state of California. The first step in the initiation of AB 205 was to be a letter sent out to all registered domestic partners explaining the new rights and responsibilities associated with the contract. Once informed, couples could choose to dissolve partnerships before the new law is applied in 2005. As a part of their lawsuit, conservatives filed for an injunction to prevent those letters from being mailed out.

“We are asking the judge to block AB 205 from taking effect before next month, when the government will begin spending taxpayer dollars to publicize ‘gay marriage by another name,’” said Randy Thomasson, executive director of Campaign for California Families, the lead plaintiff in one of two voter-rights lawsuits against AB 205.

Organizers who were fighting against the lawsuit and the possible referendum were thrilled when Judge Thomas M. Cecil denied requests by Thomasson and Senator Pete Knight to issue a preliminary injunction, which would prevent the state from putting the law into effect. Cecil ruled that they had not shown that it was “reasonably probable” that the challenges would succeed.

“That was excellent news, because one of the standards the judge looks to is whether or not there is a high probability that they will succeed on the merits, and he specifically said that was not present,” Dale Kelly Bankhead, who was a part of San Diego’s grassroots effort to educate the public on the issues related to domestic partnerships and AB 205, told the Gay and Lesbian Times. “In lay terms he is saying their case is pretty weak. That’s good and it’s what we’ve certainly believed all along.”

In his decision, Cecil conceded that AB 205 provides domestic partners virtually all the rights of marriage, saying, “There is no dispute that a wide range of identical rights are granted by AB 205.” Scott Emblidge, the attorney for Secretary of State Kevin Shelley, admitted that if the phrase “domestic partnership” had been changed to “same-sex marriage” in AB 205, that would conflict with Proposition 22 and therefore would be unconstitutional.

“The judge listened to us carefully and was not persuaded by the state’s arguments that the case should be dismissed,” said Mathew Staver of Liberty Counsel, who represented Thomasson. “I believe when the court makes its final ruling on the merits — whether at this preliminary stage or shortly thereafter — that we will prevail. By enacting the ‘domestic partnership’ laws, the California Legislature has taken away the right of the voters, which was so clearly expressed in Proposition 22, to reserve the rights of marriage for a man and a woman. The Legislature has no right to disregard the will of the people.”

On the heels of the ruling against the injunction, opponents of AB 205 failed to turn in the required signatures needed to pass the referendum to put it on the March ballot. Republican leaders, including Knight, had said that they were giving up on the referendum effort early this month, but GLBT organizers cautiously waited for the deadline to pass to ensure there wouldn’t be a recall on the March ballot.

“Our general philosophy has been to stand ready to defeat this thing at the ballot box if it became necessary,” Bankhead said. “We don’t think they can qualify it; apparently not even those within the conservative wing of the Republican Party are supportive. Focus groups that they have done are smart enough to know that 205 was about domestic partnership and not about marriage and that had been their primary message, that this was marriage by another name.… It’s a bad message, no matter what the venue is. The bottom line is domestic partnership is not marriage and you are not going to be able to convince people that it is.”

While the March deadline has passed, conservatives could still make a push to gather signatures for the November ballot if the lawsuits against AB 205 do indeed fail. Signatures would need to be verified 38 days prior to the November election in order for the referendum to make it on the ballot.

“It is getting harder for the right wing to sell their message of intolerance and disrespect in California,” said Geoffrey Kors, executive director of Equality California (EQCA). “Californians are not interested in taking rights away from families.”