A Sacramento Superior Court dismissed two lawsuits challenging the validity of AB 205, the Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act set to go into effect Jan. 1., which grants domestic partners the same benefits married couples receive from the state. Consolidated into one by the courts, the lawsuits sought to overturn AB 205 legislation based on Proposition 22, the California Defense of Marriage Act, which was spearheaded by the late Senator Pete Knight, whose gay son married his longtime partner in San Francisco in March before Knight’s death.

Passed by voters in 2000, Prop. 22 states: “only marriage between a man and woman is valid in California.” At issue in the lawsuits – Knight v. Schwarzenegger and Thomasson v. Schwarzenegger, brought forward by Knight and Randy Thomasson of Campaign for California Families – was whether AB 205 amends Prop. 22 without voter approval.

Because Prop. 22 defines marriage as a contract between one man and one woman and mentions nothing about same-sex civil unions or domestic partnerships, the court found that it was not in conflict with AB 205, which expressly addresses domestic partnership benefits.

“Of course, the operative word in the statute is ‘marriage,’” the Sept. 8 opinion read. “Thus, the parties’ obvious fundamental dispute is whether a domestic partnership under the new statutes constitutes ‘marriage.’ The court concludes that it does not. In the end, although the two relationships now share many, if not most, of the same functional attributes they are inherently distinct. And, despite the plaintiffs’ arguments to the contrary, the least important of the distinctions between the two relationships is not the name given to the union.”

“I think it’s entirely appropriate,” said Rebecca Jones, president of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of San Diego and Imperial Counties, about the ruling. “… AB 205 never at all pretended to create marital rights for gay and lesbian couples; all it was supposed to be doing was expanding the domestic partnership rights. So the one thing has nothing to do with the other.”

Another issue in the case was whether Prop. 22 (Family code section 308.5) addresses in-state marriages as well as out-of-state marriages.

“The plain language of Family code section 308.5 means that California cannot recognize a ‘marriage’ between same-sex partners that has taken place in another state, and cannot enact law authorizing same-sex couples to enter into ‘marriage’ in California unless first approved by the voters,” the opinion stated. “The statute says nothing about what rights may be given or denied persons recognized as domestic partners in California.”

“As I understand it, none of the domestic partnership laws in California purport to be a marriage law,” Jones said. “They are domestic partnerships. And I think that’s made clear part by the provision in the domestic partnership law that talks about the fact that it’s available to older people who are just living together, who would suffer a lot of financial hardship if they got married, so they can form a domestic partnership instead…. That’s part of the evidence that a domestic partnership is not the same thing as a marriage.”

Equality California, the primary sponsor of AB 205, and a group of registered domestic partners intervened in the suit on behalf of the defendant, the governor’s office. ACLU affiliates in San Diego, Northern California and Southern California; the Law Office of David C. Codell; the national American Civil Liberties Union; and the National Center for Lesbian Rights represented seven of the couples and Equality California; Lambda Legal represented an additional five couples.

“It’s somewhat disappointing that we don’t have marriage rights in California, but by the same token, when we’ve got this completely separate set of rights and obligations under domestic partnership law,” said Jones, who is also in a registered domestic partnership. “It’s intended to mirror, certainly, some of the marriage rights, but it’s just not the same thing and it’s never going to be the same thing until someone steps up and changes the law and says domestic partnership means marriage.”

Jones said an appeal is possible, but that depends on how the plaintiffs choose to spend their resources. “They have a lot of other options available to them, and again, given the fact that AB 205 very clearly is just granting and expanding domestic partnership rights and obligations as opposed to creating any kind of marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples, it’s almost like talking about apples and oranges,” she added.

AB 205 is more progressive than Vermont’s civil unions legislation and is the nation’s most comprehensive domestic partnership legislation for GLBT individuals, couples and families. The bill, authored by State Assemblymember Jackie Goldberg (D-Los Angeles), passed in September primarily due to the efforts of State Assemblymember Christine Kehoe, the LGBT Caucus and Equality California.

AB 205 grants over 300 rights and responsibilities to domestic partners. These rights include the right for domestic partners to make funeral arrangements, to receive death benefits for the surviving partners of firefighters and police officers and to receive public assistance upon the death of a partner, as well as the right to victim’s compensation (which domestic partners do not now have under California law). AB 205 also grants domestic partners medical leave, family care and bereavement leave, pension rights for certain categories of people and the right to not have to testify against their partners in court. The bill recognizes GLBT relationships in family court, custody provisions and child support obligations, joint assessment of income and mutual responsibility for debts, community property protection, equality and fairness in workman’s compensation, and equality for domestic partners in student family housing, senior citizen housing and rent control.

“These are just a few of the many rights and responsibilities that we will finally have access to,” said AJ Davis, The Center’s director of public policy. “Many of the changes will affect different families and couples in different ways, which is why we strongly encourage each couple to take the time to determine whether or not domestic partnership is right for them before this law goes into effect.”

The Center is conducting a workshop to educate new and already-registered domestic partners about the implications of AB 205 on Oct. 6 at 6:30 p.m. A notary will be available on site to notarize both domestic partnership registrations and terminations.

“Couples need to look closely at their situation to determine if the new and improved institution of domestic partnership is right for them,” Davis explained. “Every situation is different, and we encourage couples to consult an attorney, if possible, who can help them decide what is best for their family and their situation.”