Despite referendum proposals and lawsuits from opponents since its approval in 2003, the Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act, which gives same-sex and senior couples over 300 state rights awarded previously only to married couples, went into effect New Year’s Day.

In November 2003, the San Diego Coalition for Domestic Partnership Rights participated with Equality California in an intensive four-month effort to defeat Senator William J. “Pete” Knight’s efforts to roll back the legislation, known as AB 205. Unable to gather enough signatures by the March ballot deadline, Knight gave up his attempt at a referendum and decided to challenge AB 205 in court instead.

Knight’s son married his longtime partner in March while San Francisco issued gender-neutral marriage licenses Feb. 12-March 11. Knight’s lawsuits made their way through the courts despite Knight’s death in May of leukemia at the age of 74.

On Sept. 8, a trial court rejected claims that the expanded domestic partnership laws were in violation of Knight’s Proposition 22, the state law prohibiting recognition of same-sex marriages performed out of state. On Dec. 21, a California Court of Appeal denied the request to prevent AB 205 from going into effect Jan. 1.

Expanded rights and responsibilities under AB 205 include the right for domestic partners to make funeral arrangements; to receive death benefits for the surviving partners of firefighters and police officers; to receive public assistance upon the death of a partner; and the right to victim’s compensation.

The legislation 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 partners in court. The bill recognizes same-sex 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.

Social Security benefits, earned-income tax credit, estate and child tax, permanent-resident status related to immigration and federal requirements for employer-provided continuation of healthcare coverage are some of the 1,138 federal rights still denied couples registered under AB 205. Registered domestic partners in California also do not have the security married couples enjoy when they leave the state.

Two hundred people turned out for a domestic partnership workshop held at The Center on Oct. 6, concerned about the complexities and fine print of AB 205. Local attorneys Leigh Kretzchmar, Julie Brown and Larry Ramey fielded a variety of questions, noting that each couple’s needs are different and that many of the finer points of AB 205 have yet to be worked out.

One of the major changes with AB 205 comes to fiscal responsibility, specifically impacting domestic partners’ joint funds and how those funds are handled if the domestic partnership is dissolved.

“This is all new, and that makes lawyers very excited,” Ramey said at the forum. “I don’t believe this will be the full-employment act for attorneys, but I do think it will be for accountants.”

Though domestic partners will benefit from the state’s property tax cuts for married couples, tax issues could get messy. “This is, I think, the real area where we’ll have an incredible problem,” Ramey said.

Individual court cases and the case law that is established as a result may need to unravel the bulk of the tax tangles, because it is unclear how some of the tax laws will be implemented, and a period of confusion is likely to follow AB 205’s enactment.

Couples are encouraged to keep hard copies of all agreements.

Local immigration lawyer John Smith said that non-U.S. citizens who are in binational relationships and register as domestic partners may be viewed by the government as intending to stay in the country, which can be equity for those who possess green cards or have asylum petitions pending, but could be disastrous for those that don’t.

“For the same reasons as with immigration, registering as a domestic partner is not recommended for people in the military because it is considered a public record,” added Bridget Wilson, a local lawyer who specializes in military law. “…It can lead to everything from separation to court martial,” due to the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, she said.

Gov. Schwarzenegger passed AB 2580 to help domestic partners establish what is essentially a pre-nuptial agreement pertaining to community property and joint responsibility. When AB 205 went into effect, community property became retroactive, meaning that all property acquired from the first day of a couple’s registration as domestic partners – not just what is acquired after Jan. 1 – is now considered joint assets.

Under AB 2580, domestic partners have until June 30 to waive their spousal support and establish divisions of their assets. l