Domestic partnership in California

src: gayfamilylawcenter.com

The California domestic partnership is a legal relationship available to all same-sex couples, and to opposite sex couples where at least one party is 62 years or older. It gives the spouse "the same rights, protections, and benefits, and... the same responsibilities, duties and duties under the law..." as a married couple.

Set up in 1999, the domestic partnership registry is the first of its kind in the United States created by the legislature without court intervention. Initially, domestic partnerships enjoy very few privileges - mainly just the right of hospital visits and the right to be claimed as the closest relatives of the deceased couple. The legislature has since expanded the scope of California's domestic partnership to include all rights and responsibilities common to marriage. Thus, California's domestic partnership is functionally equivalent to the civil unions offered in several other countries.

Filing an incorrect California Domestic Partnership Statement is a serious offense and is considered a minor offense.

Although the program has widespread support in California, this has been a source of controversy. Groups opposed to same-sex family recognition have opposed the expansion of domestic partnerships in court. In contrast, same-sex marriage proponents argue that anything less than complete marital rights extended to same-sex couples is analogous to the "separate but equal" racial law of the Jim Crow era.

Video Domestic partnership in California

Specific

California has expanded the scope or modified some processes in domestic partnership in every legislative session since the legislature first made the registry. Consult the California State Minister for up-to-date information.

Coverage

In 2012, California provides domestic partnerships the same rights and responsibilities as marriages under state law. Among them:

• Make health care decisions for each other under certain circumstances
• The right to visits to hospitals and prisons previously reserved for family members related to blood, adoption or marriage with sick, injured or imprisoned persons.
• Access to family health insurance package (Cal. Ins Code Ã,§10121.7)
• Coin insurance policies (auto, life, homeowners etc.), this applies to all forms of insurance through the California Insurance Equality Act (Cal. Ins Code Ã,§381.5)
• Same care and family leave
• Parent adoption procedure
• The presumption that the two members of the partnership are the parents of a child born into a partnership
• Demand a wrongful death from a spouse
• Rights involving probate, succession approval, conservatory and trust
• The same property tax if not available only to married couples (Cal. R & T Code Ã,§62p)
• Access to some retirement benefits
• California Supreme Court Supervision over zero dissolution and prosecution
• The obligation to file a state tax refund as a married couple (260k) starting with fiscal year 2007 (Cal R & amp; Code T Ã,§18521d)
• The right of partners to take other partner's family name after registration
• Previous ownership rights and liability are only available to married couples
• The right to request partner support (benefits) after the dissolution of the partnership (divorce)
• The same parental rights and responsibilities are given and applied to married couples
• The right to claim inheritance rights as an alleged spouse (equivalent to the rights granted to heterosexual couples under the alleged spouse's doctrine) when one partner believes himself to have entered into a domestic partnership in good faith and is given a legal right as a result of his belief on this belief.

Differences from marriage

While domestic partners receive all marriage benefits under California state legislation, federal law does not recognize domestic partnerships. In addition, some countries that recognize same-sex marriages committed in California apply in their own countries (eg, Israel), not recognizing the same-sex partnership contracted in California.

The use of the word marriage itself is a significant social difference compared to domestic partnerships, and in the opinion of the majority of Marriage Cases, the California Supreme Court agrees, showing a hypothetical analogy that racial marriages are branded "racial unity."

The 2010 UCLA study published in the journal Health Affairs suggests that various inequities (including "Unfairness in marriage law") may have "implications for who shoulder the burden of health care costs." The study found that men in same-sex domestic partnerships in California were only 42% likely to receive dependent coverage for their partners as married partners, and that women in same-sex partnerships in California were only 28% likely to receive that coverage.

Feasibility

Starting January 1, 2012, the terms of the domestic partnership feasibility were significantly revised. Currently, couples who wish to register must meet the following requirements:

1. The two men are of the same sex.
   • Free sex couples can also forge domestic partnerships, provided one or both partners are over 62 years of age, and one or both partners meet certain eligibility requirements under the Social Security Act.
2. If under the age of 18, the written consent of the parent's partner's parents or legal guardian and court order must be obtained. Official copies of court orders should be sent through domestic partnership certificates. If no parent or legal guardian exists or if no parent or legal guardian may agree, the court may grant permission to a minor to establish a domestic partnership.
3. Neither partner marries another person or is a member of another domestic partnership (or a statewide legal equivalent) with another person who has not been dismissed, disbanded, or convicted.
4. Partners are not related to blood in a way that will prevent them from marrying each other in California.
5. Both partners are able to agree on a domestic partnership.

If a couple wishes to establish a confidential domestic partnership, both partners are asked to share a shared residence. There is no longer a public residence requirement for couples wishing to establish a standardized (non-confidential) domestic partnership.

Recognition of same-state union outside

• A similarly substantially similar legal entity legally contracted by same-sex couples in another state or foreign jurisdiction will be recognized as a domestic partnership in California. For example, domestic partnerships in neighboring Nevada and Oregon, civil unions in New Jersey, civil unions in Hawaii, a civil union in Colorado, a civil union in Illinois or a civil partnership in the UK will qualify as a domestic partnership in California.
• Substantially weaker law unions contracted by any partner in another state or foreign jurisdiction may be not eligible as a domestic partnership in California. The domestic partnership in Wisconsin will, in all likelihood, fail to qualify as a domestic partnership in California.
• For opposite sex partners, civil unions or domestic partnerships contracted in other states or foreign jurisdictions, most likely, will be honored as a domestic partnership in California if at least one couple is 62 years or older. However, if both partners are under 62 years of age, unions will likely be void and there is no legal effect in California. For example, Colorado, Hawaii, and Illinois pay all opposite sex couples over 18 years of the right to establish civil unions, and Nevada allows couples of opposite sex over 18 years to forge domestic partnerships; unions in these countries are functionally equivalent to marriage. However, California will only recognize this union if at least one of the opposite partners is 62 or older.
• same-sex marriage is not recognized as a domestic partnership in California. Prior to June 28, 2013, same-sex marriage recognition system exists in California:

1. Legitimate sex marriages in other states or foreign jurisdictions on or before November 4, 2008 are fully recognized and legally established as marriages in California. This also applies to all legitimate legal marriages outside the state and foreign countries before California begins to provide marriage certificates to same-sex couples on June 17, 2008.
Legal unlawful marriage in another state or foreign jurisdiction on or after November 5, 2008 is fully recognized in California, but Proposition 8 precludes California from appointing this relationship to the word "marriage. " This couple is granted every one of the legal rights, benefits, and obligations of marriage.

On June 28, 2013, same-sex marriage is back in California. A law passed on 7 July 2014 ensures that same-sex marriages lawfully closed outside the country after November 4, 2008 are set out in such a way.

Registration

Domestic partner registration is an uncomplicated process, simpler and cheaper than entering marriage. Both parties must sign a statement that includes their name and address. Both signatures must be notarized. The declaration should then be sent to the Secretary of State along with a $ 10 filing fee (plus an additional $ 23 fee for same-sex couples to help fund LGBT-specific training and LGBT-specific services). In this case it is not like marriage or civil union. The unions require a ceremony, inaugurated by religious scholars or civil officials, to be considered legitimate.

Dissolution

In many cases, domestic partnerships must be dissolved through the filing of a court action identical to the act of dissolving marriage. However, in limited circumstances, filing with the Secretary of State may be sufficient. This procedure is available when domestic partnership has not been valid for more than five years. The couple must also fulfill many other requirements that the dissolution be simple and undeniable: no child (or current pregnancy) in the relationship, no real estate (including a certain lease), and little joint property or debt. The parties should also review the materials prepared by the Secretary of State, implement the agreement to divide the assets and liabilities, and release claims for domestic partner support. When all requirements are met, the partnership will expire six months after the filing, unless one of the parties revokes the agreement.

Recognition in other jurisdictions

On September 28, 2012, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that "Since the parties in California [domestic registered partnership] have identical rights and responsibilities with marriage," it is appropriate to treat such a relationship "the same as marriage" in Massachusetts. The context is a child custody dispute between two women in a California domestic partnership.

Countries that have civil unions or registries of domestic partnerships that provide similar legal protection generally recognize California's domestic partnership.

Maps Domestic partnership in California

Legislative history

City-level efforts

The term "domestic partnership" was allegedly created by Berkeley city employee Tom Brougham in a letter in August 1979, and both he and his colleagues submitted a proposal to create this lower level of legal recognition for employee benefits for the City Council and the University of Berkeley. from California, Berkeley. Their proposal will be adopted by San Francisco Supervisor Harry Britt.

In 1982, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors authorized Britt's action to expand the coverage of health insurance to domestic partners of public employees, largely due to reaction to the early days of AIDS, but did not provide the registry available to the general public. Mayor Dianne Feinstein vetoed the action. Finally San Francisco and other communities, such as Berkeley, and some local agents impose similar actions.

In December 1984, Berkeley was the first city to issue domestic partner policies for city and school employees after one year of work by the Domestic Partner Duty Task Force headed by Leland Traiman. Working with the Task Force is Tom Brougham, a Berkeley city employee who coined the term "domestic partner" and created the concept. All other domestic partner policies are patterned after Berkeley.

In 1985, West Hollywood became the first US city to enact domestic open partnership registration for all citizens. Eventually other cities, such as San Francisco, Berkeley, and Santa Cruz, followed suit.

Despite success in some areas, advocates of equal-sex law recognition can not cope with limited geographical scope and relatively simple program ranges managed at district and city levels. In the 1990s, they turned their attention to the state legislature.

Initial efforts in state legislature

Reflecting on the experience of California's local efforts, the state legislature was initially unsuccessful in providing health insurance coverage to domestic partners or creating a domestic partner partnership for the general public.

• Assembly Bill 627 of 1995: In 1995, Councilor Richard Katz introduced the bill to create a domestic partner partner, open to the same pair and the opposite sex. It seeks to provide limited rights in medical decision-making, conservatories and related matters. It died on the committee.
• Murray-Katz Domestic Partnership Act of 1997: At the beginning of the 1997-1998 legislative session, Assemblymember Kevin Murray introduced Assembly Bill 54. It was similar to Assembly Bill 627 in 1995. After successfully negotiating two Assembly committees , Murray did not bring the bill for voting on the floor of the Assembly.
Assembly Bill 1059 of 1997: In 1997, Assemblymember Carole Migden introduced a bill requiring health insurance companies to offer a sales policy that would cover domestic partners from the insured, but does not require employers to provide coverage. As later amended, it requires employers that include employee dependents to cover their domestic counterparts as well. The amended bill finally got approval from the legislature, but Governor Pete Wilson vetoed its size.
• Domestic Partnership Act of 1999: Kevin Murray, now a state senator, introduced Senate Bill 75 in December 1998. It was largely identical to Assembly Bill 54 of 1997 and finally graduated from both houses. state legislature. Governor Gray Davis vetoed the bill in favor of bill 26, which is narrower in scope.

Incorrect establishment and expansion

Assembly Bill 26 of 1999

In conjunction with the 1999 Domestic Partnership Act, Carole Migden of Assemblymember introduced the Representative Bill 26 of 1999. As originally composed, this includes all adult couples, such as unsuccessful senate counterparts. Before bringing the bill to the floor of the Assembly, however, Migden narrows his scope. Based on the objections of Governor Gray Davis, who does not want a competing alternative for marriage for the opposite sex partner, Migden waives the scope for the opposite sex couples in which participants are less than 62 years old. The bill was passed, and Davis approved it on October 2, 1999. The law provides for public registration, hospital visit rights, and official health insurance coverage for domestic partners of public employees. While in a simple setting, Assembly Bill 26 marks the first time a state legislature has made domestic partnership laws without court intervention. (The Hawaii legislation enacted a wider reciprocal beneficiary scheme in 1997 in response to unfavorable lower court rulings: Vermont enacted a civil union bill that swept the year 2000 toward its state Supreme Court.)

Assembly Bill 25 of 2001

In the first successful expansion of domestic partnership act, Assembrsembers Carole Migden and Robert Hertzberg, joined by state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, introduced a bill that adds 18 new rights for domestic partnership scheme. This also relaxes the requirements for opposite sex couples, requiring only one of the participants to be over 62 years old. Rights be expanded to include standing to sue (for emotional distress or death), the adoption of the stepparent, various rights conservator, the right to make health care decisions for couples who can not afford certain rights regarding the distribution of inheritance spouse dies, the rights of taxpayers limited, sick leave to care for partners, and unemployment and disability insurance benefits. Governor Gray Davis signed the bill into law on October 22, 2001.

Another bill in the 2001-2002 legislative session

During the 2001-2002 session, California approved five more bills that made minor changes:

• Senate Bill 1049 (Speier) allows San Mateo County to benefit domestic couples.
• Assembly Bill 2216 (Keeley) is provided for an international succession.
• Assembly Bill 2777 (Nation) authorizes Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, and Marin to benefit domestic partners.
• Senate Bill 1575 (Sher) frees domestic partners from certain provisions that undo the will they are helping design.
• Senate Bill 1661 (Kuehl) extends temporary disability allowances for workers to take time off to care for family members.

Wholesale expansion

The introduction of the Act of Rights and Responsibilities of California Domestic Partners of 2003 (or Assembly Bill 205 of 2003 ) marks a major shift in the legislative approach to domestic partnerships. Previous attempts have only been granted to domestic partners only certain rights, which the legislature expanded little by little. This bill, introduced by Assembleman Jackie Goldberg, Christine Kehoe, Paul Koretz, John Laird and Mark Leno, creates the assumption that domestic partners should have all rights and responsibilities granted by couples under state law. The bill carries out certain exceptions for this premise, especially involving the creation and dissolution of domestic partnerships and certain tax issues. It also, for the first time, recognizes similar relationships, such as civil unions, made in other countries. Because legislation dramatically altered the state of existing domestic partnerships, the legislature directed the Secretary of State to inform all previously registered domestic partnerships of the changes and delayed legal effects for the additional year, until January 1, 2005. Governor Gray Davis signed the bill into law on September 19, 2003.

Subsequent changes and clarifications

Since enacting the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibility Act of 2003, the legislature has issued several bills aimed at clarifying how certain marital provisions should be treated in the context of domestic partnerships and making some simple changes. The following laws include:

• Assembly Bill 2208 of 2004 (Kehoe) explains that health and disability insurance providers-should treat domestic partners just like married couples.
• Senate Bill 565 of 2005 (Migden) allows the transfer of property between domestic partners without a reassessment for tax purposes.
• Senate Bill 973 of 2005 (Kuehl) stipulates that domestic counterparts of state workers are entitled to retroactive retirement benefits, even if workers retire before the enactment of the Judicial Bill 205.
• Senate Bill 1827 of 2006 (Migden) requires domestic partners to apply for a state income tax refund under the same status as a married couple (jointly or married separately), effective in the year taxes 2007.
• Assembly Bill 2051 of 2006 (Cohn) created the program and funded a grant to reduce domestic violence in the LGBT community and increased the cost to register a $ 23 domestic partnership to fund the service. The new charge is valid from 1 January 2007.
• Assembly Bill 102 of 2007 (Ma) allows parties to a registered domestic partnership to change their name legally to include their partner's last name.
• Assembly Bill 2055 of 2010 (De La Torre) expands unemployment benefits for same-sex couples planning to partner domestically if one partner loses his job.
• Senate Bill 651 of 2011 (Leno) aligns the eligibility requirements of a domestic partnership with the terms of marriage, which includes an option to forge a confidential domestic partnership.
• Senate Bill 757 of 2011 (Substitute) requires insurance providers outside the country that sell their products in California to provide the same coverage to domestic partners as they do to married couples.

src: bestprocessserversacramento.com

Public opinion

California public opinion has long supported the protection of the law for same-sex couples. In early 1997, two and a half years before state recognition, polls showed two-thirds of Californians supported the limited provisions in unsuccessful bills that were debated in the legislature at the time. There is also strong support (59 percent) for wider provisions (retirement, health, leave and safety benefits) that were not enforced for more than four years.

The poll consistently shows a clear contrast between support for domestic partnerships and same-sex marriage. In 1997, about 38 percent of Californians supported same-sex marriage. More polls show increased support for same-sex marriage, but some polls suggest that there is more support for same-sex marriages than statistical ties with opponents. On November 4, 2008, Californians voted, 52.2% to 47.8%, to eliminate the right of the same sex couples to marry. However, a recent 2012 poll showed a major increase in favor of same-sex marriage with 59% of Californians supporting same-sex marriage and 80% supporting legal recognition of same-sex couples. The 2012 poll found the first-ever majority support for same-sex marriage when a non-marriage domestic partnership is presented as an option.

src: fwfprod.s3.amazonaws.com

Challenges to domestic partnerships

Despite widespread support, California's domestic partnership program has spawned opposition.

Referendum

The California law provides a referendum, a drive petition that will place every legislative law on voting for review. Following part of the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibility Act of 2003, state senator William "Pete" Knight (author of the successful Proposition 22 initiative) and Ray Ayrnov Haynes sought to place new laws in elections. Referendum failed to pass to vote.

Litigation

Opponents of legal recognition for same-sex couples filed two lawsuits in the California High Court. In the first case, state senator William "Pete" Knight sued Governor Gray Davis (later replacing Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger) on the grounds that A.B. 205 Proposition 22 is amended, composed by Knight. Randy Thomasson (opposite of gay rights and head of the Campaign for Family of California) filed a similar lawsuit, which challenged both A.B. 205 and the expansion of previous domestic partners in A.B. 25. Both lawsuits, which were consolidated into one act, failed in court and appeals court. Behind the ruling, opponents of legal recognition for LGBT families launched at least two attempts to withdraw Judge Loren McMaster, who led the trial. The withdrawal attempt also failed.

Along with similar legal channels, defendants in the wrongful deaths carried by survivors of domestic partnerships increased the partial defense based on the reason that legislative legislation provided domestic partners standing up to demand a wrongful death insisting on Proposition 22 (ie defense). The defense failed in appeal.

Supporters of same-sex marriages, including the City and Territory of San Francisco, have opposed the marriage requirements of the opposite sex of the country on a constitutional basis. In pursuit of these claims, the plaintiffs argue that even the widespread protection of California's domestic partnership scheme forms a "separate but unequal" discrimination framework. In May 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of them in the Marriage Case, overriding Proposition 22 and effectively legalizing same-sex marriage in California.

Constitutional amendments

Immediately following the passage of the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibility Act of 2003, a petition urged the amendment of the California Constitution to ban any recognition - including domestic partnerships - LBGT relationships. The move failed to qualify for a vote.

For a month in early 2004, San Francisco issued a marriage certificate for same-sex couples. The California Supreme Court suspended the process and later declared that the marriage was canceled. In spite of this, four separate groups began petitioning to amend the California Constitution to prevent same-sex marriage and repeal domestic partnership rights. The new effort reached its peak in 2005, but has continued since then. These groups have filed a total of 20 petitions, but none of the proposed amendments have been eligible for voting.

In 2008, the two groups moved to qualify for a voting initiative to amend the California Constitution at the November 2008 ballot. One qualifies as Proposition 8. This amendment eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry but does not deprive any rights granted to domestic partnerships and registration for domestic partnerships remain legal in California. At the end of 2008, Proposition 8 was authorized by voters, in 2009, the legality of Proposition 8 was upheld by the California Supreme Court in Strauss v. Horton stating that same-sex couples have all the rights of heterosexual couples, except the right to "appointment" of marriage and that such hold does not violate California's privacy, equal protection, or legal process law; The case of In Re Marriage is still valid. Proposition 8 was then challenged in federal court on August 4, 2010 in the trial of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, as it is known to have violated the Process of Effect and Protection of Equality of the 14th Amendment of the Federal Constitution.

src: i.ytimg.com

Rules of Internal Revenue Service

At the end of May 2010, the Internal Revenue Service reversed the 2006 decision, stating that, in relation to community ownership, domestic counterparts in California should be treated equally with heterosexual couples due to changes to California's community property tax law in 2007. The IRS decides about 58,000 registered as a domestic partner in California should combine their income for federal tax purposes, and then each report half of the total revenue and half of the total deductions on their separate tax returns. If one partner makes significantly more than the other, the net result is a lower tax liability for the couple. In December 2010, the Internal Revenue Service issued a revised edition of 555 Publication, Community Property, which explicitly applies this decision to registered domestic partners in Nevada as well, other community states declare with the registrant, as well as, in California, both registered domestic partners and same-sex couples recognized by the state as married.

src: i.ytimg.com

References

src: www.garwoodfamilylaw.com

External links

• Domestic Partner Registration. Information from the California Secretary of State. Includes downloadable form.
• Name Change. Information on how to change your name with the California Motor Vehicle Department.
• 297-297.5 California Family Code. California Family Code on Domestic Partnership.
• Fact sheets about the rights and responsibilities of California domestic partners by Equality California and National Center for Lesbian Rights
• National Center for Lesbian Rights. Information on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender legal rights and their families, including legal information hotlines.
• Federal Registered Tax Affiliate Partner Website
• California Franchise Tax Report 737 Tax Information for Registered Domestic Partners (260k)

Source of the article : Wikipedia