banner



Home  ›  What Is A Registered Domestic Partner?

What Is A Registered Domestic Partner?

Written By Thursday, March 17, 2022 Add Comment Edit

A California domestic partnership is a legal relationship, coordinating to marriage, created in 1999 to extend the rights and benefits of marriage to same-sex couples (and opposite-sex couples where both parties were over 62). It was extended to all contrary-sex couples as of January 1, 2016 and by January i, 2020 to include new votes that updated SB-thirty with more than benefits and rights to California couples choosing domestic partnership before their wedding. California Governor Newsom signed into law on July 30, 2019.[1]

Domestic partnerships legally afford couples who choose not to ally "the aforementioned rights, protections, and benefits, and... the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law..." as married spouses.[2]

Enacted in 1999, the domestic partnership registry was the outset of its kind in the United States created by a legislature without courtroom intervention. Initially, domestic partnerships enjoyed very few privileges—principally only infirmary-visitation rights and the correct to be claimed every bit a adjacent of kin of the estate of a deceased partner. The legislature has since expanded the scope of California domestic partnerships to include all of the rights and responsibilities common to marriage. As such, California domestic partnerships are functionally equivalent to ceremonious unions offered in several other states.

Filing an invalid California Declaration of Domestic Partnership is a serious crime and considered a misdemeanor.

Although the program enjoys wide support in California,[iii] it has been the source of some controversy. Groups opposed to the recognition of same-sex families have challenged the expansion of domestic partnerships in court. Conversely, advocates of same-sexual activity matrimony contend that anything less than total spousal relationship rights extended to aforementioned-sexual practice partners is coordinating to the "carve up only equal" racial laws of the Jim Crow era.

Specifics [edit]

California has expanded the scope or modified some of the processes in domestic partnerships in every legislative session since the legislature first created the registry. Consult the California Secretary of Land for the most current data.[iv]

Scope [edit]

As of 2012, California affords domestic partnerships the same rights and responsibilities as marriages under land law. Among these:

  • Making wellness care decisions for each other in sure circumstances
  • Hospital and jail visitation rights that were previously reserved for family members related by claret, adoption or marriage to the sick, injured or incarcerated person.
  • Admission to family health insurance plans (Cal. Ins. Code §10121.7)
  • Spousal insurance policies (auto, life, homeowners etc..), this applies to all forms of insurance through the California Insurance Equality Act (Cal. Ins. Lawmaking §381.5)
  • Ill intendance and similar family exit
  • Stepparent adoption procedures
  • Presumption that both members of the partnership are the parents of a child born into the partnership
  • Suing for wrongful expiry of a domestic partner
  • Rights involving wills, intestate succession, conservatorships and trusts
  • The same holding tax provisions otherwise available only to married couples (Cal. R&T Code §62p)
  • Admission to some survivor pension benefits
  • Supervision of the Superior Court of California over dissolution and nullity proceedings
  • The obligation to file state taxation returns as a married couple (260k) commencing with the 2007 taxation year (Cal R&T Lawmaking §18521d)
  • The right for either partner to take the other partner'southward surname after registration
  • Community holding rights and responsibilities previously but bachelor to married spouses
  • The right to request partner support (alimony) upon dissolution of the partnership (divorce)
  • The same parental rights and responsibilities granted to and imposed upon spouses in a wedlock
  • The right to merits inheritance rights as a putative partner (equivalent to the rights given to heterosexual couples under the putative spouse doctrine) when ane partner believes himself or herself to have entered into a domestic partnership in good faith and is given legal rights as a result of his or her reliance upon this belief.[5]

Differences from marriage [edit]

While domestic partners receive all of the benefits of marriage under California country constabulary, federal law does not recognize domestic partnerships. In add-on, some countries that recognize aforementioned-sexual practice marriages performed in California as valid in their ain country (e.g., State of israel[6]) practice not recognize same-sex domestic partnerships contracted in California.

The use of the word marriage itself constitutes a significant social difference compared to domestic partnership, and in the majority stance of In re Marriage Cases, the California Supreme Court agreed,[7] suggesting an analogy with a hypothetical that branded interracial marriages "transracial unions".[8]

A 2010 UCLA study published in the journal Wellness Affairs suggests various inequities (including "Inequities in matrimony laws") might have "implications for who bears the brunt of health intendance costs." That written report finds that men in same-sex activity domestic partnerships in California are only 42% every bit likely to receive dependent coverage for their partners as their married peers, and that women in same-sexual practice domestic partnerships in California are merely 28% every bit likely to receive that coverage.[9] [10]

Eligibility [edit]

Currently, a couple wishing to register as domestic partners in California must see the following requirements:[11]

  1. Neither person is married to someone else or is a fellow member of some other domestic partnership with someone else that has not been terminated, dissolved, or adjudged a nullity.
  2. The two persons are non related by blood in a way that would forestall them from being married to each other in this state.
  3. Both persons are at least 18 years of historic period, except as provided in Section 297.1.
  4. Both persons are capable of consenting to the domestic partnership.

If a couple wishes to institute a confidential domestic partnership, both partners are required to share a common residence. There is no longer a common residence requirement for couples wishing to found a standard (not-confidential) domestic partnership.

Example of California domestic partnership document

Recognition of out-of-state same-sexual practice unions [edit]

  • A essentially like legal union lawfully contracted by a same-sex couple in another state or foreign jurisdiction will be recognized as a domestic partnership in California. For case, a domestic partnership in both Nevada and Oregon adjacent door, a civil union in New Jersey, a civil marriage in Hawaii, a civil union in Colorado, a civil marriage in Illinois or a civil partnership in the United kingdom would qualify as a domestic partnership in California.
  • A substantially weaker legal spousal relationship contracted past whatever couple in another country or foreign jurisdiction may non authorize every bit a domestic partnership in California. A domestic partnership in Wisconsin would, in all likelihood, fail to authorize equally a domestic partnership in California.
  • For opposite-sexual activity couples, a ceremonious wedlock or domestic partnership contracted in some other state or foreign jurisdiction volition, in all likelihood, be honored as a domestic partnership in California if at least 1 partner is 62 years of age or older. Yet, if both partners are nether age 62, the spousal relationship volition likely be void and of no legal effect in California. For example, Colorado, Hawaii and Illinois afford all reverse-sex couples over 18 years old the right to establish civil unions, and Nevada allows opposite-sexual practice couples over 18 years old to establish domestic partnerships; such unions in these states are functionally equivalent to marriage. Only, California will only recognize these unions if at least one of the reverse-sex partners is 62 years of age or older.
  • Same-sex marriages are not recognized as domestic partnerships in California. Prior to June 28, 2013, a two-tiered system of same-sex union recognition existed in California:
  1. A same-sex matrimony lawfully performed in another state or foreign jurisdiction on or earlier November 4, 2008 was fully recognized and legally designated as wedlock in California. This also applied to all lawful out-of-state and foreign same-sex marriages performed before California began granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples on June 17, 2008.
  2. A same-sexual activity marriage lawfully performed in some other state or foreign jurisdiction on or after November 5, 2008 was fully recognized in California, but Proposition eight precluded California from designating these relationships with the give-and-take "marriage." These couples were afforded every single one of the legal rights, benefits, and obligations of marriage.[12]

On June 28, 2013, same-sex marriage resumed in California. A law enacted on July 7, 2014 ensures that aforementioned-sexual practice marriages lawfully concluded out-of-state after November 4, 2008 are designated as such.[13]

Registration [edit]

Domestic partner registration is an simple process, more simple and less costly than entering into a spousal relationship. Both parties must sign a declaration listing their names and address.[14] Both signatures must be notarized. The proclamation must then be transmitted to the Secretary of State along with a $10 filing fee (plus an additional $23 fee for couples nether age 62, to assist fund LGBT-specific domestic violence training and services).[15] In this regard information technology is not like a marriage or ceremonious matrimony. Those unions require a ceremony, solemnized past either religious clergy or ceremonious officials, to be accounted valid.[16]

Dissolution [edit]

In most cases, a domestic partnership must exist dissolved through filing a court action identical[17] to an action for dissolution of marriage. In express circumstances, however, a filing with the Secretary of State may suffice. This procedure is available when the domestic partnership has not been in strength for more than five years. The couple must also meet many other requirements that the dissolution be both simple and uncontested: no children (or electric current pregnancy) within the human relationship, no real estate (including certain leases), and little joint property or debt. The parties must likewise review materials prepared by the Secretary of State, execute an understanding dividing assets and liability, and waive claims to domestic partner support. Where all the requirements are met, the partnership volition terminate six months afterwards the filing, unless either party revokes consent.

Recognition in other jurisdictions [edit]

On September 28, 2012, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Courtroom ruled in that "Because the parties to California [registered domestic partnerships] take rights and responsibilities identical to those of marriage", it is proper to treat such relationships "equally equivalent to marriage" in Massachusetts. The context was a kid custody dispute between ii women in a California domestic partnership.[18]

States which accept civil unions or domestic partnership registries affording substantially similar legal protections generally recognize California domestic partnerships.[ citation needed ]

Legislative history [edit]

Attempts at the municipal level [edit]

The term "domestic partnership" was allegedly coined by Berkeley municipal employee Tom Brougham in an Baronial 1979 letter, and both he and his partner put frontward a proposal for creating this lower tier of legal human relationship recognition for employee benefits to the Berkeley City Council and University of California, Berkeley. Their proposal would exist adopted by San Francisco Supervisor Harry Britt.

In 1982, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed Britt's measure to extend health insurance coverage to domestic partners of public employees, largely because of the reaction to the early days of AIDS, but did not provide for a registry available to the full general public. Mayor Dianne Feinstein vetoed the mensurate.[19] Eventually San Francisco and other communities, such every bit Berkeley, and some local agencies enacted a similar measure.

In December 1984, Berkeley was the first urban center to laissez passer a domestic partner policy for urban center and school commune employees after a year of piece of work by the Domestic Partner Task Force chaired past Leland Traiman. Working with the Task Force was Tom Brougham, a Berkeley urban center employee who coined the term "domestic partner" and created the concept. All other domestic partner policies are patterned subsequently Berkeley'southward.

In 1985, West Hollywood became the first United states of america city to enact a domestic partnership registry open up to all citizens. Eventually other cities, such every bit San Francisco, Berkeley, and Santa Cruz, followed suit.[20]

Despite successes in a handful of localities, supporters of legal recognition aforementioned-sexual activity couples could not overcome the express geographical scope and relatively modest range of programs administered at the county and city level. In the 1990s, they turned their attention to the state legislature.

Early on attempts in the state legislature [edit]

Mirroring the experience of California's local efforts, the state legislature did not initially succeed in providing health insurance coverage for domestic partners or creating a domestic partner registry for the full general public.

  • Assembly Bill 627 of 1995: In 1995, Assemblymember Richard Katz introduced a bill to create a domestic partner registry, open to both same- and opposite-sex couples. It sought to provide limited rights in medical decision making, conservatorships and a few related matters. It died in committee.[21]
  • Murray-Katz Domestic Partnership Act of 1997: At the beginning of the 1997–1998 legislative session Assemblymember Kevin Murray introduced Assembly Beak 54. It was similar to Assembly Bill 627 of 1995. After successfully negotiating two Assembly committees, Murray did not bring the bill to a vote on the Assembly flooring.[22]
  • Assembly Bill 1059 of 1997: In 1997, Assemblymember Carole Migden introduced a bill that would require health insurance companies to offer for auction policies that would comprehend domestic partners of the insured, but did not require employers to provide the coverage. As later amended, it required employers who embrace employees' dependents to cover their domestic partners as well. The amended bill eventually gained approval of the legislature, but Governor Pete Wilson vetoed the measure out.[23]
  • Domestic Partnership Act of 1999: Kevin Murray, now a state senator, introduced Senate Bill 75 in December 1998. It was largely identical to his Associates Beak 54 of 1997 and ultimately passed both houses of the state legislature. Governor Greyness Davis vetoed the bill in favor of Assembly Bill 26, which was narrower in scope.[24]

Establishment and incremental expansion [edit]

Assembly Beak 26 of 1999 [edit]

Simultaneously with the Domestic Partnership Human activity of 1999, Assemblymember Carole Migden introduced Assembly Pecker 26 of 1999. Equally originally drafted, it covered all adult couples, like its unsuccessful senate analogue. Before bringing the bill to the Assembly floor, notwithstanding, Migden narrowed its scope. Based on objections from Governor Gray Davis, who did not want a competing alternative to marriage for opposite-sex couples, Migden eliminated coverage for opposite-sex couples where either participant was less than 62 years of age. The bill passed, and Davis approved it on Oct 2, 1999. Information technology provided for a public registry, hospital visitation rights, and authorized health insurance coverage for domestic partners of public employees.[25] While pocket-sized in scope, Associates Bill 26 marked the first time a state legislature created a domestic partnership statute without the intervention of the courts. (Hawaii'south legislature enacted a more than expansive reciprocal beneficiaries scheme in 1997 in response to an unfavorable lower court ruling; Vermont enacted a sweeping civil wedlock bill in 2000 at the direction of its state Supreme Court.)

Assembly Nib 25 of 2001 [edit]

In the first successful expansion of the domestic partnership act, Assemblymembers Carole Migden and Robert Hertzberg, joined by state Senator Sheila Kuehl, introduced a bill that added 18 new rights to the domestic partnership scheme. It also relaxed the requirements for opposite-sex couples, requiring only one of the participants to be over 62 years of historic period. The expanded rights included continuing to sue (for emotional distress or wrongful death), stepparent adoption, a variety of conservatorship rights, the right to make health intendance decisions for an incapacitated partner, certain rights regarding distribution of a deceased partner'due south manor, limited taxpayer rights, ill leave to care for partners, and unemployment and disability insurance benefits. Governor Grayness Davis signed the neb into police force on Oct 22, 2001.[26]

Other bills in the 2001–2002 legislative session [edit]

During the 2001–2002 session, California enacted v more bills making modest changes:

  • Senate Bill 1049 (Speier) permitted San Mateo County to provide survivor benefits to domestic partners.[27]
  • Assembly Beak 2216 (Keeley) provided for intestate succession.[28]
  • Assembly Bill 2777 (Nation) authorized Los Angeles, Santa Barbara and Marin counties to provide survivor benefits to domestic partners.[29]
  • Senate Bill 1575 (Sher) exempts domestic partners from certain provisions voiding wills that they helped draft.[thirty]
  • Senate Neb 1661 (Kuehl) extends temporary disability benefits to workers to take time off to care for a family member.[31]

Wholesale expansion [edit]

The introduction of The California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003 (or Assembly Beak 205 of 2003) marked a major shift in the legislature's approach to domestic partnerships. Earlier efforts afforded domestic partners simply certain enumerated rights, which the legislature expanded in piecemeal fashion. This beak, introduced by Assemblymembers Jackie Goldberg, Christine Kehoe, Paul Koretz, John Laird, and Mark Leno, created the presumption that domestic partners were to accept all of the rights and responsibilities afforded spouses under state police force. The bill did cleave out certain exceptions to this premise, principally involving the creation and dissolution of domestic partnerships and certain revenue enhancement issues. It also, for the get-go time, recognized similar relationships, such as civil unions, created in other states. Because the legislation dramatically inverse the circumstances of existing domestic partnerships, the legislature directed the Secretary of Land to inform all previously registered domestic partnerships of the changes and delayed the effect of the law for an additional yr, until January ane, 2005. Governor Gray Davis signed the bill into constabulary on September 19, 2003.[32]

Subsequent changes and clarifications [edit]

Since enacting The California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Human action of 2003, the legislature has passed several bills aimed at clarifying how certain spousal provisions should be treated in the context of domestic partnerships and fabricated some modest changes. This subsequent legislation includes:

  • Assembly Neb 2208 of 2004 (Kehoe) clarifies that wellness and disability-insurance providers must treat domestic partners the same as married spouses.[33]
  • Senate Bill 565 of 2005 (Migden) allows transfer of property betwixt domestic partners without reassessment for tax purposes.[34]
  • Senate Bill 973 of 2005 (Kuehl) specifies that domestic partners of state workers are entitled to retroactive pension benefits, even if the worker entered retirement before the enactment of Assembly Bill 205.[35]
  • Senate Neb 1827 of 2006 (Migden) requires domestic partners to file state income-revenue enhancement returns under the same status equally married couples (jointly or married filing separately), effective in the 2007 tax year.[36]
  • Assembly Bill 2051 of 2006 (Cohn) creates programs and funding grants to reduce domestic violence in the LGBT community and increases the fee for registering a domestic partnership by $23 to fund these services. The new fees are effective January 1, 2007.[37]
  • Assembly Bill 102 of 2007 (Ma) allows parties to a registered domestic partnership to legally alter their proper name to include the concluding proper noun of their partner.[38]
  • Assembly Bill 2055 of 2010 (De La Torre) extends unemployment benefits to aforementioned-sex couples planning to enter into a domestic partnership if one of the partners loses his or her job.[39]
  • Senate Neb 651 of 2011 (Leno) harmonizes domestic partnership eligibility requirements with those of wedlock, which includes the selection of establishing a confidential domestic partnership.[40]
  • Senate Neb 757 of 2011 (Lieu) requires out-of-state insurance providers selling their products in California to provide the aforementioned coverage to domestic partners every bit they do to married couples.[41]

Expansion to include opposite-sexual activity couples of any age [edit]

As of January 1, 2020, Senate Bill thirty of 2019 (Wiener) removes the requirement that persons be of the same sex or of the opposite sex activity and over 62 years of historic period in order to enter into a domestic partnership, allowing all opposite-sexual activity couples to enter domestic partnerships as an alternative to marriage.[42] [43] According to the writer of the neb, Scott Wiener, "Senate Bill xxx expands Californians' options to enter into legally protected relationships. In modernistic life, people make all sorts of human relationship choices reflecting their values, commitments, and long-term plans. SB 30 removes discriminatory barriers for couples who wish to become domestic partners and recognizes and respects their relationship choices. Not everyone in California wants to exist married, just many exercise desire their relationships and families to exist recognized and have legal protections. This neb enables people's freedom to make choices about their ain relationships."[44]

Public stance [edit]

California public opinion has long supported legal protections for same-sex couples. In early on 1997, two and half years before any statewide recognition occurred, polls showed two-thirds of Californians supported the limited provisions in unsuccessful bills debated in the legislature at the time. There was also potent support (59 percent) for broader provisions (pension, health, get out and survivor benefits) that weren't enacted until more than four years later.[45]

Polls consistently evidence a marked dissimilarity between support for domestic partnerships and aforementioned-sex marriage. In 1997, roughly 38 percent of Californians supported same-sexual practice marriage. More polls prove an increase in support for aforementioned-sexual activity marriage, simply few polls advise that at that place is any more than support for aforementioned-sex marriage than a statistical tie with opponents.[46] On November 4, 2008, Californians voted, 52.two% to 47.eight%, to eliminate the correct of same sex activity couples to marry.[47] However, a recent 2012 poll showed vast increase in support of same sex wedlock with 59% of Californians supporting aforementioned sex spousal relationship and 80% supporting legal recognition of same sex couples. The 2012 poll found for the start time a majority support for same-sex union when non-marriage domestic partnerships were presented as an selection.[48]

Challenges to domestic partnerships [edit]

Despite wide support, California's domestic partnership program has engendered opposition.

Plebiscite [edit]

California law provides for referendums, petition drives that would place any legislative enactment on the ballot for review. Following the passage of The California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003, state senator William "Pete" Knight (author of the successful Proposition 22 initiative) and Assemblymember Ray Haynes sought to put the new legislation to a popular vote. The referendum failed to qualify for the ballot.[49]

Litigation [edit]

Opponents of legal recognition for same-sex couples filed two lawsuits in the Superior Courtroom of California. In the kickoff instance, state senator William "Pete" Knight sued Governor Greyness Davis (later on substituting Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger) on the grounds that A.B. 205 impermissibly amended Proposition 22, which Knight authored. Randy Thomasson (an opponent of gay rights and head of the Campaign for California Families) filed a similar lawsuit, which challenged both A.B. 205 and the earlier domestic-partner expansion in A.B. 25. Both lawsuits, consolidated into a single action, failed at the trial and appellate courts. In the wake of those decisions, opponents of legal recognition for LGBT families launched at to the lowest degree two recall efforts against Judge Loren McMaster, who presided over the trial-courtroom hearings. The recall efforts also failed.[50]

Along similar legal lines, defendants in a wrongful-death action brought past the survivor of a domestic partnership mounted a defense based partly on the basis that the legislative enactments giving a domestic partner standing to sue for wrongful death ran afoul of Proffer 22 (among other defenses). That defense force failed on appeal.[51]

Proponents of same-sex marriage, including the City and County of San Francisco, have challenged the state'due south opposite-sex union requirements on ramble grounds. In pursuing these claims, the plaintiffs argue that even the wide protections of California's domestic partnership scheme constitute a "dissever but diff" discriminatory framework. In May 2008, the Supreme Court of California ruled in their favor in In re Marriage Cases, overruling Proposition 22 and effectively legalizing same-sex marriage in California.

Constitutional amendments [edit]

Immediately following the passage of The California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003, a petition bulldoze began to amend the California Constitution to forestall any recognition—including domestic partnerships—of LBGT relationships.[52] The measure failed to qualify for the ballot.

For a month in early 2004, San Francisco issued marriage licenses to same-sex activity couples. The Supreme Courtroom of California halted that procedure and later alleged the marriages void. Regardless, 4 separate groups began petition drives to amend the California Constitution to prevent same-sex marriage and repeal domestic-partnership rights.[53] The renewed efforts peaked in 2005,[54] only have continued since. These groups have filed a total of xx petitions, but none of the proposed amendments has qualified for the ballot.[55]

In 2008, two of these groups moved[56] to qualify ballot initiatives to amend the California Constitution on the November 2008 ballot. One qualified as Proposition 8. The amendment eliminates the correct of same-sex couples to marry, but does not repeal any rights granted to domestic partnerships and registration for domestic partnerships remains legal in California.[57] In tardily 2008, Proposition 8 was passed by the voters, in 2009, the legality of Proposition 8 was upheld by the California Supreme Court in Strauss 5. Horton holding that same-sex couples take all the rights of heterosexual couples, except the right to the "designation" of spousal relationship and that such a holding does not violate California's privacy, equal protection, or due process laws; the In re Marriage Cases nonetheless use.[58] Proposition 8 then was challenged in federal court on August 4, 2010 in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial, as information technology was found to have violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment of the Federal Constitution.

Internal Acquirement Service Ruling [edit]

In late May 2010, the Internal Revenue Service reversed a 2006 ruling, and alleged that, with respect to community property, domestic partners in California must be treated the same as heterosexual couples due to a modify to the California community holding taxation police force in 2007.[59] The IRS ruled the approximately 58,000 couples who are registered as domestic partners in California must combine their income for federal tax purposes, and then each report half of the total income and one-half of the total withholdings on their separate tax returns. If i of the partners makes significantly more than than the other, the net result is a lower taxation obligation for the couple.[60] In December 2010, the Internal Acquirement Service issued a revised edition of its Publication 555, Customs Property, explicitly applying this ruling to registered domestic partners in Nevada as well, the other community property states with such registries, as well equally, in California, both registered domestic partners and same-sex couples recognized by the state as married.

References [edit]

  1. ^ "Domestic Partnerships Are Not Just for Same-Sex Couple in California Anymore – CBS Sacramento".
  2. ^ "Family Code Section 297-297.five". Leginfo.ca.gov. Archived from the original on 2013-07-29. Retrieved 2013-12-03 .
  3. ^ California Stance Alphabetize: A Digest on How the California Public Views Gay and Lesbian Rights Issues Archived 2006-06-19 at the Wayback Machine. The Field Poll: San Francisco (March 2006).
  4. ^ "Domestic Partners Registry - California Secretary of State". Ss.ca.gov. 2013-06-26. Archived from the original on 2008-07-xix. Retrieved 2013-12-03 .
  5. ^ Ellis v. Arriaga, 162 CA4th yard, 109 (2008) overturning Velez v. Smith (2006)
  6. ^ Gessen, Masha. "Search - Global Edition - The New York Times". International Herald Tribune. Archived from the original on 2008-02-25. Retrieved 2013-12-03 .
  7. ^ In Re Union Cases Archived 2011-08-ten at the Wayback Machine, California Supreme Court Decision, folio 81.
  8. ^ "Gay Marriage Recognition Bill Signed In California". cbs13.com. 2009-10-29. Retrieved 2009-x-21 . [ permanent dead link ]
  9. ^ Ponce, Ninez A.; Susan D. Cochran; Jennifer C. Pizer; Vickie M. Mays (2010). "The Effects Of Unequal Admission To Health Insurance For Same-Sex Couples In California". Health Affairs. 29 (8): 1539–1548. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2009.0583. PMC3669464. PMID 20576694. Retrieved viii Nov 2010.
  10. ^ "UCLA report finds health insurance inequities for aforementioned-sex couples". UCLA. June 25, 2010. Archived from the original on 2 July 2010. Retrieved eight November 2010.
  11. ^ Wiener. "California Family Lawmaking Section 297". California State Legislature. Archived from the original on 8 January 2020. Retrieved eight January 2020.
  12. ^ "SB 54 and Same-Sex Couples Who Marry Outside of California" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-07-29. Retrieved 2013-12-03 .
  13. ^ "California governor signs bill making state's marriage law gender-neutral". jurist.org. Archived from the original on 27 October 2017. Retrieved 25 April 2018.
  14. ^ "Domestic Partners Registry". California Secretarial assistant of State. Archived from the original on 30 Baronial 2019. Retrieved 8 Jan 2020.
  15. ^ "Forms & Fees - Domestic Partners Registry". California Secretary of Land. Archived from the original on 31 August 2019. Retrieved 8 January 2020.
  16. ^ "California Spousal relationship - General Information". California Section of Public Health. Archived from the original on 5 Oct 2019. Retrieved eight January 2020.
  17. ^ "Terminating a California Registered Domestic Partnership" (PDF). California Secretarial assistant of Land. Archived (PDF) from the original on 29 March 2018. Retrieved 8 Jan 2020.
  18. ^ "SJC: Massachusetts Recognizes California Registered Domestic Partnerships". GLAD. Archived from the original on 9 November 2012. Retrieved 29 September 2012.
  19. ^ Bishop, Katherine. "San Francisco Grants Recognition to Couples Who Aren't Married Archived 2008-01-12 at the Wayback Motorcar," New York Times 31 May 1989.
  20. ^ Becker, Lewis. "Recognition of Domestic Partnerships by Governmental Entities and Individual Employers Archived 2006-07-20 at the Wayback Motorcar," National Periodical of Sexual Orientation Law. one.one (1995): 91-92.
  21. ^ AB 627. Archived 2012-01-eleven at the Wayback Automobile Legislative Counsel of California. 1995–1996 Session.
  22. ^ AB 54. Archived 2012-01-11 at the Wayback Machine Legislative Counsel of California. 1997–1998 Session.
  23. ^ 1059. Archived 2012-01-11 at the Wayback Automobile Legislative Counsel of California. 1997–1998 Session.
  24. ^ SB 75. Archived 2012-01-xi at the Wayback Motorcar Legislative Counsel of California. 1999–2000 Session.
  25. ^ AB 26. Archived 2016-12-22 at the Wayback Auto Legislative Counsel of California. 1999–2000 Session.
  26. ^ AB 25. Archived 2012-01-xi at the Wayback Machine Legislative Counsel of California. 2001–2002 Session.
  27. ^ SB 1049. Archived 2012-01-11 at the Wayback Motorcar Legislative Counsel of California. 2001–2002 Session.
  28. ^ AB 2216. Archived 2012-01-11 at the Wayback Machine Legislative Counsel of California. 2001–2002 Session.
  29. ^ AB 2777. Archived 2012-01-11 at the Wayback Machine Legislative Counsel of California. 2001–2002 Session.
  30. ^ SB 1575. Archived 2012-01-11 at the Wayback Machine Legislative Counsel of California. 2001–2002 Session.
  31. ^ SB 1661. Archived 2012-01-11 at the Wayback Machine Legislative Counsel of California. 2001–2002 Session.
  32. ^ AB 205. Archived 2012-01-11 at the Wayback Machine Legislative Counsel of California. 2003–2004 Session.
  33. ^ AB 2208. Archived 2012-01-11 at the Wayback Machine Legislative Counsel of California. 2003–2004 Session.
  34. ^ SB 565. Archived 2012-01-11 at the Wayback Machine Legislative Counsel of California. 2005–2006 Session.
  35. ^ SB 973. Archived 2012-01-11 at the Wayback Machine Legislative Counsel of California. 2005–2006 Session.
  36. ^ SB 1827. Archived 2012-01-xi at the Wayback Machine Legislative Counsel of California. 2005–2006 Session.
  37. ^ SB 2051. Archived 2012-01-11 at the Wayback Automobile Legislative Counsel of California. 2005–2006 Session.
  38. ^ Ma. "AB 102 Assembly Bill - CHAPTERED". Leginfo.ca.gov. Archived from the original on 2013-07-29. Retrieved 2013-12-03 .
  39. ^ "AB 2055 (De La Torre): Unemployment insurance: benefits: eligibility: reserve accounts: domestic partners" (PDF). leginfo.ca.gov. 2010-09-30. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-01-27. Retrieved 2020-01-08 .
  40. ^ "Domestic Partnership Equality Act | SB 651 | 2011 - Equality California". Eqca.org. Archived from the original on 2013-12-ten. Retrieved 2013-12-03 .
  41. ^ "Insurance Non-Discrimination Act | SB 757 | 2011 - Equality California". Eqca.org. Archived from the original on 2013-12-10. Retrieved 2013-12-03 .
  42. ^ "SB 30". California State Legislature. Archived from the original on viii January 2020. Retrieved eight January 2020.
  43. ^ "Domestic partnerships are not merely for same-sexual practice couples anymore in California". 31 July 2019.
  44. ^ "Senate Bill xxx Neb Analysis". San Francisco: California Senate Judiciary Committee. 25 March 2019. Retrieved 8 January 2020.
  45. ^ DiCamillo, Marking and Mervin Field. "Statewide survey. Archived 2007-03-sixteen at the Wayback Machine" The Field Institute: San Francisco 1997.
  46. ^ Baldassare, Marking. "Californians & the Futurity. Archived 2007-09-27 at the Wayback Machine" Public Policy Constitute of California: San Francisco. Sep. 2006.
  47. ^ California Secretary of State, Ballot Results "[1]".
  48. ^ "Release #2406: Large Increase in California Voters Who Favor Assuasive Same-Sex Spousal relationship. Six in Ten (59%) Now Approve" (PDF). Field Poll. 2012-02-29. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2012-05-16. Retrieved 2012-02-29 .
  49. ^ "Initiative Update every bit of December 15, 2003. Archived March 17, 2007, at the Wayback Machine" California Secretary of Country; also, "Plebiscite on California'due south Historic Domestic Partner Law Fails to Qualify for Election. Archived March 17, 2007, at the Wayback Machine" Equality California: San Francisco 22 Dec. 2003."California Secretary of State - Elections and Voter Information". Archived from the original on 2007-03-17. Retrieved 2006-12-12 .
  50. ^ Gardner, Michael. "Gay union opponents aim to recall judge. Archived 2007-03-22 at the Wayback Machine" San Diego Spousal relationship Tribune 31 December. 2004.
  51. ^ Armijo five. Miles (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1405. Archived 2011-05-xv at the Wayback Machine
  52. ^ "Initiative Update every bit of October 2, 2003." California Secretary of State. Archived December xv, 2006, at the Wayback Machine
  53. ^ (Archived) Position statement: VoteYesMarriage.com; Position argument: Archived May 8, 2006, at the Wayback Motorcar ProtectMarriage.com.
  54. ^ Buchanan, Wyatt. "The Boxing Over Aforementioned Sex activity Wedlock." Archived 2008-01-10 at the Wayback Machine San Francisco Chronicle 12 Aug 2005: B1.
  55. ^ Role of Attorney General. Initiative Measures, Inactive. Archived 2011-09-28 at the Wayback Motorcar
  56. ^ Initiative Update as of February 19, 2008. Archived Oct four, 2006, at the Wayback Machine California Secretarial assistant of Country.
  57. ^ Leff, Lisa (2008-02-15). "Aforementioned-sex Marriage Subpoena Sought". Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2008-03-10.
  58. ^ "IN THE SUPREME Court OF CALIFORNIA" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2010-01-21. Retrieved 2010-07-06 . -- For a review run into: Thomas Kupka, Names and Designations in Police, in: The Periodical Jurisprudence six (2010) 121-130 Archived 2011-07-06 at the Wayback Machine.
  59. ^ Michael J. Montemurro (2010-05-05). "PLR-149319-09" (PDF). Internal Acquirement Service. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2010-06-02. Retrieved 2010-07-13 .
  60. ^ Meckler, Laura (2010-06-05), "Gay Couples Become Equal Taxation Treatment", The Wall Street Journal, archived from the original on 2017-10-17, retrieved 2010-06-06

External links [edit]

  • Domestic Partners Registry. Information from the California Secretary of State. Includes downloadable forms.
  • Proper name Changes. Data on how to change your name with the California Department of Motor Vehicles.
  • California Family Code. California Family Code on Domestic Partnerships.
  • Fact sheet on the rights and responsibilities of California domestic partners by Equality California and the National Middle for Lesbian Rights
  • National Center for Lesbian Rights. Information about the legal rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people and their families, including a legal data hotline.
  • California Franchise Tax Board Registered Domestic Partner Site
  • California Franchise Taxation Board Publication 737 Tax Information for Registered Domestic Partners (260k)

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California

Posted by: gossetthimper.blogspot.com

0 Response to "What Is A Registered Domestic Partner?"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel