This is dumb. Davis already has the Gay and Liberal vote. This costs him some Latino and Black vote.
Davis to OK rights for same-sex couples
No position yet from top GOP recall rival
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sunday, August 17, 2003
©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback
URL: sfgate.com
Gov. Gray Davis pledged Saturday to sign a domestic-partners bill that would give thousands of same-sex couples many of the same rights as married couples -- including community property, child support and access to divorce court -- and would thrust California to the forefront of the national debate over gay rights.
The bill would put registered domestic partners in California on a par with members of civil unions in Vermont, the only other state with a comparable law,
said Equality California, which backs the measure. Its implications are potentially greater because of California's size and influence. "I think this will spread to other states looking to find a way that same-sex couples and their children can be protected," said Geoffrey Kors, executive director of Equality California. He said census figures show that 100,000 same-sex couples -- one-sixth of the nation's total -- live in California.
The bill by Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg, D-Los Angeles, passed the Assembly in June on a 41-32 vote, the bare majority needed, and is pending in the Democratic-controlled state Senate, where passage is likely.
If the bill is approved by the Senate, Davis said Saturday he would sign it "to continue the progress we've made toward ensuring fairness for all Californians."
"As governor, I will continue to do everything within my power to honor the dignity, humanity and privacy of every Californian, regardless of their ethnicity, religion, national origin, gender or sexual orientation," Davis said ina statement.
An opponent, Randy Thomasson, executive director of Campaign for California's Families, called the bill "gay marriage by another name." He said it would be challenged in court under Proposition 22, the ballot measure approved by California voters in 2000 that prohibited state recognition of same-sex marriage.
Citing the endorsement of the bill by Democratic Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, who is seeking to succeed Davis if voters recall the governor, Thomasson said both Davis and Bustamante "are rejecting the people of California, who voted overwhelmingly three years ago to protect marriage for a man and a woman."
Kors and Davis said the legislative counsel's office, which advises the Legislature on legal issues, has concluded the measure would not violate Prop. 22.
The leading Republican in the Oct. 7 recall election against Davis, actor Arnold Schwarzenegger, is a self-described supporter of gay rights but isn't prepared yet to take a position on the domestic-partner bill, a campaign spokesman said Saturday.
The gay-rights movement gained a huge legal victory in June when the Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws in Texas and 12 other states. Earlier this month, the California Supreme Court upheld second-parent adoptions, used by same-sex couples in as many as 20,000 adoptions, according to advocacy groups.
On the national political front, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean is trumpeting his state's civil unions law in his campaign for the Democratic nomination for president.
But in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling, President Bush and congressional conservatives have revived discussion of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, an issue on which the public remains sharply divided, according to opinion polls. A federal statute called the Defense of Marriage Act, signed by former President Bill Clinton, already prohibits federal recognition of any state's same-sex marriages. And while domestic partner laws have been proposed in nearly a dozen other states, none has passed.
In contrast to Davis' apparent about-face on several issues while facing a recall election -- such as his intentions to sign consumer privacy legislation and a driver's license bill for illegal immigrants that he had previously opposed -- Saturday's announcement was consistent with his support for gay rights.
He has signed measures expanding gays' and lesbians' protections against job and housing discrimination; banning discrimination based on sexual orientation in public schools; and, starting in 1999, allowing same-sex couples to register with the state as domestic partners, with a gradually expanding list of rights.
20,000 REGISTERED COUPLES
About 20,000 couples have registered as domestic partners, according to state figures quoted by Equality California. They include an unknown but probably modest number of opposite-sex couples older than age 62 who do not want to marry, but are covered by the law.
Their current rights include inheritance; hospital visitation; the right to make medical decisions for an incapacitated partner; the right to sue for wrongful death, and the right to adopt a partner's child.
Goldberg's bill goes further and provides virtually all of the benefits, and obligations, that the state can legally offer to unmarried couples.
They include a partner's right to community property -- half the income and property acquired by the other partner during the relationship -- and to child custody, child support and alimony after separation, on the same terms as spouses.
The bill also provides a Family Court proceeding, similar to divorce, for domestic partners who split up after at least five years of partnership, or who have children or substantial property together. Other domestic partners would end their legal relationship by filing a statement with the secretary of state, as current law allows.
In addition, the bill would give domestic partners the same rights as spouses over a deceased partner's autopsy and funeral arrangements; would allow one partner to refuse to testify against the other in court, and would make each partner responsible for the other's debts to third parties.
The bill would not provide some major benefits available to spouses under federal law, including the right to file joint tax returns, to collect a spouse's Social Security benefits, and to be treated equally with spouses in private workplace insurance coverage.
sfgate.com |
