Continental promo
< Back Comments (11)Post a Comment Bookmark and Share   
 

Whither Domestic Partnerships?

Now that marriage equality has been mandated for the Golden State, what happens to gay and lesbian Californians registered as domestic partners? Lambda Legal's Jennifer C. Pizer explains it all.
An Advocate.com exclusive posted May 16, 2008
Whither Domestic Partnerships?

Nearly 50,000 couples have registered as domestic partners in California since its DP registry opened on January 1, 2000. So now that there's marriage equality in the state, thanks to the California supreme court’s ruling Thursday, what do domestic partners and curious observers need to know? We asked Jennifer C. Pizer, senior counsel for Lambda Legal.

The Advocate : Will domestic partnerships automatically convert to marriage?
P izer: Nothing happens to those registered domestic partnerships unless the couples decide to change their legal status. California’s domestic-partner registry is open to gay and lesbian couples and heterosexual couples if one person is at least 62. There is no automatic provision that domestic partnerships will become a marriage. The registered domestic partnership law is intact and unchanged by [Thursday's] ruling, and unless and until some legislators suggest that it should be changed, it will remain as it has been.

If a same-sex couple in a domestic partnership gets married, does it change their domestic partnership status?
If you’ve been in a registered domestic partnership and you marry, your registration remains as a registration. You will have two legal statuses that are completely consistent with each other. People can have two overlapping statuses. If the couple were to break up -- which is sad -- they can go into court and the court could dissolve both statuses at once.

Which court?
The family court has the power to terminate or dissolve registered domestic partnerships and they can dissolve a marriage.

Is there any benefit to being both registered domestic partners and married?
I could imagine circumstances in which a couple might find it helpful because there are some states that have an anti-marriage recognition law that doesn’t cover domestic partnerships or civil unions. So if a couple were to travel into a state like that, there could be a benefit. But we’re not recommending people have both -- this is a technical, legal way of thinking about it.

Is there a tax difference in how domestic partners and married same-sex couples will be treated?
This spring is the first time domestic-partner couples had to file taxes according to the same rules as married heterosexual couples. Married same-sex couples will be treated under state law like married heterosexual couples.

But not federally.
Not having the federal government respect our marriages and our domestic partnerships is not made more or less complex by being married as opposed to being in a registered domestic partnership. The disconnect between state and federal law is the same either way.

Do you think that the number of couples entering into domestic partnerships will increase if the California supreme court blocks gay marriage until after the November election, when a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage is expected on the ballot?
We don’t expect it to be blocked. If the court were going to be receptive to that, they would have paused the effect of its decision [already], and it chose not to. It seems extremely unlikely that they would be receptive to the right-wing groups’ request to delay.

Reader Comments

These comments are reproduced as written by visitors to this Web site. They have not been edited for content, grammar, or spelling. The viewpoints appearing here are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or views of advocate.com, The Advocate, or its affiliates.

  • Name: Douglas
    Date posted: 2008-05-20 9:54 PM
    Hometown: Miami Shores

    Comment:

    Go, California. Please lead the way. We're flighting for our rights in a big way in Florida. We need advocates---please send a few dozen (and include a few good designers).


  • Name: jp
    Date posted: 2008-05-20 1:15 PM
    Hometown: issaquah, WA

    Comment:

    OK, how's this for a solution? The state gives you your "license" which entitles you to all rights and benefits of today's marriage regardless of your gender(s). It would be like going to city hall. However, for a marriage certificate, you go to your church and get it's blessing. Thus each church and/or denomination can restrict or allow its beliefs to be upheld in this certificate/blessing. I attend a church which would give me a marriage certificate which I could hang on the wall. but it is the one from the state that would give me the rights and benefits of marriage. In many countries, like Mexico, this is how it is done. So, you can go to city hall, go to a church for a ceremony (or not) and enjoy the rights of marriage. You can have one or two ceremonies depending on your desires. This allows for separation of church and state and gives the power back to the state and not the church...


  • Name: Bill
    Date posted: 2008-05-19 6:43 PM
    Hometown: Upland, CA

    Comment:

    So, if I understand your comments correctly, even if the marriage option is overturned by an election ballot initiative in November, the Domestic Partnership option may survive? So it would be another setback, but we wouldn't "lose everything".


  • Name: Annie
    Date posted: 2008-05-19 12:58 AM
    Hometown: Sydney Australia

    Comment:

    Maybe 'marriage', but, definitely, absolutely NO children,,,,that is the ONE right they forfeit for same gender benders!!!!!!! Annie


  • Name: Ken
    Date posted: 2008-05-17 1:45 PM
    Hometown: Carmel

    Comment:

    The Gov. cited that he vetoed the Mark Leno California bill twice based upon Prop. 22 which has now been deemed to be an unconstitutional entity. He further stated at the time that he thought that the matter was one for the courts to decide unlike what Mitt Roomney was saying contemporaneously in Mass. that the courts were not the place to decide marriage. This Republican doublespeak is sickening at best. Let the various churches maintain their concepts of "Holy Matrimony" and confer all of their deemed religious and holy benefits to their subscribers but let all of the citizenry have access to all of the government conferred rights and benefits which are subsidized and paid for by all through our taxes and the provision of tax subsidies and exemptions to the non-religious government institution of marriage. The churches (and the gay ones too!) should confer Holy Matrimony" but we should all have access to marriage!


  • Name: Ed Stovall
    Date posted: 2008-05-17 8:35 AM
    Hometown: Humble, Texas

    Comment:

    I find it interesting that Gov. Schwarztenagger vetoed gay marriage when it was twice passed by the freely elected by the people state legislature. Yet, the governor will not oppose the decision of the governor appointed Supreme Court. I'm not complaining, mind you, I just find it odd.


  • Name: Lewis Caroll
    Date posted: 2008-05-17 8:29 AM
    Hometown: London, England

    Comment:

    "O frabjous day! Callooh Callay!"


  • Name: Mrs. Hitava
    Date posted: 2008-05-17 2:09 AM
    Hometown: sacramento

    Comment:

    So will this effect the "gay's in the millitary"? I currently have a DP for the past year and plan on getting married to the same person...But how will it effect the military?


  • Name: Jonathan Bodack
    Date posted: 2008-05-17 12:23 AM
    Hometown: Elkins Park

    Comment:

    I'm glad gays can get married!


  • Name: Alan Scott
    Date posted: 2008-05-16 9:56 PM
    Hometown: Santa Margarita, CA

    Comment:

    That was my understanding as well, Tim. Also, according the the text of the decision, summary dissolutions of DPs are handled by the Secretary of State, while summary dissolutions of Marriages are handled by the court. Likewise, a married couple with a DP living outside California must get divorced in their current state, but have their DP dissolved in Cali.


  • Name: Tim
    Date posted: 2008-05-16 8:48 PM
    Hometown: San Francisco, CA

    Comment:

    I'm not entirely convinced this is the correct analysis. Registered domestic partners must not be "married to someone else." A court could decide the legislature intended domestic partnerships and marriages to be mutually exclusive arrangements. The better advice, in my view, is to tell people that the question is not yet resolved, but that Lambda Legal will argue that marriage and domestic partnership should be allowed to co-exist. Better to highlight the uncertainty rather than cover it up with an explanation that may turn out to be wrong.


Back to top

Submit a comment for this story:

*Type your comment here (Required, 1000 characters max. HTML formatting and hyperlinks are NOT permitted.):

*Name (Required): 

*Hometown (Required): 

*E-mail address: (Required, but will not be displayed)

Is this comment for publication? 
Yes   No

Daytime phone number: (Required for print publication only and will not be displayed)

Please enter the words you see in the box, in order and separated by a space. Doing so helps prevent automated programs from abusing this service.

  

If you would like to submit a comment for posting, please fill out the form above. 

All comments submitted via this form are subject to posting or publication. (To send a private letter to an Advocate editor or writer, please use the e-mail button at the top of the page, or use snail mail.) If you would like your comment considered for publication in The Advocate magazine, please include your full name, your city of residence, and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours so that we can confirm your identity. Your e-mail address and telephone number are strictly confidential and will not be shared or used for any purpose other than to contact you about your comment.

See the Contact page for sending comments for reasons other than responding to Advocate editorial and news stories.

Please note that comments sent by fax or snail mail are unlikely to be posted, although they will be considered for publication along with all letters received via e-mail or via this Web page. Comments that chiefly concern Advocate.com content will be considered for posting only on the Web site. The Advocate reserves the right to edit submitted comments for grammar, spelling, obscenities, or libel; we will, however, do our best to preserve the original comment's style and intent. Comments considered for publication in The Advocate magazine may also be edited for length.

More Exclusives
  • View From the Hill: The End of DADT?
    Defense Secretary Robert Gates revealed that lawyers are exploring ways to ease enforcement of the military's gay ban, but cautioned that the law doesn't leave much wiggle room. He need look no further than DOD history for a lesson in altering the policy.
  • Hot Sheet: Week of July 5
    When you get back from that big 4th of July barbecue, unwind with Sacha Baron Cohen's Bruno and your favorite B-movie-mocking, basic cable robots.
  • Hungry Like the Wolf
    A master of viola, ukulele, piano, and harp, Patrick Wolf is a music prodigy -- one who, the night before this interview, spit on a cop and got himself arrested.
  • Soapside: Advocate's Guide to Daytime
    Forbes March talks about playing gay, Otalia fans outraged, update on One Life to Live’s Patricia Maurceri’s firing over gay plot point, Phillip Chancellor III big reveal, and Erica Kane goes to Africa.
  • The Faces of Federal Prop. 8
    With the federal challenge to Prop. 8 moving full speed ahead, Advocate.com sits down with the two couples named as plaintiffs in the suit.
  • Mommy, the Gays Are Coming
    After a year of advancements and celebration for gay and lesbian Colombians, the community takes to the streets of Bogota for the country's biggest pride ever.
  • The Pride of Antwerp
    Advocate.com hits the gay-friendly streets of Antwerp with openly gay police commissioner Serge Muyters.
  • Excerpt: Mean Little Deaf Queer
    In an excerpt from her humorous and harrowing new memoir, Mean Little Deaf Queer, Terry Galloway recalls her early childhood, describing feelings of ugliness, confusion about gender, and being one of the boys.
  • Top Political Blogs
    From Joe.My.God to The Daily Beast, Advocate.com spotlights a few of the best blogs that cover politics, inside and way outside the Beltway.
  • The Diva of French Television
    A hot young screenwriter who has made gay OK for millions of French viewers, Nicolas Mercier sips champagne, dons a feathered hat, and says he wants to see Colin Farrell and Jude Law go at it.