
The California supreme court declined to review an appeal challenging basic property tax protections for domestic partners, according to a joint statement released Thursday by advocacy groups the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, and Equality California. The decision is a major victory for same-sex couples because no further appeals are possible.
"We are grateful to the board and the legislature for protecting same-sex couples," Shannon Minter, legal director for NCLR, said in the release. "Today's ruling by the supreme court ensures that this protection is secure."
"The board of equalization has the authority to grant gay and lesbian couples the same protections in a time of grief as everyone else," Brian Chase, Lambda Legal senior staff attorney, said in the statement. "No one should lose their home after the death of a partner."
In March 2005, Sutter and Orange counties challenged the protection in state court while three same-sex couples along with NCLR, Lambda Legal, Equality California, and the law firm of Munger, Tolles, and Olson defended it.
Ultimately, Orange County dropped out while assessors from Tehama and Madera counties joined, but in 2006, Sacramento County superior court judge Jack Sapunor rejected the challenge.
The counties appealed again in October 2007 in Strong v. Board of Equalization, but the third district of the California court of appeals upheld Sapunor's ruling.
Thursday, the California supreme court denied the assessors petition to review the case, securing the tax protection for same-sex couples.
"We are very pleased with the court's ruling today," Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, said in the release. "The fact that this lawsuit moved forward in the first place further illustrates the need to grant same-sex couples the ability to marry in California. Then we would not have to waste time and taxpayer money to defend these kinds of very sensible and vital protections." (The Advocate)
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.
Be the first to comment on this story.
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.
Comments that do not concern specific articles in The Advocate or on Advocate.com will not be posted or published. 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.