Post by RS Davis on Sept 9, 2004 19:01:55 GMT -5
Domestic partner law upheld
CNN.com
SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- A Superior Court judge in Sacramento upheld a new state law Wednesday that is poised to give gay couples who register as domestic partners nearly all the legal benefits and responsibilities of married spouses.
Dismissing arguments of two groups that sued to have the law struck down before it takes effect January 1, Judge Loren E. McMaster ruled that assigning privileges such as alimony and parental status to same-sex couples does not violate a voter-approved measure that holds California can recognize only marriages between a man and a woman.
"The parties' obvious fundamental dispute is whether a domestic partnership under the new statute constitutes a marriage. The court concludes that it does not," McMaster wrote. "In the end, although the two relationships now share many, if not most, of the same functional attributes they are inherently distinct."
Former Gov. Gray Davis signed the California Defense of Marriage Act last year.
Randy Thomasson, executive director of Campaign for California Families, said his group would appeal Wednesday's ruling.
"McMaster has trashed the vote of the people who said they want everything about marriage to stay for a man and a woman," Thomasson said. "The clear and plain reading of these marriage-attacking bills was to create homosexual marriage by another name."
Gay rights advocates applauded the ruling, saying the statute's implementation would herald a new era of legal protection and participation for gay couples who beginning next year will have access to family courts for dividing their assets if they split up and be able to take extended leave from work to care for a partner.
The law, in fact, gives same-sex couples all the duties and privileges of marriage available under state law except the ability to file joint income taxes.
"Domestic partnership is a really important step forward for the gay community," said Jon Davidson of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, which helped defend the law.
In upholding the new law, the judge largely adopted the reasoning advanced by the state attorney general and lawyers for Equality California, the state's largest gay rights lobbying group, that the institution of marriage is much more than a collection of state-sanctioned duties and rights. As such, it can't be undermined when those duties and rights are changed or expanded to other groups, he said.
"A marriage is no less or more a marriage when government adds or subtracts yet another restriction, duty or benefit exclusive to the marital relationship," he said. "The relationship remains a 'marriage,' in name and nature, nonetheless."
Meanwhile, the city of San Francisco and a coalition of gay rights groups have sued the state to have California's one man, one woman marriage laws overturned on grounds that they violate the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians.
Although his opinion is not binding in those cases, McMaster seemed to hint that it won't be long before California follows Massachusetts in legalizing marriage for same-sex partners.
"It is questionable, in light of recent statutes and court decisions, whether the state may articulate a rational basis to deny rights to same-sex couples that are granted to persons who are married," he said.
CNN.com
SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- A Superior Court judge in Sacramento upheld a new state law Wednesday that is poised to give gay couples who register as domestic partners nearly all the legal benefits and responsibilities of married spouses.
Dismissing arguments of two groups that sued to have the law struck down before it takes effect January 1, Judge Loren E. McMaster ruled that assigning privileges such as alimony and parental status to same-sex couples does not violate a voter-approved measure that holds California can recognize only marriages between a man and a woman.
"The parties' obvious fundamental dispute is whether a domestic partnership under the new statute constitutes a marriage. The court concludes that it does not," McMaster wrote. "In the end, although the two relationships now share many, if not most, of the same functional attributes they are inherently distinct."
Former Gov. Gray Davis signed the California Defense of Marriage Act last year.
Randy Thomasson, executive director of Campaign for California Families, said his group would appeal Wednesday's ruling.
"McMaster has trashed the vote of the people who said they want everything about marriage to stay for a man and a woman," Thomasson said. "The clear and plain reading of these marriage-attacking bills was to create homosexual marriage by another name."
Gay rights advocates applauded the ruling, saying the statute's implementation would herald a new era of legal protection and participation for gay couples who beginning next year will have access to family courts for dividing their assets if they split up and be able to take extended leave from work to care for a partner.
The law, in fact, gives same-sex couples all the duties and privileges of marriage available under state law except the ability to file joint income taxes.
"Domestic partnership is a really important step forward for the gay community," said Jon Davidson of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, which helped defend the law.
In upholding the new law, the judge largely adopted the reasoning advanced by the state attorney general and lawyers for Equality California, the state's largest gay rights lobbying group, that the institution of marriage is much more than a collection of state-sanctioned duties and rights. As such, it can't be undermined when those duties and rights are changed or expanded to other groups, he said.
"A marriage is no less or more a marriage when government adds or subtracts yet another restriction, duty or benefit exclusive to the marital relationship," he said. "The relationship remains a 'marriage,' in name and nature, nonetheless."
Meanwhile, the city of San Francisco and a coalition of gay rights groups have sued the state to have California's one man, one woman marriage laws overturned on grounds that they violate the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians.
Although his opinion is not binding in those cases, McMaster seemed to hint that it won't be long before California follows Massachusetts in legalizing marriage for same-sex partners.
"It is questionable, in light of recent statutes and court decisions, whether the state may articulate a rational basis to deny rights to same-sex couples that are granted to persons who are married," he said.
...when he's around
