Talk:Domestic partnership in California

2008 Constitutional Amendment Ballot Drive

Introduction of the discussion renewed petition drives to amend the constitution lacked a critical detail. The date to submit signatures to qualify for the November 2008 ballot renders these efforts very unlikely to succeed for this election cycle (c.f. the Gray Davis recall effort). Wonderbreadsf (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Constitutional Amendments Edits

I reverted changes to this section today, as the replacement section was less NPOV than the original, although I agree that neither is truly NPOV. Both versions ascribe motivations that are not sourced. Does someone have time to cleanup this section? --Robb0995 20:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I added a few citations for this section (a rather obvious omission). I also made some minor changes to the language, but I agree that there's still some POV in there. I'd also encourage an edit if anyone has the time. Wonderbreadsf 20:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

REMOVED: Implications

This is a perfectly interesting anecdote describing life under the DP regime. Unfortunately it lacks any verification or citation. Tone is also troubling (strays into POV): “A true example of,” “More momumental…” etc. Absent any citation, phrases like “However, further research indicates” strongly suggest original research.

I found it awkward enough that I dropped the whole thing. If someone can bring it up to community standards it might make a fine addition to the article. For reference, here is the section in its entirety:

===Implications===

A true example of the effect and after effects of A.B. 205 is as follows: Kevin N. and Don K. of Hollywood, California entered into a domestic partnership and Don K. changed his name to Don N. It is believed that they are the first (and possibly the only) same gender couple in California to utilize the domestic partnership legislation to effectuate such a change. Don N. had his driver's license re-issued by the California Department of Motor Vehicles ("DMV") under his new name. More momumental however was the fact that the federal government recognized the name change in changing Don N.'s name on his re-issued Social Security card. Furthermore, Don N. used the mail-in renewal process to renew his United States State Department passport and included his domestic partnership registration as proof of the name change. In California this process was previously available for only persons who had their name changed by adoption, court order, or marriage license. The State Department, however, recognized the domestic partnership registration as sufficient legal proof of the name change and issued the renewed passport using the procedure previously available for only married couples.

However, further research indicates that after the same gender couple used A.B. 205 for name change purposes, the California Department of Motor Vehicles issued guidelines for name changes and expressly now require that both the former name and the new name be on the legal document. Because the California domestic partnership registration form contains no line to indicate what name is to be used, the California DMV no longer recognizes domestic partnerships for name change purposes and this policy appears to violate the intent of A.B. 205, the clear wording of Family Code § 297.5, and the past practice of the California DMV itself.

California Law requires all public agencies in the state, including but not limited to, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to treat state registered domestic partners in the eact same manner that they would treat married spouses(See California Family Code 297.5(h)). It is also stated in the DMV employee handbook that a certificate of registered domestic partnership is acceptable proof of surname change.

Wonderbreadsf 01:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Link to SB 1827 page

Can I ask why you removed the link to a new page to specifically address SB 1827 which will be getting a lot of attention this year as it requires DPs to file state as married? --Robb0995 03:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

EGAD! Sorry, I completely missed that link. I certainly agree it's very important. (I've had enough hassles with the FTB, which are always a nightmare to resolve.) Thanks! Wonderbreadsf 03:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I created the new page because I kept hearing about passage of the bill and had a tough time finding a clear answer about what it meant to me this year. I'm hoping some more knowledgeable people can fill in more info. --Robb0995 06:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Domestic partnership or already civil union ?

Is it correct to speak 2006 from domestic partnership in California or is it more correct to write it is a civil union already ?GLGerman 08:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

So i´m not quite sure, if the law in California is already a Civil Union in fact. Maybe there is only the "name" Domestic partnership" but it is in reality already a civil union ?GLGerman 10:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Before 2005, there was a meaningful distinction between a California "domestic partnership" and civil unions (civil unions, at least here in the U.S., were much broader in scope). As of 2005, California expanded its domestic-partnership program so dramatically that I agree that it is now in fact a civil-union program.

When writing in general terms, I think it is correct to include California in a list of governments that offer "civil unions." When discussing the particulars of the California program, I use "domestic partnerships" solely because that's the official name in California. Wonderbreadsf 17:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the lemmata should really now after 2005 have the name Civil union in California. In California it is in fact a civil union. 212.95.99.152 09:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Brown/Plessy Edits

The section on Brown/Plessy in the third paragraph contained an faulty analysis of the Brown/Plessy decisions. The Plessy SCOTUS was not "white supremacist" nor did they "invent" something called "separate buy unequal." Furthermore, the phrase "separate but unequal" does not appear in the Brown decision. The correct quote is "Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."

The paragraph was not written NPV, but rather alleged that most gays/lesbians thought the institution of marriage was outmoded and patriarchal. (Additionally, no citation was offered to support this contention.) Ccollom 07:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the reason for 62 years

What is the reason for requiring one of the partners to be over 62 years when not the same sex ? The reason or rationale for this obscure. This article would be benefited if someone with expertise could explain that. Eregli bob 06:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Due in part to concern that domestic partnerships might become an "alternative" to marriage for opposite-sex couples, Assemblymember Migden limited participation by opposite-sex couples to those that include a near-retirement age person (that requirement has changed a bit since 1999). At the time, the exemption for older people allowed them to avoid adverse consequences to some entitlements if they (re)married after becoming eligible. Apparently, providing an alternative to marriage in this more narrow context was politically tolerable. 74.95.4.214 16:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Would such a restriction hold up in court? I would not be surprised if the over 62 rule and "related by blood" restrictions would both be thrown out on constitutional grounds. 24.5.194.94 (talk) 10:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The age restriction is so straight elderly couples can double-dip on the Social Security and pension benefits denied to same-sex couples. The age restriction hasn't been challenged in court, so it's uncertain. If people are related by blood, then they already have a familial relationship recognized by the state. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

How will the legalization of same-sex marriage in California effect domestic partnership?

How will the legalization of same-sex marriage in California effect domestic partnership? --Cooljuno411 (talk) 22:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Request information

It say it includes most of the same rights, if it doesn't include some of them then list it. Otherwise, esit it to say it does this is very misleading.