Bill aims to expand partnership rights
Heterosexual adults who register would get married-couple benefits
Aurelio Rojas, Sacramento Bee
June 5, 2007

All heterosexual adults who register their domestic partnerships with the state of California would have the same legal rights as married couples, including filing joint state income tax returns, under legislation approved Monday by the state Senate.

Senate Bill 11 -- which will now be considered by the Assembly -- was introduced by Sen. Carole Migden, whose landmark 1999 civil union bill allowed same-sex couples to register with the secretary of state as domestic partners.

"This bill proposes to expand domestic partnerships and benefits to all adult couples who desire to form domestic partnership relationships," the San Francisco Democrat said on the floor of the Senate.

She cited published reports that show four of 10 babies in the United States are now born to parents who are not married, but may live together.

"It seems to me entirely fair that this Legislature respond to the emerging new definition of marriage and family," said Migden, one of California's first openly lesbian lawmakers, who calls the legislation an "equity measure." SB 11 passed by a 22-13 vote, largely along party lines with Democrats supporting the proposal and Republicans opposing it.

No Republican senator spoke against the bill during the floor session.

But Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, which lobbies for conservatives causes, warned that if SB 11 becomes law, "marriage will be functionally abolished" in California.

"Why get married if you can get all the legal rights and benefits of marriage without being committed?" Thomasson said in a statement. "This bad bill severely weakens the institution of marriage and will motivate unwed parents to remain uncommitted."

Thomasson urged Gov. Schwarzenegger, who has not taken a position on the bill, "to veto this nonsensical bill that robs marriage of its uniqueness and honor." But Migden said the state should not accord "special privileges" to the children of gay and lesbian couples "if we neglect to offer the same opportunities to the children of heterosexual couples." Jessica Heskin and Bob Stephens, who live in an unincorporated area of Sacramento, are typical of the couples Migden has in mind.

Heskin and Stephens, both 41, have lived together for two years and are raising Heskin's 11-year-old daughter by a previous marriage, Alyssa.

Heskin, who testified earlier before a Senate committee in support of SB 11, said "it's not only taxes, it's basic rights" equity the legislation would ensure.

"If I were to pass away, even though Bob has helped raise and financially support Alyssa and been her only father figure, he has no legal standing," she said.

Heskin said she was considering quitting her job as an advocate for victims of domestic violence and sexual assaults to attend graduate school.

"But I can't because Alyssa and I would have no health insurance and we can't be covered by Bob's job unless we're married," Heskin said.

Heskin said she disapproves of marriage because she has many gay and lesbian friends, and "it's unfair they can't get legally married." Migden's 1999 bill allowed heterosexual couples with one partner older than 62 to register as domestic partners -- in order to allow seniors to protect their pensions while enjoying some benefits of marriage.

With SB 11, she wants to extend the same benefits to all heterosexual couples.

According to her office, 18 cities or counties in California -- including the cities of Sacramento and Davis -- have adopted domestic partnership ordinances that include same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

It's not known how many couples would register under SB 11, or how much it would cost the state. But a Senate analysis said the cost would be "significant."

The Public Employee Retirement System estimates it would require an additional two positions to support workload increases resulting from new enrollments and overall program growth as a result of the bill.

According to the Senate analysis, there would also be additional costs to the state to provide medical, dental, vision and retirement benefits to its employees' dependents.

Among organizations supporting the bill are the California School Employees Association, the California Teachers Association and the California Nurses Association.

Groups opposing the bill include the Association of California Water Agencies, the California Catholic Conference and the Capitol Resource Institute.