Senate OKs Benefits for Same-Sex Partners

Rejecting charges that they were paving the way for gay marriage, the California Senate on Tuesday approved a bill to recognize same-sex “domestic partners” as couples and provide them limited benefits.

If passed by the Assembly, which approved a similar plan in 1994, the bill would go to Gov. Gray Davis, who has said he supports legalizing domestic partner relationships but opposes same-sex marriage.

A Davis spokesman said the Democratic governor has not taken a position on the bill, which passed on a party line vote of 23 to 14, two more than the minimum required. Both houses of the Legislature are dominated by Democrats.

In a low-key presentation, Sen. Kevin Murray (D-Los Angeles) said his bill (SB 75) would extend to “committed” same-sex couples limited benefits that long have been conferred on married couples.

These include hospital visitation rights, beneficiary rights in wills and conservator rights in certain probate cases. Tax breaks and community property advantages would not be granted, Murray said.

The bill also would allow heterosexual couples to register as domestic partners.

Conservative Republicans charged that the bill would weaken the institution of marriage, open the door to gay marriages and violate God’s will.

“This bill is wrong. Men sleeping with men and women sleeping with women is wrong. It is wrong because God said it is wrong,” said Sen. Richard Mountjoy (R-Arcadia).

Another opponent was Sen. William “Pete” Knight (R-Palmdale), chief sponsor of a proposed year 2000 ballot initiative that would prohibit same-sex marriages in California. “The family unit of a man and woman is the basic unit that has been good for society for thousands of years,” Knight said.

Murray countered that the bill has “nothing to do with an intimate or physical relationship.” He said it is aimed chiefly at senior citizens who live together and care for each other in “their twilight years.”

Under the bill, a registry of domestic partners would be created in the secretary of state’s office to officially record domestic partner unions and terminations.

To qualify as domestic partners, a couple would need to share a residence, be responsible for one another’s basic living expenses, be at least 18 years old, be unmarried and not be a member of another domestic partnership.

The Murray bill, some of whose provisions are more modest than a competing proposal in the Assembly, is part of a movement in recent years in both government and business to recognize domestic partner relationships.

At the University of California, for example, the Board of Regents has approved health care benefits for partners of UC employees. Davis has said he supports a similar extension of benefits to partners of state government workers.

And at least two states, Oregon and Vermont, provide domestic partner benefits for their employees, according to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute in New York.

The California Legislature recently included domestic partners in staff members’ benefits package.

Twelve California cities, including Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco, have adopted domestic partner policies, as have at least four counties, including Los Angeles.

Many private organizations and labor unions provide benefits for the same-sex partners of employees.

Several states are considering establishment of a registry for domestic partnerships.

In 1994, former Assemblyman Richard Katz (D-Sylmar) successfully shepherded a domestic partners bill through both houses of the Legislature. Republican Gov. Pete Wilson vetoed it.

Follow-up attempts by Katz in 1995 and by Murray in 1997 failed in the Assembly.

In 1996, Knight won approval in the then GOP-controlled Assembly of a bill prohibiting California’s recognition of same-sex marriages performed out of state. At the time, a court in Hawaii was considering a case that legal observers said could legalize gay marriages.

Before the decision became final, Hawaii voters outlawed same-sex marriages in their state.

Davis received statewide attention in 1996 when, as lieutenant governor, he cast a tiebreaking vote in the state Senate that added a domestic partners provision to Knight’s bill.

As a result, the measure not only prohibited same-sex marriages but allowed domestic partners to form state-recognized unions, an amendment Knight opposed. Rather than proceed with the amended version, Knight abandoned it.