Court Denies Challenge to Domestic Partners Law

A state appellate court Monday denied a challenge to the state’s sweeping domestic partners benefits law, ruling that the rights it confers fall short of those offered by marriage and were therefore properly enacted by the Legislature.

The law -- which grants rights and obligations relating to children, community property, death and other issues to same-sex couples registered with the state -- went into effect in January. It rivals Vermont’s as the strongest such law in the nation and was passed before San Francisco’s mayor catalyzed California’s legal debate over same-sex marriage last year.

Conservative Christian groups immediately challenged the law in court, alleging it created “marriage by another name” for gays and lesbians in violation of voter-approved Proposition 22.

But in its sharply worded ruling Monday, a panel of the 3rd District Court of Appeal disagreed, saying the “plain and unambiguous language of Proposition 22” showed that it intended only to limit the status of marriage to heterosexual couples and prevent any out-of-state same-sex marriages from being recognized here.

“The words of Proposition 22, and also its ballot pamphlet materials, do not express an intent to repeal our state’s then-existing domestic partners laws or to limit the Legislature’s authority to enact other legislation regarding such unions,” the ruling said.

Furthermore, the judges wrote, the domestic partner benefits are not comparable to marriage because they do not confer state joint tax filing privileges or any federal rights, are not recognized outside California and are obtained with no ceremony or license.

Opponents of the domestic partners benefits law -- who also oppose same-sex marriage -- vowed to appeal Monday’s ruling. If they lose, they may press another voter referendum specifically curtailing such rights.

“When the voters went to the polls in 2000 and passed Proposition 22, they did not intend to preserve only the label of marriage, they intended to preserve the essence of marriage,” said Mathew Staver, president of the Florida-based Christian legal group Liberty Counsel, which represented the Campaign for California Families in the legal challenge.

The appeals court decision comes as the same-sex marriage battle heats up across the nation and as more states pass constitutional amendments or statutory provisions limiting gay rights.

In California, the ruling is likely to benefit same-sex marriage proponents who are arguing in a separate case that heterosexual marriage laws are unconstitutional, and that domestic partner benefits fall short by conferring inferior status on gays and lesbians.

A San Francisco Superior Court judge last month agreed -- and deemed Proposition 22 unconstitutional -- in a case that will probably be heard by the state Supreme Court next year.

Gay rights groups applauded the appellate ruling but said it indicates a fierce fight ahead to preserve benefits for gays and lesbians across the country.

“This case is such a perfect illustration of two things: These groups do not want same-sex couples to have any protections or rights,” said Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. “And despite their supposed criticisms of judicial activism, they have no hesitation in turning to the courts to try to strike down validly enacted laws to protect gays and lesbians.”