 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
|||
|
|||||||||||||
| about us |
Valuing Families By Laura Esquivel, Jackie Goldberg and Jennifer C. Pizer In 1988, Lydia Ramos met the love of her life, Linda Rodriguez. Soon after falling in love, the couple decided to make a home together and share parenting responsibility for Lydia's two children from a prior relationship. Linda assumed the last name Rodriguez Ramos and, two years later, when she gave birth to the couple's third child, she named the baby girl "Little Lydia." After 11 years of ordinary work, school and church routines, tragedy struck the Ramos family. Last July, Linda was killed in a car accident. It was then that Lydia realized just how much California law does not consider her family ordinary. Deemed a legal stranger to Linda, Lydia was prohibited from authorizing the coroner to release Linda's body to the funeral parlor and from making the funeral arrangements that she knew Linda had wanted. Then, on the day of the funeral, Lydia suffered the worst loss that she could have imagined following Linda's horrific death. Linda's relatives invited Little Lydia to a memorial gathering at Linda's sister's home and then refused to return the child. For the next two months, the relatives kept Little Lydia hidden from her surviving parent. They refused even telephone contact between the little girl and her heartbroken mother. They were able to do this because, despite years of actual parenting, Lydia was not considered Little Lydia's legal parent under the state's law. Only after two months of wrenching separation were mother and daughter reunited, when the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund obtained court orders requiring Little Lydia's return and making Lydia the permanent guardian of her daughter, complying with Linda's and Little Lydia's deepest wishes. There are countless heartbreaking stories like Lydia's. Many have ended with parent and child separated forever. No one, regardless of sexual orientation, ever should have to face losing one's "other half" and then have one's child taken as well. Only the most coldhearted can ignore the needless trauma to children, who need to be able to depend on both of their parents, especially in times of crisis. Lesbian and gay couples who have committed to care for each other need the legal system to help them fulfill their responsibilities. Their children and other dependent family members need these protections as well. All of society benefits when the law reinforces family ties by enforcing duties of support and providing predictability and accountability. The law must not treat as strangers those who are family to each other in every real-life way. AB205, the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003, would be a significant step toward equal treatment of all families under state law. This legislation, authored by Assemblymember Jackie Goldberg (D-Los Angeles) and sponsored by Equality California, would expand substantially both the legal benefits and the legal obligations of registered domestic partners in the state. AB205 would provide registered domestic partners joint property rights; increase child-custody and visitation protections; and clarify duties of financial support between the partners and for children. It would provide surviving partners the right to make decisions regarding autopsy, anatomical gifts and disposition of a partner's remains following death. AB205 would recognize a couple's relationship in certain transactions with state government, such as allowing one partner to obtain an absentee ballot for the other; allowing the transfer of certain licenses to a surviving partner upon a licensee partner's death; and extending to partners the evidentiary privilege of not being forced to testify against one another. What makes this bill a landmark step forward is that the rights attached to AB205 come with significant responsibilities. Registered domestic partners would have the right to file state income taxes jointly but also would bear responsibility for each other's debts. Eligibility determinations for state means-tested programs would take into account the income of both partners. Conflict-of-interest provisions in various areas of the law would apply, for the first time, to same-sex relationships. Thus, AB205 is a strong and important move toward equal civil rights for same-sex couples and their families. It would enable these couples to take better care of each other and of their children, because it would extend most, but not all, of the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage under California law to registered domestic partners. Of course, there are important rights, such as protection against property-tax re-assessment after the death of a co-owning partner, that a simple majority of the Legislature cannot grant, because those rights are governed by the state Constitution or were passed by an initiative statute. Nonetheless, AB205 would improve the legal status of same-sex couples in the state in numerous critical, long-denied ways. Yet, make no mistake - AB205 is not a marriage bill. It would not, and could not, provide domestic partners access to the more than 1,000 federal benefits that come with civil marriage for different-sex couples. These include Social Security survivor pensions, the right to file joint federal income-tax returns, protection against federal inheritance taxation and the right to maintain health insurance under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. Portability, one of civil marriage's key benefits, is not available automatically for domestic partners. Indeed, it is not clear to what extent the rights and responsibilities granted under the state's domestic-partnership laws will be recognized when couples travel to other states. Opponents argue that AB205 conflicts with Proposition 22, the initiative by state Sen. Pete Knight (R-Palmdale) to deny recognition in California to the marriages of same-sex couples. But Proposition 22 did not address domestic partnerships. In fact, its proponents repeatedly assured voters that the measure would not limit protections for same-sex couples provided through legal devices other than marriage. Because AB205 has nothing to do with who may marry in our state, let alone whether it will recognize any types of out-of-state marriages, the bill does not conflict with Proposition 22. Any recognition that California may give in the future to the marriages of same-sex couples elsewhere (no state allows same-sex couples to marry) will be determined by efforts to undo Proposition 22 in the courts or at the ballot box - not by AB205. In this time of budget crisis and recession, a UCLA study released last week proves that the state cannot afford to continue treating same-sex couples as legal strangers. The study found that AB205 actually will save the state between $8.1 million and $10.6 million per year. Dr. Lee Badgett, a University of Massachusetts economist, and Prof. Brad Sears, of UCLA School of Law, analyzed the bill's likely effects on the state's budget. They found that AB205 would decrease state expenditures on public benefits and increase sales-tax revenues through heightened tourism and would not create significant administrative or court costs. Furthermore, AB205 may decrease significantly the unpredictability and length of the disputes that can result when same-sex couples separate or one partner dies. The lack of access to family court and confusion about applicable law often forces domestic partners or their survivors to litigate in civil court, without the benefit of mandatory mediation, resulting in inflated legal fees and an inefficient use of judicial resources. AB205 would take most of these disputes out of civil court and place them where they belong, in Family Court. In June 2002, a Decision Research poll found that 55 percent of Californians support civil unions for long-term same-sex couples. Support for specific civil rights for households headed by lesbians and gay men is consistently above 60 percent. AB205 would provide a significant number of basic rights and responsibilities for the 100,000 to 400,000 same-sex couples residing in the state. It would afford access to justice for the children they are raising and the elderly parents for whom they provide housing and care. AB205 recognizes the reality of existing family structures and follows our state's strong public policy of sustaining all families as the bulwark of our society. If AB205 passes, it will help domestic partners share joint responsibility for each other and their dependent family members. It will save future Lydia Ramoses from being told that a beloved life-partner was a legal stranger and that the children that they have cherished and raised from birth can be stolen from their arms. Laura Esquivel is director of policy and government relations at LLEGÓ (National Latino/a Lesbian, Gay Bisexual & Transgender Organization). Jackie Goldberg is a state assemblymember for the 45th District. Jennifer C. Pizer is senior staff attorney at Lambda Legal, counsel for Lydia Ramos and one of the principal drafters of AB205.
| ||||||