Partners law passes court test
Ramon Coronado, Sacramento Bee
April 5, 2005

Another attack on California's new domestic partners act was defeated Monday when a state appeals court upheld a lower court's ruling refusing to declare the controversial law unconstitutional.

"It is very clear that these extreme right-wing groups don't want gays and lesbians to have any rights or protections," said Shannon Minter, a lawyer and spokesman for the National Center for Lesbian Rights in the nation's capital.

Robert Tyler, an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, which lost the appeal, predicted that opponents of same-sex unions would take their fight to the California Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary. Last month, the ADF lost a similar challenge in San Francisco Superior Court.

"It won't stop here," said Tyler, who argued the case before the Sacramento-based 3rd District Court of Appeal on March 25.

In a 26-page opinion, the justices rejected the argument from opponents who said the domestic partners' law was void because of Proposition 22, the defense of marriage initiative. The March 2000 measure passed by a majority of voters declared that the only "valid or recognized" marriage in California is between a man and a woman.

The opponents argued that the Legislature, which later passed the domestic partners act that bestowed nearly the same rights and protections to registered partners, had created an amendment to Proposition 22 that required voter approval under the state constitution.

Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families, moved the battle from the courtroom to the steps of the state Capitol on Monday.

He is supporting proposed legislation that would call for a constitutional amendment to make marriage in California a union between a man and woman.

"These bad rulings clearly show the need to pass a constitutional amendment protecting marriage - because if it's not a man and a woman, it's not marriage," Thomasson said.

Tony Andrade, who heads a recall drive to unseat Sacramento Superior Court Judge Loren E. McMaster, whose ruling upholding the partners act was the basis of the appeal, said the drive to unseat the lower court judge continues.

"This doesn't affect us," Andrade said of a signature-gathering effort to put the issue on the ballot. So far, 6,000 signatures have been collected in Sacramento County out of more than 44,000 required, he said.

The Committee for Judicial Independence, which is fighting the recall drive, issued a prepared statement saying the appeals court decision should signal the end to the recall campaign.

The group is a bipartisan coalition of lawyers and others opposed to recalling the judge, said Jeff Raimundo, a local political consultant for the committee.

State Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who defended the domestic partners law in court, applauded the appeals court ruling.

"I am pleased that the court has upheld the most expansive domestic partner law in the country," Lockyer said. "California grants same-sex couples important rights and responsibilities that appropriately attach to a committed relationship."

In upholding the McMaster ruling, the justices said the domestic partners act did not amend the defense of marriage initiative and that to declare the partners law invalid would violate the equal protection guarantees under the state constitution.

The purpose of Proposition 22 was to limit the status of marriage to heterosexual couples and to prevent the recognition of homosexual marriages in California that are valid in other states, the opinion states.

The justices said the Legislature recognized that domestic partners did not receive all the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples. The filing of federal joint tax returns was an example cited.

"The numerous dissimilarities between the two types of unions disclose that the Legislature has not created a 'same-sex marriage' under the guise of another name," the ruling states.

Unlike marriage, the justices said, a domestic partnership will not automatically be recognized by other states.

California's domestic partnership law "may well become illusory," the justices wrote.