Shotgun-debugging a body of statutory law is hard enough; how do you shotgun-debug hundreds of years of tradition? Under the principle of stare decisis (literally "to stand by and adhere to decisions"), which obligates judges to follow the precedents established in previous case law, you can't. Only marriage is marriage, and there is no precedent for "domestic partnership immunity"; in this respect, the court's hands are tied. Even if statutory law mandates equal treatment before the law for domestic partners, the court cannot magically create privilege where none exists. There can be no parity between marriages and domestic partnerships.
Not...exactly, no. Stare decisis only covers things that have actually been adjudicated. As long as there is no prior decision saying that a civil union does NOT provide immunity, you can use the CA statute to argue that spousal immunity applies. Given the relatively gay-friendly courts in CA, I expect this would have a very solid shot.
The statute actually says that it gives all common law marriage rights to people in domestic partnerships. It's in the first section of the act.
Once there is a decision by the CA Supreme Court, though, THEN their hands are tied.
(a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.
Spousal immunity only becomes an issue out of state. I am not sure that replacing domestic partnerships with marriages would actually fix that problem. I mean, theoretically it would, because most states have full faith and credit acts re: marriage. But then, some states are passing laws defining the genders necessary for a marriage; it would create a very thorny problem (that the ACLU would be happy to jump into with both feet, and they do damn good legal work).
(I apologize for pointing you down this track - I hadn't read the statute recently)
no subject
Not...exactly, no. Stare decisis only covers things that have actually been adjudicated. As long as there is no prior decision saying that a civil union does NOT provide immunity, you can use the CA statute to argue that spousal immunity applies. Given the relatively gay-friendly courts in CA, I expect this would have a very solid shot.
The statute actually says that it gives all common law marriage rights to people in domestic partnerships. It's in the first section of the act.
Once there is a decision by the CA Supreme Court, though, THEN their hands are tied.
(a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.
Spousal immunity only becomes an issue out of state. I am not sure that replacing domestic partnerships with marriages would actually fix that problem. I mean, theoretically it would, because most states have full faith and credit acts re: marriage. But then, some states are passing laws defining the genders necessary for a marriage; it would create a very thorny problem (that the ACLU would be happy to jump into with both feet, and they do damn good legal work).
(I apologize for pointing you down this track - I hadn't read the statute recently)