From In re Marriage Cases, the ruling in May that allowed same-sex marriages:
...one appellate decision has held that the putative spouse doctrine (codified in ยง 2251) does not apply to an asserted putative domestic partner. (Velez v. Smith (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1172-1174.)
Putative spouse doctrine means "I thought it was a real marriage and I didn't realize we weren't technically legal!" and provides the couple some of the protections that marriages get on a split-up, that are not allowed for random "we stopped living together" situations. It was ruled not to apply to domestic partners who hadn't filled out the proper forms, or whatever. (Can't find a copy of Velez.)
Have heard it might be overturned--but there are other situations, and many cases, that indirectly deal with spouses, that a simple phrasing of "marriage in court = marriage+domesticpartnership" may not cover.
(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...
Saying it's so doesn't make it happen; if it did, there wouldn't be a swarm of other legal details describing the aspects of domestic partnerships. (Like how they're ended... marriage requires a judicial review; dom-part doesn't. But if the DP has the same requirements and obligations, shouldn't it also require a judgment to end?)
Also, the limitations on domestic partnerships from the beginning, makes them less than marriage. You don't have to live together to marry, nor do you need to be 18. Two teenagers in different households can fall in love & dedicate their lives to each other... as long as they're straight.
But of course, that doesn't apply to "registered domestic partnerships." The state (or some members of it) can claim that equality has been met if the people who are in the class (married people, domestic partners) are treated (mostly) equally... without considering that access *to* the protected class is not equal.
I put together some notes--Separate is not Equal--describing 9 of the differences between marriage & domestic partnership in CA, and why they indicate unequal treatment under the law.
(I have no idea what kind of a field day lawyers are having, or will have, with the CA law detail that a child born to a married couple is automatically the legal child of both, regardless of genetics. A man can't divorce his cheating wife & claim "that kid's not mine;" what this'll do for lesbian parents is going to be interesting to watch.)
no subject
Have heard it might be overturned--but there are other situations, and many cases, that indirectly deal with spouses, that a simple phrasing of "marriage in court = marriage+domesticpartnership" may not cover.
(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...
Saying it's so doesn't make it happen; if it did, there wouldn't be a swarm of other legal details describing the aspects of domestic partnerships. (Like how they're ended... marriage requires a judicial review; dom-part doesn't. But if the DP has the same requirements and obligations, shouldn't it also require a judgment to end?)
Also, the limitations on domestic partnerships from the beginning, makes them less than marriage. You don't have to live together to marry, nor do you need to be 18. Two teenagers in different households can fall in love & dedicate their lives to each other... as long as they're straight.
But of course, that doesn't apply to "registered domestic partnerships." The state (or some members of it) can claim that equality has been met if the people who are in the class (married people, domestic partners) are treated (mostly) equally... without considering that access *to* the protected class is not equal.
I put together some notes--Separate is not Equal--describing 9 of the differences between marriage & domestic partnership in CA, and why they indicate unequal treatment under the law.
(I have no idea what kind of a field day lawyers are having, or will have, with the CA law detail that a child born to a married couple is automatically the legal child of both, regardless of genetics. A man can't divorce his cheating wife & claim "that kid's not mine;" what this'll do for lesbian parents is going to be interesting to watch.)