Law gives gay couples more benefits

[Moloch]

SAN FRANCISCO - Like many gay couples, Brian Cornell and Alberto Rulloda long ago established a legal framework for their relationship to match their commitment to each other.

They drew up wills naming the other as beneficiary, property agreements and powers of attorney, among other documents. The couple of 27 years wanted to spell out the specifics that would have been presumed if they were married.

Now such improvised arrangements will be less necessary for them and nearly 29,000 other California couples -- the majority same-sex partners. A law that took effect with the new year gives gay couples who register as domestic partners nearly the same responsibilities and benefits as married spouses.

Same-sex couples in California for the first time will have access to divorce court for dividing their assets, seeking alimony and securing child support. They also will have automatic parental status over children born during the relationship and responsibility for each other's debts.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/10551773.htm?1c

[papau]

1. The 26000 GLB domestic partners must now file for divorce when

breaking up in California -

But they still may not marry.

Ironic?

:-)

[noamnety]

2. It doesn't say they "must"

The article says they have access to the courts for dividing assets, but it sounds optional. It's the first I've heard of it, though. Is there more to the story that isn't in the article?

[papau]

3. The wire refers to today being the first day of "must" - I have not

actually looked at the LA Times article

"California's new domestic partnership law marks the fourth major expansion of partnership rights in the state. When California established the nation's first statewide domestic partner benefits in 1999, the law offered hospital visitation rights and health benefits for partners of state or local government workers.

• Then came the right to stay in senior housing with a domestic partner.

• In 2002, another law added the right to step-parent adoption of a partner's child, the ability to collect unemployment insurance after relocating with a partner, and the right to make medical decisions for an incapacitated partner.

• Next came certain inheritance rights.

• The step that takes effect today involves assistance of the courts in managing breakups, community property and matters related to child-rearing."

[papau]

4. Actual LA Times article below - sounds like "will have to" - not may!

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-me-domestic1jan01,1,457938.story

Though They Can't Wed, Gays May Now Divorce
Law expanding rights and responsibilities for state's domestic partners takes effect today.
By Lee Romney
Times Staff Writer

January 1, 2005

SAN FRANCISCO — Gays and lesbians still can't marry in California. But starting today, the more than 26,000 couples registered with the state as domestic partners will have to divorce if they split up.

If they have children, they will automatically receive a wide array of parental rights. Community property suddenly applies, just as for married spouses.

The changes are part of a law, put on the books by the Legislature and former Gov. Gray Davis in September 2003 but going into effect only now, that greatly expands California's 5-year-old experiment with domestic partnerships.

The law's supporters and opponents agree that it makes domestic partnership in California equivalent to marriage in almost all but name.<snip>

In sickness and in health, in separation and in death, California's registered domestic partners now share hundreds of state rights and responsibilities formerly granted only to married spouses:

To split, partners must legally divorce. Alimony could be ordered by a court. All assets acquired during the partnership are carved down the middle. Debts are shared too. Both partners automatically receive the legal protections of parents along with the right to custody and the duty to pay child support."California is way ahead of the curve," said Aimee Gelnaw, executive director for the Washington-based Family Pride Coalition, which promotes the interests of gay families.<snip>

[noamnety]

5. Thanks!

It makes sense, if there are benefits that have to be terminated, that there should have to be some kind of formal termination of the partnership.

I agree, it is ridiculous to have to get divorced without being allowed to get married. It's a step in the right direction, but it be nice if the steps didn't have to be taken in clown shoes.