THE LAW OFFICES OF

ANTHONY J. ROBINSON

  (626) 797-5001

We are members of:

Web Resources:

In Memory of 09-11-01

Lest We Forget

       As you see we have included a section which deals with the requirements for a Domestic Partnership. Whether or not you agree with Domestic Partnerships or Gay Marriages, people who do need to have the information available. We neither endorse or condemn the individuals who would avail themselves of this service. All we ask is that readers be tolerant of others as you would want them to be tolerant of you. This is a valid section for discussion, even if you have different views.

Domestic Partnership Act of 2003:

         As of January 1, 2005, many  gay and lesbian adults, who are not married are entitled to enjoy most of the legal benefits that married couples are afforded. This is the result of the legislature's enactment of the Domestic Partnership Act of 2003. Details of the statute can be found commencing at Section §297 of the California Family Code.  This section also applies to older Californians who qualify under Title II of the Social Security Act as defined in 42 U.S.C. Section 402(a) for old-age insurance benefits or Title XVI of the Social Security Act as defined in 42 U.S.C. Section 1381 for aged individuals.

        Without getting into the political ramifications of this law, we present the information for the benefit of those to whom the law could apply. We want everyone to know that we do not discriminate against gay or straight people. We are here to provide legal services to everyone.  If you are someone who has questions or desire services under this law, we are ready, willing and able to provide you with those services. With our office you can always be sure of discretion, confidentiality and professionalism in the handling of your case. 

News Update on Domestic Partnership Act of 2003:

        News flash, the Los Angeles Times, on April 5, 2005, reports that an appellate panel of the 3rd. District of the Court of Appeals has ruled that this this provision is  constitutional and doesn't violate Proposition 22. As you may remember, the voters approved Proposition 22 which banned marriage for gays and lesbians. The panel ruled that "The words of Proposition 22 and also it's ballot pamphlet materials do not express an intent to repeal our state's then-existing domestic partners laws or to limit the legislature authority to enact other legislation regarding such unions."

         The other point of view from conservatives and a Christian legal group position is that "When the voters went to the poles in 2000 and passed Proposition 22, they did not intend to preserve only the label of marriage, they intended to preserve the essence of marriage." They intend to mount a legal challenge to the Appellate Court's interpretation of the Statute. I would not be surprised if this view prevails. While California has a very liberal judiciary and legislative branch, there is a definite groundswell which favors limitations on such unions.

        This question will probably end up with both the California and United States Supreme Court reviewing the statute. It may get by the California Supreme  Court but I doubt it will survive Federal scrutiny. The Court will probably use the comity clause, the equal protection clause or even the Commerce clause to strike down the law. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, so stay tuned for more information as it becomes available.

  Back to Top

                                                        Send mail to AJR@ANTHONYJROBINSON.COM with questions or comments about this web site.

                                                         Copyright © 2002-2005 Law Offices of Anthony J. Robinson.  Any unauthorized duplication or reproduction of any and all contents are in violation of all applicable laws.  Last modified: August 04, 2010 Version 3.00