Sign Up for email alerts



California Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law

HRC monitors a wide range of laws that affect GLBT people and their families. Below you will find a review of the laws regarding marriage and relationship recognition for same-sex couples in California. You can also learn about the California Domestic Partner Law, follow recent developments and legislative activity in the states by using the state legislation database.

  • Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? Unclear.
    San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to same-sec couples in February 2004. Since that time 4,037 licenses have been issued to same-sex couples. The state Supreme Court invalidated those licenses Aug. 12, 2004, but did not rule on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage under the state constitution. There are also pending lawsuits filed on behalf of same-sex couples challenging the constitutionality of denying them marriage rights.
  • Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No.
    California law states: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
  • Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? Yes.
    California has passed three pieces of legislation that provide rights and responsibilities to registered domestic partners (same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples over the age of 62 are eligible to register). Assembly Bill 26 passed in 1999 established the statewide domestic partner registry and conferred a handful of rights which included hospital visitation and the right of state and local employers the ability to offer health care coverage to the domestic partners of their employees. Assembly Bill 25 was passed in 2001 and extended the rights of domestic partners to include the right to make medical decisions, the right to inherit when partner dies without a will, the right to use state step-parent adoption procedures, the right to use sick leave to care for a domestic partner and the right to be appointed as administrator of estate. In 2003 Assembly Bill 205 was passed, basically extending all of the state-level rights and responsibilities of marriage to domestic partners. The rights and responsibilities associated with Assembly Bill 205 went into effect on Jan. 1, 2005.
  • Citations: CAL. FAM. CODE § 308.5; Assembly Bill 26, Assembly Bill 25, Assembly Bill 205.

More information

 Recent Developments in California

On March 14, 2005, in a ruling on several pending cases related to same-sex marriage, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer said that withholding marriage licenses from same-sex couples was unconstitutional.

"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," Kramer said in the ruling.

On March 30, however, Kramer announced that the ruling would be stayed for at least one year — meaning that no same-sex couples could be married in California during that time.

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer has announced that the state will appeal the ruling. Two anti-gay organizations, the Campaign for California Families and the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education, have also said they will appeal.

The National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit March 12, 2004, in state court, Woo v. Lockyer. The suit, filed on behalf of 10 same-sex couples along with the San Francisco-based Our Family Coalition and Equality California, a state GLBT-rights group, challenges Proposition 22.

This state law, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, was championed by the late state Sen. Pete Knight, R-Palmdale, and passed by voters in 2000. San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera has also filed a suit challenging the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage, which was consolidated with Woo v. Lockyer.

History. On Feb. 12, 2004, the county clerk in San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, following a directive from Mayor Gavin Newsom. Phyllis Lyon, 79, and Del Martin, 83, longtime lesbian-rights activists, who had been partners for 51 years, were the first same-sex couple to be married. As the news broke, couples flocked to San Francisco City Hall, lining up around the block to wait their turn to be married. That first weekend, 2,340 couples were married, and over the following month, that number grew to more than 4,000.

The state Supreme Court ruled Aug. 12, 2004, that the city of San Francisco did not have the authority to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. It also ruled that the 4,037 marriage licenses that had been issued to same-sex couples were void and without any legal effect. The California Supreme Court did not rule on whether California marriage law, which excludes same-sex couples from marrying, violates the California constitution.

Opposition. Two lawsuits were filed by anti-GLBT rights groups Feb. 13, 2004, asking California Superior Court to call an immediate halt to the marriages. Two judges declined the requests and, instead, scheduled hearings late in March. Another judge denied a similar suit Feb. 20, 2004, saying the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that the marriages caused "imminent irreparable harm." Attorney General Bill Lockyer also asked the courts to stop the marriages and invalidate those already performed, but the state Supreme Court rejected his request Feb. 27, 2004. The state Supreme Court temporarily halted the San Francisco marriages on March 11, 2004, but did not rule on whether denying same-sex marriage violates the state constitution.

In addition, anti-gay activist groups have filed three separate proposed constitutional amendments with the California Secretary of State’s Office to begin gathering signatures to put one or more of these amendments on the ballot in 2006. All of these amendments would prohibit marriage for same-sex couples. The most broadly written of the three also takes away nearly all of the rights, benefits and responsibilities currently available under California’s comprehensive domestic partner registry program.

Equality for All campaign. While our opponents are working diligently to enshrine discrimination in the California state constitution, national, state and local GLBT organizations are united in the fight to oppose any discriminatory amendment. A campaign named "Equality for All" has been launched to fight possible ballot measures on these amendments (or any other discriminatory marriage-related ballot measure in California). The board for this campaign includes Equality California; the Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego GLBT Community Centers; HRC; the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force; Lambda Legal and other allied groups in California. HRC and the Task Force started the campaign off strong with a $200,000 challenge grant to help defeat the amendments. Read HRC’s news release on this grant.

Statewide marriage bill. Equality California and California Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, advanced the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, A.B. 19, to a vote on the Assembly floor in June. In the end, the bill fell just short of the 41 votes it needed to pass, with 37 "aye" votes and 36 "no" votes. Seven members of the Assembly did not vote. While the votes came up short, this was a significant step toward GLBT equality — it was the first time in history that a state legislative body took a vote on a bill that would allow same-sex couples to marry. View the end roll call vote for Assembly Bill 19.

The California Assembly approved legislation on Sept. 5 that would legalize same-sex marriages in the state. The bill, which was approved by the state Senate on Sept. 1, will now go to the governor's desk.

More information

 

 California Domestic Partners

Gov. Gray Davis, a Democrat, signed a bill Oct. 14, 2001, that enhances the state's domestic partner law by extending health care, estate planning and adoption benefits to unmarried couples who have registered as domestic partners. The law gives same-sex couples some of the essential resources necessary to protect their families and their relationships.

Benefits

Among the benefits available to California domestic partners as a result of the new law are:

  • access to the same adoption procedures used by stepparents;  
  • improved sick leave;   
  • disability coverage;   
  • expanded employer-sponsored health care coverage;   
  • medical decision-making authority for partners; and  
  • Certain key state tax breaks.

Davis signed another domestic partner bill into law on Sept. 10, 2002. The law provides inheritance rights for surviving domestic partners of California residents who die without a will or other estate plan. The new law creates parity between domestic partners and spouses for the purposes of "intestate succession," or inheritance in the absence of a will.

Eligibility

To be eligible for these and other benefits under California law, a couple must file a notarized Declaration of Domestic Partnership with the secretary of state's office along with a $10 filing fee. In this declaration, they must declare that they:

  • share a common residence;   
  • agree to be jointly responsible for each other's basic living expenses during the domestic partnership;   
  • are not married or in another domestic partnership;  
  • are not related by blood in a way that would prevent them from being married;  
  • are at least 18 years old;  
  • are the same sex (or one or both are over 62 years old and meet the eligibility requirements for old age benefits under the Social Security Act);  
  • are capable of consenting to a domestic partnership; and  
  • Have not previously filed a Declaration of Domestic Partnership that has not been terminated.

To obtain the Declaration of Domestic Partnership form, visit a local county registrar's office or the California secretary of state's office - or download a copy.

Updated on June 27, 2005

The legal information provided on this page is provided as a courtesy to the public. It is not designed to serve as legal advice. HRC does not warrant that this information is current or comprehensive.


The legal information provided on this page is provided as a courtesy to the public. It is not designed to serve as legal advice. HRC does not warrant that this information is current or comprehensive.

Last Updated: 12/19/2006