One year after California implemented its domestic partnership registry, the Democrat-controlled legislature has begun the process of expanding benefits for homosexuals that would make such relationships "legally indistinguishable" from heterosexual marriages.

While it has become commonplace for several pro-homosexual bills to be introduced into the California State Assembly every year, two bills in particular seek to advance the interests of the homosexual lobby in the current session: Assembly Bills 25 and 1338.

Introduced on Feb. 23 by freshman Democrat Paul Koretz of West Hollywood, AB 1338 is modeled after Vermont's civil union law, which made headlines almost 18 months ago. Section 1(a) of the bill spells out the measure's intent in no uncertain terms:

"It is the intent of the Legislature that there shall be no distinction between the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of the parties to a marriage and those of the parties to a civil union, that marriages and civil unions shall be deemed legally indistinguishable, and that the parties to a civil union have all of the same benefits, protections, and responsibilities under law, whether derived from statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law, or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage.

"It is the further intent of the Legislature that this act shall be construed broadly to equalize civil union and civil marriage under all applicable laws of any jurisdiction that may affect or govern the rights of married persons in every other state, the District of Columbia, the United States, and any foreign country, to the fullest extent of applicable law, including the Constitution of the United States and the California Constitution, to the end that no party to a civil union shall be treated any differently than a married person as to his or her rights, benefits, and responsibilities under the laws of every jurisdiction that recognizes and accords rights, benefits, and responsibilities to a person who has been married or whose marriage had been recognized under California law."

The bill has been referred to the Assembly Judiciary Committee and is scheduled for its first hearing on April 17. The 11-member committee, stacked with 8 Democrats, has already approved AB 25 by a party-line vote. Authored by San Francisco Democrat Carole Migden, an open homosexual, the bill expands the state's domestic-partnership registration scheme that she successfully initiated last session.

Currently, those eligible to register as domestic partners in the state are same-sex couples where each partner is at least 18 years old and opposite-sex couples where both partners are over the age of 62. Such registrants are granted limited rights in the areas of hospital visitation and health benefits if one of the partners is a state worker. Migden's bill would open the registry up to include opposite-sex couples where only one of the partners is over 62.

According to the Judiciary Committee's analysis, AB 25 would also expand the benefits of registered domestic partners so they equal legal standing with married couples in the following areas:

• state tax preferences for health-care costs,
• ability to file claims for disability on behalf of a partner where no other legally authorized person is found,
• entitlement to sick leave for the care of a partner,
• unemployment benefits,
• medical treatment decisions,
• conservatorship rights,
• certain inheritance and estate administration rights,
• ability to sue for emotional distress and wrongful death.

Additionally, the bill would require health plans and disability insurers to offer employers coverage for domestic partners of employees, just as they do for other dependents.

Until the domestic partner registry went into effect last year, "same sex couples and their families received no recognition under California law," wrote Migden in her statement to the Judiciary Committee. "Even with the enactment of the domestic partner registry with hospital visitation rights and health benefits for public employees, few substantive benefits are available to domestic partners who register. [This bill] would extend to domestic partners substantive legal and economic benefits that married spouses enjoy."

Migden continued, calling the benefits outlined in AB 25 "basic protections."

In its written support of the bill, the California Alliance for Pride and Equality (CAPE) states: "Absent these clear guidelines, domestic partners are often caught in the middle of disagreements and sometimes litigation regarding families and partners' rights, especially in situations where the immediate blood relatives have rejected the ailing or deceased partner because of his or her sexual orientation. All Californians deserve equal treatment under the law. AB 25 is a positive step in that direction."

Noted for its liberal legislature, California's journey toward equalizing the status of homosexual relationships with marriage began about 10 years ago. At that time, the legislature appointed a Joint Legislative Task Force on the Changing Family "to study the evolving nature of the California family, and to make recommendations to the Legislature as to how the needs of the state's changing families could be better met," according to the Judiciary Committee.

"The task force found that the traditional structure of the family, as it was known in the 1950s and 60s, had indeed changed over the years. Today, the traditional 'nuclear family' no longer describes the majority of families in California. Instead, the concept of 'family' has been extended to include stepparents, grandparents, parents-in-law, and, in many cities, domestic partners. Children are relating to multiple families, as their biological parents get divorced, remarry and create new, extended families," the committee continued.

But while the task force may have recommended change to the state's definition of "family," prompting a plethora of legislative proposals of the ilk of AB 25 and AB 1338, voters flatly rejected the idea of homosexual marriage last year.

Known as the "Defense of Marriage Act," Proposition 22 stated: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Traditional values activists are quick to point out to committees and individual legislators that Prop 22 was passed by all but a half-dozen of California's 58 counties, resulting in a statewide margin of 61-39 percent. Equating homosexual "civil unions" with marriage or expanding domestic partner benefits, they say, flies in the face of the plain will of the people.

Nevertheless, CAPE points to a 1997 Field Poll that shows, according to CAPE, "a strong majority of Californians (ranging from 59 percent to 67 percent) support domestic partners living together in a loving and caring relationship to have many of the same rights married couples enjoy, including medical power of attorney, conservatorship, and financial dependence status granting domestic partners such benefits as pensions, health and dental care coverage, family leave and death benefits." CAPE also cites a Decision Research poll conducted last year that shows a majority of California voters believe that gay and lesbian couples are entitled to basic protections.

While statewide civil unions and broadened domestic-partner benefits are still in the works, hundreds of cities and municipalities in California and across the United States have already implemented some form of recognition of homosexual couples, including the U.S. House of Representatives. California cities with domestic partnership policies include Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, Santa Barbara and San Francisco, to name just a few. The University of California, as well as nine other university systems, have similar policies. And more than 100 for-profit, non-profit and union organizations have instituted some kind of domestic partner policy.

The latest to be added to their number is LEGO Systems, Inc. Beginning April 1, homosexual couples who have lived together for at least 6 months -- and their children -- are eligible for employee medical, dental and vision benefits offered to legal spouses of employees. The new policy is being implemented as part of LEGO's " efforts to continue to support diversification," states an inter-company memo obtained by WND.

In order to participate, partners must provide documentation proving they have shared the same residence for at least 6 months, such as a lease or mortgage papers with the names of both people listed. "Anything that shows a joint liability," said LEGO Employee Benefits Manager Theawanna Sanders-White. The couple is then required to sign an affidavit.

The company does not provide similar benefits to unmarried heterosexual couples, noted Sanders-White, since heterosexual couples "have an avenue to make their union legal. Same-sex couples outside the state of Vermont don't."

That may soon end if AB 1338 passes. CAPE, which supports both the Koretz and Migden bills, is joined by a long line of organizations listed in support of AB 25 in the official legislative analysis of the bill. The list includes the American Association of Retired Persons, the American Civil Liberties Union, California Church Impact (the legislative arm of the California Council of Churches), California Faculty Association, California Professional Firefighters, California School Employees Association, California Teachers Association, Congress of California Seniors and over 250 individuals, to name just a few.

The list of groups in opposition is much shorter, including in full: Campaign for California Families, Capitol Resource Institute, the Committee on Moral Concerns, the Traditional Values Coalition and 11 individuals.

In order to be included in support or opposition to any given piece of legislation, organizations and individuals are generally required to send a letter to both the bill author's office and the committee of jurisdiction. Electronic communications are rarely included.

While AB 1338 has yet to be heard by the Judiciary Committee, AB 25 has cleared that hurdle and is on its way to the Labor and Employment Committee, which is chaired by Koretz. No hearing date has yet been set for the bill in that committee.

Related stories:

Coalition helps kids avoid 'homosexual curriculum'

Students 'opting out' of homosexual class

California schools' new homosexual curriculum

Protesters urge veto of pro-homosexual bills

'California Families' win legislative battle