LEGAL EQUALITY FOR DOMESTIC PARTNERS

California Association of REALTORS®
Businesses that provide benefits to married couples must extend those same benefits to registered domestic partners. This was the ruling of the California Supreme Court on August 1, 2005 in the case of Koebke v. Bernardo Heights Country Club (2005 WL 179782).

This decision comes on the heels of new revisions, effective January 1, 2005, to the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003. The 2005 revisions bestow registered domestic partners with nearly the same rights and responsibilities as married couples, including community property rights and responsibilities. For example, registered domestic partners may hold title as community property or as community property with right of survivorship, may be mutually responsible for debts to third parties, and may receive financial support from the other partner upon dissolution of the partnership. To register, a same-sex couple of any age (or an opposite-sex couple with one or both over the age of 62) who have a common residence may file a Declaration of Domestic Partnership with the Secretary of State.

The Koebke case arose when a private country club gave membership privileges to spouses and children of members, but refused to extend those privileges to same-sex partners. A lesbian couple who were registered domestic partners challenged that business practice by suing the country club for violating the Unruh Civil Rights Act. In a 6-0 decision, the Supreme Court of California ruled that registered domestic partners "are the equivalent of spouses for the purposes of the Unruh Act and a business that extends benefits to spouses it denies to registered domestic partners engages in impermissible marital status discrimination." The Court also stated, "the Legislature has made it abundantly clear that an important goal of the Domestic Partner Act is to create substantial legal equality between domestic partners and spouses."

This Supreme Court ruling may have far-reaching implications by requiring businesses offering certain policies, fees, or discounts to married couples to now extend those same benefits to registered domestic partners. Businesses that may be impacted include lenders, insurance companies, and club facilities.