VALID OUT-OF- STATE GAY MARRIAGE IS VALID IN  CALIFORNIA

Effective January 1, 2010, Senate Bill 54 becomes law and amends Family Code Section 308 [valid out-of-state marriage is valid in California] by adding subsection(b), which will provide that valid out-of-state marriage contracted before 11/5/08 is valid in California; and subsection (c), which will provide that parties to valid out-of-state marriages contracted after 11/5/08 shall have same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to same responsibilities, obligations, and duties, as are granted to and imposed on spouses, “ ‘with the sole exception of the designation of “ ‘marriage.’ ”

Senate Bill No. 54 was approved by Governor Swartzenager and filed with Secretary of State on October 11, 2009.   According to the legislative counsel’s digest, it is an act to amend Section 308 of the Family Code*, relating to family law and reads as follows:

 Family law: out-of-state same-sex marriages.

Existing law provides that a marriage contracted outside this state that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted is valid in this state. Existing case law provides that, while on and after November 5, 2008, only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California, marriages of same-sex couples that were performed prior to November 5, 2008, are valid.

This bill would provide that, notwithstanding any other provision of law, a marriage between two persons of the same sex contracted outside this state that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted is valid in this state if the marriage was contracted prior to November 5, 2008.

Existing case law also recognizes that while, effective November 5, 2008, same-sex couples lack the right to enter into a relationship designated “marriage,” they possess the right to the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage, including, the opportunity of an individual to establish an officially recognized and protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled  to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage.

This bill would specify that, notwithstanding any other provision of law, two  persons of the same sex who contracted a marriage on or after November 5, 2008, that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, as specified, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses with
the sole exception of the designation of “marriage.”

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1. Section 308 of the Family Code* is amended to read:

308. (a) A marriage contracted outside this state that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted is valid in this state.

(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a marriage between two persons of the same sex contracted outside this state that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted is valid in this state if the marriage was contracted prior to November 5, 2008.

(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, two persons of the same sex who contracted a marriage on or after November 5, 2008, that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from the California Constitution, the United States Constitution, statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses with the sole exception of the designation of “marriage.”


* [You may look up the California Family Code by going to our Resource Page]

---

GOVERNOR SIGNS NEW LAW TO PROVIDE REPRESENTATION FOR INDIGENT FAMILY LAW LITIGANTS.   

The well known “Miranda” warning that every police office recites states,
But there has been is no such right in family law.  The reason is that in criminal law you can lose your liberty and become incarcerated.

Here in California, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has recently signed into law the nation’s first statute, which provides a lawyer to people who cannot afford one in civil cases related to critical basic human needs.

                It is a pilot program and will be limited in scope.

The pilot project, AB590 was authored by Assemblyman Mike Feuer, D-Los Angeles, expands to some civil cases the right to counsel that is already granted in criminal cases, as spelled out in the 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Gideon v. Wainwright. 

The law, which creates a six-year pilot project that takes effect July 2011 and is paid for with court fees, is called the Sargent Shriver Civil Counsel Act, after the governor’s father-in-law, who helped build the nation’s legal services programs in the 1960s.

The measure calls for free legal help for the poor “in civil matters involving critical issues affecting basic human needs.” Cases may include housing-related matters, domestic violence and civil harassment restraining orders, probate conservatorships, guardianships, elder abuse and actions by a parent to obtain sole legal or physical custody of a child.

The law states that proposals to provide counsel in child custody cases should be given high priority for funding as a result of the high number of people in family law matters who are not represented by lawyers. Funds for the $11 million-a-year pilot project will come from a $10 per case allocation of existing court fees.

It is estimated that more than 4.3 million Californians are believed to be unrepresented in court proceedings, primarily because they can’t afford to hire a lawyer.   Lawyers and judges are well aware that parties regularly lose cases that they very well may have won if they had competent legal representation.

Current legal services programs assist less than one-third of California’s poor and lower income residents because of lack of funding, according to the legislation.