Domestic partner registration: termination.
Summary
(1) Existing law provides that the superior courts have jurisdiction over all proceedings relating to the dissolution of domestic partnerships, nullity of domestic partnerships, and legal separation of partners in a domestic partnership. Existing law provides that the dissolution of a domestic partnership, nullity of a domestic partnership, and legal separation of partners in a domestic partnership follow the same procedures, and the partners possess the same rights, protections, and benefits, and be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties, as apply to the dissolution of marriage, nullity of marriage, and legal separation of spouses in a marriage, respectively, except as specified. This bill would authorize parties to a registered domestic partnership who are also married to one another to petition the court to dissolve both their domestic partnership status and their marriage status in a single proceeding, in a form prescribed by the Judicial Council. The bill would also require the Judicial Council to prescribe the specified form. (2) Existing law provides that, in a proceeding for dissolution of marriage, for nullity of marriage, or for legal separation of the parties, the court has jurisdiction to inquire into and render any judgment and make orders that are appropriate concerning, among other things, the status of the marriage. Existing law provides that 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 have the same rights and responsibilities as are granted to or imposed upon spouses with the sole exception of the designation of "marriage". This bill would specify that the court's jurisdiction concerning the status of a marriage includes those out-of-state same-sex marriages contracted on or after November 5, 2008.
Bill status
signed
all 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2010
Committee Review
Aug 2010
Assembly Passage
May 2010
Senate Passage
Aug 2010
Signed into Law
Sep 2010
Introduced Feb 19, 2010
Signed Sep 27, 2010
Floor votes · Senate Aug 19, 2010 · Assembly May 6, 2010
How they voted
26–9
Passed · 3 other
Total votes 38
Aug 19, 2010
D
Democratic25
92% Yea
R
Republican13
69% Nay
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
23
Key actions
9
Committee
9
Amendments
1
Sep 25, 2010
Signed into law
Approved by the Governor.
legislature
Aug 19, 2010
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (26-9-3)
senate
Aug 2, 2010
Upper · Passed
From committee: Be placed on second reading file pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.
upper
Jun 23, 2010
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. Re-referred. (Ayes 3. Noes 1.) (June 22).
upper
May 20, 2010
Committee
Referred to Com. on JUD.
upper
May 6, 2010
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (43-24-6)
assembly
Apr 21, 2010
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 12. Noes 5.) (April 21).
lower
Apr 13, 2010
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. Re-referred. (Ayes 7. Noes 3.) (April 13).
lower
Apr 6, 2010
Lower · Passed
In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
lower
Apr 5, 2010
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
lower
Apr 5, 2010
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended.
lower
Mar 18, 2010
Committee
Referred to Com. on JUD.
lower
Feb 21, 2010
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 23.
lower
Feb 19, 2010
Introduced
Introduced. To print.
lower
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
FM
Fiona Ma
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 2700
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 2700. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline