California and the West : Davis Likely to Sign Domestic Partners Bill : Capitol: Aide says governor will approve narrower of two measures if provisions are trimmed. Sponsor sees ‘precedent-setting, historic step.’

SACRAMENTO —  Rejecting complaints by critics that it would set the stage for gay marriages, the Davis administration Thursday signaled a willingness to sign controversial legislation recognizing unmarried couples, including same-sex domestic partners.

AB 26 would allow domestic partners to register with the California secretary of state and extend them limited benefits, including health care coverage for domestic partners of public employees.

“I believe that we have reached an accord, and I’m . . . close to 100% certain that the bill will be signed in its final, amended form,” said Assemblywoman Carole Migden (D-San Francisco).

“It’s truly a precedent-setting, historic step,” she said as finishing touches were being put on the bill, which is pending in the state Senate.

Michael Bustamante, a spokesman for Gov. Gray Davis, confirmed that if the Democratic-controlled Legislature approves the measure, the governor will sign it, as long as its provisions are trimmed somewhat, especially by allowing but not forcing hospitals to admit domestic partners for visits.

“The governor is not interested in a mandate to the private sector,” Bustamante said.

Migden’s proposal could affect hundreds of thousands of Californians, including elderly couples who live together but are not married. The bill would direct the California Public Employees’ Retirement System to offer health care benefits to domestic partners.

Bustamante could not say whether the governor would sign another domestic partners measure, SB 75 by state Sen. Kevin Murray (D-Culver City), which would have a somewhat broader reach than Migden’s. The Assembly narrowly approved Murray’s bill Thursday.

Murray was somewhat philosophical when told about the agreement on Migden’s measure, acknowledging that the administration had problems with his proposal. “My bill is the purer bill that the activists wanted,” he said.

Murray’s measure would extend to “committed” same-sex couples limited benefits, including hospital visitation rights, certain inheritance rights and guardianship status.

The bill, called the Domestic Partners Act, was among dozens of measures considered by the Assembly and state Senate in the home stretch of the 1999 legislative session, scheduled to end Thursday. It was approved 41 to 38, the minimum needed for passage in the 80-member lower house.

Supporters say domestic partner proposals could affect 500,000 unmarried couples in California, 93% of whom are heterosexual. An estimated 35,000 of those are older people who choose not to marry because of pension restrictions.

During the Assembly floor debate, critics maintained that the hidden agenda of the Murray measure is gay marriage.

“All you have to do is read the gay literature, the gay Web sites, and see what they are talking about when discussing this legislation,” said Assemblyman Steve Baldwin (R-El Cajon).

“It’s quite clear what is going on. This is the proverbial camel’s nose in the tent for gay marriage,” he told his colleagues.

Those remarks by Baldwin, a staunch conservative, triggered a quick retort from Assemblywoman Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica), the lower house’s first openly gay member and one of its more liberal lawmakers.

Feigning indignation, Kuehl, a onetime TV actress, said: “I’m shocked and dismayed that Mr. Baldwin is visiting gay Web sites and reading gay literature.”

The legislation won approval with Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa (D-Los Angeles) casting the crucial vote needed to send it back to the Senate for final approval.

Villaraigosa said that when the bill was initially brought up Thursday morning, he was in Los Angeles giving a speech to the Latin Business Assn. He cast his vote after flying back to Sacramento.

The Assembly discussed the Murray measure for only a few minutes, in sharp contrast to its lengthy and fervent debate in June when Kuehl failed to win approval of a measure to ban discrimination against gay students in public schools.

In 1997, domestic partnership legislation by Murray died on the Assembly floor. Earlier attempts failed in the Assembly Judiciary Committee.

State Sen. William “Pete” Knight (R-Palmdale) is sponsoring a proposed initiative for next year’s ballot that would prohibit same-sex marriages in California.

The state does not officially recognize unmarried couples and does not direct hospitals and other health facilities to allow non-family members to visit with a patient.

But many cities, universities, private employers and labor unions recognize and provide benefits to domestic partners.

In California, 12 cities, including Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco, have adopted domestic partner policies, as have at least four counties, including Los Angeles.

Also on Thursday, the state Senate passed and returned to the Assembly on a 21-14 vote a bill (AB 889) that would require county clerks to hand out a “marriage fact sheet” to couples applying for a wedding license. The manual would spell out “marital rights and obligations,” covering property rights, child support obligations and the dangers of domestic violence.

State Sen. Jackie Speier (D-Daly City), who backed the bill by Assemblywoman Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara), argued that such an information sheet could help make marriages stronger and curb divorce.

But state Sen. Richard Mountjoy (R-Arcadia), a longtime critic of government intervention, lambasted the bill as “idiotic and stupid.” Mountjoy said he had been married for 47 years and had not needed any advice from the government about family matters.

*

Times staff writer Carl Ingram contributed to this story.