California has increased its protections for domestic partners with seven new laws that went into effect at the start of 2007. A few of these laws include:

1. Equal Benefits in State Contracting Law (AB 17): company benefits must be offered to  domestic partners by any company in or outside the state of California who wish to take California contracts over $100,000.

2. State Income Tax Equity Act of 2006 (SB 1827): registered domestic partners in CA can file joint state income tax returns.

3. Civil Rights Housing Act: extended discrimination protection to same-sex couples and LGBT people. A company cannot deny gays,lesbians,bisexuals, and transgenders housing.

Last week a Massachusetts’ court ruled against a non-biological lesbian partner who was seeking child custody rights. The courts stated that during the year and five month relationship the plaintiff did not file for adoption of the child in question. Also, the court ruled that the non-biological partner was not present enough at home to establish an emotional bond that would merit court-ordered visitation rights. The plaintiff argued that she had been away from the child in order to support the family financially. It is important to ask that if this couple had been heterosexual would the court have ruled in favor of the defendant, or would the fate of the child have been different? The lawyer for the defendant stated that the ruling proved that the court was fairly applying child-protection measures to all couples, independent of sexual orientation. However, views of the court are still heterosexist. If the plaintiff had been a man the court may have taken more time to pause and reflect on his role in the child’s life. Male influence is traditionally viewed as vital to the healthy development of a child. The court system would like to believe that it is unbiased and that justice is blind, however, the court is still rooted deeply in heterosexist culture, especially when dealing with the welfare of children.