This distinction between married and unmarried couples has been consistently upheld. Holguin, 122 Cal. App. 4th at 438, 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 749; accord Garcia, 133 Cal. App. 3d at 895, 184 Cal.Rptr. 390. As is pertinent here, California courts have found it reasonable to conclude that “a relationship which the parties have chosen not to formalize by marriage lacks the necessary permanence to allow the surviv- or to recover damages for wrongful death....” Id. (emphasis added); accord Holguin, 122 Cal. App. 4th at 442-43, 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 749. As the foregoing analysis demonstrates, “choice is the key to determining whether [a statute conferring rights upon a spouse] applies to a particular same-sex couple.” In re Madrone, 271 Or. App. 116, 128, 350 P.3d 495 (2015) (emphasis in original) (<HOLDING>). Where marriage is unavailable, it cannot
holding that samesex partners who would  have chosen to marry before a childs birth had they been permitted to are entitled to a statutory presumption of parentage that otherwise conferred benefits only upon a married spouse holding that couple held themselves out as married when they had reputation in community for being married even though they had kept marriage secret from a few family members holding that cr 6002 allows appeals based upon claims of error that were unknown and could not have been known to the moving party by exercise of reasonable diligence and in time to have been otherwise presented to the court holding that the defendants statement in an application for citizenship that he had only been married once was false even if the second marriage had been a nullity because it was bigamous holding unenforceable a regulation that would have provided greater workers compensation benefits than permitted by statute