# Domestic Partners **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 3, 2000, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762 "2000-01-03T15:48:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2000, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/61 "2000-01-05T00:12:00Z")
Do you have a citation for the Governor’s line, **agent**? I’d like to see that quotation in context. ---
**Author:** ![Konrad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f475e1/32.png) [@Konrad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Konrad)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2000, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/62 "2000-01-05T00:14:00Z")
Well I think APB understands what I’m saying. It’s really not that hard to comprehend. Kepi sez: > [@](#): > > Using your logic, if heterosexual marriage doesn’t give society benefits then it shouldn’t be allowed either. That’s about right. Except instead of “allowed” use the word “encouraged”. > [@](#): > > So what are the benefits that heterosexual marriage gives to society? Like I said, I’m not arguing that it does. Most people seem to believe it does. dlv sez: > [@](#): > > More generally, should any activity that doesn’t immediately and obviously benefit the society be disallowed? What’s with this “disallowed” notion? No one is physically stopping gays from having a marriage. It just won’t be legally recognized as such. Therefore it won’t be encouraged through insurace premiums and so on. Polycarp sez: > [@](#): > > I think Konrad’s argument is quite simple: marriage is no longer a right, but a permitted behavior[…] I am not advocating his attitude, and I think the idea that the government should only permit behaviors that are “beneficial to society” is all wet. You have the basic idea. Marriage is not a right. But it’s not a matter of permitting types of behaviour. What exactly are gays not permitted to do? It’s a matter of encouragement. Should gay marriage be encouraged through legal recognition and benefits? Gay marriage, in the real sense of the word “marriage” is already allowed. Holly sez: > [@](#): > > If you want to argue that women’s suffrage produces benefits then that’s a whole other argument. And it’s a logical one. But these two arguments are not logical. So Holly, are you implying that women’s suffrage produces no benefits? Surgoshan sez: > [@](#): > > You seem to be saying that marriage is a legal state and homosexuals should be denied it for some reason? No. I specifically made the distinction between legal marriage and marriage. Gays are not being denied marriage. Legal marriage is a legal state. Saying homosexuals are being “denied” a legal state is like saying a rich person is being denied a legal state of having to pay less taxes. > [@](#): > > Looking at your previous post, you seem to believe that the purpose of marriage is solely for breeding. According to traditional thought breeding is a good thing therefore it should be encouraged. It doesn’t have to be the sole purpose of marriage and I never said that. jti sez: > [@](#): > > when you’re giving examples of Canadian law, you might want to mention that the Supreme Court of Canada has held that under our Constitution… I’m not arguing whether or not it’s already legal according to the constitution but whether or not it should be. David B sez: > [@](#): > > Well, I guess that about sums it up. Konrad says it doesn’t matter if we’re talking about an inanimate object or a human being. Cut out the bullshit David. If you have an actual argument to make then make it. I said: > [@](#): > > Who says that all people have the right to marry? Where’s it written in the constitution? David responded: > [@](#): > > The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. I still don’t see where it says you have a right to marry. And who says having a legally recognized marriage is a right? I don’t think it is. Sqrlcub sez: > [@](#): > > Konrad, you are simply wrong. Marriage is a legal commitment of love. Those are some nice assertions there but I don’t see your line of reasoning. Can you explain to me what rights you are being denied? Can you explain to me how legal recognition of your status benefits society? I don’t think you can, because you are making emotional arguments and not logical ones. So you love your lover, so what? Does that mean you have the right to have the relationship be legally recognized? I don’t see how you’re making this leap of logic. Kepi sez: > [@](#): > > Well, if the government tells those people that they can’t have this tax break because the government will not permit them to have children, and therefore they are never given the opportunity to be qualified for the tax break, then yeah, they are having some rights taken away from them. That’s right. That’s what I said in my post. But saying non-married couples can’t adopt children is a whole differrent issue. inertia sez: > [@](#): > > You can’t marry your lawnmower without its consent My lawnmower is not a living object. I own it. Why would it need to consent? If all living parties can consent to the marriage why shouldn’t it be legally recognized? Again can anyone tell what rights homosexuals are being denied by not having their marriage being legally recognized? If you want to share your property you can make a contract that does the same thing. What terrible injustice is being done to them? ---
**Author:** ![FORMERAGENT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a3d4f5/32.png) [@FORMERAGENT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FORMERAGENT)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2000, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/63 "2000-01-05T00:16:00Z")
The context is this… His words when questioned by the AP’s press reporter covering the event. And theres no citation since I was actually in the room standing there, listening… thus i know if what the media said regarding that day was correct or not… Im serving as acting director of security for the CA office… so i was there IN THE ROOM. Mike ---
**Author:** ![Konrad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f475e1/32.png) [@Konrad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Konrad)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2000, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/64 "2000-01-05T00:17:00Z")
dlv sez: > [@](#): > > Did you, by any chance, grow up in a Communist country? I grew in West Germany and Canada. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure how much [my] marriage benefits the society and I’m worried that I’ll be arrested for not fulfilling my obligations to the society. So you’re saying that if your marriage was no longer legally recognized you’d leave your wife or you’d be arrested or something? I don’t get your point. ---
**Author:** ![D-bear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@D-bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D-bear)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2000, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/65 "2000-01-05T00:28:00Z")
## APB999 said: Quote---------------------------------------- Do gay marriages deserve the same legal status? Again, speaking for myself, it comes down to whether they can in general make good parents or not. Obviously, they cannot procreate in the traditional familial model but this is not really central, I think, given the multitude of procreative options available. More important to me is whether, as is so often asserted, “children most need two loving parents; the sex of those parents is unimportant”. This may be true. But then again, it’s a politically popular thing to say and would be so whether it was true or not; so we need to look at it closely. What about opposite-sex couples? Should we deny straight child molesters, drug abusers or alcholics the ability to marry? Just a thought. Should we take childern away from divorced couples, and allow them to be adoped by married couples who have managed to stay faithful to thier vows? Not alowing gay people to marry will not prevent gay people from existing. Having been raised by two heterosexual loving parrents did not prevent me from growing up to be gay. However knowing that when I grew up it was expected of me that I would be able to find a partner make a lifelong comitment to one other person, and have society expect me to be faithful to him and remain faithful to my vows to him would have made a big difference. Knowing that society not only dosen’t expect the same moral faithfulness of gays, much less alow it, seems harmful to each new generation of people who would be gay one way or the other. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Corrado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a88e4f/32.png) [@John\_Corrado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Corrado)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2000, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/66 "2000-01-05T00:33:00Z")
Konrad said: > [@](#): > > Again can anyone tell what rights homosexuals are being denied by not having their marriage being legally recognized? If you want to share your property you can make a contract that does the same thing. What terrible injustice is being done to them? By law, a person may not be forced to testify against one’s spouse. Nothing about ‘long-term partners’ in that one. By prejudice, homosexuals are assumed to be promiscuous and capricious, engaging in one-night stands and unwilling to engage in the kind of ‘conventional morality’ _immediately assumed_ of a married couple. I realize your position on affirmitive action tends to be “screw 'em”, but this is not a matter of catching up; this is a matter of merely allowing homosexuals to prove that homosexuality can be just as stable and monogamous a relationship as heterosexuality. Finally, you state that “it’s only fair” is not a logical argument. Fine. When you lose the use of your legs and find yourself barred from residences and buildings because you can’t climb up the steps, remind me to tell you that there’s no point in providing ramps, because “it’s only fair” isn’t a logical enough of an argument to help you out. If we didn’t give a damn about fair, and only cared about ‘benefit to society’, might as well round up the Africans and sell 'em back into slavery. Screw health benefits and housing and all other decency. Society makes a lot more money if we can work 'em into the ground without spending a single tax or commercial dollar on 'em. * * * JMCJ “John C., it looks like you have blended in very nicely.” -UncleBeer ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2000, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/67 "2000-01-05T00:43:00Z")
Andros: Thank you. Seriously. Former: You were standing in the room? Big whoop. Regardless of what the governor, according to you, may have said, here’s my backing for what I said: [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/01/04/MN39.DTL](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/01/04/MN39.DTL) (p.s. I sure hope it doesn’t stretch the window out a mile!) And just so’s you know: the governor of this state may sign laws, but he certainly doesn’t create them! ---
**Author:** ![Holly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/48db29/32.png) [@Holly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Holly)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2000, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/68 "2000-01-05T01:22:00Z")
> [@](#): > > So Holly, are you implying that women’s suffrage produces no benefits? I believe it does. Someone with another perspective might say it doesn’t, or that the benefits are outweighed by the overall detriment to society. For example, allowing women to vote might create 50% more voters: this represents a cost to society, as 50% more voting facilities must be provided and staffed. I once heard this argument: “Most women will just vote the same as their husbands vote, so why bother with that extra expense?” Having said all that, what are the possible benefits of allowing homosexuals to (legally) marry? 1.Promoting an atmosphere of tolerance and acceptance of diversity is beneficial for a diverse culture such as ours. 2.The more freedom our citizens enjoy, the better. 3.Encouraging long-term, monogamous relationships among homosexuals could decrease the spread of AIDS. I’m sure other people can think of some more. I’d also like to point out that in some states, homosexual people are not simply denied the benefits of marriage; they are expressly forbidden to have (homosexual) sex. Sodomy is still a crime in some states. ---
**Author:** ![dlv](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@dlv](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dlv)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2000, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/69 "2000-01-05T13:01:00Z")
> [@](#): > > No one is physically stopping gays from having a marriage. It just won’t be legally recognized as such. No one is stopping two regular people from just shacking up together… But we have the option of entering a marriage contract, which one spouse can ask the state to enforce. It’s not uncommon for a wife to sue her (ex-)husband for support; and there have been cases when the husband was jailed for not paying what the court ordered. (There probably have been cases of husbands suing wives for support as well.) A domestic partnership can be dissolved any time with no obligation. P.S. There was a good reason why slaves weren’t allowed to marry - they couldn’t give concent. ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2000, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/70 "2000-01-05T13:39:00Z")
Konrad said “Again can anyone tell what rights homosexuals are being denied by not having their marriage being legally recognized?” They are being denied the right to function as a family in society–the government does not “encourage” marrige with shared insurance benefits. Instead, both the government and the insurance companies are _recognizing_ an institution that predates them. div said: “A domestic partnership can be dissolved any time with no obligation.” This is not strictly true, at least for heterosexual parners who are shacking up. That is why we have a whole catagory of law dedicated to “commonlaw marriges”. If a non-married heterosexual couple splits up they are subject to all the same legal problems of a married couple–one partner can sue the other for support, custody of children still has to be worked out in a court, joint propert has to be legally seperated. My uncle-in-law (?) lived with a woman for a good many years and they had children. When they split up they had to file for divorce. The only case in which spliting up is easier when you are not married is if you are young, have only been together a couple of years and have no real property to dispose of. But marriges of a couple years with no real property are also very easy to disolve. ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2000, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/71 "2000-01-05T13:46:00Z")
Formeragent is telling you a half truth. The Assembly version of the bill allows opposite-sex partners to register a domestic partnership provided both are age 62 or older, as can be seen in the text of the most recent version here: [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab\_0001-0050/ab\_26\_bill\_19991010\_chaptered.html](http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_26_bill_19991010_chaptered.html) The Senate version of the bill does not mention any gender requirements at all: [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb\_0051-0100/sb\_75\_bill\_19990907\_enrolled.html](http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_0051-0100/sb_75_bill_19990907_enrolled.html) Every single law and proposed law of this sort I have ever seen allows both homosexuals and heterosexuals to take advantage of it. Every one. * * * “It’s my considered opinion you’re all a bunch of sissies!”–Paul’s Grandfather ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2000, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/72 "2000-01-05T15:11:00Z")
[Moderator Hat: ON] Monty and FormerAgent: **Cool it!** Next insult here gets deleted. * * * David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator [Moderator Hat: OFF] ---
**Author:** ![PatrickM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7feea3/32.png) [@PatrickM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickM)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2000, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/73 "2000-01-05T16:49:00Z")
I think people are confusing their arguments. Whehter or not gays should be allowed to marry is a separate question from whether Orangecakes’ suburb (is it Lakewood, Ohio?) should extend benefits to domestic partners. The city/suburb doesn’t have the authority to allow gays to legally marry, so we are putting the cart before the horse. Until the state decides that gays should be allowed to marry no city/suburb of that state should overstep its authority and extend employee benefits to unmarried domestic partners. Limiting benefits to married people serves a legitimate governmental end because there are checks and balances in place. In a married couple, even in this age of no-fault divorce, one half of the partnership cannot unilaterally terminate the other’s benefits. The breakup of the marriage has to be solemnized by a divorce court judge. There is no check or balance for unmarried couples. All it would take to terminate the benefits would be for one half of the partnership to change the locks on the home. Their partnership is terminated and the locked-out half loses his benefits. This vests way too much unchecked power in one person. Further, without requiring the parties to be married, extending benefits to unmarried domestic partners opens up the system to fraud, because there is no check or balance on the parties participating in the benefit. Additionally, and I have only anecdotal evidence, unmarried homosexual relationships are a lot more fluid than married relationships. One homosexual of my acquaintance had 3 partners within one year, so the bookkeeping burden of keeping track of who is entitled to benefits at any one time might be a nightmare, as anyone who’s dealt with the human resources dept. of a city can attest. ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2000, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/74 "2000-01-05T16:54:00Z")
Patrick said: > [@](#): > > unmarried homosexual relationships are a lot more fluid than married relationships Um, since, by law, homosexuals cannot get married, I don’t think that’s really a fair comparison. Saying “unmarried homosexual relationships” is kind of like saying “atheists who don’t believe in God.” Yes, some homosexuals date frequently and have multiple different partners. So do some (many) heterosexuals. Some homosexuals settle down with one person and live as if they were married. Some heterosexuals settle down with one person and get married. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2000, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/75 "2000-01-05T16:55:00Z")
Nice job picking up on the difference between what OC asked and the gay-marriage question, Patrick. Here’s the link to a previous thread on gay marriages: [http://www.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/000485.html](http://www.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/000485.html) ---
**Author:** ![dlv](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@dlv](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dlv)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2000, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/76 "2000-01-05T17:10:00Z")
> [@](#): > > That is why we have a whole category of law dedicated to “commonlaw marriges”. If a non-married heterosexual couple splits up they are subject to all the same legal problems of a married couple–one partner can sue the other for support, custody of children still has to be worked out in a court, joint property has to be legally seperated. It varies a lot by state. Some state recognize common-law marriage (shack up for 7+ years, and you’ve entered a contract that the state will enforce) and some don’t. Same way, some states have community property, and some don’t. In NYS, if two Lesbians are living together, and one of them has a kid, and then they split up, the ex-mommy has no legal rights as far as visitation is concerned… But also if a guy and a girl shack up and have a kid, he’s on pretty shaky grounds in most states. I don’t think recognizing common-law marriage is a good idea. If two people want to enter a marriage contract,let them do so explicitly. ---
**Author:** ![Robbnn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f05b48/32.png) [@Robbnn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robbnn)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2000, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/77 "2000-01-05T21:27:00Z")
Just a thought: though I doubt there’s any reason to them anymore, weren’t the benefits of marriage actually to enable the wife to stay home and care for the kids? Insurance was required because she had no job of her own (I don’t know about taxes, though. We pay more married than we did single). With same-sex marriage, aren’t both fully capable of working? And really, shouldn’t chaste roommates get the same benefits if same-sex relationships do? Why should sex make a difference? ---
**Author:** ![Kyla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/eada6e/32.png) [@Kyla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kyla)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2000, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/78 "2000-01-06T02:28:00Z")
> [@](#): > > In NYS, if two Lesbians are living together, and one of them has a kid, and then they split up, the ex-mommy has no legal rights as far as visitation is concerned… But also if a guy and a girl shack up and have a kid, he’s on pretty shaky grounds in most states. I’m fairly certain that the non-birth mother in a lesbian couple has legal visitation rights in CA. I could be wrong, though. * * * ~Kyla “Anger is what makes America great.” ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2000, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/79 "2000-01-06T17:07:00Z")
Robbnn said: > [@](#): > > Just a thought: though I doubt there’s any reason to them anymore, weren’t the benefits of marriage actually to enable the wife to stay home and care for the kids? Insurance was required because she had no job of her own (I don’t know about taxes, though. We pay more married than we did single). With same-sex marriage, aren’t both fully capable of working? They are as “fully capable of working” as a heterosexual couple. In some families, one partner stays home to take care of the kids. In some, both partners work. I guess I don’t see where the sex of either partner really comes into play. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2000, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/80 "2000-01-06T19:08:00Z")
Just read the local paper. The discussion will be about health benefits for primarily homosexual partners. And it IS just for the city,not the state.Go figure. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762.md?page=5)