# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2000, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/101 "2000-01-18T21:18:00Z")
Benefits that a legal married couple have that unmarried couples, both homosexual and heterosexual, do not have are many and varied (can’t remember if it was 107 or 1007), and were tabulated by the General Accounting Office (or whatever the US beancounting office is called). There is tangible, measurable discrimination going on. Moreover, it benefits a society when its people are treated equally - morally, socially, legally and otherwise. IMHO, of course. Bottom line: I say let Vermont or whoever come up with the domestic partnership - in the end, I believe the concept of DP’s vs. marriages will come before the Supreme Court, and DP’s will be struck down, since “seperate but equal” has already been dissed as unconstitutional back when schools were integrated (and to hell with DOMA and all its little siblings). Alan “My $0.02.” * * * Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2000, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/102 "2000-01-19T14:40:00Z")
Okay.Update.Its in the paper.They lost.No benefits for domestic partners.5-3 I believe. ---
**Author:** ![PatrickM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7feea3/32.png) [@PatrickM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickM)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2000, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/103 "2000-01-19T15:20:00Z")
FYI and following up Orangecakes, the 1/19/00 edition of the Plain Dealer in an article by Kevin Harter that the vote was 5-2 against extending benefits to unmarried domestic partners, members Skindell and Roth voting for it. Council President Seelie stated that it was his belief that this issue should not be addressed at the municipal level, that it was for the state and feds to determine, and that if the city passed the legislation it would expose itself to lengthy and expensive litigation. Council member Edward Fitzgerald said there was no consensus, and that people of good will and good faith have not come together on the issue. The newspaper also said, “What the council did agree on was that each had received hundreds of phone calls and letters, and the issue had brought forward a disturbing number of angry people, including residents and people outside the community.” ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2000, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/104 "2000-01-26T21:44:00Z")
SIGH I have so many friends who have been in long-term commitments, and they get nothing for it, but noooooooooooooooo, this isn’t discrimination! It’s saving the sanctity of marriage! Well, if their marriage is any indication, I’d take their commitments over the 50% divorce rate among hets any day. Two friends of mine are very adamant that you are not to refer to them as being “married” - until they get the same rights, it’s not the same thing. So I refer to them as “the co-habitual hairy pair.” 🙂 Thankfully my religion (Unitarian Universalism) permits services of union, and I plan a _big_ ol’ wedding for me and my husband. Esprix “Of course, I need to meet him first…” * * * Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you. ---
**Author:** ![NewtonsApple](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a87d85/32.png) [@NewtonsApple](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NewtonsApple)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2000, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/105 "2000-01-26T22:54:00Z")
and you wonder why anyone would vote against such a beuatiful union known as : “the co-habitual hairy pair” I laugh out loud. -N ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2000, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/106 "2000-01-26T22:59:00Z")
Newt, you sound like a troll here. And stop referring to your parents that way… ---
**Author:** ![NewtonsApple](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a87d85/32.png) [@NewtonsApple](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NewtonsApple)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2000, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/107 "2000-01-26T23:00:00Z")
Actually I was honestly amused by the sound of that one. Wasnt Trolling just reading. Thanks anyway Sweetcakes. -N ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2000, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/108 "2000-01-27T04:51:00Z")
You know, we could solve this whole mess by just throwing out “legal marriage” altogether. Have same-sex and opposite-sex couples draw up whatever contracts between themselves they want to, settle their disputes like any other contract dispute, and either get rid of all the laws treating married people differently from single people or else go through those laws and replace every occurence of “married” with “involved in an unbroken cohabitation contract” or something similarly worded. In fact, come to think of it, if we DO decide to treat people differently under the law based on whether they are “domestic partners”, we shouldn’t be limiting “domestic partners” to _couples_. Why shouldn’t 3 or 4 people be allowed to live together in the equivalent of wedded bliss? ---
**Author:** ![OpalCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/8edcca/32.png) [@OpalCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OpalCat)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2000, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/109 "2000-01-27T06:44:00Z")
Opal enters the discussion late in the game: > [@](#): > > As far as she’s concerned, ‘domestic partners’ should be able to visit each other after-hours in the hospital, or enjoy the pension and tax benefits of inheritance that currently only married couples enjoy, because that’s just ‘a government thing.’ She just doesn’t think we should change ‘marriage’ because that’s a ‘God thing.’ I assume she also thinks that athiests should not be allowed to get married? > [@](#): > > It’s wrong simply because God says so! Maybe according to YOUR religion. However, the laws of this country are not to be based on the details of YOUR religion’s doctrine. Damn good thing, too. > [@](#): > > Unless someone has any reason that shows that encouraging homosexuals to form couples is beneficial to society I don’t see what the point of gay marriage is. Ok so I propose that if a hetero couple is past childbearing age, sterile, or there is a vasectomy or similar operation, that they should not be allowed to marry. Also, if htey are already married and have no children, divorce should be mandatory. > [@](#): > > Can you explain to me how legal recognition of your status benefits society? Can you explain to me how benefitting society is relevant at all? Does it benefit society to deny homosexuals legal marriage? > [@](#): > > Again can anyone tell what rights homosexuals are being denied by not having their marriage being legally recognized? How about…oh… the right to have thier marriage legally recognized? * * * – Teeming Millions: [http://fathom.org/teemingmillions](http://fathom.org/teemingmillions) “Meat flaps, yellow!” - DrainBead, naked co-ed Twister chat O p a l C a t [www.opalcat.com](http://www.opalcat.com) ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2000, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/110 "2000-01-27T16:38:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by tracer: > > Have same-sex and opposite-sex couples draw up whatever contracts between themselves they want to, settle their disputes like any other contract dispute, and either get rid of all the laws treating married people differently from single people or else go through those laws and replace every occurence of “married” with “involved in an unbroken cohabitation contract” or something similarly worded. Well, because legal marriage isn’t allowed, and those benefits of marriage are therefore not inherently granted, many long-term same-sex couples are jumping through legal hoops to do just that - legal documents stating that one partner can visit the other, power of attorney over life decisions, property contracts in case of “divorce,” etc. Awful lot of work for what is automatically given when the judge signs that little piece of paper. > [@](#): > > Why shouldn’t 3 or 4 people be allowed to live together in the equivalent of wedded bliss? Although I agree (I know many alternative families that are working just fine and doing no one any harm), this is unfortunately an argument used _against_ same-sex marriages - “If we allow men to marry, then what next - adults and children? Women and dogs? Autonomous collectives?” And let’s not forget a post from the beginning of this thread about marrying lawnmowers… Esprix * * * Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you. ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2000, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/111 "2000-01-27T16:43:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by OpalCat: > > Maybe (its wrong) according to YOUR religion. However, the laws of this country are not to be based on the details of YOUR religion’s doctrine. Damn good thing, too. I dunno - that separation of church and state thing is ignored far too often for my tastes… > [@](#): > > Unless there is any reason that shows that encouraging homosexuals to form couples is beneficial to society I don’t see what the point of gay marriage is. (Actually, not OpalCat’s quote, but I wanted to respond to it anyway) Here’s a benefit to society - its members are treated equally. How does this _not_ benefit society? Esprix * * * Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you. ---
**Author:** ![meara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@meara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/meara)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2000, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/112 "2000-01-27T16:57:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by tracer: > You know, we could solve this whole mess by just throwing out “legal marriage” altogether. Have same-sex and opposite-sex couples draw up whatever contracts between themselves they want to, settle their disputes like any other contract dispute, and either get rid of all the laws treating married people differently from single people or else go through those laws and replace every occurence of “married” with “involved in an unbroken cohabitation contract” or something similarly worded. I agree completely. The government has no place deciding (or influencing) who should and shouldn’t pair up. They should simply provide equal legal recourse for anyone who applies (i.e. domestic partnership contracts). Leave ‘marriage’ to churches and inidivudal beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2000, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/113 "2000-02-02T16:45:00Z")
By the by, don’t forget to check out Cecil’s very own column on this subject, plus the thread in the “comment on Cecil’s columns” section of the message board, _and_ my very own rant in the Pit. Esprix * * * Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you. ---
**Author:** ![SwimmingRiddles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SwimmingRiddles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SwimmingRiddles)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2000, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/114 "2000-02-02T17:59:00Z")
So Vermont had the second meeting to discuss same-sex unions here last night. In a blindinly fair move, they alternated speakers that were for and against it. This one older fellow (I assume, I was listening to the radio broadcast in my car) said that the original charter for the Republic of Vermont (before we became the 14th state) stipulated that we are one “protistant union under God,” and said “Aren’t you Catholics glad that got thrown out? The REASON it got thrown out is because religion shouldn’t exhist in state law. They realised that 2oo+ years ago, and we need to realise that now.” Anyh00, I have to say it’s a grand time to be a Vermonter on the civil rights front! * * * One must have chaos in oneself to give birth to a dancing star. -Nietzche ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2000, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/115 "2000-02-03T06:40:00Z")
thanks for bumping my name up to the top again! I need the publicity! ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2000, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/116 "2000-02-10T14:57:00Z")
The latest update from Vermont, from PlanetOut, Thursday February 10 02:17 AM EST: > [@](#): > > Vermont Panel Opts for DP > > SUMMARY: Given a choice between legal same-gender marriage and a “separate but equal” domestic partnership, a Vermont House committee has picked the latter - which probably won’t please either side. > > The Vermont House Judiciary Committee, charged with drafting legislation in response to the Vermont Supreme Court’s December 20 ruling that under the state constitution same-gender couples must have access to all the benefits of legal marriage, voted 7 - 3 on February 9 to design a parallel registered partnership for gays and lesbians rather than extend existing marriage law to include them, the Associated Press reported. Committee chair Representative Thomas Little (R-Sherburne) promised that new relationship would be “different than, broader than” domestic partnerships elsewhere in the U.S., because “It is clear to me that the will of the Committee is to initiate and work on a civil rights bill.” Openly gay Committee vice-chair William Lippert (D-Hinesburg) said, “I tr! ! ! ust whatever next step we take collectively, we take in a continual step to dismantle institutional discrimination.” > > The Committee vote does not entirely kill the possibility of legal same-gender marriage in Vermont, since a bill to that effect has been introduced in the legislature (HB 694 “An Act Relating to the Ability to Marry,” sponsored by Representative Dean Corren), but it does make it appear more unlikely. Nor does same-gender marriage seem likely in the near future in any other state; a bill has been introduced in Rhode Island but is given little chance of passage, while no lawsuit similar to Vermont’s “Baker” case is at all close to a state Supreme Court hearing. It remains to be seen whether the Vermont panel’s move will make any difference to the renewed momentum in several other states to prohibit legal recognition of same-gender marriages another state may someday perform. That movement swept the country in the wake of the 1993 Hawai’i Supreme Court ruling in “Baehr” but had almost died out until the Vermont decision. > > Last week, the House Judiciary Committee began consideration of a preamble for the bill both houses of the legislature have agreed it will draft, after hearing several weeks of testimony to lay a groundwork for its task. It will likely prove much more challenging for the panel to develop a new legal relationship that meets the state high court’s standards for equal treatment than it would have been simply to extend the existing marriage law to include gay and lesbian couples. > > In the Committee’s own hearings, in some eight hours of public testimony, and in polls and comments to media, it’s been clear that neither the supporters nor the opponents of same-gender marriage have been satisfied by the concept of registered partnerships, but it’s also been apparent to many lawmakers from the first that it would be the only acceptable compromise between those sharply divided factions. On February 6, state Senator Ben Ptashnik (D-Windsor) and state Representative Ann Seibert (D-Norwich), both supporters of equal civil marriage rights for gays and lesbians, told an educational forum in Norwich organized by the Freedom to Marry Coalition that they believed the votes weren’t there to enact it, with Seibert estimating no more than 2/3 of the necessary votes in the House. > > Just how acceptable legal partnerships will prove to be to those contesting marriage remains to be seen. The state’s leading opponent to civil marriage for same-gender couples has been Vermont’s top Roman Catholic, Bishop of Burlington Kenneth Angell, who is just as opposed to legal partnerships. The Church rejects homosexual acts as sinful, and Angell is convinced that legal recognition of same-gender couples will inevitably lead to full marriage rights for them. > > The “Baker” plaintiffs, three lesbian and gay couples, will almost certainly contest the high court’s review of a registered partnership measure since “separate but equal” has so often proved anything but equal. Two of the attorneys who represented them, Susan Murray and Beth Robinson, both lesbians themselves, testified before the House Judiciary Committee on February 4, following earlier testimony by Angell and by a group of religious leaders from various denominations who support gay and lesbian marriages. It was a highly emotional appearance for Murray, who was deeply troubled by the way opponents had spoken of gays and lesbians, particularly at the public hearings. She said, “It’s really painful to hear people say, 'You’re immoral, you’re an abomination. … Why do these people feel so free to say these things? Gays and lesbians are the only group that are still politically correct to kick.” > > Murray noted that when Vermont enacted civil rights protections from discrimination based on sexual orientation in 1992, lawmakers heard many of the same dire predictions now being uttered against equal marriage rights, and said, “All these predictions about how it will degrade other people, the same statements were made then. None of it came true.” She made the oft-repeated comparison to former bans on interracial marriage, citing historical quotations from a U.S. Senator who said his opposition to those marriages was “simply because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong” and a Congressmember who said interracial marriage “necessarily involves degradation” of the institution of marriage; Murray said, “The same arguments are being heard 50 years later” against same-gender marriages. > > Committee chair Little asked Murray and Robinson about the issue some of the public had raised about homosexuality being a “choice,” noting he did so not to endorse those arguments but to help the Committee to address them. Murray’s response was, “What difference does it make?” Robinson pointed out that religion is a choice, and that the argument for interracial marriage was not that skin color couldn’t be changed but that “skin color doesn’t make any difference” before the law. Little commented, “Sometimes the non-rational arguments are the hardest to dispose of.” > > Little asked the attorneys to respond to the limited public support for marriage rights and the profound division among Vermonters on the issue, and both urged the Committee to move for marriage regardless. Of course, a debate over DP’s and SSM’s also continues in “Comments on Cecil’s Columns.” Esprix * * * Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you. ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2000, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/117 "2000-02-14T20:02:00Z")
Another update, this time from my Canadian neighbors up north, from PlanetOut News, Saturday February 12 03:12 AM EST: > [@](#): > > Canada Introduces Omnibus DP > > The Canadian Government on February 11 introduced omnibus legislation to change 68 federal statutes to give same-gender couples status equal to common-law heterosexual couples, while reserving marriage and the word “spouse” for heterosexuals. In introducing the measure, Justice Minister Anne McLellan said, “We are doing what we believe is right and that which is required under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the name of tolerance and fairness.” John Fisher, executive director of the national group EGALE (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere) said, “This bill signifies that the era of discrimination is reaching an end and that is something in which we can all rejoice.” Although there are dissidents among the ruling Liberals and while other parties were generally reserving comment until they had a chance to review the bill, it is expected to pass. A poll commissioned by the Justice Department found the Canadian public very strongly supports it. > > The Government’s move comes in response to a series of court decisions, most significantly the May 1999 Canadian Supreme Court ruling in “M v. H.” In that case, a long-partnered lesbian was left almost literally penniless when her partner shut her out, but found that the heterosexual language of Ontario’s provincial Family Law denied her access to the courts to seek support. The high court made a strong statement that same-gender couples should be extended equal treatment with unmarried heterosexual couples. It did not discuss equal marriage rights in its decision, but it did call on legislatures to provide a comprehensive response rather than the case-by-case progress of the courts. In other news, some legislators are introducing a bill to impeach the Vermont Supreme Court for violating the separation of powers. I posted that news tidbit in the responses to Cecil’s column on gay marriages at [http://www.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000473.html](http://www.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000473.html) Interesting reading - slightly scary, slightly amusing… Esprix * * * Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you. ---
**Author:** ![SanibelMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e4f/32.png) [@SanibelMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SanibelMan)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2000, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/118 "2000-02-14T21:49:00Z")
Sorry to jump in here, guys, but I’ve found something interesting in my “Basic Facts About the United Nations” handbook for my Model U.N. class. There is an article in the _Universal Declaration of Human Rights_ (I’m not sure which one - this only lists some of the articles, and does not number them) that says: > [@](#): > > Articles 3 to 21 set forth the civil and political rights to which all human beings are entitles, including: … • The right to marry and to found a family… I do believe that the United States has signed this agreement, and I would be very suprised to hear that we haven’t, considering it was adopted over 50 years ago, on 10 December 1948. Food for thought. * * * _SanibelMan_ - [My Homepage](http://members.macconnect.com/~jonkleinow/) “All right. Have it your own way. Road to hell paved with unbought stuffed dogs. Not my fault.” ---
**Author:** ![SanibelMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e4f/32.png) [@SanibelMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SanibelMan)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2000, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/119 "2000-02-14T22:14:00Z")
And of course, “entitles” is “entitled”. ---
**Author:** ![SanibelMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e4f/32.png) [@SanibelMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SanibelMan)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2000, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/120 "2000-02-16T04:17:00Z")
Yep, I confirmed it today - the United States ratified the above document also. So technically, the UN could be taking measures against us for not following this guideline… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762.md?page=7)