# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2000, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/121 "2000-02-16T04:56:00Z")
OTOH, it is not hard to defend current practice on the grounds that “found a family” implies (to a great many people) the ability for the spouses to procreate between them. If we dance the “original authors” waltz that is so often played in discussions of the U.S. Constitution, it is going to be hard to argue that there was any intent in 1948 to recognize as family all of the various permutations that we have seen in Western society in the last 30 years. (And, of course, if the U.N. wanted to levy sanctions against the U.S., they’d have to wait until we paid our multiple-year withheld dues before they could organize such an event.) I think we should hammer out the issues in the U.S. before we start worrying about whether the foreign community is going to think poorly of us. * * * Tom~ ---
**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, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/122 "2000-02-16T05:32:00Z")
I was thinking about this today, along with the potential argument that the right is in there just so that people can be free to raise a family. I hate to make comparisons, but (_sigh_ here we go) if we can split the 2nd amendment so that it makes the right to bear arms legal without any sort of organized militia, then we can look at this the same way - in other words, the right to marry and the right to raise a family are just two seperate but related rights. Perhaps that’s not what the UN members intended to allow when they wrote that, but that’s what it is, and I’m glad that it’s there. I wasn’t actually expecting anyone to point this out to the UN, or for them to do anything about it, I was just making my point. Which countries currently legalize gay marriage, BTW? I’d be curious to know if someone’s compiled a list somewhere. ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2000, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/123 "2000-02-16T05:41:00Z")
I did some 'net research on that a couple months back, so I’m reposting it for those who may be interested. Things may have changed in the meantime, though. * * * > [@](#): > > Technically speaking, lesbians and gays cannot marry anywhere in the world-at least not by using the same civil institutions and legal mechanisms as heterosexual couples. Thus, option 5) above has not yet been followed anywhere. However, in Denmark, Iceland (including Greenland), the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden, same-sex couples can register their partnerships-a form of legal recognition that approximates civil marriage in those countries. > 1995: Sweden > The law legalizing same sex unions came into effect Jan.1. > > 1995: Spain > In 1995 Rex Wockner reported that roughly 30 Spanish cities currently register “civil” same sex unions, including Barcelona, Cordoba, Granada, Ibiza, Toledo and Valencia (which has a regional law) and that gay and lesbian political leaders were agitating for the national government to register partnership for gay and straight couples this spring. > > 1995: Hungary > In an odd legal decision the Hungarian Constitutional Court legalized “common-law” gay marriage on March 8 1995.[It may be noted that common-law and formally married couples have the same rights. A couple that lives together permanently and has sex is considered married under common law.] The oddity was that the court also ruled that formal, civil marriages are for heterosexual couples only. > > 1995: Britain > Even Britain has seen an official lesbian marriage, although under rather ununusal circumstances:-from The Plaid website [a Scotish transsexual site] Item from BBC Radio news at 1800 bst [date not given] Today a lesbian couple made history by getting married. Tracy Scott was born a man but had a sex change operation a year ago. Although physically female, under British law she is still a man and was therefore able to marry her partner. > > The European Parliament in February 1994 passed a resolution calling for study and, ultimately, adoption of a European Community recommendation to end “the barring of lesbians and homosexual couples from marriage or from an equivalent legal framework.”" It appears as if the closest one can get to a gay marriage truly equivalent to a heterosexual marriage is Hungary’s common-law marriage. And in the US: > [@](#): > > In 1993 the Supreme Court of Hawaii ruled that the state had to prove it had a compelling interest in barring couples of the same sex from receiving a marriage license; absent such proof, the ban would violate protections against sex discrimination co ntained in the state constitution. In 1996 a state circuit court found that no such compelling state interests exist. This decision has been appealed back to the state Supreme Court. > In Alaska and Hawaii voters decided in the November, 3 1998 elections to alter their state constitutions to define marriage as a union of a man and a woman (Alaska) and to allow the legislature to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples (Hawaii). > Article IV of the United States Constitution states that “Full faith and cred it shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State.” If same-sex marriage is legalized in Hawaii, other states will certainly be sued to force them to recognize marriages performed there. Several s tates and the Federal Government have already passed laws to forestall this possibility. In 1996 Congress passed and the President signed the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA), declaring that states need not recognize same-sex marriages register ed in other states, and that the Federal Government recognizes only opposite-sex marriages. The constitutionality of such laws remains in dispute. Sources: [http://www.bway.net/~halsall/lgbh/lgbh-marriage.html](http://www.bway.net/~halsall/lgbh/lgbh-marriage.html)[http://www.steff.suite.dk/partner.htm](http://www.steff.suite.dk/partner.htm)[http://www.iglhrc.org/news/faqs/marriage\_981103.html](http://www.iglhrc.org/news/faqs/marriage_981103.html) ---
**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 18, 2000, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/124 "2000-02-18T20:51:00Z")
I’ve got another point - same-sex benefits are good for business. For a relatively small amount of money (in both the cost of the benefit and the small number of people who would actually take advantage of it, unless your business is in West Hollywood), a company can get back a happier employee, which means better productivity, company loyalty, less turnover, etc., ad nauseum. 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:** [February 18, 2000, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/125 "2000-02-18T21:27:00Z")
Just a guess, but I would imagine that there the percentage of gay homemakers is much smaller than the percentage of stay-at-home heterosexuals, partly because they are less likely to be parents, and also because there aren’t any pre-existing stereotypes about one spouse supporting the other. Then again, I could be totally wrong. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![ORION\_ORION](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/4491bb/32.png) [@ORION\_ORION](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ORION_ORION)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2000, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/126 "2000-02-26T21:13:00Z")
To think that to gay men can marry or adopt makes me sick. Two of the same sex sleeping together is not normal, have never been and will never be. Do people accept everything these days ? ---
**Author:** ![Michael0916](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/aeb1de/32.png) [@Michael0916](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Michael0916)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2000, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/127 "2000-02-26T21:28:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by Konrad: > \*\*Why am I not allowed to marry my lawnmower? \*\* If you can somehow manage to get your lawnmower to say I do and vow to love, honor, and obey you for as long as you both shall live go for it. Until then stick withe people no matter what sex they are because they are perfectly capable of dedicating thier life to you. * * * Or would you rather talk about monkeys? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2000, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/128 "2000-02-28T15:37:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Do people accept everything these days ? No, we don’t accept **everything**. Many of us take umbrage at: [ul][li]People who feel that the way **they** want to live is the way **everyone** should live[/li][li]People who show off by repeating their handle after eleven asterisks and therefore make a misshapen page.[/ul][/li]Any more questions? 🙂 ---
**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 28, 2000, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/129 "2000-02-28T20:06:00Z")
Polycarp, have I mentioned lately that I love you? 😃 Esprix “Just don’t tell my boyfriend!” * * * Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you. ---
**Author:** ![SingleDad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9e8a1a/32.png) [@SingleDad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SingleDad)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2000, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/130 "2000-02-29T06:36:00Z")
One of the big issues regarding marriage is the virtual impossibility and expense of trying to get personal medical insurance if you can’t get it through your employer. As a long-time contract programmer, I have to pay double what even a small company would pay, and I don’t get to write it off (I get paid on a W-2 as a temporary employee). Any my insurer (Kaiser Permanente of Colorado) would **deny** me coverage if I were offered **any** insurance, even of the lowest quality. The **benefits** of marriage are few. _Access_ to medical coverage (which certainly even the most die-hard liberatian should support), the ability to inherit property without confiscatory taxation, the various powers of attorney. Marriage certainly does not offer a tax advantage when both spouses work, and only a minor one when one spouse does not work. I agree with meara: The government should stay out of the marriage business (which is a religious institution), and stay in the civil contract enforcement business. The government should also support equal _access_ to health insurance regardless of employment or marital status. In my own circumstances, I have to take advantage of all the loopholes in the system to provide ordinary medical care for my family (my family life makes a gay marriage with adopted children look mundane). If you want the details, e-mail me. * * * He’s the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armor, shouting ‘All Gods are Bastards!’ ---
**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 29, 2000, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/131 "2000-02-29T15:01:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by SingleDad: > > One of the big issues regarding marriage is the virtual impossibility and expense of trying to get personal medical insurance if you can’t get it through your employer. But since many, many employers are starting to offer same-sex benefits without same-sex marriages being yet legal, this is becoming less and less of a problem. > [@](#): > > The **benefits** of marriage are few. Actually, the Goverment Accounting Office identified 1,049 marriage-affected benefits (some positive, some negative) when asked by the Senate to do so, so “few” isn’t a word I’d use. This has been discussed in detail in the BBQ Pit. > [@](#): > > _Access_ to medical coverage (which certainly even the most die-hard liberatian should support), the ability to inherit property without confiscatory taxation, the various powers of attorney. These reasons alone are an argument for the legality of same-sex marriages. > [@](#): > > I agree with meara: The government should stay out of the marriage business (which is a religious institution), and stay in the civil contract enforcement business. Actually, after reading some of these threads, I’m starting to think the civil institution of marriage should be replaced completely with a series of legal contracts! 😃 > [@](#): > > The government should also support equal _access_ to health insurance regardless of employment or marital status. Amen! Esprix * * * Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you. ---
**Author:** ![SingleDad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9e8a1a/32.png) [@SingleDad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SingleDad)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2000, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/132 "2000-03-01T06:18:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Actually, the Goverment Accounting Office identified 1,049 marriage-affected benefits (some positive, some negative) when asked by the Senate to do so, so “few” isn’t a word I’d use. This has been discussed in detail in the BBQ Pit. ## Could you direct me to this thread? Having been married (briefly) I found darn few benefits and quite a lot of drawbacks. He’s the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armor, shouting ‘All Gods are Bastards!’ ---
**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 29, 2000, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/133 "2000-02-29T19:10:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by SingleDad: > > Could you direct me to this thread? Having been married (briefly) I found darn few benefits and quite a lot of drawbacks. The entire report can be read in text or PDF format at [http://www.gao.gov/AIndexFY97/abstracts/og97016.htm](http://www.gao.gov/AIndexFY97/abstracts/og97016.htm) They use “benefits” simply as “things afford to married couples;” whether or not they actually “benefit” you is another story, and the report says as much. Esprix * * * Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2000, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/134 "2000-03-03T06:06:00Z")
Marriage is an abomination in the eyes of the one true God, although I suppose it was a necessary evil in its time. It is founded on possessiveness, obligation, and restriction. It should have no legal recognition. It is a religious institution. People from misguided religions should have the right to continue to practice it – after all, it is a free country. However, there is no excuse for the government honoring this religious institution and imposing it as the default structuring of ongoing love and sexual relationships. * * * Disable Similes in this Post ---
**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:** [March 8, 2000, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/135 "2000-03-08T14:55:00Z")
Well, Proposition 22 in California passed - marriage there is now defined as between one man and one woman, and if any other state someday legalizes same-sex marriages, California will not recognize that marriage (unless and until the Defense of Marriage Act is declared unconstitutional, which is most likely will). However, there seemed to be a majority of Californians in favor of a state-wide domestic partnership law. Thoughts? Me, I’m disappointed, but realize the fight isn’t over. Esprix * * * [Ask the Gay Guy!](http://boards.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001376.html) ---
**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:** [March 8, 2000, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/136 "2000-03-08T15:07:00Z")
I had a thought last night, based on all the various conversations happening on the boards these days. Is it possible that domestic partnerships, as defined by some cities, actually afford all, most or some the **advantages** of marriage (i.e., visitation rights, property ownership, etc.) without any, most or many of the **disadvantages** (i.e., ‘marriage tax,’ etc.)? If it were the case, hey, I’d take a DP over a marriage any day! Talk about your special rights! 😃 Thoughts? I’ll go look up Philadelphia’s DP benefits program and see what it looks like. Esprix * * * [Ask the Gay Guy!](http://boards.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001376.html) ---
**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:** [March 9, 2000, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/137 "2000-03-09T20:17:00Z")
Well, I poked around and found some information on Philadelphia’s Domestic Partnership Ordinance. Domestic Partnership benefits were granted by Mayor Rendell (how I miss him so) as an Executive Order on June 7, 1996. Much hoo-haing ensued, particularly by the City Board of Commissioners, who grumbled about him not having the authority to do so, but, IIRC, the Board voted and it passed anyway. The Order was expanded to include a Domestic Partnership Registry on May 7, 1998, covering “city workers and homeowners.” I also found this from the City of Philadelphia Commission of Human Relations ([www.phila.gov](http://www.phila.gov)) dated 2/3/00: > [@](#): > > To date, 156 same-sex couples have registered their relationship with the Commission since the enactment of domestic partnership legislation in Philadelphia in May 1998. The city’s domestic partnership law represents advancements in civil rights for lesbian women and gay men. To register a Life Partnership, same-sex couples need to provide evidence of their interdependency. Applicants must submit to the Commission a Life Partnership Verification Statement and proof of at least three of the following: > > - Common ownership of property or common leasehold interest in property. > - Common ownership of a vehicle. > - Driver’s license listing a common address. > - Joint bank or credit accounts. > - Designation as a beneficiary of life insurance, retirement benefits or under partner’s will. > - Assignment of durable power of attorney or health care power of attorney. > > The city’s domestic partnership legislation grants Life Partners an exemption from the city’s real estate transfer tax upon the transfer of property from one Life Partner to another. In addition, Life Partners who are City employees may add their partners to their City-paid health insurance policies. City employees may also name anyone as a beneficiary for City pensions. The legislation also expands the Philadelphia Fair Practices Ordinance to protect persons from discrimination on the basis of marital status in employment, public accommodations and receiving City services. Discrimination on the basis of marital status in housing is also prohibited. An optional Certificate of Life Partnership is available for $10, but it does not state how much it costs to actually register. So there are some interesting differences between DP’s and marriages: [ul][li]Opposite-sex couples do not have to provide proof of interdependency before getting their marriage license, nor sign any statements; I’m assuming they still need to present valid ID and have a blood test, but AFAIK they don’t have to provide proof of common property, common residency, common finances, etc. - all of that is automatically provided to them **after** they get the marriage license.[/li][li]This particular DP grants one tax break, health benefits, pension beneficiary, and protects from discrimination. That’s it - 3 very specific items. Granted, they’re all good things, but it’s a far cry from equality.[/li][li]I do not know how a DP registry would hold up in court regarding things like hospital visitation rights, property ownership, etc. - that kind of stuff seems to be left up to the couple to handle themselves, as evidenced by the list of things they could proffer as proof of commitment.[/ul][/li] Huh. Quite a disparity, IMHO. Esprix * * * [Ask the Gay Guy!](http://boards.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001376.html) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Kentzel-Griffin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ccd318/32.png) [@John\_Kentzel-Griffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Kentzel-Griffin)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2000, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/138 "2000-03-10T20:27:00Z")
**meara** For some reason the thread you gave a link to (at the bottom of page 2 of this thread) is no longer on LBBB. I wonder what could have happened to it. :rolleyes: * * * Virtually yours, DrMatrix These words are mine and they are true - Chief Meninock ---
**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:** [March 16, 2000, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/139 "2000-03-16T16:48:00Z")
I’m bumping this one up, too, because it came up in another thread. I have a specific question for **Flinx** : Since we all know you would vote against same-sex marriages if it were on a ballot, and you’ve also stated that you do not believe homosexuals should be discriminated against, would you vote _for_ a bill that introduced a legally equal domestic partnership bill? Is it just the word “marriage” that you object to? I don’t think this was ever clearly answered anywhere else in this thread. Esprix * * * [Ask the Gay Guy!](http://boards.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001376.html) ---
**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:** [March 16, 2000, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762/140 "2000-03-16T16:57:00Z")
From [PlanetOut.com](http://PlanetOut.com) (3/15/00): > [@](#): > > VT House Begins Civil Unions Debate > > SUMMARY: Vermont’s gay legislator spoke with passion as he introduced the anticipated same-gender couples bill… and now, let the games begin! > > “The issue before us does arouse deep emotion and that’s because there have been years upon years, decades upon decades of mistreatment, discrimination and prejudice against one particular group in our society and that group being gay men and lesbians,” said gay Democratic Vermont state Representative William Lippert (D-Burlington) on March 15 as he presented to the state House a bill that would establish the most extensive legal recognition of same-gender couples the U.S. has ever seen. Lippert is the vice-chair of the House Judiciary Committee that drafted the measure in response to a December ruling by the Vermont Supreme Court that denying the benefits of legal marriage to gay and lesbian couples violates the state constitution’s Equal Benefits clause. In accord with that ruling, although the bill creates “civil unions” for same-gender couples rather than including them in the marriage statute, it would grant all the benefits and responsibilities of marriage the state has to offer – some 400 of them from buying the equivalent of a marriage license to having the equivalent of a divorce in court – although many more such benefits are controlled by federal law. The same bill also creates “reciprocal beneficiaries” relationships with fewer benefits for other couples who live together but cannot marry by law, such as blood relatives. > > The galleries were packed with citizens who declared their position by means of badges, pink in support of civil unions and white in opposition. > > Democratic House Speaker Michael Obuchowski (D-Putney) believes that by the final vote expected March 16, civil unions will squeak through with at least the 76-vote majority required to pass the 150-member House. Majority Leader John Tracy (D-Burlington) agrees. Other sources have suggested that the state Senate is likely to follow the action the House takes, and Governor Howard Dean has said he supports civil unions (although not same-gender “marriage”). > > But those 76 votes are not yet in hand, and one opponent, Representative Robert Starr, Jr. (D-North Troy), is convinced that the votes are there to stop the bill. The opposition, led by the bipartisan House Traditional Marriage Caucus, has come loaded for bear. They did not reveal all their strategies beforehand, but will probably both offer significant amendments to the bill and use procedural maneuvers to block it. For these lawmakers, the fact that “civil unions” are not named marriage is not good enough; they object to same-gender couples being granted the tangible benefits of marriage. Some say they would agree to something more like the “reciprocal beneficiaries” relationship with very limited legal rights if it were open to all kinds of couples rather than being specific to gays and lesbians. All give considerable weight to various non-binding votes taken last week at Vermont’s traditional Town Meetings, in which a majority attending only 11 of 51 community gatherings supported legal recognition of gay and lesbian domestic partnerships and none supported legal same-gender marriage. > > Opponents suffered one defeat relatively early in the proceedings, as the House voted 103 - 45 against a proposal to hold a constitutional convention. Republican Representative Thomas Koch (R-Barre) proposed the constitutional convention, saying, “I’ve heard loud and clear that people want to participate in this process.” A constitutional amendment to block recognition of same-gender couples, which has been much discussed and would include a referendum, can only originate in the Senate, and the state has no easy mechanism for placing issues on a statewide ballot. But supporters of the state Supreme Court ruling believe the issue is one of civil rights and so not a decision to be made by a popular vote; as Democratic Representative Mary Sullivan (Burlington) said, “It is our job to stand up and do what we believe is right.” Let the games begin! Esprix * * * [Ask the Gay Guy!](http://boards.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001376.html) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/domestic-partners/17762.md?page=8)