From: Samantha Atkins (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Jan 16 2002 - 03:09:08 MST
James Rogers wrote:
> On 1/15/02 1:28 PM, "Harvey Newstrom" <mail@HarveyNewstrom.com> wrote:
>>However, in this case, New York has a law that requires domestic
>>same-sex partners receive the same benefits as married heterosexual couples.
> One of the things that really irritates me about this particular trend as it
> is being implemented across several States, is that in virtually all cases
> the "domestic partner" laws only cover same-sex partners. This is really
This is not true afaik, at least it is not true in efforts to
get such laws in place in various areas of California. I have
seen domestic partners laws only pass or even get seriously
proposed too many times only if they included various non-gay
partnerings also. It can also be pointed out that hetero unions
of sufficient duration automatically are treated as (common-law)
marriages in many areas of the country. And I have never known
a HR department to demand a marriage license as proof of
eligibility for work related partner benefits of apparently
straight couples. So I don't think there is that much of a case
for what you describe.
> just piling one inequity on top of another. As a heterosexual, the only way
> I can enjoy "domestic partner" status is to get married, with the monumental
> load of crap that goes along with that. It is arguable that homosexuals
> will actually get the better end of the deal under the various existing and
> proposed domestic partner laws and regulations in many places.
You also might want to remember that most of us don't want
"domestic partner" laws. We want to be able to have the same
rights to marry and have our unions recognized as everyone else.
The "domestic partner" stuff is a dodge from many sources,
most of them not gay, to avoid running head on into
fundamentally relgious objects to lgbt marriages. There are no
"special rights" involved.
> If we are going to have the State implementing these kinds of laws at all, I
> think we should ditch marriage laws altogether and replace it with some form
> of flexible domestic partnership scheme that doesn't have so much historical
> baggage. I know a lot of heterosexual individuals who don't want to get
> married but could benefit greatly from a domestic partnership structure in
> the same way that homosexual individuals could.
I think partnering laws, call it marriage or what you will, can
indeed benefit from a lot of reform. However, whatever these
laws are, they should be open to all people of whatever
sexualities and genders and not just officially sanctioned and
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:34 MST