Re: Transgender marriage

From: Chris Hibbert (
Date: Wed Jan 16 2002 - 23:23:48 MST

James Rogers wrote:
> 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

Samantha Replied:
> 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.

I and my Significant Other have been living together for 16 years. We are not
married. I don't know of any domestic partner laws in California that would
allow us to register for those benefits without getting married. We're not
over 65, so that may be what you mean by "various non-gay partnerings".

> 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.

California is not one of these. (People always ask "Doesn't California have
Common Law marriage?") If you tell people you are married, then after a while
it becomes true. No ceremony, no certificate, etc. If you maintain that you
are not married, and don't file together, and make sure everyone knows you
aren't married, then you're not married. The laws vary from place to place,
but that's the fact in California. We're not married. In some places, living
together as a couple would be sufficient for one of us to claim that we were
married against the other's wishes, or for the government to insist that it
were true, and force us to accept the benefits of that status.

> 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.

Certainly, we could get work-related benefits by saying we were married. But
then we would be, and the IRS could make us file as a couple rather than as
individuals. Every time I've asked, and every time my SO has asked, the
answer has been "spouses only". If were in SF (I'm reasonably sure) or
Berkeley (I assume) we could get benefits if we were gay and registered
partners. I don't know of any place where we've worked or lived where that's
been true.


It is easy to turn an aquarium into fish soup, but not so easy to turn 
fish soup back into an aquarium.
-- Lech Walesa on reverting to a market economy.
Chris Hibbert

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:34 MST