Bloomberg reports that an unexpected consequence of the Gay Marriage decision by the Supreme Court could be the end of corporation paying benefits for unmarried partners. The excuse that “well, we are not allowed to be married!” just vaporized. If you want equality, you must get married.
An actual marriage as opposed to a domestic partnership has lots of consequences for both parties, depending on the laws of the state. In addition to laws against adultery and requiring a divorce and property settlement between each serial “marriage”, spouses may incur responsibilities for each other’s debts, claims on pensions and retirement accounts, parental rights, child support for adopted children. The possibilities are endless.
Be careful what you ask for – you might get it – in the end.
I’ve never really understood the legal definition of “domestic partnership”. I understand that it had mainly been used as a way for homosexual couples to have certain legal rights as a couple, for example the right to visit a dying partner on his/her deathbed that is normally legally restricted to relatives, and the employee benefits you mention above.
In my limited reading, it seems to differ from marriage where there is an implied “duty” toward intimacy, and a grounds for divorce if it does not exist. I did not find that requirement in my reading of domestic partnership definitions.
That always brought up the question in my mind about people that may live together out of financial need- roomates that share domestic responsibilities, brother and sisters that live together or parents and children where one may be financially dependent on the other. Since they partner to share domestic activities (and only to share domestic activities), would they be domestic partners?
I don’t think I have heard of a case of same sex people or even opposite sex people claiming to be domestic partners the way there are “arranged marriages” among heterosexual couples so that one can qualify for citizenship.
In reality, and in my opinion to the determent of society, marriage is less and less important as taxpayers pay for the costs of more and more single parent families. Studies show that children do better in two parent households.
About 10 years ago, I and a woman in California were talking about marriage. She is a retired State of California employee. If we got married, I would be covered under her retiree health coverage. If we were same sex and registered as a domestic parternership, the same would be true. Since we were not same sex, domestic partnership is not an option. I wonder – if I became transgender, could we then have had a same sex domestic partnership?
The HRC has your back: http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/domestic-partner-benefit-eligibility-defining-domestic-partners-and-depende
Also, in California, any couple where one member is 62 can register as domestic partners, or you could petition for a gender change. It requires a statement from a doctor that you have had ¨clinically appropriate treatment,¨ but what that means is between you and the doctor alone. http://www.nclrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Transgender_Family_Law_CA.pdf
Would it be homophobic if the Human Rights Campaign standing behind me made me nervous?
As you read the definitions, it kind of sounds like qualifying for benefits requires having someone monitoring your bedroom.
Since Bill Clinton taught us that oral sex isn’t really sex, this all gets very confusing.
True, but that 62 and over loophole let’s people not jeopardize their Social Security based upon their widow or ex-spouse (which would go away if they got remarried), but get new health insurance from their new partner, regardless of their sex.
Loopholes are the mother’s milk of law making