Does marriage provide same-sex couples more benefits than domestic partnerships?
Probably the hottest issue of debate on California’s General Election ballot this season, is the repeal of the ruling which granted homosexuals the right to marry and the further definition of marriage as a right to occur only between one man and one woman. My voting opinion has been mixed on this issue. I agree with a traditional definition of marriage, but not at the cost of denying rights to monogamous homosexual couples that gain rather than maintain equal benefits through gay marriage. My understanding was that domestic partnership affords couples the exact same benefits that marriage provides. But, this being the hot button issue in California’s 2008 election, I figured that I should do a bit more research.
The first place I started was SmartVoter.org. I headed to their Prop 8 page (http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/state/prop/8/) to take a look at the summary of the Proposition, as well as for and against arguments and rebuttals. After reading both sides to get a summary of both sides arguments, I honed in on something that caught my attention. The rebuttal to the argument for Prop 8 makes the following statement, “California statutes clearly identify nine real differences between marriage and domestic partnerships.” Eager to find out what they were, I visited both the for and against Prop 8 websites (For: http://www.protectmarriage.com | Against: http://www.NoOnProp8.com). I spent about five minutes on each site and to my surprise, was able to find nothing that clearly listed those “nine real differences”. Under the assumption that Prop 8 opponents aren’t putting fully bogus claims on their rebuttals, I decided to do more research.
I managed to “Google” my way over to the San Francisco City Hall Examiner website, with a web article titled “Domestic Partnership vs. Marriage and Board Preview”. Voila, the article has much more comparison of marriages vs. domestic partnership than the “No On Prop 8” website. The article written by Melissa Griffin, is a web version of the article printed September 4, 2008. The article states that “...domestic partnership is the same as marriage with a few exceptions.” Cutting through the fluff, I extracted the following points, quoted or paraphrased from Melissa Griffin’s article which brought some clear differences between domestic partnerships and marriage(http://www.examiner.com/x-358-SF-City-Hall-Examiner~y2008m9d4-Domestic-Partnership-vs-Marriage-and-Board-Preview):
1) “To register as domestic partners, both persons must be at least 18 years old and share a residence. (Cal. Fam. Code sec. 297(b)(1), (4).) Marriage has no cohabitation requirement and persons younger than 18 can be married so long as they get a court order. (Cal. Fam. Code sec. 302, 303.)”
2) “Establishing domestic partnership is much easier than marriage.” According to the article, there are more steps that must be taken to file a marriage license. Domestic partnership registration requires that “...a couple need only file a “Declaration of Domestic Partnership” with the secretary of state, who adds it to a statewide database. (Cal. Fam. Code sec. 298.5(a), (b).)” Further, through the “putative spouse” doctrine, marriages that are technically void can still be recognized as “marriages” if couples are in good faith agreement that they are indeed married. This is not possible in the case of domestic partnership.
3) Domestic partners must share a residence and be at least 18 years old - married couples do not have this requirement.
4) It’s more difficult to get a divorce than end a domestic partnership. Married couples have a length of time that they must reside in California before divorcing. Domestic partners can end the partnership outside of California with no time requirement. Further, married couples must stand before a judge in court to be divorced - domestic partnership can be ended with a joint document sent to the Secretary of State.
5) Domestic partnership information is public information, marriage licenses and certificates can be “hidden” from public view.
6) Heterosexual couples cannot be domestic partners unless they are age 62 or older (Cal. Fam. Code sec. 297(b)(5)(A),(B).). The article states that this preserves single status social security benefits for each member of the domestic partnership - which is not preserved by marriage.
Griffin’s article brings up some good points. First, a domestic partnership is easier to obtain and dissolve, only requiring documents to be filed with the Secretary of State. In this way, setting up a domestic partnership is more like creating a corporation than declaring a monogamous and loving long term relationship. Second, the right to maintain a domestic partnership could be dissolved if one partner did not maintain continual residence with the other. Imagine a marriage situation, where one person had to stay in California for some time, while the other had to move to and set up primary residence in New York. Whatever the reason, California law would still recognize the marriage. Assuming an intent to maintain the partnership, if this example were a homosexual couple registered as domestic partners, the domestic partnership would not provide that sort of protection.
Registered domestic partners also lack the security that marred couples have. As Griffin’s article stated, registered domestic partners do not have the ability to keep records of their domestic partnership private - married people do. Privacy is a concern for any citizen so this is important. However, I am yet to see any statistics on how many married couples elect to keep their marriages confidential. If it is low percentage, this point may be fairly moot.
After reviewing Griffin’s article in the San Francisco City Hall Examiner, it’s certain that domestic partnerships do technically provide less benefits than marriage. However, it is important to note that the federal government is yet to recognize California domestic partnerships or gay marriages. Yep, even if gay marriage is not repealed in California, married gay couples still are unable to check the little box on their IRS 1040 forms that says “Married, Filing Jointly”. Homosexual couples, whether married or registered domestic partners, still have no recognition under federal government. In fact according to a page from the ACLU’s website (http://www.aclu.org/getequal/rela/california.html), California registered domestic partners (or homosexual married couples for that matter) do not have “more than 1000 rights and benefits” including: “the right to sponsor a partner for immigration purposes; the right to family related Social Security benefits; the right to federal income and estate tax breaks; and, the right to purchase continued health coverage for a partner after a loss of a job.” Further, “the federal government won’t let any state extend these federal benefits to same-sex couples, no matter what the relationship is called.”
At the end of the day, voting no on Proposition 8 will not provide additional federal benefits to same-sex couples that want to live a married lifestyle. Instead, it will legitimize same-sex couples that view their relationships to be synonymous with marital relations - rather than a business partnership. While a California couple’s same-sex marriage won’t always be recognized in another state - it won’t be dissolved in California, just because a partner is residing in another state for some time. It doesn’t eliminate any direct benefit for heterosexual married couples - married couples will still have the same relationship and go through the same steps of marriage as they always have. Simply put, same sex couples are looking for equal treatment under the law as heterosexual couples, but as we’ve found, voting yes on Proposition 8 denies same-sex couples that want to declare marriage, rights. That’s something I cannot agree with.
The first place I started was SmartVoter.org. I headed to their Prop 8 page (http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/state/prop/8/) to take a look at the summary of the Proposition, as well as for and against arguments and rebuttals. After reading both sides to get a summary of both sides arguments, I honed in on something that caught my attention. The rebuttal to the argument for Prop 8 makes the following statement, “California statutes clearly identify nine real differences between marriage and domestic partnerships.” Eager to find out what they were, I visited both the for and against Prop 8 websites (For: http://www.protectmarriage.com | Against: http://www.NoOnProp8.com). I spent about five minutes on each site and to my surprise, was able to find nothing that clearly listed those “nine real differences”. Under the assumption that Prop 8 opponents aren’t putting fully bogus claims on their rebuttals, I decided to do more research.
I managed to “Google” my way over to the San Francisco City Hall Examiner website, with a web article titled “Domestic Partnership vs. Marriage and Board Preview”. Voila, the article has much more comparison of marriages vs. domestic partnership than the “No On Prop 8” website. The article written by Melissa Griffin, is a web version of the article printed September 4, 2008. The article states that “...domestic partnership is the same as marriage with a few exceptions.” Cutting through the fluff, I extracted the following points, quoted or paraphrased from Melissa Griffin’s article which brought some clear differences between domestic partnerships and marriage(http://www.examiner.com/x-358-SF-City-Hall-Examiner~y2008m9d4-Domestic-Partnership-vs-Marriage-and-Board-Preview):
1) “To register as domestic partners, both persons must be at least 18 years old and share a residence. (Cal. Fam. Code sec. 297(b)(1), (4).) Marriage has no cohabitation requirement and persons younger than 18 can be married so long as they get a court order. (Cal. Fam. Code sec. 302, 303.)”
2) “Establishing domestic partnership is much easier than marriage.” According to the article, there are more steps that must be taken to file a marriage license. Domestic partnership registration requires that “...a couple need only file a “Declaration of Domestic Partnership” with the secretary of state, who adds it to a statewide database. (Cal. Fam. Code sec. 298.5(a), (b).)” Further, through the “putative spouse” doctrine, marriages that are technically void can still be recognized as “marriages” if couples are in good faith agreement that they are indeed married. This is not possible in the case of domestic partnership.
3) Domestic partners must share a residence and be at least 18 years old - married couples do not have this requirement.
4) It’s more difficult to get a divorce than end a domestic partnership. Married couples have a length of time that they must reside in California before divorcing. Domestic partners can end the partnership outside of California with no time requirement. Further, married couples must stand before a judge in court to be divorced - domestic partnership can be ended with a joint document sent to the Secretary of State.
5) Domestic partnership information is public information, marriage licenses and certificates can be “hidden” from public view.
6) Heterosexual couples cannot be domestic partners unless they are age 62 or older (Cal. Fam. Code sec. 297(b)(5)(A),(B).). The article states that this preserves single status social security benefits for each member of the domestic partnership - which is not preserved by marriage.
Griffin’s article brings up some good points. First, a domestic partnership is easier to obtain and dissolve, only requiring documents to be filed with the Secretary of State. In this way, setting up a domestic partnership is more like creating a corporation than declaring a monogamous and loving long term relationship. Second, the right to maintain a domestic partnership could be dissolved if one partner did not maintain continual residence with the other. Imagine a marriage situation, where one person had to stay in California for some time, while the other had to move to and set up primary residence in New York. Whatever the reason, California law would still recognize the marriage. Assuming an intent to maintain the partnership, if this example were a homosexual couple registered as domestic partners, the domestic partnership would not provide that sort of protection.
Registered domestic partners also lack the security that marred couples have. As Griffin’s article stated, registered domestic partners do not have the ability to keep records of their domestic partnership private - married people do. Privacy is a concern for any citizen so this is important. However, I am yet to see any statistics on how many married couples elect to keep their marriages confidential. If it is low percentage, this point may be fairly moot.
After reviewing Griffin’s article in the San Francisco City Hall Examiner, it’s certain that domestic partnerships do technically provide less benefits than marriage. However, it is important to note that the federal government is yet to recognize California domestic partnerships or gay marriages. Yep, even if gay marriage is not repealed in California, married gay couples still are unable to check the little box on their IRS 1040 forms that says “Married, Filing Jointly”. Homosexual couples, whether married or registered domestic partners, still have no recognition under federal government. In fact according to a page from the ACLU’s website (http://www.aclu.org/getequal/rela/california.html), California registered domestic partners (or homosexual married couples for that matter) do not have “more than 1000 rights and benefits” including: “the right to sponsor a partner for immigration purposes; the right to family related Social Security benefits; the right to federal income and estate tax breaks; and, the right to purchase continued health coverage for a partner after a loss of a job.” Further, “the federal government won’t let any state extend these federal benefits to same-sex couples, no matter what the relationship is called.”
At the end of the day, voting no on Proposition 8 will not provide additional federal benefits to same-sex couples that want to live a married lifestyle. Instead, it will legitimize same-sex couples that view their relationships to be synonymous with marital relations - rather than a business partnership. While a California couple’s same-sex marriage won’t always be recognized in another state - it won’t be dissolved in California, just because a partner is residing in another state for some time. It doesn’t eliminate any direct benefit for heterosexual married couples - married couples will still have the same relationship and go through the same steps of marriage as they always have. Simply put, same sex couples are looking for equal treatment under the law as heterosexual couples, but as we’ve found, voting yes on Proposition 8 denies same-sex couples that want to declare marriage, rights. That’s something I cannot agree with.
posted by Russ at 9:44 AM
7 Comments:
great post! Provides some good info I was looking for about the differences between marriage and domestic partnerships. I, too, was looking for the "9 real differences" mentioned in the voter information guide.
It seems the "yes on 8" crowd has gained some ground with the recent ads tying gay marriage to education. Next step is to debunk the misleading statements about teaching kindergarteners about gay marriage.
No on 8!
It's good to see that I'm not the only blogger who caught this, but sad to see that the answer is still not readily available. I'd really like to know what the nine differences are.
Wait, I found the list! Here it is with my commentary; let me know if you understand any of it better than I did.
Excellent post; I'm finding that it's crucial — at least to me in deciding how I'm going to vote — what are the current legal differences are between domestic partnerships and homosexual marriage. I too was struck by the "nine real differences" comment in the voter's guide rebuttal, and was unable to find an enumeration of those differences until I found your blog (via a google hit on a digg link).
Now that I've read them, they sound a little thin except for the cohabitation requirement that you also pointed out. Regardless of the California decision, it looks to me like this eventually will be forced to a federal level due to the federal legal ramifications (e.g. tax codes) as well as the recognition issues that arise when one or both members of a homosexual marriage cross state lines.
Thanks for sharing your research.
Thanx for doing the research.
Now I have exact information to use when next my 'domestic partnerships are exactly the same' friend & I chat about this issue.
I'm sorry but your missing the point - the real issue is that gay and lesbian couples are trying to redefine the definition of marriage which has been rooted in deep religious history that can be traced back from generation to generation. That is the issue. If gay and lesbian couples want the right to be married for tax purposes etc. they must take another route and come up with something that will not touch the definition of marriage. It is to the core of christian beliefs and to remind you the same principles and traditions that brings homosexuals and also heterosexuals alike in existence! Who gives them the right to change such a thing? It's like taking the faces of our founding fathers off our currency and replacing it with today's popular rappers or movie stars. Who are they to do that to another!?! How is it denying them rights when true traditional marriage has been in place even before the talk or even thought of homosexuality throughout the centuries? They must choose another route - don't touch what is sacred for others!
Really a nice blogging with really a good post..
Post a Comment
<< Home