Same sex marriage and domestic partnership

"domestic partnership" in Mass is basically a way of giving same sex partners some of the tax, insurance, and inheritance rights enjoyed by married people, but it doesn't allow marriage outright.

I suspect just about everyone here will say it should be legal. Its an uphill battle here in the puritanical US, though.

I don't know what is meant (exactly) by domestic partnership.

Same sex marriage should be legal. I don't agree that non-married people should get the benefits of being married (we pay more taxes gosh darnmit), but until same sex marriage is allowed it's the best solution. American males are too busy protecting their masculinity to think straight on this issue; and I don't see that improving anytime soon.

We should ban heterosexual marriage, not legalize same-sex marriage.

Ron: ok, so you're hesitant to allow same-sex couples to marry (whatever that means) and raise a child cuz you're afraid of what it'll do to the child. . .not because you feel there's anything inherently bad about same sex parents (any more than hetero parents) but because of the 'environment' -- so you're taking what you identify as a flaw in 'society' (whatever that means) and laying it on the hypothetical same-sex couple.

I don't believe in marriage at all and have said many times that it will happen when it becomes easier, like if we have kids and I cannot be on his insurance unless we are married or for other stupid rules.

Marriage (as being discussed here) is a legal institution. Hopefully, if you're married, your partnership means much more than that to you. Same sex marriages are fine by me. Ditto for "marriages" involving more that two people. I skipped the "domestic partnership" options because I'm not really sure what it means. Is this like a "common law" marriage (possibly without the gender restrictions commonly involved in a common law marriage)?
**milktree: Ah, thanks. In that case I think that domestic partnership should be extended to mixed-sex couples and marriage should be extended to same-sex couples.
**Atzilut: Will you expand on that? Do you not like the benefits accorded to married couples (i.e. tax breaks, sharing insurance), the implicit power of attorney, societal pressure to form couples, something else?
**jen: Yes, tax breaks. It all depends on relative salaries. I should have said "differences in taxation"...

I can't claim to be terribly educated on this whole issue, but I think there should be some legal status, equivalent to marriage, that protects people in same-sex relationships. I don't exactly know the definition of "domestic partnership", but I'm assuming it's a lot like marriage with a few unspecified differences. I think the domestic partnership laws pertaining to inheritance, community property, power of attorney, next-of-kin status, divorce, etc., should be identical to those associated with marriage. My only concern about same-sex marriage is the adoption issue. By no means do I want to suggest that a same sex couple can't raise a happy healthy child, but at the same time I really don't know one way or the other what the effects of such an environment would be on a child, and I'm hesitant to introduce that kind of unknown quantity into a child's life without knowing more, even in the name of equal civil rights for all adults. And because I know I'm going to be jumped on for that statement, let me make it perfectly clear: I have no knowledge, belief, or opinion that should be taken to suggest that same-sex couples would not make fantastic parents. I am claiming ignorance on this issue, and so long as I lack strong evidence that a child raised by a same-sex couple won't suffer any negative psychological effects as a result, I would rather err on the side of caution. Call me a homophobe if you must.

***Atzilut: I'm not sure what the "flaw in society" you refer to is (poor grammar, sorry). If the flaw is that *any* couple can screw up a child, I agree. Believe me, I'm not trying to lay any blame for anything on same-sex couples, and my concern is not with their ability to do right by a child. If we can agree that sexual orientation is more biologically determined than a matter of personal preference (can we agree on that? well roll with me for a moment anyway), what would be the potential effects on a heterosexual child of being raised in a homosexual family? Probably as problematic as the reverse. Of course homosexual children have been raised by heterosexual couples for eons. However, while I don't know from experience, my perception is that it must be a confusing and troubling thing for a gay child to grow up surrounded by such strong fundamental reinforcement of the hetero model. I think it stands to reason that a straight child would suffer the same fate in a gay family, although I acknowledge that this is only an assumption. Perhaps my fears are unfounded, but what it boils down to is the fact that I don't know. And until I know, I'm hesitant to use a live human being as a guinea pig in an experiment in civil liberties.

I agree that everybody has a right to choose for themselves what is right for them... but that also includes clergy and private organizations... I believe that nobody should be declined insurance or benefits due to same sex marriages. I also believe that no person or organization should be forced to recognize it. This is a free country.. what people have to remember is that it is free for everybody... pc or not. I have gay friends and 2 of them are planning a formal ceremony. I expect they'll invite me and I'll probably go because they're my friends and I care about them. 100 years from now people will wonder what the big deal was with us. They'll probably be debating thier own issues such as marriages between humans and animals... Good luck to them...

I am currently in a hetero domestic partnership, so I was a little confused by this survey at first.

I definitely believe there should be no such thing as marriage, especially as having anything to do with the government, taxes, insurance, etc. If we have to be taxed, everyone should be taxed by the same criteria whether married or not - a person is a person!

I believe that people should be free to marry their partner, whether heterosexual or homosexual. My mom is a lesbian and has been with her partner for over ten years. They have an incredible relationship. Marriage is about love, dedication, and responsibility. The gender of the two people involved does not determine the success or failure of the marriage.

Marriage is a legal institution. It's also a religious one, but that's a different, although closely related, institution. I don't think domestic partnership is half-assed, although I do think we should be allowed to marry like breeders; there are opposite-sex domestic partnerships.

I didn't check "Marriage is not a religious institution, it's a legal one", but that's because I consider it to be a social one, not a religious one. For many people these things are very similar but even religious marriages I consider to be in the eyes of the church and not in the eyes of God (or whatever).

I think that legal marriage should be abolished for everyone and any two or more people should be able to establish a legal domestic partnership contract. If you then want to go have your personal spiritual advisor/community perform some ritual about your commitment to each other, that's your business, not the state's. If a particular religious community wants to be picky about who they'll do their magic for, that's their business. Marriage's status as both a legal contract and a religious ceremony is bogus and confusing. ***ron (sorry, I don't know why I thought I was responding to eb)...until you have a chance to go do some research of your own, take my word that the studies that have been done and the anecdotal evidence I've read and the people I know who were raised in same-sex households suggest that it's about the same as being raised in a hetero- household. Obviously mileage will vary by individual, but nothing I've ever read (including very mainstream articles in TIME and the like) have suggested that there is any systemic problem with same-sex parenting. Personally, I think there may be advantages, but I don't have any data on that, except never having heard a bad story from anyone in this situation and having been extremely envious of friends with gay parents.

Who really cares? It's not like marriages are what they used to be anyway. It used to be if you got married you had to stay with a person until either one of you died. Now you can just say, you know this was a mistake, let's get a divorce.

I don't care if you call it marriage, domestic partnership, imported partnership, or "Fred"... but if there are benefits to be had, they should be available to anyone willing to put up with the associated hassles, independent of the shape of our genitals or what exactly we do with them.

...I have nothing to say on this issue ... why are you reading this....why am I writing it ... where's the dog-gone submit and hide button ...

This domestic partnership thing is a bit of a cop-out, much like Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I'm all in favor of a level playing field for all permutations of partners; the essence of marriage as far as I'm concerned is the commitment. A marriage is supposed to be a lasting arrangement, a stable place for children to grow up (if that's your taste, and times being what they are). Domestic partnership seems like a lower bar. Of course, I don't really have any problem with domestic partners getting medical benefits and whatnot, but treating it as "the gay equivalent of marriage" is half-assed.

I've been in a committed, loving, relationship for over 30 years Without the ability to get married, among other things, which ever one of us survives the other will be denied social security survivor's benefits. We can't file a joint tax return. The survivor will have to pay tax on the value of our home. All of this is wrong. We should be able to get married.

Our society's definition of "marriage" is severely limited - unions of pairs of people of different genders is a small subset of the possible configurations of what I would call a potential "marriage." However, the legal ramifications of marriage are also in many ways outdated remnants of a time when a "wife" and children were considered the property of the husband. I would be more comfortable if our social and legal systems reflected a more egalitarian view of such things.

*** In today's society, a family with children really ought to have three parents minimum. It is tremendously difficult to "raise a family" on a single income, and it is tragic that the economics often "force" many of us to pay others to care for our children while we have to work. With three "parents", two can be working while the third cares for the child. One can even envision an arrangement where all three parents work, each taking turns caring for the children. I find it terribly unfortunate that society and the legal system so strongly favor two-parent (different-gender) families.

*** I feel it is worth mentioning that I have, on one occasion, taken advantage of "domestic partner" benefits in a different-gender situation. Unfortunately, there has only been one insurance policy at one company I have ever worked for which has provided this benefit.

If "they" (i.e. the government) are going to tie a lot of civil benefits and responsibilities (wills, medical rights, property rights, alimony, etc.) to marriage, I am sick of them discriminating on the basis of gender. If it's a religious thing, keep the government out of it and they can discriminate to their hearts' content. There's a reason we have separation of church and state... *** Mark: the company I work for now does provide this benefit, so maybe it's getting better.

Not knowing anyone in a 'different' situation from my own very happily married one, I just don't know the answer to this one & wouldn't want to even try.

It ticks me off that Americans are so d**n hung up on this whole thing! Same-sex marriages, mixed-sex marriages, what's the difference? A marriage is a legal institution, and if you want to bring in religion, fine, fine. As Daver said, and I give him credit, let same-sex couples marry and let mixed-sex couples have a "domestic partnership", whatever that is. I think the Bill of Rights ought to cover this. American rights are American rights and shouldn't be influenced by sexual preference! There! I've said what I've wanted to say for a long time. Thank you to milktree for creating this survey so I can vent my feelings on it.

I think marriage is about commitment. If two people of whatever sex, nationality, race, etc. want to commit to each other, and do it in a legal fashion, then I think they should. I think domestic partnership to allow those people legal benefits in areas where government won't allow them to marry is a great solution for now, but ideally I think they should be allowed to marry. Isn't it illegal for church and state to get involved? Who, then, is saying these people are not allowed to be married?

ElijahBlue: No, no, the whole reason there are domestic partnerships is because most states won't let them get married. It something *better* than just boyfriend/girlfriend, so they can get insurance benefits and such (sometimes), but it's only because they're not allowed anything "better".

ElijahBlue: I think it's more like they're "forced to accept" DP instead of being "allowed" to get married which is what most gays I know would rather have. Marriage is a legal contract which says each person is responsible for the other, in essence. Therefore they get insurance and other "legal" contracts to recognize them as a "pair".

domestic partnership is not half-assed. I frankly don't understand why a homosexual would want to adopt this restrictive institution of marriage as we know it, why not create something better? but if they want to they should be allowed to. *lisashea: I don't consider traditional marriage to be better. They are "allowed" to create social rituals that incorporate the good elements of marriage while leaving out the bad. *reality: why no, I don't. Do you care to explain what's so great about it? *reality: ok, I will dip my toes in the water. I'm talking about male/female marriage as it has existed and currently exists in our society. First of all, it is almost inextricably intertwined with religious custom and belief. The traditions are extremely sexist ("giving away the bride", the bride's dress color signifying whether she's a virgin or not). Even if you try to get away from these things, you're left with laws about marriage that are sexist (up until the '70's, if a man raped his wife it wasn't called rape, even now a husband raping his wives is often considered a "domestic dispute" and treated lightly), common practices in government and organizations that are sexist (if you are a woman who gets married, mail will start arriving addressed to "Mrs. The_Name of_Your_Husband", whether you've had your name changed or not. If you have children, schools will send forms to be filled out by "the head of the household", which is by default the husband, at least in MD where I live.) And marriage has *such* an unsavory history that I'm not sure I'd want to be associated with it even if every problem were resolved. Up until a few generations ago, women had legal rights after getting married (not that they had many before that, but they at least had more). I'd be happier to start fresh, create a different tradition with a non-religious and non-sexist basis.

I don't think it is a problem if two (or more) people want to be offiically married and a family in the eyes of the law and society. My only problem with marriage, is that divorce is just too convenient.. I am old fashioned when I think that it should be for life. it isn't fair that same sex people can't be married, and it isn't fair that they can get medical benefits of the spouse without being married.. but since society won't accept the marriages, it is the next best thing. **I also checked the american thing, since it is true.. even though I am an american.
*elijahblue: care to explain what is so bad about marriage in general?
*elijahblue: actually I was fishing for information. I don't want to debate. I don't think there is anything particularly great about marriage, but I don't see anything wrong with it either. from what I can see, it is just an 'official' recognition from society that two people are spending their lives together and are committed to one another.
I have seen various people bashing marriage and was curious to find out why. basically it is one of the tenets of society that I haven't had need or desire to question.
*ah.. okay.. thanks. I have this tendancy to ignore religion since I don't participate. I also try to ignore the general stupidity of humans, hence my confusion. I hadn't looked at it that way.

if you love each other why not go for it