How to define 'domestic partners' Corporate, government recognitionof same-sex couples raises questions By JoAnn Kohlbrand WorldNetDaily.com As increasing numbers of companies and state governments begin to grant various benefits to domestic partners, questions are arising about what constitutes a domestic partnership. Most state laws and company policies require that domestic partners be of the same gender. The wording of these policies, however, has left unclear what the relationship between domestic partners must be. While domestic partnership is predominately advocated by the homosexual community, vague wording of new laws implies that domestic partnerships could reach beyond homosexual couples. Last year, the California Legislature established a statewide domestic partnership registry, providing hospital visitation rights and domestic partner health benefits for state workers who register. This new law requires the couple be of the same gender and in an intimate and caring relationship. According to Jennifer Richards, legislative aide to Assemblywoman Sheila Kuehl, the first open homosexual in the California Assembly, Under the current law, if two heterosexual roommates wanted to register, they could, provided they were in a caring relationship. Critical of domestic partnerships, Karen Holgate, executive director of policy for the Capitol Resource Institute commented, This is just more of an attempt to recognize gay marriages. Several bills that seek to expand the legal rights of domestic partners to include property inheritance rights and the ability to make medical and property decisions have been combined into one large bill that the California State Assembly will consider shortly. Supporters of the legislation feel this expansion of rights is an issue of basic fairness to homosexual couples. Critics, however, believe such legislation is designed to circumvent California's recently approved Proposition 22, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Vermont approved legislation in April that would create civil unions between people of the same gender. Granting some of the same legal rights California seeks to establish, these unions, like marriages, must be legalized by an official ceremony and can be dissolved only through family court. While special legal status of domestic partnerships exists only in Vermont and California, an increasing number of states have extended health-care benefits to domestic partners, creating the same questions about the nature of such relationships. In May, the Washington State Public Employees Benefits Board voted 6 to 1 in favor of extending benefits to domestic partners, circumventing the legislature. This decision was reached after a letter from Gov. Gary Locke requested the board vote in favor of the benefits extension, citing a need to extend health coverage to all citizens of the state. This decision requires that the partners be of the same gender and share living expenses. When questioned whether heterosexual roommates could be considered domestic partners, Ree Sailors, executive policy advisor to Locke, commented, I don't know. It is too soon to tell. The Massachusetts Senate currently has legislation stalled in its Ways and Means Committee that would grant benefits to domestic partners, making no requirement that they be of the same gender. While this bill is not likely to move forward without considerable changes, if passed, it would allow unmarried heterosexual couples to receive health-care benefits currently given only to spouses. This extension of health and other benefits to domestic partners is a growing trend in governments across the nation. In addition to California, state legislatures in New York, Hawaii, Oregon and Vermont have recognized domestic partners of state employees. In the private sector, the granting of benefits to domestic partners is also gaining momentum. Three large auto-makers

How to define 'domestic partners' Corporate, government recognitionof same-sex couples raises questions By JoAnn Kohlbrand WorldNetDaily.com As increasing numbers of companies and state governments begin to grant various benefits to domestic partners, questions are arising about what constitutes a domestic partnership. Most state laws and company policies require that domestic partners be of the same gender. [...] which is as it should be.  Heterosexual couples can get married.

Most state laws and company policies require that domestic partners be of the same gender. [...] which is as it should be.  Heterosexual couples can get married.  Many, probably most, can (as can homosexual couples, just not to each other.) This fact justifies denying heterosexual couples the benefits of domestic partnership why?

This fact justifies denying heterosexual couples the benefits of domestic partnership why? I am willing to look at domestic partnership for heterosexual couples who cannot get married.  (Can you cite any actual cases of such people?)  The rights of marriage, however, should not be trivialized for those who can marry but choose not to.

rob wade < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote in message How to define 'domestic partners' Corporate, government recognitionof same-sex couples raises questions By JoAnn Kohlbrand WorldNetDaily.com As increasing numbers of companies and state governments begin to grant various benefits to domestic partners, questions are arising about what constitutes a domestic partnership. Most state laws and company policies require that domestic partners be of the same gender. The wording of these policies, however, has left unclear what the relationship between domestic partners must be. While domestic partnership is predominately advocated by the homosexual community, vague wording of new laws implies that domestic partnerships could reach beyond homosexual couples. As it should, what about people of the same sex who just live with each other, but are not homosexuals. What this ignores is the heterosexual couple who never marries, but are indeed a family. Last year, the California Legislature established a statewide domestic partnership registry, providing hospital visitation rights and domestic partner health benefits for state workers who register. This new law requires the couple be of the same gender and in an intimate and caring relationship. This seems to me to be an error