Related Directory Categories
- Marriage and Domestic Partnership (22)
- Regional (9)
- United States (8)
Sources
Help build the largest human-edited directory on the web.
Submit a site - Become an editor
Wikipedia. Licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.
Are you an expert in this subject? Join the discussion and share your knowledge at Wikipedia.org.
Domestic partnership
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
| Family law |
|---|
| Entering into marriage |
| Prenuptial agreement · Marriage |
| Common-law marriage |
| Same-sex marriage |
| Legal states similar to marriage |
| Cohabitation · Civil union |
| Domestic partnership |
| Registered partnership |
| Putative marriage |
| Dissolution of marriage |
| Annulment · Divorce · Alimony |
| Issues affecting children |
| Paternity · Legitimacy · Adoption |
| Legal guardian · Ward |
| Emancipation of minors |
| Parental responsibility |
| Contact (including Visitation) |
| Residence in English law |
| Custody · Child support |
| Areas of possible legal concern |
| Spousal abuse · Child abuse |
| Child abduction |
| Adultery · Bigamy · Incest |
| Conflict of Laws Issues |
| Marriage · Nullity · Divorce |
| Legal recognition of same-sex relationships |
||
|---|---|---|
| Same-sex marriage | ||
|
|
||
| Recognized in some regions | ||
| United States (MA) |
||
| International recognition | ||
|
|
||
| Civil unions and registered partnerships |
||
|
||
| Recognized in some regions | ||
|
Argentina (C, R) |
||
| Unregistered co-habitation | ||
|
|
||
| Recognition debated | ||
| Civil unions legal, same-sex marriage debated |
||
|
|
||
| See also | ||
|
Same-sex marriage |
||
A domestic partnership is a legal or personal relationship between individuals who live together and share a common domestic life but are not joined in a traditional marriage or in a civil union. However, in some jurisdictions, such as California, domestic partnership is in fact nearly equivalent to marriage, or to other legally recognized same-sex or different-sex unions. The terminology for such unions is still evolving, and the exact level of rights and responsibilities conferred by a domestic partnership varies widely from place to place.
Some legislatures have voluntarily established domestic partnership relations by statute instead of being ordered to do so by a court. Although some jurisdictions have instituted domestic partnerships as a way to recognize same-sex unions, domestic partnerships may involve either different-sex or same-sex couples.
In some legal jurisdictions, domestic partners who live together for an extended period of time but are not legally entitled to common-law marriage may be entitled to legal protection in the form of a domestic partnership. Some domestic partners may enter into domestic partnership agreements in order to agree contractually to issues involving property ownership, support obligations, and similar issues common to marriage. (See effects of marriage and palimony.)
One of the purposes of domestic partnership relation is to recognize the contribution of one partner to the property of the other. In the common law, devices such as the constructive trust are available to protect spouses in legal or common-law marriages. In civil law jurisdictions, such trusts are generally not available, prompting courts to find alternative ways to protect the partner who contributes to the other's property.
Contents |
The phrases domestic partner and domestic partnership were first used to describe living arrangements in 1985, according to The American Heritage Book of English Usage. In that year, West Hollywood city council member John Heilman successfully introduced domestic partner legislation for city residents and employees that was passed by the city council and created the first domestic partnership registry.
However, that was not the first domestic partner law in the United States. After the 1979 death of Harvey Milk in San Francisco, gay rights activist Tom Brougham came up with a definition of domestic partnership that is now universally used, and was designed to include everything about marriage except sexual orientation. According to Brougham, the definition was that the couple must be more than 18 years old and mentally competent to make a contract. Furthermore, his position was that Domestic partners must publicly declare the partnership and pledge to be responsible for each other.
In 1982, Brougham's definition was modified by Supervisor Harry Britt (a gay man appointed to replace Harvey Milk). Britt's version was adopted and passed by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, but Dianne Feinstein, mayor of San Francisco at the time, came under intense pressure from the Catholic Church and subsequently vetoed the bill. Not until 1989 was a domestic partnership law adopted in the city of San Francisco.[3]. As of December 2006, the city still offers a domestic partnership status separate from that offered by the state; city residents can apply for both.
In 1983 the City Council of Berkeley, California, under the leadership of Mayor Gus Newport, ordered their Human Relations and Welfare Commission to develop a domestic partnership proposal. The Commission appointed its Vice-Chair, Leland Traiman, a gay activist, to head the Domestic Partner Task Force and draft a policy. Working with Tom Brougham, members of the East Bay Lesbian/Gay Democratic Club, and attorney Matt Coles, the Domestic Partner Task Force drafted what has become the template for domestic partner/civil union policies around the world. The City of Berkeley's Human Relations and Welfare Commission held a public hearing early in 1984 on "Examining the Use of Marriage to Determine Benefits and Liabilities in Berkeley and the Alternatives." A policy was adopted by the Commission and presented to the City Council. A copy was sent to the Berkeley School Board. The City Council voted down the proposal, citing financial concerns. In August 1984, the Berkeley School Board enacted the policy by a 4 to 1 vote. The school board motion was made by Ethel Manheimer, a disabled lesbian.
In November 1984, all the city council members up for election who had voted against the policy lost reelection. Progressives from the Berkeley Citizens' Action (BCA) slate who replaced them had voiced strong support for a domestic partner policy. The East Bay Lesbian/Gay Democratic Club had worked hard to elect the BCA Slate. At the first meeting of the new City Council in December 1984, the Berkeley City Council, by a vote of 8 to 1, enacted a policy extending employee benefits to unmarried couples of any sex. The first couple to file for benefits under Berkeley's sex-neutral policy were activist and city employee Tom Brougham and his partner Barry Warren.
However, the City Council did not create a registry for domestic partners until 1991. October 11 of that year, 28 homosexual men & women couples and one heterosexual couple signed up. Tom and Barry were the first couple to put themselves on Berkeley's public registry of domestic partners. Leland Traiman and his partner, Stewart Blandón, were the third to do so. Also registering that day was the daughter of Loni Hancock, the then-mayor of Berkeley.
On September 4, 2003 the California legislature passed an expanded domestic partnership bill, extending nearly all the legal rights of married couples to people in same-sex partnerships. This effectively transformed California domestic partnerships into civil unions. Potentially serious legal issues arise from the conflict between state domestic partnership and same-sex-marriage laws, and the structure of U.S. Federal law, which, under the Defense of Marriage Act, explicitly does not extend Federal law recognition to those unions. This means that, for example, though they may essentially be "married" under the law of some states, partners would not be entitled to spousal "collateral" rights to Social Security and will not be treated as "spouses" for purposes of any Federal tax law.
The State of California has developed an Online Self-Help Center that provides resources and information to assist domestic partners in many areas, including filing domestic partnerships, dissolving domestic partnerships,parenting issues, tax issues, and more.
Washington, D.C., has recognized domestic partnerships since 1992. However, Congress prohibited the District from spending any local funds to implement the law. The prohibition was lifted in the federal appropriations act for the District for the 2002 fiscal year. Domestic partnership in the District is open to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. All couples registered as domestic partners are entitled to the same rights as family members to visit their domestic partners in the hospital and to make decisions concerning the treatment of a domestic partner’s remains after the partner’s death. The measure also grants District of Columbia government employees rights to a number of benefits. Domestic partners are eligible for health care insurance coverage, can use annual leave or unpaid leave for the birth or adoption of a dependent child or to care for a domestic partner or a partner's dependents, and can make funeral arrangements for a deceased partner. The Domestic Partnership Equality Amendment Act of 2006, D.C. Law 16-79, came into effect on April 4, 2006. This act provides that in almost all cases a domestic partner will have the same rights as a spouse regarding inheritance, probate, guardianship, and other rights traditionally accorded to spouses [1].
In April, 2004 the legislature passed a domestic partnership bill. The law, which provides same-sex individuals with inheritance rights over their partners' property and guardianship over their deceased partner, went into effect on July 30, 2004 [2].
The governor of Oregon, Ted Kulongoski, signed a domestic partnership bill bill into law on May 9th, 2007. Called the Oregon Family Fairness Act, the law would provide several major rights to same-sex couples that were previously only given to married couples, including the ability to file jointly on insurance forms, hospital visitation rights, and rights relating to the deceased partner. The law takes effect on January 1st, 2008 [3].
In the state of Washington, Governor Christine Gregoire signed into law legislation allowing limited domestic partnership on April 21, 2007. The law, which took effect July 22, 2007, permits same-sex couples (as well as heterosexual couples when one individual is at least age 62) to register in a domestic partnership registry that allows couples hospital visitation rights, the ability to authorize autopsies and organ donations, and inheritance rights when there is no will.[4] This follows the 1998 passage of a bill by the Washington State legislature that defined marriage as being between a man and a woman; this legislation was upheld by the Washington State Supreme Court in 2006.[5] Washington State Senate Report
Unions in New Jersey, Connecticut and Vermont offer civil unions equivalent to marriage in all but the title, while only the state of Massachusetts offers full marriage rights to same-sex couples. New Hampshire will become the fourth US state to offer civil unions. The New Hampshire House of Representatives passed civil unions legislation on April 5, 2007 (243 votes for, 129 against), and the New Hampshire Senate (14 votes for, 10 against) passed civil unions legislation on April 26, 2007. New Hampshire Governor John Lynch (D) signed the bill on May 31, 2007. The law takes effect in January of 2008.
Failed Attempts: After passing both houses of the General Assembly, a referendum on domestic partnerships came before Colorado voters in November 2006, but was defeated, while the constitutional same-sex marriage ban passed during the same election.
Portugal, Hungary and Croatia have domestic partnerships, whereas most other nations in Europe recognize some form of civil unions, also called a registered partnership, or civil partnership for same-sex partners, which afford rights similar to marriage to LGBT couples.
In Hungary domestic partnership in the form of unregistered cohabitation offers a limited set of rights compared to marriage (more in the field of health and pension; but no inheritance), although a growing number of Hungarian couples (heterosexual included) choose this kind of partnership instead of marriage. Registration of partnerships is under consideration as part of the introduction of the new Civil Code, which is expected to be introduced in Parliament by the end of 2007. Some politicians of SZDSZ and MSZP argue for the introduction of marriage for same-sex couples.
Although many believe that domestic partnerships are discriminated against, there are businesses that will only insure those unmarried couples of same sex relationships while unmarried hetero relationships are not afforded the same offer by the same company. Time Warner in the Western New York area is an example.
In Australia, all states and territories, plus the cities of Melbourne and Sydney, now offer domestic partnerships (called significant relationships in Tasmania) to same-sex couples. Nevertheless, as of July 2007, the Australian national government still discriminates against same-sex couples in 58 statutes and provisions, and bans the recognition at a national level of all same-sex marriages, unions, or partnerships. The national government is also considering a ban on adoption by same-sex couples.[citation needed]
- Australian Capital Territory (Domestic partnership provided from 1994) [4].
- New South Wales (Domestic partnership provided from 1999) [5] [6]
- Norfolk Island No information on Norfolk Island.
- Northern Territory (Domestic partnership provided from 2003) [7]
- Queensland (Domestic partnership provided from 2005) [8]
- South Australia (Domestic partnership from 2007) [9] [10]
- Tasmania ("Registry system/Significant Relationships" provided from 2004) Domestic partnership in Tasmania
- Victoria (Domestic partnership from 2001 and a "registry system" will be provided from 1 December 2007). [11], [12] and [13]
- Western Australia (Domestic partnership provided from 2002) [14]
For an in-depth look at discrimination against same-sex couples under Australian federal law, see the Same-sex Entitlements Report 2006 by the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission at [15]
Since 2005, New Zealand has offered civil unions for all couples, whether same-sex or different-sex. The rights and responsibilities conferred by New Zealand civil unions are nearly identical to those of marriage, with the major exception that civil union couples are not allowed to adopt children jointly.
| Close relationships |
 |
|
Affinity • Attachment • Bonding • Casual • Cohabitation • Compersion • Concubinage • Courtship • Divorce • Dower, dowry and bride price • Friendship • Family • Husband • Infatuation • Intimacy • Jealousy • Limerence • Love • Marriage • Monogamy • Nonmonogamy • Office romance • Passion • Partner • Pederasty • Polygamy• Platonic love • Psychology of monogamy • Relationship abuse • Romance • Sexuality • Separation • Wedding • Widowhood • Wife |
- same-sex marriage
- registered partnership
- civil union
- common law marriage - defacto partner
- Domestic partnership in California
- Same-sex marriage in California
- Domestic partnership in Maine
- Heterosexism
