Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« A Mess in Texas? | Clinton Takes the Lead in Texa... »

Tuesday, March 4, 2008

In Other News

posted by on March 4 at 19:40 PM

The expanded state domestic partnership law made it out of the Washington State Senate today. It was already approved by the State House, and now it heads to the governor’s desk for her signature. Here’s the PI

House Bill 3104 adds domestic partners to sections of laws where previously only spouses were mentioned, including areas referring to probate and trusts, community property and homestead exemptions, and guardianship and powers of attorney.

The underlying domestic partnership law, passed last year, already provides hospital visitation rights, the ability to authorize autopsies and organ donations, and inheritance rights when there is no will.

The measure makes dozens of changes to state law, including requiring domestic partners of public officials to submit financial disclosure forms, just as the spouses of heterosexual officials do. It also would give domestic partners the same spousal testimony rights that married couples have, allowing domestic partners the right to refuse to testify against each other in court.

Congrats, Ed.

But what about this bit of fine print…

To be registered as partners, couples must share a home, must not be married or in a domestic relationship with someone else, and be at least 18.

Does the state require married heterosexuals to live under the same roof?

RSS icon Comments

1

Was wondering when someone at the little-bit-gay paper would notice this.

Posted by umvue | March 4, 2008 7:51 PM
2

Sorry. Not a single-issue noter here.

Posted by Dan Savage | March 4, 2008 7:53 PM
3

Married heterosexuals are not required to live under the same roof (at least not all of them together). Back in the misty misty past it was presumed that married people would be living together. I assume requiring domestic partners to be "domestic" partners is some sort of fraud prevention. It ain't quite equal though, is it? Personally, I'm for the state getting out of the marriage business and only recognizing legal partnerships but...

Posted by umvue | March 4, 2008 8:05 PM
4

Yeah umvue, the state already recognizes legal partnerships, they call it "marriage".

Posted by Sargon Bighorn | March 4, 2008 8:23 PM
5

NO - you need no share a house, reside in the same state or same country to get married or continue to be married.

PART of this incremental strategy is adding a lot of sop to conservative, Dem and R. alike.

BUT it sure feels good to win some votes after all those years of DEFEAT and NOTHING .... yes thanks Ed and Jamie ...


Posted by Jake | March 4, 2008 8:44 PM
6

It takes a huge effort to put through legislation for domestic partnerships...sad but true. 3104 Passed 29-20 not an overwhelming majority, three D Senators voted no Hargrove, Katsama, and Sheldon.
Ed, Jamie and the rest of the gay caucus did an excellent job. Now we all just have to hope the Governor doesn't veto any part of the bill because of her re-election worries.

Posted by Brendan | March 4, 2008 9:37 PM
7

Big Congratulations to the sponsor of the domestic partnership expansion: Rep. Jamie Pedersen (D-Seattle). You rock.

Posted by jacob | March 4, 2008 11:00 PM
8

One step at a time. Forward, forward, forward. Increasingly proving the opposition is wrong about this issue the way it is wrong on every other issue. I am very happy about this latest progress and recquiring people to live together is a way to prevent fraud.

Posted by Vince | March 5, 2008 6:56 AM
9

No, of course people don't have to live together to marry. But married people have to get divorced to be unmarried. Domestic partners don't, yet. So requiring DPs (oh, that's got an old negative: displaced persons; we need some shorthand) to live together does have some impact on limiting fraud (like bigamy). So until we get the whole enchilada, I think there needs to be some distinctions.

Posted by Algernon | March 5, 2008 11:36 AM
10

The question of fraud reveals why "separate but equal" domestic partnerships are not equal. What's to stop people from getting legally married to defraud the system? Nothing, technically, but people generally don't do it because of the social weight that marriage carries. Marriage is a social institution, domestic partnership is a legal arrangement. ---> The way to prevent fraud is to let gay people get married.

Also I don't know what the legal definition of "living together" is (i.e. does it have to be full time) but people, gay and straight, who are partnered for life sometimes have circumstances or work-related things that cause them to be separated for a period of time. It would be unethical to consider the marriage or partnership nullified in these circumstances, as often these would be the times the couple would need their legal protections the most. Just some thoughts...

Posted by erika | March 5, 2008 3:15 PM
11

Opposite-sex couples are not required to cohabitate in order to qualify for marriage. Same-sex couples are required to cohabitate in order to qualify for domestic partnership.

This isn’t new. For many years cohabitation has been a requirement for employee same-sex spouses to be eligible for their organization's Same-Sex Domestic Partnership (SSDP) benefits.

This creates an unfair burden on same-sex couples, especially those who are forced by circumstances to live apart for any period of time. Couples may be forced to live apart because of employment opportunity, caring for family, military service, immigration proceedings and a myriad of other reasons.

I’m aware of cases where same-sex couples are forced to live apart because one partner can’t get employment in the same location as the other and consequently lose access to health and other benefits because they are not living under the same roof. Meanwhile married opposite-sex employees at the same organization are able to live apart from their spouse and yet retain all benefits entitlements.

We know that relationship recognition laws for same-sex couples across jurisdictions in the United States have no consistency. Organizations offering benefits to same-sex couples across the United States do not have a single test or proof that they can rely on when considering benefit eligibility as they do with opposite-sex married couples. Because of this problem, the test they apply is often a “soft” one that works in all jurisdictions regardless of local relationship recognition laws - “Tell us you are in a domestic partnership and living together and we’ll provide SSDP benefits”

It’s always been an issue for those lucky enough to be offered SSDP benefits. Now it’s an issue for all of us.

~GC

Posted by The Gay Curmudgeon | March 5, 2008 5:54 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).