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 |
| 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 |
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 a common-law marriage. 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.)
Some jurisdictions established domestic partnership relations by statute rather through judicial decisions. 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.
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.
Contents |
[edit] In the United States
[edit] Origin of term in California municipalities
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 first 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.[1]. 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 gender. The first couple to file for benefits under Berkeley's gender-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 gay or lesbian 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, then-mayor of Berkeley.
[edit] California, statewide
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.
| LGBT and Queer studies series |
|---|
 |
|
|
| Gender · Homosexuality · Bisexuality · Transgender |
| LGBT history |
| Timeline · Gay Liberation · LGBT social movements |
| Culture |
| Community · Pride · Drag · Gay slang · Gay village · Queer theory · Religion · Symbols |
| Law |
| Marriage · Civil union · Adoption · Sodomy law |
| Categories |
[edit] Other states
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.
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-gender marriage ban passed on the same election.
Domestic partnerships is currently on the table in the Washington State Legislature. It has passed in the senate by a 28-19 vote and is currently being considered in committee in the House of Representatives. The Washington State legislature passed a bill in 1998 defining marriage as being between a man and a woman (Washington State's "DOMA"). Washington State Senate Report
[edit] In Europe
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 homosexual couples.
In Hungary domestic parnership has almost as many rights as marriage, as most of the Hungarian couples choose this kind of civil union instead of marriage. Same-sex marriage is under consideration, because according to the law opposite-sex couples choose either marriage, common-law marriage, domestic parnership or registered partnership (second half of 2007) while same-sex couples only have three options, so they are not equal in this case.
[edit] In Oceania
In Australia, domestic partnerships are more commonly referred to as de facto (or defacto) relationships.
For further discussion surrounding de facto relationships and same-sex couples in Australia, also see: Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Same-sex Entitlements Report 2006
[edit] See also
