Domestic partnership in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the United States, domestic partnership is a city-, county-, state-, or employer-recognized status that may be available to same-sex couples and, sometimes, opposite-sex couples. Although similar to marriage, a domestic partnership does not confer any of the 1,138 rights afforded to married couples by the federal government. Domestic partnerships in the United States are determined by each state or local jurisdiction, so there is no nationwide consistency on the rights, responsibilities, and benefits accorded domestic partners.
Some states (Vermont, Connecticut, and New Jersey) offer civil unions to same-sex couples; as currently (2006) understood in the United States, a civil union is a status almost identical to marriage, whereas domestic partnership generally connotes a lesser status, but much depends on the particular law in a given jurisdiction. As a result of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act, no state is obliged to recognize a same-sex relationship formed in another state.
In many other countries, the equivalent legal status is referred to as registered partnership, and "Domestic partnership" refers to cohabitation, rather than a legal status.
In some states without domestic partnership legislation, sometimes a domestic partnership status is granted by an employer for the granting of health, family and insurance benefits. This practice is more common among U.S. colleges, universities and Fortune 500-listed companies than at small businesses. Employer-recognized domestic partnership qualifications and status varies in scope from employer to employer as to what benefits are offered and whether or not same-sex or different-sex couples (or both) qualify.
[edit] States offering domestic partnership status
[edit] California
Domestic partnerships in California exist for same-sex couples, and for opposite-sex couples in which one person is above the age of 62. The California domestic partner law was signed in 2003 and took effect in 2005. Paid Family Leave covers registered domestic partners.
[edit] District of Columbia
Domestic partnerships in District of Columbia have been recognized since 2002.
[edit] Hawaii
Reciprocal beneficiary registration was enacted in 1997.
[edit] Maine
Domestic partnerships in Maine, enacted in 2004, exist for all couples, regardless of sex.
[edit] Maryland
The Maryland State legislature approved a bill establishing a limited form of domestic partnership in its 2005 session. The main effect of the law would have been to allow same-sex partners to have hospital visitation and medical decision-making rights for one another equivalent to those recognized for married couples. However, the bill was vetoed by Governor Robert L. Ehrlich, who reportedly objected to the bill's use of the phrase "life partner". Supporters of the bill in the legislature have vowed to overturn the veto in the 2006 session, but it is unclear whether there are enough votes in favor to do so.
[edit] New Jersey
Domestic partnerships in New Jersey have been available since July 30, 2004 for same-sex couples, and for opposite-sex couples in which one person is above the age of 62. However, on October 25, 2006, the Supreme Court of New Jersey ruled that under the New Jersey state constitution, same-sex couples have the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples. Subsequent to the court's ruling, on December 14, 2006, the New Jersey Legislature passed a bill establishing civil unions, which will become law 60 days after being signed by the Governor.
[edit] Cities and counties offering domestic partnership status
[edit] New York
Domestic partnerships in New York City [1] exist for same sex couples and opposite sex couples in which both are above the age of 18 and are New York City residents (or at least one party to the partnership is an employee of the City of New York). Signed into law by Rudolph Giuliani on July 7th 1997, the law codified executive orders by the previous two administrations. Other communities provide similar benefits; however one town, Eastchester, which had provided domestic partner benefits, has withdrawn the plan. [2] State employees have received similar benefits under executive orders of the Governor and have been given priority over bodily remains of Domestic Partner as enacted into law by Gov. George Pataki in February 2006. For a discussion of both the history and implementation of New York Domestic partnerships see the June 2003 report of an official New York City Council study. [3]
[edit] San Francisco
In 1982, a domestic partnership law 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.[4]. 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. [5]
[edit] Failed domestic partnership attempts
[edit] Alaska
Domestic partnerships in Alaska have been ordered by the Alaska Supreme Court for same-sex partners of state employees. It is set to become law October 2006. The court has not gone so far as to make any specific policies but has instructed the state legislature to pass a bill to the same effect. If this happens, it would make Alaska the first determinedly red state to enact same-sex benefits. It would also be the only state with a specific same-sex marriage ban to enact such benefits.
As of December 2006, legislative efforts to overturn or nullify the Supreme Court's ruling are underway, and the outcome is uncertain.
[edit] Colorado
The Colorado State Legislature and Senate both passed a domestic partnerships bill that was referred to voters in the November 2006 elections as Referendum I. In the general election, the proposal was defeated by a margin of 47% for, 53% against. If it had passed, the bill would have allowed same-sex couples many benefits that opposite-sex couples enjoy in the state.
[edit] Similar legal status classifications
[edit] Potential legal conflicts
On September 4, 2003 the California legislature passed an expanded domestic partnership bill, A.B. 205, extending nearly all the legal rights of married couples to people in same-sex partnerships. This effectively transformed California domestic partnerships into civil unions. Signed by Governor Gray Davis on September 19, 2003, the bill went into effect on January 1, 2005.[6] New Jersey passed such a bill on January 8, 2004. [7] Maine's legislature and governor approved a domestic partnership law in April of 2004.
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 "married" under the law of some states, partners would not be entitled to spousal "collateral" rights to Social Security, to spouse benefits in the other partner's private employer pension (if that pension is governed by ERISA) and will not be treated as "spouses" for purposes of any Federal tax law.
[edit] Benefits of Domestic Partnership
The term, domestic partner, does not have a consistent definition in the United States and therefore it is impossible to detail a set list of benefits, rights and obligations that flow from the status. In some jurisdictions, such as California, the status approaches that of civil unions and grants numerous benefits and imposes numerous obligations on the parties. In other jurisdictions it does little more than allow (but not require) employers to grant family employee benefits to their workers. While there is no uniformity, the most common benefit of domestic partnership in the United States is the extension of employer-subsidized health insurance to the partners of employees. For example, in New York City, the status provides essentially three benefits: (1) the ability to remain in a “rent controlled” apartment after the domestic partner lease holder dies, (2) the ability to visit the domestic partner in a city hospital or jail and (3) the ability of city employees to obtain subsidized health insurance for their partners and to obtain the benefits of the Family Medical Leave Act. [8]
[edit] Adverse Tax Consequences of Domestic Partnerships
As the United States government does not recognize the status, any benefit granted to Domestic Partners will generally result in an adverse tax consequence. While there are certain exceptions, generally under the Internal Revenue Code Section 152 the value of the benefit will be considered imputed income and will be taxable. For example if an employee covers his or her partner under an employer health insurance plan, the amount the employer pays to cover the partner will be added to the employee’s salary for tax purposes. The same is not true for married couples. [9]
[edit] States with similar legal status
- Same-sex marriage in California
- Civil unions in Connecticut
- Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts
- Same-sex marriage in New York
- Same-sex unions in Oregon
- Civil unions in Vermont
- Same-sex marriage in Washington
