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, a common-law marriage, or a civil union. 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
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 parnership registry.
However, that legislation was not the first domestic partner type legislation in the United States. After the death of Harvey Milk in San Francisco, gay rights activist Tom Brougham came up with definition of domestic partnership, which 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. It was this definition that was passed first by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors but U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, mayor of San Francisco at the time, came under intense pressure from the Catholic Church and subsequently vetoed the bill.
In 1983 the City Council of Berkeley, California, under the leadership of Mayor Gus Newport, ordered their Human Relations and Welfare Commission to present it with a Domestic Partner proposal. The Commission appointed its Vice-Chair, Leland Traiman, a Gay activist, to head the Domestic Partner Task Force to 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 & 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 on a 4 to 1 vote. The motion on the School Board 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 enacted a policies extending employee benefits to unmarried couples of any gender. The vote was 8 to 1. However, the City Council did not create a registry of same gender domestic partners or even a registry for opposite gender domestic partners over the age of 62 & 1/2 living in the city until 1991. 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. Later, in 1991 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. On the first day of the registry's existence, October 11, 1991, 28 Gay and Lesbian couples and one heterosexual couple signed up. One of them was then Berkeley Mayor Loni Hancock's daughter.
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 District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, and New Jersey all have domestic partnership or reciprocal beneficiary laws that allow homosexual couples a handful of rights that heterosexuals enjoy. None of these laws give as many protections as the California law does. A few states also require that domestic partnerships among government employees be recognized.
After passing both houses of government in the state of Colorado, the issue of domestic partnerships will come before voters in November 2006. If it becomes law, Colorado will become the first U.S. state with a Republican majority to pass a law recognizing any form of registered partnership for all homosexual couples living in the state.
[edit] In California
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.
[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.
[edit] See also
| LGBT rights |
 |
| Around the world · By country |
| History · Groups · Activists |
| Same-sex relationships |
| Opposition · Persecution |
| Violence |
