Friday, December 13, 2002

A story released today by the Rainbownetwork.com reports that British Minister for Social Exclusion & Equality, Barbara Roche, recently announced that lesbian and gay partners are to be granted many of the legal rights that go with marriage, but that these rights will not extend to opposite-sex relationships.

"Legislation to remedy the lack of legal protection for unmarried partners is long overdue. It is a great pity the government has opted for an unimaginative, watered-down version of marriage, instead of having the foresight to propose an entirely new, modern legal framework for partnership recognition" said Peter Thatchell a staunch gay rights activist in England.

Why can`t we have a more democratic, egalitarian alternative to marriage, where people can nominate as their next-of-kin and beneficiary any `significant other`? It could be a lover, but it could also be a favorite cousin or life-long best friend. Many non-sexual friendships are just as sincere, committed and enduring as relations between people in love. They, too, should have legal recognition".

Any new partnership legislation should allow people to pick and mix from a menu of rights and responsibilities. This flexibility would enable them to devise a tailor-made partnership agreement suited to their own particular needs. Some partners, for example, may want next-of-kin rights but not joint guardianship of children. The law should let them make that choice. Unfortunately, marriage and the government`s proposed same-sex civil registration scheme don`t give people these options. It is all or nothing. Permitting people to choose from a menu of rights and responsibilities has an additional virtue. It would require partners to sit down together and negotiate their obligations towards each other on each specific issue, such as property inheritance and the right to sign a partner`s death certificate and organize their funeral. This point-by-point negotiation would force partners to examine their relationship more closely and to think through in greater detail the implications of entering a partnership agreement. It might lead to a sounder, more enduring commitment".

Sunday, September 15, 2002

A story published today by the Boston Globe reports that since Vermont passed the nation's first civil union law in 2000, debate has raged in Massachusetts over rights for same-sex couples. The state now offers no civil union or marriage options to same-sex couples, and partners of state workers are not given benefits such as health insurance.

With same-sex couples now suing for the right to marry and a conservative group trying to ban same-sex marriage and domestic-partner benefits, the issue will get plenty of attention in the next few years. Candidates for governor offer their positions.

Three gubernatorial candidates, Democrat Robert Reich, Libertarian Carla Howell, and Green Party candidate Jill Stein support same-sex civil marriage, which would bring the advantages of civil unions - including health insurance that even private companies would be required to offer to domestic partners - and some additional benefits: couples would receive federal marriage rights like joint tax filing, and other states would be required to treat them as married couples.

The other candidates for governor oppose same-sex marriage, but all support expanded rights and benefits for same-sex couples. Vermont-style civil unions should be allowed in Massachusetts, according to Democrats Thomas F. Birmingham, Shannon P. O'Brien, and Warren E. Tolman. Anticipating that passage of such a law would be difficult on Beacon Hill, all three would take more gradual steps in the meantime. They would grant same-sex partners of state workers basic domestic-partner benefits, and would give cities and towns the option to do the same if they wish.

While Republican Mitt Romney opposes same-sex marriage and civil unions, he said he is open to other ways for the state to recognize domestic-partner status so couples can receive health benefits and survivors rights.

But he has not offered a specific alternative, and while he wants the state to extend domestic-partner benefits to the domestic partners of state workers, he said other priorities - including restoring Medicaid cuts - must come first.