Comments on: In Defense of D.C.’s Domestic Partnerships

By: D.C. Gay Marriage Bill Preserves Domestic Partnerships - The Sexist - Washington City Paper

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:12:24 +0000

[...] month, I argued against the provision in the D.C. same-sex marriage bill that would phase out domestic partnerships. In short: A lot of [...]

By: Dupont High Heel Race Gets Political - The Sexist - Washington City Paper

Dupont High Heel Race Gets Political - The Sexist - Washington City Paper — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:20:30 +0000

[...] It’s unclear why the permit switcheroo was necessary—the parade has run for years with street closures and a police presence. Whatever the rationale, the designation may help drum up support for a pending bill that would recognize same-sex marriages in the District of Columbia. So, who’s running for domestic partnerships? [...]

By: BobinDC

BobinDC — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 15:03:47 +0000

@Hawke,The bill isn't in Catania's control. It was referred to the COmmittee on Public Safety and the Judiciary. So if you want to have the is section repealled, please contact Committee Chair Phil Mendelson. Feel free to let David Catania know that he added a bad section to an important bill, but Catania isn't actually a position to amend it.

I expect that by the time the bill gets through the committee, this provision will be stripped out.

By: Alternatives to Marriage

Alternatives to Marriage — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 20:27:16 +0000

The Alternatives to Marriage Project will be submitting testimony explaining why it would be a mistake to discontinue the domestic partnership registry. For more information go to http://www.unmarried.org or contact ngrist@unmarried.org.

By: Sex and the Ivy » Jessica Valenti, Weddings, & Social Expectations

Sex and the Ivy » Jessica Valenti, Weddings, & Social Expectations — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 00:20:37 +0000

[...] then, that the marriage equality movement ignores people like me, who run the risk of losing domestic partnership benefits altogether if same-sex marriage is legalized en masse. The line of reasoning is that if everyone could get [...]

By: DB

DB — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:19:36 +0000

As a former civilly unioned hetero, it is the only status that i would ever consider. i've no interest in inviting the state to regulate the dissolution of my partnership (via divorce court), or imitating Christian sacraments.

DC's civil union is one of the most progressive in the country, and i was quite proud to live in a jurisdiction that respected them.

I'll call Catania today. Hopefully he'll get it.

By: Mike Hawke

Mike Hawke — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:34:27 +0000

I just posted a letter to Catania's web site, suggesting that he drop the clause about (doing away with) domestic partnerships.

I suggest any DC residents who agree do the same, before Tuesday. He's a politician, and elected at-large too. He very well may listen if enough people contact his office over the weekend.

By: adams morgan girl

adams morgan girl — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:02:11 +0000

I really like this article, it hits on a note of the importance of domestic partnerships, not just for homosexual couples but beyond that.

I always saw it as a way that two best friends/roommates could get health insurance, and all the legal benefits of partnerships without any religious or sexual connotations.

It will be a shame if this passes.

By: The New Cronies: Loose Lips Daily - City Desk - Washington City Paper

The New Cronies: Loose Lips Daily - City Desk - Washington City Paper — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:03:22 +0000

[...] Amanda Hess makes the case for D.C. to keep domestic partnerships if gay marriage is legalized. ‘[F]or some couples, both gay and straight, the symbolic [...]

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 03:51:31 +0000

I have no problem with domestic partnerships existing alongside marriage;however there is no uniform definition or recognition of dps at the moment and legally speaking marriage is the gold standard.When DOMA is finally repealed maybe there will be movement on making dps legally equivalent to marriage - let's hope so.Speaking for myself I found it incredibly moving to be legally married to my spouse of then 10 yrs(16+ now!!!) and be recognized as a legitimate couple.I'm secular & don't especially feel the need for societal approval,yet... It truly was an emotional moment.At some level I believe most of us want our relationships to be respected & seen as equal and at this point and time marriage has clout that other designations lack.

By: Former Staffer

Former Staffer — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:19:45 +0000

As an athiest, I would prefer a domestic partnership to a marriage any day.

By: JoPo

JoPo — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:52:01 +0000

This is a really helpful post. It's great to see the arguments for other forms of legal recognition laid out, especially in a time when people who care about LGBTQ rights are encouraged to get unquestioningly behind the newest opportunity for equal rights (or assimilation, depending on how you see it).

It would be interesting to include other initiatives that aren't on the table right now: "fixing" the institution of marriage by making it tied only to religious ceremony but not legally binding, removing marriage/domestic partnership incentives altogether to avoid penalizing singles, etc.

By: Victor

Victor — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:56:08 +0000

As a straight individual I can say I think that marriage should not be a legal institution. There is too much religious baggage. Couples should be able to identify their partnership in some legal manner (such as existing civil unions) and this should be the ONLY legally recognized unions. This way, churches can go and marry whoever they want, and recognize or not recognize anyone's marriage without any legal ramifications. Non-religious individuals can choose to just get a civil union, and religious individuals can top it off with a religious marriage of their choosing.

By: Lena

Lena — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:18:02 +0000

Thanks for the great piece, which addresses a seldom discussed topic in the fight for marriage equality. There are plenty of people, including those who are straight, who will want to continue to opt out of marriage regardless of whether it becomes a more equal legal institution.