Getting married in the United States is fairly easy. One man and one woman must intend to get married, get a blood test, and get a license. There is no proof of cohabitation, no proof of intimate relations, no time limits from your previous marriage. Establishing a domestic partnership, though, is more complex.

In most states, marriage has few requirements. Partners must be old enough to get married (in many states, minors can get married as long as they have parental and/or judicial permission), not be related to each other by blood, and be of opposite sexes. They must also not currently be married to anyone else. Once those conditions are met, the marriage license is easy to obtain.

It can be much more difficult to establish a domestic partnership. In California, the requirements are quite similar to those for marriage; partners must be 18 years old (there is no provision for the marriage of same-sex minors under state law), they must not be related closer than opposite-sex marriage would allow, and they must live together. This last requirement is a bit curious when one considers the reason for its inclusion. What is it about same-sex relationships that requires partners to live together to prove their sincerity? Opposite-sex partners do not have this requirement, even though they frequently do live together before marriage. Could it be that the perception of gay people as promiscuous or non-committal has leaked into law? Why should gay people be required to prove such commitment beyond the level of what straight people must prove? Partners must also be of the same sex unless one or both partners is over the age of 62, at which point they may form an opposite-sex domestic partnership.

The city of San Francisco has rules more strict than the state of California. In addition to living together, partners must share “basic living expenses” (defined as the cost of basic food and shelter). San Francisco law makes clear that partners do not need to contribute equally to basic living expenses, only that they must both contribute. An additional restriction established by San Francisco is any previous partnerships must have been dissolved for at least six months before a new partnership may be established. (There is an exception in the case of the death of a partner.) This limit is also a curious one that makes one question why it was written into law. In most jurisdictions, opposite-sex partners may get married at any time after a divorce is finalized. Again, why are gay people subject to this six-month waiting period? Incidentally, this restriction is not unique to San Francisco - many other jurisdictions and companies require a waiting period, either from the previous marriage/partnership’s end, or from the time the current partners first formed a relationship.

Many entities and jurisdictions require same-sex partners to swear that they intend to remain together for life. While most marriages and registered partnerships probably have this expectation, the need to declare it seems unique to domestic partnerships. Only three states - Louisiana, Arizona, and Arkansas - offer the option of a covenant marriage, which requires participants to declare their intent “to live together as husband and wife forever.” Most other marriages have no such rule, and yet many domestic partnership registries do. Middlebury College, which offers domestic partner benefits to its employees, states that partners must affirm “we are responsible for each other’s welfare and intend to remain so indefinitely,” and health care provider Blue Cross Blue Shield requires partners to avow they are “each other’s sole Domestic Partner and intend to remain so indefinitely and are responsible for our common welfare.” The intent here is obviously to declare that the domestic partnership should be as serious a commitment as marriage, as permanent as marriage - and yet in our current society, marriage is not as serious a commitment as the domestic partnership wording would suggest. Why do gay people have to be “more committed” than straight people? Does this, again, tie into the stereotype of homosexual promiscuity?

An interesting agreement is proposed by Indiana University. In addition to the usual requirements of 18 years of age, not already married/partnered, not related by blood, living together for six months, and six months having passed from a previous domestic partnership, the rules also require applicants be “the same sex and, therefore, prevented from marrying in Indiana.” Even more significant, though, is the statement that applicants “attest that [their] relationship is an exclusive mutual commitment that is the functional equivalent of a marriage.” [emphasis mine] The statement goes on to suggest that this implies a joint responsibility for each other for the necessities of life, and that the applicants “would enter into a legal marriage if the opportunity were available.” In my opinion, this is the best possible wording for a domestic partnership agreement: to imply that it is not only the functional equivalent of marriage, but that it is the alternative to marriage. The Indiana University wording recognizes that gay marriage is not allowed in that state, and specifically emphasizes this point by referencing the opportunity for a legal marriage.

Blue Cross Blue Shield’s agreement, mentioned earlier, also demonstrates an stipulation that is a bit more strict and yet not uncommon. It requires a tangible demonstration of the couple’s commitment to each other, beyond a statement that they are living together or that they intend to remain together. The couple must jointly own a house, vehicle, checking account, or credit account, or must be on a lease together. They must also have designated each other as beneficiaries for their life insurance and/or their wills. This extensive requirement will actually prevent couples from sharing their health insurance, and it is not the only requirement of its type in the world of domestic partnership agreements.

Perhaps the strangest requirement ever seen, though, came from the University of Florida’s recently published rules. The specific wording is that partners must “have been in a non-platonic relationship for the preceding 12 months.” This is exactly what it sounds like: both same-sex and opposite-sex partners applying for domestic partnership health benefits from the University of Florida must sign an affidavit stating that they are having sex. The school’s policy is currently being reconsidered.

This patchwork of requirements and agreements is evidence that a unified national policy is necessary. While it is certainly a step forward from 40 years ago, domestic partnerships still aren’t good enough. As it is now, every agreement is different and same-sex couples cannot depend on always having the rights that they have won in some areas. The fight for equality in marriage continues.

Essay word count: 1105
Additional resources: Lambda Legal on Domestic Partnerships, ACLU: Model Domestic Partnerships.
What’s this? See nonficwrimo.

14,257 / 25,000 (57.0%)