Six reasons why mandating Domestic Partner benefits for state employees is a bad idea

Reason #1:  Homosexual domestic partner benefits are marriage by another name.              

• The requirements for domestic partnerships are almost identical to the qualifications for marriage under Minnesota statutes 517.01 and 517.03.  A domestic partner, like a married spouse, cannot be a blood relative, or a minor, or someone already married or someone mentally incapable of consent.  The only difference is the same-sex requirement.  Domestic partnerships are simply marriage by another name.
• The purpose of our Defense of Marriage Law was to protect our state from being required to recognize same-sex marriages from other states and clarify that marriage is between one man and one woman.  This domestic partner requirement directly subverts the state policy on marriage.

Reason #2:  Homosexual domestic partner benefits are unfair and discriminatory towards existing families.

• Domestic partner benefits are proposed for homosexual partners of state employees while excluding coverage for sick parents, disabled adult children, or an incapacitated adult sibling for whom the employee provides care and support.  This is unfair and discriminatory towards existing family members.  

Reason #3:  It would provide homosexual partners of state and local government employees special benefits and treat them better than married spouses.

• State law requires a married person to financially support his or her spouse.  It’s reasonable for the state to provide health benefits to married spouses and their children because the employee has a legal duty to care for these persons financially.  
• A homosexual domestic partner, however, has no such legal duty.  Granting homosexual employees these domestic partner benefits means they would receive a special benefit.  They would receive benefits from the government without any legal responsibility to care for their partners. 

Reason #4:  Domestic partner benefits are part of an “incremental” strategy to obtain homosexual marriage in Minnesota.

• “The reform towards gay marriage should continue incrementally and with strong preference that it moves legislatively.  That is, state legislatures should generally begin by taking moderate steps toward recognition that fall short of marriage.”  --Professor Dale Carpenter, University of Minnesota Law School
• In states that legalized domestic partnerships or civil unions, supporters of same-sex marriage declared them to be a “down payment” and a “stepping stone” towards full marriage status.

Reason #5:  Domestic partner benefits would undermine Minnesota’s current marriage law.

• State supreme courts in Vermont, New Jersey and Massachusetts used, as part of their argument for imposing same-sex marriage or civil unions on those states, the existence of legal benefits and rights to same-sex couples granted by their state legislatures.  Thus, domestic partner benefits authorized by the state legislature would expose Minnesota’s marriage law to a legal challenge.  Legislative support of domestic partner benefits encourages support for same-sex marriage.

 Reason #6:  Passing a domestic partnership legislation is not a compromise.

• “The expansion of domestic partner rights and responsibilities has addressed some of the inequities, but it is no substitute for marriage.”   Editor, San Francisco Chronicle, July 2005
• “Domestic partnerships are not enough, civil unions are not enough. In the next two years, we'll be husband and husband, wife and wife!”  -- Steven Goldstein, Garden State Equality, February 2007
• Last year, many legislators said they supported marriage as between one man and one woman.  It’s time to call on them to demonstrate that support and vote against Domestic Partnership benefits for homosexual couples.