Photo by aprilzosia/flickr.com
I was disappointed to read that gubernatorial candidate Susana Martinez would not support signing domestic partnership legislation into state law. According to the New Mexico Independent, Martinez said, “I don’t think (domestic partnership legislation) is necessary. It is not a law I would sign.”
Domestic partnership legislation is necessary because it is wrong to withhold the rights, benefits and obligations of legally-recognized familyhood from couples who don’t match some people’s ideological view of what a family should look like. Until all families, whatever their composition, enjoy the same rights as traditional married couples we are not fulfilling our obligation to stand up for equal rights for all.
What domestic partnership means
According to Equality New Mexico, a domestic partner advocacy group, here are some key rights, benefits and obligations the legislation would confer upon domestic partners:
- To visit one’s partner in the hospital
- Eligibility to share employer benefits
- To take family leave to care for a sick partner, a partner’s ailing child or parent
- To determine disposition of partner’s remains and make funeral arrangements
- To inherit from and/or be automatically designated the personal representative of a domestic partner’s estate if he or she dies without a will
- To make both parents responsible for financial support for the children, in the case of a dissolution
- To have courts resolve custody and visitation disputes between both parents, in the case of a dissolution
Domestic partner advocates emphasize that the legislation is written to protect all unmarried couples in a partnership, which includes same-sex as well as opposite-sex partners.
Brief history of domestic partnership legislation in New Mexico
Domestic partner legislation passed the N.M. House in 2007 but has stalled out in the N.M. Senate ever since. Most recently the legislation was tabled in the Senate Finance Committee during the 2010 Legislative session after the committee decided that it was, according to the New Mexico Independent, “too much to take on.” As a result, same and opposite-sex partners are still deprived of, according to the Albuquerque Journal, 370 rights or benefits granted to married people under state law.
Couples in a committed partnership deserve the same rights as married couples. Under current law, that’s not the case. This discrimination and inequality is why domestic partnership legislation is necessary and must be passed and signed.
The opposition
There has been heated opposition to domestic partnerships, with most of the push back coming from religious leaders and conservatives who fear that domestic partnerships create a steppingstone to gay marriage. According to the Albuquerque Journal, domestic partnership opponent Archbishop Michael Sheehan contends that “the church ‘stands strongly for traditional marriage and family life.’” Furthermore, in 2008, Republican State Representative Nora Espinoza said:
“If this bill passes, courts will not be able to favor traditional families involving one man and one woman over a homosexual couple in matters of adoption.”
It seems to me that it is not the role of the court to protect “traditional families” but rather to protect the rights of people who are being discriminated against. As Democratic State Representative Antonio “Moe” Maestas said (as quoted in the Las Cruces Sun-News):
“Is this bill contrary to God, contrary to marriage? And the answer is no. Not a single married couple in this state will get divorced because of this bill. Not a single couple that is engaged… will cancel that wedding as a result of this bill. Not a single straight person will become gay as a result of this bill.”
An awkward position
Martinez doesn’t elaborate but I wonder how she justifies her argument that domestic partnerships are unnecessary. Married couples receive rights, benefits and obligations that unmarried couples or couples who don’t have the option to marry cannot by law receive. Martinez must see the inconsistency there.
Unfortunately for her, she’s in an awkward position since she’s trying to garner the support of not only conservatives who feel that domestic partnerships endanger marriage but also moderates who are much more committed to equal rights for domestic partners. By arguing that domestic partner legislation isn’t necessary, she hopes to sidestep the issue.
But domestic partnership legislation won’t go away precisely because it is necessary. As long as married couples enjoy 370 more rights and benefits than unmarried partners, our laws are discriminatory.
Domestic partnership is not marriage
Although I support full marriage equality for gay couples, domestic partnership advocates note that — despite the claims of the opposition — domestic partnership legislation is not marriage. To that effect, the latest legislation before the Senate stated: “domestic partnership means a legal relationship that is not marriage.” The legislation was specifically designed to provide legal benefits and protection to unmarried partners, regardless of the nature of their partnership. For instance, my neighbors as a child in Albuquerque were two women, one widowed and the other never married. With this legislation, they could form a partnership to share assets and responsibilities as well as manage each others’ end-of-life decisions.
An issue of fairness
My oldest friend – I’ve known him since we were in preschool – is gay and in a committed, long-term relationship, and I insist that he has the same rights that I do. If we live in a society where one group’s prejudices are reinforced by government policy, everyone’s rights are endangered.
Despite what Martinez says, a domestic partnership law is necessary – not only for the unmarried partners who need them but also because they fulfill our obligation to create communities built on fairness and equality.
Nick Voges is the blogger behind NMPolitics.net’s Zeitgeist. E-mail him at nick@nmpolitics.net.