11 May Domestic Partner Registries: A Stepping Stone to Same-sex Marriage
Domestic Partner Registries: A Stepping Stone to Same-sex Marriage
Vice is a monster of so frightful mien, as to be hated, needs but to be seen; yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, we first endure, then pity, then embrace. -ALEXANDER POPE
Britain is on the verge of instituting same-sex marriage. Today, Prime Minister Gordon Brown resigned and it has been announced that Conservative leader David Cameron will be his predecessor. David Cameron has openly vowed to make same-sex marriage a reality in Britain. This should come as no surprise. Just six years ago (March 2004) Britain instituted civil unions. In the decade that proceeded, municipality after municipality in Britain put in place intermediary steps like domestic partner benefits usually accompanied by the implementation of domestic partner registries.
We see this pattern being rolled out in many countries in Europe as well as in the United States as the gay agenda marches forward. The path to same-sex marriage is usually lined with small stepping stones:
1. Psychological association’s remove same-sex behavior from their diagnostic manuals; it is no longer deemed a dysfunction.
2. Popular media promotes acceptance of same-sex behavior, culture begins to internalize same-sex normalization propaganda.
3. Anti-sodomy laws are removed from the statutes or are declared unconstitutional (i.e., Lawrence v. Texas)
4. Domestic Partner Benefits begin to emerge in corporations and businesses sympathetic to the gay agenda.
5. Domestic Partner Registries and domestic partner benefitsare pushed in municipalities.
6. Domestic Partner Benefits are offered by the state. Here’s the mind set: Since homosexuals are now receiving legal recognition and some private and public sector benefits, what’s wrong with giving them something more substantial?
7. Civil Unions
8. Same-sex Marriage
In today’s alert we’d like to shed some light on the notion of “domestic partner registries” and some on “domestic partner benefits” and why they’re a bad idea for your community.
What is a Domestic Partner Registry?
A city sets up a “registry” where the “couple” pays a fee and then they are officially listed as domestic partners. They are issued an official card declaring their status. Requirements to become domestic partners generally include: partners share a common residence, are in a committed relationship, share some responsibility for each other’s common welfare, neither partner is married to a third party nor in another domestic partnership arrangement, at least 18 years old and competent to enter into a contract, and are not related to one another by blood closer than would bar marriage under state law.
A domestic partner registry has the legal effect of creating an imitation marriage for persons who are unwilling to marry or who are ineligible to marry under state law. The registry is often sold as a way for businesses to verify which couples are eligible for their offering of domestic partner benefits or as a benefit to homosexual couples to secure hospital visitation rights. In the case of the latter, U.S. federal law already grants such visitation rights.
Two Categories of “partners”
Heterosexual Domestic Partners
Your first thought should be: “If a heterosexual couple wants benefits of marriage, then get married!” Although actual heterosexual lobby groups for domestic partner registries are few, it doesn’t stop heterosexual couple benefits from being touted as a reason for instituting a domestic partner registry or for demanding domestic partner benefits. Gay advocates know it is easier to sell domestic partner registries to the general public if they push the cohabiting heterosexual couple angle.
Is giving legal recognition and benefits to cohabitating couples (couples who “live together”) a good thing? There is a wealth of empirical data and studies that show that cohabiting relationships are less stable and more burdensome on society in matters of child welfare, health care, drugs and alcohol, poverty, domestic violence and crime. See below for a list of relevant research. Are you a businessman? Please visit Corporate Research Council to get some facts on why offering domestic partner benefits is a bad idea. Since Cohabitation is not something that benefits society, it is not something that businesses or a community do well to encourage.
Homosexual Domestic Partners
In addition to sending a message to the public that alternative relationships are good for society, the push by gay advocates to have municipalities set up domestic partner registries is a well-known first step toward their ultimate goal: the full validation of homosexual behavior via legalized same-sex marriage.
“Sexual relations between members of the same sex expose gays, lesbians and bisexuals to extreme levels of sexually transmitted disease, mental disorders and a shortened life span.” Go here to get more information.
Coming soon to your town!
The most common way that the domestic partner registry scheme is originated and then pushed is through a city’s human rights council, diversity council, or cultural council. The names vary. These councils are usually comprised of community volunteers who are elected or more often than not, appointed by the city leadership.
These types of councils have gained great popularity with municipalities over the last decade and are perceived as the “progressive” thing for a community to engage in. What seems to be a benign attempt to help a community meld and integrate through multi-cultural events like world fairs, however, is also the seedbed for much mischief.
What Can We Do?
Be involved! Stop these councils from being formed to further agendas destructive to the family. Make sure if these councils are set up in YOUR community, they are promoting worthwhile cultural programs that truly benefit family values and the community good. If they’re already in place, get on these councils or help someone who shares your viewpoint get on them. Apply to be on these councils; you cannot afford to ignore them. When your elected officials are running for office, ask them if they support domestic partner benefits and registries. If you see the domestic partner scheme being proposed, speak up and actively work to defeat it.
Strong traditional marriage benefits individuals and society as a whole: economically, physically, and emotionally; something that alternative relationships cannot match. It is a grave injustice if individuals and government ignore the unique and proper place of husbands and wives, the crucial importance of married mothers and fathers, and especially the rights of children, who deserve from society a clear understanding of marriage” not some destructive substitute–as they grow to maturity. Marriage matters!
United Families International has aided citizens from several municipalities in their battle to stop domestic partner registries. Please contact us, if we can share our information, answer your questions, or be of service to you. We at UFI, acknowledge all your past effort to support the family and encourage you to continue to stay vigilant and dedicated. Thanks for all you do.
Stand up for the family, marriage, and traditional values by supporting UFI!
Studies on Impact of Cohabiting Relationships
Unmarried parents are five times more likely to break up than married parents. Henry Benson, Bristol Community Trust, drawing from British data from the Office of National Statistics; sourced from Alexandra Frean, “Unmarried Families Are More Likely to fall Apart,” The London Times February 5, 2005.
The instability of cohabiting families is revealed in the statistics showing that “nearly half of cohabiting mothers have ended their relationship with their child’s father by the time their children are three years old.” Sara McLanahan, “Diverging Destinies: How Children Are Faring Under the Second Demographic Transition,” Demography 41 (2004): 607-627.
A study of adolescents convicted of homicide in adult court found that at the time of the crimes 43 percent of their parents had never been married, 30 percent were divorced and nine percent were separated. Patrick Darby, Wesley Allan, Javad Kashani, Kenneth Hartke and John Reid, “Analysis of 112 Juveniles Who Committed Homicide: Characteristics and a Closer Look at Family Abuse,” Journal of Family Violence 13 (1998): 365-374.
Adolescents suspended or expelled from school: 41 percent of cohabiting-couple stepfamilies, 39 percent from single mother homes, 30 percent married couple stepfamilies, 18 percent married mother/father families. Wendy Manning and Kathleen Lamb, “Adolescent Well-Being in Cohabiting, Married and Single-Parent Families,” Journal of Marriage and Family 65 (2003): 876-893.
Children whose parents are married are healthier, have higher educational attainment and are less likely to be on welfare, or involved in crimes and drugs. Patrick Fagan, “Perception Correction for Congress: New Study Indicates Poor Parents Want to Marry,” Heritage Foundation, October 2001.
Evidence suggests that the least safe of all environments for children is that in which the mother is living with someone other than the child’s biological father. This is the environment for the majority of children in cohabiting couple households.David Popenoe and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, “Should We Live Together? What Young Couples Need to Know about Cohabitation Before Marriage,” National Marriage Project, 1999.
A British study found that children living with cohabiting biological parents who are unmarried are 20 times more likely to be abused and children whose mother lives with a boyfriend who is not the biological father are 33 times more likely to be abused than children living with married biological parents.
Robert Whelan, “Broken Homes and Battered Children, 1993. Patrick Fagan and Kirk Johnson, “Marriage: The Safest place for Women and Children,” The Heritage Foundation, Backgrounder Report no. 1535, 10 April, 2002, p. 3.
Children in cohabiting households tend to have more emotional and behavioral problems, such as not getting along with peers, experiencing difficulty in concentration and feeling sad or depressed. Among adolescents ages 12-17, the percentage of those exhibiting emotional and behavioral problems was six times greater in cohabiting stepfamilies than in married biological-parent families. Susan Brown, “Child Well-being in Cohabiting Families,” in Alan Booth and Ann Crouter, eds., Just Living Together: Implications of Cohabitation on Families, Children, and Social Policy (New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002), 173-187.
Fifty-two percent of births to unmarried women in 2001 occurred within a live-in relationship. Highly educated women are much less likely to give birth outside of marriage: 7 percent of women with a college degree or higher gave birth outside marriage, compared with 53 percent of women with a high school diploma. Lisa Mincieli et al., “The Relationship Context of Births Outside Marriage: The Rise of Cohabitation.” Child Trends Research Brief, Publication #2007-13. http://www.childtrends.org/Files//Child_Trends-2007_05_14_RB_OutsideBirths.pdf Steven P. Martin and Sangeeta Parashar, “Women’s Changing Attitudes Toward Divorce, 1974-2002: Evidence for an Educational Crossover,” Journal of Marriage and Family 68 (2006): 29-40.
Individuals who are not continuously married have significantly lower wealth than those who remain married throughout the course of life. Overall, unmarried adults experience a 63-percent reduction in total wealth relative to those who are married. Breaking it down further, researchers reported the following wealth reductions: 77 percent for those who were separated, 75 percent for those never married, 73 percent for those who divorced, 58 percent for those cohabiting and 45 percent for those who were widowed. Janet Wilmoth and Gregor Koso, “Does Marital History Matter? Marital Status and Wealth Outcomes Among Preretirement Adults,” Journal of Marriage and Family 64 (2002): 254-268.
Annual rates of depression among cohabiting couples are more than three times what they are among married couples. Lee Robins and Darrel Reiger, Psychiatric Disorders in America. (New York: Free Press, 1990): 72. Susan Brown, “The Effect of Union Type on Psychological Well-Being: Depression among Cohabitors versus Marrieds,” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 41 (2000).
“[D]ivorce without remarriage, or long lasting cohabitation without formal marriage, reduces the lifetime sum of subjective well-being by 4-12 percent for both men and women.” M. D. R. Evans and Jonathan Kelley, “Effect of Family Structure on Life Satisfaction: Australian Evidence,” Social Indicators Research 69 (2004): 303-349.
A study of 17 nations found that married men and women reported higher levels of happiness than cohabiting couples.Steven Stack and Ross Eshleman, “Marital Status and Happiness: A 17-Nation Study,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 60 (1998): 527-530.
Compared to married couples, cohabitants report more frequent disagreements, more violence and less happiness with their relationships. Susan Brown and Alan Booth, “Cohabitation Versus Marriage; A Comparison of Relationship Quality,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 58 (1996): 668-678.
Cohabiting parents are more likely to be covered by Medicaid than are married-parent families (36 percent vs. 15 percent).Thomas DeLeire and Ariel Kalil, “How Do Cohabiting Couples with Children Spend Their Money?” Journal of Marriage and Family 67 (2005): 291.
For more information see: UFI’s “Cohabitation vs. Marriage” Guide to Family Issues