IT has posted a very interesting piece at THE FRIENDS OF JAKE which I think many of you may want to read and comment on. She begins:

Not all gay people are thrilled about marriage equality. There is a distinct group that likes things the way they are. They are happy with domestic partnerships, and are worried that if marriage is legal, the status of DP will be eliminated. (In most states, DPs are not available to straight couples). They decry the idea that gay couples should be treated like straights, and required to marry if they want benefits like partner coverage. Instead, they think that DPs should be an option for everyone, straight or gay.



  1. Pedant that I am, the phrase “You can’t have your cake and eat it” is utterly meaningless. Of course you can have your cake and eat it, or not eat it, or put it in a tin, or throw it to the dog … whatever.

    What you can’t do is “eat your cake and still have it” which is the correct phrasing, but one which nobody uses.

    (wv is “skills” which is really quite apt for this pedant’s comment!)

  2. I disagree…the phrase “You can’t have (hang on to) your cake AND eat it too.” Makes perfectly good sense – meaning you can’t have something both ways…

  3. Cake-eating aside, I don’t really see the need for DPs and marriage, too.

    Yes, the “Institution of Marriage”, apart from hetero-exclusivity, has its problems. I don’t see those problems being solved by an additional form of Official Coupling, however. Nor do I want to see society’s socio-economic ills solved by Official Coupling (any two people designating each other, in order to get insurance benefits or whatever). SINGLE people (said JCF-alone) should get those benefits, too!

    If two people want to get Civilly Married, but then not be sexually exclusive (for example), that’s their business. I don’t see the need for an additional DP status for that, either.

    I basically don’t get it (though pre-existing DPs should, of course, be left as is).

  4. I agree, JCF. But I left a comment at IT’s site suggesting that there should be more security for those sharing accommodation together. I’m not on about tax breaks here. I’m more interested in security of tenure after the death of one of the partners. I also think that friends should be able to legally allow each other the same rights of access to information etc. that a family member would get at a hospital and the such like. I think domestic partnership is a fine name for such a thing, but I’m not fussy.

  5. If I ruled the world, or at least the US, the rule would be that a couple can get a registered partnership. If they chose to do some religious thing called a “wedding” or “blessing” or whatever else (cf. “broom leaping”) then that is fine but of no legal interest. If they decide for some reason that they need to break off that partnership, then they could file for the “dissolution of a registered partnership.” The gender of the parties would in no way impact the formation or dissolution.


  6. I like the Italian version of the having-cake-and-eating-it-too proverb:

    una bottiglia di piena una moglie ubriaca!

    A full bottle and a drunken wife!

    …or in some cases, husband.