Prior to the Supreme Court decision some employers (including my own) extended health insurance benefits to same sex domestic partnerships (but it was not required) but did not extend them to different sex partnerships. Since that decision my employer has ceased providing benefits for partnerships at all regardless of genders.
There's reasons folks would do this over a marriage including, like a friend of mine, simply not believing that marriage should be a thing the government should be involved in.
Yes. Ironically it was created as a "fallback position" to full-on marriage for non-straight people. For the sake of equality it had to apply to everyone of course, though. You get many of the rights of marriage such as mutual health coverage, visitation rights etc... But without all the cruft.
In what jurisdiction is this? How do you enter such a relationship? How does dissolution work in such a relationship? What sort of "cruft" does marriage have that a "domestic partnership" lack? Also does this "legal arrangement" carry over to other jurisdictions? And assuming we are talking about the US isn't "mutual health coverage" decided by the employer or plan administrator? I know Tricare does not allow sponsors to enroll non-married partners, for example.
I live in NY, USA, I don't know about other areas.
I did find this while googling the Tricare thing: "The military does not recognize Common Law marriages or domestic partners unless they are legally married." I don't know if this applies equally to same-sex and opposite-sex partners, though, but being a US vet of 4 years in the USAF, I'm not terribly surprised if that's true, although it looks like the courts are slowly coming around.
> How do you enter such a relationship?
Signing a single piece of paper at the office of your local government
> How does dissolution work in such a relationship?
You sign another single piece of paper at the office of your local government. No lawyers necessary.
> What sort of "cruft" does marriage have that a "domestic partnership" lack?
Oh, where do I begin? The history of marriage is mostly the story of men owning women. Marriage is perversely incentivized against if the male has a vastly disproportionate net worth from his would-be spouse (this is the case in my case). Marriage has a 30-50% failure rate despite the fact that 100% of people, on their wedding day, would never imagine getting a divorce in a million years (why else would you get married and toss away all future romantic options, right?)... This speaks to a certain lack of realistic behavior on the part of humans who engage in it. Marriage dissolution is biased in favor of women and especially against fathers (see this Everyday Feminism article on it http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/08/bias-against-fathers/). The difficulty of entering and escaping a marriage to begin with perversely incentivizes taking your partner for granted, being lazy about keeping up your appeal, and generally being a worse person than you'd have to be if your partner could easily escape the arrangement at any point. Enforced sexual exclusivity (as opposed to sexual exclusivity by daily choice) perversely incentivizes lust for others outside the relationship. Weddings themselves are a giant waste of money and the marriage success rate is inversely proportional to the amount spent on them. Diamonds are only valuable because of a DeBeers monopoly and marketing campaign, and until recently had a lot of blood on their hands (to be fair, though, I did get her a fat-ass diamond ring, because she wanted SOME indicator of our commitment. I acquiesced to this silly trinket, because she insisted it would make her happier. Which it did. lol.)
I am generally of the opinion that financial incentives to marry are terrible. I have a low opinion of financial incentives to begin with (despite being successful in this regard, I have always prioritized financial incentives last... perhaps an entrepreneurial privilege); an institution that is supposedly romantic should not be tainted with financial interests.
Lastly, Steph and I once started a discussion about a potential prenup in a hypothetical marriage and within 5 seconds after throwing out a single figure, we got into a fight, so I tabled it indefinitely and said let's just do a DP instead.
Anyway, I'm an engineer. Parts with anything more than a 1% failure rate get replaced. Would you drive a car that had a 30-50% chance of putting you in a serious accident? How about a medical procedure that had a 30-50% chance of maiming you? If not, then why in the name of all that is good and rational would you roll the dice on marriage?
Steve Jobs believed with all his heart that his all-fruit diet would cure his pancreatic cancer. Steve Jobs is also no longer with us. Perhaps it's time to let the science and the data speak to us, instead of engaging in irrational flights of fancy. It seems to be working in every other area of life where it's applied...
I honestly think marriage should be a celebration you achieve AFTER being together for (say) 15 years. THEN you have a right to celebrate. But I don't make the rules, sadly. ;)
> Also does this "legal arrangement" carry over to other jurisdictions?
I don't know. Don't really intend to move elsewhere in the foreseeable future.
> And assuming we are talking about the US isn't "mutual health coverage" decided by the employer or plan administrator?
That's possible. It's working in our arrangement and with our jobs.
We also saw a lawyer about creating a will that mentioned each other, btw.
I'm not sure what the history of marriage has to do with civil marriage today, it's irrelevant.
You can say the same thing about relationships in general, why date someone if there's a very good you'd break up (most relationships are unsuccessful)? Why be friends with anyone when everyone will eventually die? Why get a dog when there's a 99.9% they will die before you? Why start a business when most fail? See how stupid that sounds? If we don't take risks we never get rewards.
What makes you think divorce requires lawyers? It doesn't unless the two parties can't agree. Seriously, my husband didn't have a lawyer for his divorce and neither did his ex wife. His divorce was a fill-in-the-blanks piece of paper. It was just as simple as can be, the only difference was the 7 Month waiting period. Literally, fill out a 2 page paper, judge signs off on it.
If "domestic partner" and you don't agree on your separation lawyers will have to be involved anyways. Happened to a friend of mine. Not being married didn't keep him out of court when him and his ex girlfriend didn't agree on child support and division of property. Buy a house with your girlfriend and you break up and can't agree on what to do with the house? Court. Have kids together and can't agree on custody? Court.
Medical coverage is irrelevant because employees and plan organizers decide on who their plan covers. Medical decisions can be accomplished with a living will and medical directive. Your "domestic partnership" isn't going to work outside of your city and you could get injured while travelling so you're going to need those anyways. You still need a will for inheritance... So I don't see a single benefit.
After gay marriage was legalized in all states there's exactly a -ZERO- percentage probability that the military is going to start enrolling non spouses. Guaranteed. The military is not in the business of providing benefits to people who are not even trustworthy enough to make their relationship legal.
I totally understand why someone would not want to get married. I can't understand why someone would want a fake "marriage."... but whatever.
Windsor vs the United States was based on inheritance taxes
Prior to the Supreme Court decision some employers (including my own) extended health insurance benefits to same sex domestic partnerships (but it was not required) but did not extend them to different sex partnerships. Since that decision my employer has ceased providing benefits for partnerships at all regardless of genders.
There's reasons folks would do this over a marriage including, like a friend of mine, simply not believing that marriage should be a thing the government should be involved in.