Coming soon to your town: Domestic Partner Registries

By Carol Soelberg

In cities and counties across the country we are hearing of efforts being made to implement domestic partnership registries as a means to “satisfy the needs” of homosexual couples who can not be legally married.  While these communities are committed to families and children, many individuals don’t realize that such a registry is not only unnecessary, but has the unintended consequence of undermining marriage and family.

“Domestic partner registries” have the legal effect of creating an imitation marriage status for persons who are unwilling to marry or who are ineligible to marry under state law. It gives some legal recognition to domestic partnerships and cohabitation of the same or opposite sex.  It sends a message that alternative relationships are good for society.  There is a wealth of empirical data and studies that show that domestic partnerships and cohabitation are relationships that are less stable and more burdensome on society in matters of child welfare, health care, drugs and alcohol, poverty, domestic violence and crime.

Proponents of these registries rely heavily on the argument that there is a problem with hospital visitation rights for unmarried couples.  We empathize with these couples’ concerns and their desire for visitation rights, and are glad to report that the Uniform Health-Care Decisions Act passed in 1997  requires hospitals to recognize visitation and surrogate decision-making designations contained in advanced health-care directives.  In the absence of such a directive, the statute requires hospitals to recognize “an individual in a long-term relationship with the patient…with a commitment similar to a spouse.”

This federal provision is especially suitable for meeting all hospital-related needs of unmarried couples whether heterosexual or same-sex.  If hospitals are not complying with this law the solution is in requiring compliance with the existing law—not creating a new and unnecessary ordinance.

If indeed the proposed ordinance is about protecting visitation rights, I hardly think individuals in any type of relationship would choose to go to city hall, fill out paper work for a domestic partner registry and pay the necessary fees when they could go the admitting area of any hospital and for free obtain a Medical Power of Attorney form.  The hospitals will also notarize the form for free if you are planning to be a patient there and some will notarize for free even if you’re not.  A notarized Medical Power of Attorney in your possession is a more reliable instrument, than a name on a registry down at city hall.

The simplicity of this solution—already in place—leaves one to wonder if there are other motives involved in the pursuit of these registries.   Could this be a “bock-door” approach to procuring civil unions and eventually legalizing same-sex marriage?

Strong traditional marriage benefits individuals and society as a whole:   economically, physically, and emotionally; something that alternative relationships cannot match.  I urge all citizens to be aware of efforts being made in your community to obtain such an ordinance. Please encourage members of your City council to devote time and energy to developing policies that are truly necessary AND that support, rather than undermine, marriage.

For information on the impact of cohabiting relationships (“living together”) on both children and adults, go here

For information on the impact of  same-sex behavior and relationships, go here.

Prop. 8 Judge: Federal Judge, or Agenda-Driven Journalist?

The federal judge over the Proposition 8 case, Judge Walker, is acting less like a federal judge, and more like an agenda driven journalist. Walker, who wanted this trial to be posted on YouTube, had his true colors revealed in an LA Times article posted online last night.

The coverage of the case began with lawyers presenting arguments to Judge Walker. To those in support of gay marriage, Walker asked philosophical questions:

Olson (a lawyer in favor of gay marriage) called marriage “one of the most vital personal rights” and a “basic civil right.” Withholding it from gays and lesbians “doesn’t make sense,” he said.

(Rather than asking for a definition of civil rights) U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker asked if the state should simply get out of the business of issuing marriage licenses. (Walker was not seeking any kind of meaningful argument)

“That may solve the problem,” Olson said, but it “would never happen.”

Walker also asked Olson if voters are entitled to pass laws stemming from “moral disapproval,” such as prohibitions on alcohol. (100% philosophical, Olson could reply however he wants without losing credibility)

Olson replied that U.S. history is filled with moral condemnation of people based on their race, gender and ethnicity. Proposition 8, passed by 52.3% of California voters in 2008, perpetuates discrimination “for no good reason,” Olson said.

Absolutely no cross-questioning.

Now look at Judge Walker’s questions for the defense (and all but one paragraph of the defense mentioned in the two-page LA Times article):

Charles J. Cooper, who is representing the Proposition 8 campaign and has argued many cases before the Supreme Court, told Walker that a limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples has “prevailed in virtually every society since early history.” (And this is guaranteed to be the worst argument presented by the defense)

Walker noted that many states once barred interracial marriage (obviously demanding a good argument). Cooper replied that those laws were based on a notion of “white supremacy,” and not on a long-standing tradition.

Cooper said the evidence would show that opposite-sex marriage is good for children, and that the “procreative purpose of marriage” would be “diluted or weakened” if same-sex couples were permitted to marry. (Not a bad argument, but there’s better. See more here)

(Walker then) Asked what evidence exists to show that same-sex marriage would “radically alter the institution of marriage,” (again, acting as the plaintiff, Walker demanded a sensible argument) Cooper replied that data from the Netherlands will show that it leads to a decline in marriage rates. He said it also would lead to more children being raised outside of marriage and higher divorce rates.

As Edwin Meese said in his New York Times Op-Ed, the court has “(Stacked) the deck against Prop. 8.”

Judge Walker’s motives for putting the trial on YouTube may or may not be tainted. No matter the motives, Walker has fashioned the trial in a way that will make the defense look silly.

But maybe putting the trial on YouTube wouldn’t be so bad. I admit:

1.Our modern media works in sound bites, and I’m sure many people won’t not see the extreme bias that fills that San Francisco courtroom.

2. YouTube videos would give Judge Walker a chance to propagate his opinions.

3. Persecution of those defending traditional marriage would likely increase.

But, to allow the trial to be shown on YouTube could also have some advantages:

1. The country will see all the fallacy filled arguments of plaintiff lawyers (not to say the defense hasn’t used any, they have).

2. People will recognize the extreme bias that is framing the trial.

3. The trial is a public display of misused power. Judge Walker is clearly acting against the U.S. judicial oath, which reads:

“I, ________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States.  So help me God.”

There are many definitions of the word respect, feel free to look at them. After reviewing them, it was clear to me that the definition meant in that oath was “favor or partiality.”

Judge Walker’s oath was, “I will administer justice without (favor or partiality) to persons.” His obvious bias is a mockery to the American justice system and the vow that he himself made.

Putting the trial on YouTube wouldn’t be so bad. It would just start a race between propagators and truth-tellers.

And truth always wins.

Washington: A Defeat for the Marriage Movement

After days of ballot counting, the state of Washington officially declared the passage of Referendum 71 by a slim margin of 52% to 48%. This marks a huge defeat for all those who support traditional marriage.

Given the politics of the state of Washington and the fact that our side was down 17% in polling going in to an election day this shows the powerful effect of traditional marriage supporters (people like you) making this a close election vote after it was predicted to be a landslide.

Referendum 71 puts into effect Senate Bill 5688, legalizing same-sex domestic partnership that provide homosexual couples with all the rights and privileges of legal marriage. From this legislation, homosexual activists are only a few small steps away from fully legalizing same-sex marriage.

This loss in Washington should be a call of warning to anyone who believes in the importance of traditional marriage between one man and one woman. We cannot be casual, dismissive or supportive of same-sex domestic partner benefit bills and must fight them with the same dedication we have used in combating same-sex marriage. Domestic partnership rights are a very real threat to marriage and cannot be ignored.

As Randy Thomasson of SaveAmerice.com explains, “The reality is, to fully protect marriage in the law, you must protect marriage licenses, marriage rights, and all legal aspects of marriage. Protecting only marriage licenses, but not marriage rights and marriage benefits, results in man-woman marriages that are devoid of any special or unique legal status. Children need to be raised in a society that respects the exclusive institution of marriage between a man and a woman, with full legal protection of this special relationship.”

Therefore we need to be better prepared to fight domestic partnership benefits wherever they turn up: businesses, school systems, municipalities, or states. If we do not defeat this legislation at every turn, we will slowly hand the definition of marriage to those who would rob it of all meaning.

Referendum 71 does mark a defeat for marriage. But if we learn to be more diligent because of it, it can also signal a renewal in the fight to defend our children and our families.

Washington Vote Too Close To Call

With a huge victory for traditional marriage in Maine yesterday, there is still no final determination on the future of marriage in Washington. The vote on Washington’s Referendum 71 is still too close to call. Most news outlets are reporting that support for the “Everything But Marriage” legislation is currently in the lead and most likely to win. However, before Tuesday, most news outlets were also reporting that the domestic partnership legislation would pass by a landslide. It appears those who believe in the value of traditional marriage came out to ensure their voice was finally heard.

We will keep you updated as the count continues.

Washington: Tomorrow REJECT SB 5688!

Citizens of Washington: A Call To Action

Tomorrow, November 3, citizens will go to the polls to decide the future of marriage in Washington. We need your help to ensure that the people of Washington repeal SB 5688 and defend traditional marriage from those who seek to redefine it. We need you to go to the polls and REJECT Referendum 71.

Last May, Governor Gregoire signed SB 5688 into law in an attempt to open the door for same-sex marriage in Washington. The new law would provide same-sex domestic partnerships with the all the rights and privileges previously designated for only traditional marriage, and it would redefine ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ as gender neutral terms. This is the final step before complete legalization and recognition of same-sex marriage.

Over 100,000 Washington citizens voiced their opposition to this bill and we now have the opportunity to overturn this dangerous legislation and stop this attack on marriage. Tomorrow is our one chance to stand together and reaffirm that Washington believes in traditional marriage between one man and one woman.

If we fail, the new legislation will undermine our state’s Defense of Marriage Act by providing the necessary precedent for same-sex partners to demand the courts override the will of the people and overturn DOMA.

Don’t let this happen. REJECT Ref. 71 to ensure that the people of Washington decide what marriage means in Washington-the union of one man and one woman.

If you don’t stand up for marriage and REJECT Ref. 71, we can no longer ensure that marriage will provide the best environment for nurturing and raising children, that our communities will protect the invaluable roles of husbands and wives, that our state will have the best foundation for a strong society and a bright future.

Rejecting Ref.71 protects traditional marriage and reaffirms the importance of marriage for our children and our society.

So when asked on Tuesday to approve or reject SB 5688, VOTE REJECT.

REJECT this attempt to overrule the people of Washington, REJECT this redefinition of husbands and wives, REJECT this attack on marriage.

Carol Soelberg Stands Up For Marriage In Mesa, AZ

United Families International Vice President of Chapter Development, Carol Soelberg, was featured in a East Valley Tribune article this week defending marriage and speaking against domestic partnership registry in the state.  Carol sent her full remarks to Tribune author Sonu Munshi (listed below).  Munshi took her remarks and wrote a very Pro-domestic partnership registry article with a small spotlight on Carol’s remarks.

Read the Tribune article here.

Carol Soelberg‘s Remarks on Mesa’s Proposed Domestic Partner Registry

The City of Mesa is known as a community committed to families and children.  As a resident of Mesa and a representative of United Families International, I share that commitment and wonder why the city is considering an ordinance that is not only unnecessary, but has the unintended consequence of undermining marriage and family.

This “domestic partner registry” has the legal effect of creating an imitation marriage status for persons who are unwilling to marry or who are ineligible to marry under state law.   This ordinance gives some legal recognition to domestic partnerships and cohabitation of the same or opposite sex.  It sends a message that alternative relationships are good for society.  There is a wealth of empirical data and studies that show that domestic partnerships and cohabitation are relationships that are less stable and more burdensome on society in matters of child welfare, health care, drugs and alcohol, poverty, domestic violence and crime.

Proponents of this bill rely heavily on the argument that there is a problem with hospital visitation rights for unmarried couples.  We understand these couples’ concerns and their desire for visitation rights, but this is a straw man argument.  Since 1997, the Uniform Health-Care Decisions Act requires hospitals to recognize visitation and surrogate decision-making designations contained in advanced health-care directives.  In the absence of such a directive, the statute requires hospitals to recognize “an individual in a long-term relationship with the patient…with a commitment similar to a spouse.”

This federal provision is especially suitable for meeting all hospital-related needs of unmarried couples whether heterosexual or same-sex.  If Mesa, Arizona, hospitals are not complying with this law—and there is no evidence that I’m aware of that they are not—then the solution is in requiring compliance with the existing law—not creating a new and unnecessary ordinance.

If indeed the proposed ordinance is about protecting visitation rights, I am hard pressed to think that individuals in any type of relationship would choose to go to city hall, fill out paper work for a domestic partner registry and pay funds when they could go the admitting area of any Mesa hospital and for free obtain a Medical Power of Attorney form.  The hospitals will also notarize the form for free if you are planning to be a patient there and some will notarize for free even if you’re not.  A notarized Medical Power of Attorney in your possession is a more reliable instrument, than a name on a registry down at city hall.  If this ordinance is about something more than hospital visitation rights then let’s be more forth coming with that information so that it can be openly discussed.

Strong traditional marriage benefits individuals and society as a whole:   economically, physically, and emotionally; something that alternative relationships cannot match.  I urge the members of the City council to devote their time and energy to developing policies that are truly necessary and policies that support, rather than undermine, marriage.

Thank you.

Carol Soelberg
Vice President of Chapter Development
United Families International