Testing the Waters for Civil Unions
Jun 3rd, 2010 by David Anderson
I support allowing members of a household to the right to purchase insurance for other members of their household through their job with their own money. I think it is a public good to allow people to have health and life insurance. I do not support HB 10 because it does not aim at achieving a particular public good, but is an attempt to put into law the concept of spousal equivalent for same sex couples. I have an idea, let people designate whomever they want for their survivor’s pension benefit. If it is their sister who is disabled and is cared for by them or their same sex partner, it is not my money but theirs. I do not need to find out the nature of the relationship. For health insurance purposes, why not go to household insurance? Why not let someone buy it for their 60 year old mother who lives with them or they live with? Why not for their partner or whomever? This bill does very little for freedom of choice.
What this bill does do is lay the ground work for undermining the definition of marriage. It is laws like these that open up equal protection arguments in state courts like Iowa, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. Once you put into law spousal equivalent you open yourself to why some benefits and not others. You open up even the question of marriage. Kill this bill and do a substitute on the grounds I suggest, and it will have far more support. If they do not, we will all know there is a larger agenda.
“(d) For purposes of this Title, a ‘spousal equivalent’ is an adult of the same gender with whom a regular officer, employee or eligible pensioner is in an exclusive, committed relationship and with whom the regular officer, employee or eligible pensioner executes an Affidavit of Spousal Equivalent stating that:
(1) Both parties are at least eighteen (18) years of age;
(2) Neither party is married to another person, or the spousal equivalent, domestic partner or common law spouse of another person;
(3) The parties are not related by blood by a degree that would prevent marriage in Delaware; and
(4) The parties reside together in a common residence and agree to be jointly responsible for the common welfare, basic living expenses and financial obligations of the household as proven by attaching a photo copy to the Affidavit of Spousal Equivalent of one of the following:
(i) a joint deed, mortgage agreement or lease;
(ii) a joint bank account;
(iii) an executed beneficiary form naming the spousal equivalent as a primary beneficiary in the regular officer, employee or eligible pensioner’s life insurance policy or retirement plan;
(iv) an executed will designating one of the persons as a primary beneficiary in the other person’s will; or
(v) a motor vehicle title or registration form denoting joint ownership.
Such documentation shall not be required if the spouse equivalent is a dependent of the regular officer, employee or eligible pensioner, as determined pursuant to regulations adopted by the Office of Management and Budget.
OFF TOPIC:
I am bringing Chief Justice Myron Steele onto the Rick Jensen show today from 1-3 on 1150 AM WDEL.
We will be discussing numerous topics, but mainly will try to take listener calls/questions.
So if you have a burning question to ask Delaware’s top jurist, please join in.
WDEL : 302-478-9335
Thanks for the interruption.
I deleted a comment because it was off topic and unlike TPN’s comment had no compelling reason for the exception. If you notice, I tend to tolerate thread jacking a lot more from named people.
How can a man have another man as a ‘spouse?’
Ridiculous.