[ Return to APA Home Page ]

A Message from
    the National Office

Guidelines for Submissions

APA NEWSLETTERS
    Philosophy and the Black
    Experience
        Jesse Taylor, Editor
    Philosophy and Computers
        Jon Dorbolo, Editor
    Feminism and Philosophy
        Joan Callahan, Editor
    Hispanic/Latino Issues in
    Philosophy
        Linda Alcoff, Comm. Chair
    Philosophy and Law
        Richard Nunan, Editor
    Philosophy and Lesbian,
    Gay, Bisexual and
    Transgender Issues
        Timothy Murphy, Editor
    Philosophy and Medicine
        Rosamond Rhodes, Editor
    Teaching Philosophy
        Tziporah Kasachkoff &
        Eugene Kelly, Co-Editors

Navigation
   
Newsletters Index (99:2)
    apaOnline Home Page

 

APA Newsletters
Spring 2000
Volume 99, Number 2


Newsletter on Philosophy and Law

Abstracts:
Recent Law Review Articles of Interest

Previous | Next


Christensen, Craig W. "If not Marriage? On Securing Gay and Lesbian Family Values by a ‘Simulacrum of Marriage’," 66 Fordham Law Review 1733 (1998)

A fascinating review of what has—and hasn’t—been done in various jurisdictions in this country and in Europe (especially Hawaii and Denmark) with respect to the strategy of affording same-sex couples a formalized civil substitute for a marriage license: so-called registered partnerships or domestic partnerships. Perhaps the most intriguing element in Christiansen’s review is his account of the nature and legislative history of Hawaii’s brand of domestic partnership law, styled a "reciprocal beneficiary relationship."

Compared to other domestic efforts, the scope of Hawaii’s domestic partnership law is positively breathtaking. There the participation in public employee spousal and family benefit plans is statewide, and goes beyond health care to include participation as beneficiaries in the public employee retirement system. The law has analogous provisions requiring most private employers to extend spousal and family health care plans to employees’ domestic partners and their children, although these provisions are currently under attack in the federal courts. In addition, Hawaii’s law secures for registered domestic partners some inheritance rights, workers’ compensation survivor benefits, the right to pursue wrongful death suits, and domestic abuse protections.

On the other hand, the action of Hawaii’s legislature falls well short of the Governor’s Commission recommendation it professed to follow, under which domestic partners "shall have the same rights and obligations under the law that are conferred on spouses in a marriage relationship," for which the Commission suggested an elegantly simple implementation strategy: require that the term "‘domestic partner’ shall be included in any definition or use of the terms ‘spouse,’ ‘family,’ ‘immediate family,’ or ‘dependent’ as those terms are used throughout the law." What the state legislature offered was far less global. In particular, it balked at addressing the issue of joint taxation (which is sometimes advantageous for couples, and sometimes not), at expanding spousal testimonial privileges in criminal and civil trials, at the question of financial support or distribution of property at the termination of a domestic partnership, and at securing legal support for domestic partners as potential parents, even though such a support network is already in place for heterosexual parents. This article provides interesting background with respect to what might be unfolding in Vermont over the next year. (See Editor’s Introduction.)


Previous | Next


Copyright 2000, The American Philosophical Association.
Last revised: May 16, 2001