Domestic partnerships
Identification Legal arrangements that involve
two unmarried persons, either of the same or
opposite sexes, in a committed relationship and
that accord some of the rights conferred on
married couples
During the 1990’s, the concept of domestic partnership
raised questions that challenged traditional notions of mar-
riage. Some state legislatures challenged these notions by
passing laws recognizing domestic partnerships, while oth-
ers sought to ban same-sex marriage and its legal recogni-
tion.
During the 1980’s, the concept of domestic partner-
ship had been established in Sweden, initially with
few benefits; Denmark followed with “registered
partnerships,” offering many more rights and privi-
leges. Also in the 1980’s, Berkeley, San Francisco,
West Hollywood, and a few other American cities
permitted registration of domestic partners, albeit
with very limited benefits. A court in California
(1983) and another in New York (1989) allowed a
benefit to a successor when a partner died. Despite
the high medical costs for treating victims of ac-
quired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), which
disproportionately affects gay men, some private
businesses began to offer medical benefits to part-
ners of employees in the 1980’s.
During the 1990’s, there was not only an increase
in the number of authorities accepting domestic
partnerships but also a gradual deepening in the
benefits derived. Nevertheless, the benefits of do-
mestic partnership were far from equivalent at the
end of the 1990’s to the more than one thousand le-
gal benefits derived from opposite-sex marriage. In
1990, the state of California took the lead by institut-
ing a registration of domestic partners, but with no
specific benefits. The law was a shell to which various
rights could later be accorded. In 1992, the District
of Columbia established domestic partnerships, but
the law was in effect nullified when Congress prohib-
ited spending to implement provisions.
Same-Sex Marriage Litigation The most significant
event affecting the concept of domestic partnership
was the Hawaii Supreme Court’s 1993 ruling that
there was no constitutional basis to deny a marriage
license to two persons of the same gender (Baehr v.
Lewin). The basis for the ruling was the state’s earlier
adoption of an equal rights amendment that prohib-
ited discrimination on the basis of gender. After the
ruling, no marriage certificates were issued, because
the Supreme Court required the defendant state of
Hawaii to reargue its case before the trial court to
demonstrate a compelling state interest in not allow-
ing same-sex marriage.
In 1996, the trial court in Hawaii ruled that the
state presented no valid reason to deny same-sex
marriage, but the ruling was again appealed to the
state Supreme Court. In response, Congress that
year passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which
authorized states to refuse to recognize same-sex
marriages legalized in other states and bans federal
recognition. Subsequently, thirty-one states passed
laws banning recognition of same-sex marriages,
while Florida and Mississippi even denied recogni-
tion of domestic partnerships established in other
states.
In 1997, Hawaii’s state legislature passed the Re-
ciprocal Beneficiaries Act (RBA), which allowed
same-sex couples or blood relatives to establish a re-
lationship that provided them with fifty of the bene-
fits accorded to married spouses. A prominent argu-
ment in favor of the law was that elderly Asians, by
tradition, were cared for at home by their last un-
married son or daughter, who by custom would not
marry. An elderly Asian widow or widower and un-
married adult offspring qualified as a couple under
the law, though one was sometimes a dependent of
the other.
In 1998, Hawaii voters adopted a constitutional
amendment banning same-sex marriage. Accord-
ingly, in 1999 the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that
the case appealed from the trial court in 1996 was
moot. Five private employers then sued to limit the
RBA. As a result of out-of-court negotiations, the
RBA’s scope was limited to state government em-
ployees and only a few employers in the private sec-
tor. The most important benefits covered funeral
leave, hospital visitation rights, health insurance cov-
erage, and the ability to claim an elective share of a
partner’s estate.
Nevertheless, domestic partnerships were ac-
corded recognition in New York City in 1997. In
1999, California provided hospital visitation and in-
surance beneficiary benefits to domestic partners
aged sixty-two and older.
By the end of the 1990’s, approximately three
thousand private companies, colleges, universities,The Nineties in America Domestic partnerships 263