Home » Take Action » Become a Student Activist » Case of the Month Archives » July 2000
Frequently Asked Questions in the Domestic Partnership case
Is it the purpose of the Gainesville Domestic Partnership ordinance to legitimize "gay" marriages?
No. The purpose of Gainesville Domestic Partnership ordinance is to extend health insurance benefits to certified domestic partners. The ordinance makes no distinction concerning the sexual orientation of the persons receiving medical benefits. If the domestic partnership fulfills the comprehensive list of requirements (See Overview), the benefits are extended.
While the ACLU supports the legitimization of same-sex marriages, the purpose of its intervention in Martin v. City of Gainesville is to defend the right of the City of Gainesville to offer full and equal protection under the law to all its employees.
Why is this type of policy necessary?
The City of Gainesville realized that the health care needs of its employees were not being adequately met. The policy simply and sensibly extends benefits to qualified domestic partners, realizing that modern domestic arrangements were not properly reflected in the previous system.
The plaintiff, Jack W. Martin, objects to the manner by which his tax dollars are being employed. He states that he has "moral" and "religious" objections to the policy. Is this objection legitimate?
Many taxpayers have objections about how their tax dollars are used. However, these "moral" objections -- whether they are about the development of nuclear weapons, the military establishment, welfare, family planning or domestic partnership benefits -- should be directed to elected state or national representatives.
Are other cities around the country also providing recognition for domestic partners?
In 1996 in San Jose, California, the Santa Clara County Human Relations Commission approved a measure to allow domestic partners to register their relationships for government recognition for a $26 fee.
In 1997, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, a proposal to give health insurance to the samesex partners of municipal employees was rejected because it neglected to give the same benefit to heterosexual partners.
In June 1999, the Pittsburgh's Human Relations Committee refused to dismiss a complaint against the University of Pittsburgh for discrimination over the extension of health insurance benefits to same-sex couples.
How does the private sector deal with this issue?
Not only have many government agencies recognized domestic partnerships, but many private companies have as well. More than half of the Fortune 500 companies, including Walt Disney, United Airlines, Coca-Cola, Ford, Daimler-Chrysler, Time-Warner, and Microsoft, are all examples of companies that have extended health care coverage to the domestic partners of their employees. In fact, more than 3,400 private and public employers offer health care coverage to qualified domestic partners of their employees.
