Opposition to Domestic Partnership Parade

Opposition to Domestic Partnership Parade

August 2001

Although vastly outnumbered, six people rained on the domestic partnership parade when they spoke out in opposition to the legislation.

Dan Avila of the Mass. Catholic Conference pointed out that the domestic partnership bills before the committee are “marriage redefinition bills crafted as health care legislation.” He said the bills seek to change the legal definition of “spouse” to include unmarried persons by automatic association. He added it would place domestic partners on an equal status with married people, blurring the lines between marriage and co-habitation.

Avila continued that the legislation, which applies to both heterosexual and homosexual partners, would equate marriage with living together. “The government has a responsibility to enact legislation that will value the role of marriage, rather than undermine it.”

The Executive Director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, C.J. Doyle, said if the legislation passes, taxpayers would be forced to subsidize behavior they find morally objectionable and it would be a significant “incremental building block” toward legalizing same-sex marriages.

Doyle alerted the committee to the mechanics of domestic partnerships. He pointed to the ease of registration for domestic partners based on contracts that Boston had drawn up before their domestic partnership program was terminated. He pointed out the complete absence of liability between the partners, and provisions that effectively allow “immediate, unilateral and unconditional termination of the partnership.”

“This arrangement is an invitation to social instability, it’s a discouragement toward stable family life and could also be an invitation to fraud and abuse and to larceny against the public treasury.”

Doyle said when government at all levels is trying to address the problem of 44 million people who are uninsured, we ought not to allow a well organized interest group to elbow their way to the head of the line. “This is special interest politics, and we urge you to reject it,” he concluded.

Laurie Flynn, a citizen with 22-years experience in the health care field working with HMO’s and purchasing agents, disagreed with Rep.Wolf about little to no costs. She said the costs of domestic partnership legislation would not be insignificant and there would be a lot of cost-shifting to physician groups, individual taxpayers and other public employees who will not be utilizing the benefit.

Flynn read the definition of a domestic partner from House Bill 2613 and pointed out, “that is our definition of marriage.” She said it invades our marriage laws and she disagrees with it. She said she believes if the public sector passes this, then it will lead to private sector legal challenges for domestic partner benefits.

A woman named Kathryn testified that the domestic partnership bills could lead to universal health care. She said even though Clinton care was rejected, proponents are trying to bring it back in increments. She also objected to redefining the family.

The sixth person to testify in opposition, Rena Havens, said that one reason she opposes the legislation is because she read in the homosexual newspaper, Bay Windows, that when homosexuals are allowed to marry, they will be able to redefine what love, marriage and family means.

The bills under consideration are numbered S1344, S1527, and H2613.