Kudos to the Denver Archbishop! Pay Attention Pro-Family Advocates – Difference Between Domestic Partnerships as a Legal Status Versus Merely Granting Benefits Explained

Kudos to Denver’s Catholic Archbishop Chaput!  In the November 15th Denver Catholic Register Archbishop’s weekly column, the Archbishop explains the difference between domestic partnerships as a legal status versus merely granting benefits to unmarried people.  Unfortunately,  many people do not understand this vital distinction and this lack of understanding has been exploited by advocates of same sex “marriage.”  The deception worked in Arizona, but not in Colorado.

Many state marriage amendments include a prohibition on domestic partnerships, civil unions, or any other legal status substantially similar to marriage.  These provisions are necessary, because if domestic partnerships are adopted they are then used by same-sex “marriage” advocates in court to undermine the historic definition of marriage. They argue, ”we already have domestic partnerships, so no rational basis remains for states to deny full blown same-sex ‘marriage.’”  Some courts have bought into this argument.  The headlines in several ADF Alliance Alerts have focused on civil unions and domestic partnerships as a trojan horse to undermine marriage. See, e.g., October 25, 2006 and February 13, 2006.

Discussing Colorado’s Referendum 1, which proposed domestic partnerships, Chaput explains the vital distinction between legal status and benefits:

Referendum I posed a different problem. Nearly every benefit sought by Referendum I is already legally available to Coloradans. No one who opposed the measure had any desire to deny anyone his or her fundamental civil rights. In fact, “basic legal rights” were never the real campaign issue. As 2006 began, most Coloradans — including most Catholics and other religious believers — were quite open to considering “designated beneficiary” proposals that would benefit a variety of non-marital domestic arrangements, without creating marriage-like legal structures. Unfortunately, the drafters of Referendum I had larger goals.

The key flaw with Referendum I was that it sought — despite its own slogans — to create an alternative, parallel structure to marriage using explicitly spousal language. As Colorado Springs Bishop Michael Sheridan pointed out, Referendum I offered a “distinction without a difference.” It was essentially marriage under another name. And Coloradans understood and voted against that, despite the fact that Referendum I supporters spent more than four times the resources their opponents could muster.

It is very important that more Americans come to understand the vital distinction between granting the legal status of domestic partnerships versus merely offering benefits to unmarried persons.  The former undermines marriage as an institution, the latter does not necessarily undermine marriage.