Perfect Duluth Domestic Partnership

The city of Duluth opened Domestic Partnership registration yesterday (apparently nobody showed up). You can find info & forms here.

38 Comments

aleasha

about 13 years ago

Way to go Duluth for being the second city in Minnesota to be taking such a positive step forward!

Danny G

about 13 years ago

Way to go Duluth for promising false hope to couples by charging them 25 bucks for a useless piece of paper.


Jeff Anderson should be ashamed of himself.

farglebargle

about 13 years ago

Shame? Didn't know you were familiar with that concept, Danny.

Bad Cat!

about 13 years ago

Yes, because Jeff Anderson is totally doing a bait & switch. He personally said that if you get the domestic partner registraton, that it is *exactly* like gay marriage, and that not only will you get full marriage rights, but you get a pony too!

The domestic partner registration was never meant to enforce any changes in the law, it's just a stepping stone. If people choose to get it, it will either be for personal/emotional reasons, or to assist in getting benefits from companies that provide domestic partner benefits. No one is required to register (but I'm sending my check out today - thanks Jeff!).

Danny G

about 13 years ago

So...you're check for 25 bucks is for personal/emotional reasons?  Tell you what, I'll give you a piece of paper that acknowledges your relationship and I won't charge you for it.  It will have just as much meaning as the one the local government is charging you for.  The only difference is I will admit 100% that I am for ALL marriage, not just BS partnerships that mean little to nothing.  Also, I won't be talking out both sides of my mouth, telling one group of citizens that I'm not trying to force gay marriage down anyone's throat while telling another group of citizens that this is an "important first step".


So, while we're in an economic crisis my advice is to save your 25 bucks on something more important than a useless sheet of paper.

Paul Lundgren

about 13 years ago

I'd like to force something gay down your throat Danny, but it isn't marriage.

(I mean that in good humor, of course. It was just such an easy shot to take. But, please don't take an "easy shot" at me. That would be gross.)

On a serious note, Danny, your assertion that the city's domestic partnership registration means nothing is all well and good, but your remark seems to indicate that you do not support "BS partnerships." So, which partnerships do you consider BS? The gay ones or all of them? I mean, I have a partner and we're not necessarily seeking your endorsement or anyone else's, but it's interesting that you find any relationship that isn't a marriage to be a sham. Or are you just stirring things up again? Because it's too nice of a day to argue. If I wanted to argue I'd get married.

Danny G

about 13 years ago

I'll gladly discuss this with you, Paul.  But I want to see where you're coming from here.  Are you against marriage (gay and straight)?

Bad Cat!

about 13 years ago

People spend thousands on a church wedding, which is not requirement for legal marriage, and is also just for personal/emotional reasons.
$25 bucks is a deal in comparison.

Bad Cat!

about 13 years ago

Oh, and Paul, best comeback EVAR!

Danny G

about 13 years ago

Wait.  So, I'm the bad guy because I want gay folks to be allowed to get married?

Paul Lundgren

about 13 years ago

Danny, I think all marriages are gay. Za-zing!

But seriously, I'm not against marriage (gay or straight). I'm against the government recognizing marriage. The only reason for government to recognize marriage is to discriminate married people from unmarried people, or make it easier for other institutions to discriminate married people from unmarried people.

Paul Lundgren

about 13 years ago

I should add that people should have the right to enter into marriage -- for religious, ceremonial or whatever reasons they want -- I just see no reason for the government to be involved.

Bad Cat!

about 13 years ago

Nononono... I'm totally in support of equal marriage for gays as well as straight people. However, until that time is here, I'll support any progress made towards that goal.

Danny G

about 13 years ago

Paul...I think you and I are in agreement on this about as much as we possibly can be.  I've been married to my wife for over a decade now (don't ask me how I've managed to pull that off...I'm still trying to figure it out) and I know we didnt take the plunge because we wanted the government involved.  Your last comment sounded like something I would say on this topic.  In fact, my main reason for being against these goofy "partnership certificates" has a lot to do with the government sticking it's nose where it doesnt belong.  Why should people (gay, straight, whatever) have to be registered a special way and put on a special list just because they don't want to be called "married".  It's a joke.  (Oh...and your "force down the throat" thing was good, by the way.  I should have chosen my words a bit better).

As for you, Bad Cat (if that is indeed your real name) I ask you this question since you started the post.  Which one is it?  Are these (useless) pieces of paper simply a way for partners to be recognized as such for financial and personal benefits (which is what Councilor Anderson claimed when pushing this item), or is it an important step to ultimately recognizing gay marriage?  Those are two completely different things that Anderson (and possibly you) can't seem to differentiate.  You can't really have it both ways without lying to somebody.

Bad Cat!

about 13 years ago

Though I'm a big proponent of gay marriage, I'd have to agree with Paul that I don't really believe in marriage because of the financial/legal implications. An emotional commitment can be made at any time by anyone. When you involve the government, you are linked to your partner legally and financially.
Your husband took out a huge loan and defaulted on it? Guess what - both of your credit ratings are hosed! Your wife stole money from her business? Guess what - they can sue both of you!
As for me, the domestic partner registration is good enough (I don't need to stinking marriage!).
Alternatives to Marriage Project

Danny G

about 13 years ago

Bad Cat...your last two goals just contradicted each other.  I ask again...is the domestic partnership registration "good enough", or is this just a step in the ultimate goal of allowing gay marriage?

Paul Lundgren

about 13 years ago

Danny, the partnership certificates are a natural byproduct of government having stuck it's nose where it didn't belong in the first place. 

As long as the government is going to discriminate, obviously everyone will have to fight over who gets the best treatment. 

So I have no problem with these certificates, I just think it's silly that we ever got to this point. There should have been no reason for anyone to want such a thing, but whether it's for health benefits or moving the gay marriage movement forward, both are valid.

Paul Lundgren

about 13 years ago

And whether the whole thing came wrapped as a "it's for health care benefits" package and ends up being a step toward state recognition of gay marriage ... what's the diff?

Bad Cat!

about 13 years ago

Duuude, I was still replying to your questions... stop hitting F5 already! ;)

Jeff Anderson did not intend for the domestic partner registration to be anything more than it is: a symbolic commitment gesture that may assist in getting benefits that are currently granted to domestic partners. He never claimed it to be more than that.
A domestic partner registration is not good enough for those who desire marriage and cannot legally achieve it at this time. If gay and lesbian adults chose to be married, they must be offered full and complete marriage rights, the same as a straight couple.
Just because I choose not to get married, it doesn't mean that I won't stand behind others who do want to get married.

Danny G

about 13 years ago

Good enough for me, guys.  Thanks to you both.  Also, it's good to know that Anderson does NOT agree with you that this is a step towards legal gay marriage.

Nate

about 13 years ago

I think it's a bit obnoxious. My boyfriend/partner/whatever you wanna call him and I have been together for a while, and at first I was pretty excited about this... but is it really a step forward? It's like giving someone who is dying of thirst a 4 oz cup when everyone else gets swimming pools.

wildgoose

about 13 years ago

Here's one reason to get married, you want to share fully in the legal rights and responsibilities of parenting.  In parenting, in Minnesota, only married biological parents are legally recognized as equal.  

More here about the state of never married fathers in MN http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1464

I recognize this is a bit of a hijack, but I do think that biological parental rights and responsibilities should be one aspect of any discussion of gay marriage.  Personally I'm not exactly sure how I feel about the certificates or the overall legal question of gay marriage.  I do think that people who are not getting married as a "protest" are really giving up a lot.  And I think some of them not necessarily Paul or whomever here, but some of them are veiling commitment phobia with protest.  Kind of like the trolls in the 60s who believed in free love, not so much for the freedom or actual women's liberation, but because more women would be sexually available to them.  Just a theory ... not a statement of fact.

ben boylan

about 13 years ago

Thirsty? I heard that it's going to rain.

Bring an umbrella (viewer discretion advised).

We miss you, John, you sarcastic S.O.B.

Bad Cat!

about 13 years ago

I do think that marriage makes a lot of sense if you're parenting - it clears up a lot of legal issues and takes care of some financial ones too.
However, my ovaries will never bear any fruit other than PMS.
Child Free by Choice

Bad Cat!

about 13 years ago

Oh, and I totally agree that my anti-marriage stance is partially due to my commitment issues.
I was married, and found out the hard way how much it sucks to have a husband that spends most of your money, charges up credit cards on your name, then causes your credit rating go down because he is a financial anchor. After coming to terms with that (well, and the fact that he's a stupid lying fuck-head), I find that I have to pay a lot of money to go through a divorce process in order to be legally and financially separate from him.
I now am lucky to be half of a partnership of two, with a lover to stand beside me, and a legal status of one, only beholden to myself.

Oh, and the anti-kid stance? It's cause kids are scaaaarryyyy!!!!!

zra

about 13 years ago

coparenting in a "domestic partnership" could be considered being married...though i don't think that in order to effectively parent, a couple needs to be married. (so if my kids wind up totally screwed up it's all our fault, right?)

tamara and i have been kicking around the idea of doing the nuptial thing for a few years now, but we just haven't gotten around to it yet.

it's not that we're lazy, we just don't have a lot of free time to git 'er dun. knowhatimean?

as one half of two, i'll say that the same sex marriage issue weighs heavily on our decision to wait until everyone who wants to get married can get married.

deafyet

about 13 years ago

Here's what I do: Wait til the partners in a given relationship die, then evaluate the status of their relationship retroactively. Everything else is bullshit anyway. Paper, license, taxes, gender, china patterns, legalities, etc. mean NOTHING compared to what the two people actually involved meant and did for each other. I still can't believe I have to explain this to people.... 
 I mean how long does the average marriage  (of any preference) last anyway? Not as long as the average dogs life, so what are you fucking worried about? I wanna marry a marigold, got a problem with that?

baci

about 13 years ago

where do babies come from?

Paul Lundgren

about 13 years ago

Babies come from blog comments.

Bad Cat!

about 13 years ago

I thought that was trolls.

EKL

about 13 years ago

Great dialogue here, so I have to chime in.
If you are going to argue that people hide behind the equal marriage rights issue because of their fear of committment (i.e. I won't get married until gays have equal rights), I must present another underlying fear. 
I propose (no pun intended) that many people get married MAINLY because they fear the other person will leave them unless they are contracturally bound to each other. In other words, "Hey, if I am married to him and he leaves me, I have a legal contract to make him pay dearly for it". Or, "Hey, once we are married, I can be a dick or a total slack-ass and she can't do anything about it".
In that light, I would argue that people who AREN'T married but stay together are more committed to each other than you give them credit for.

Calk

about 13 years ago

EKL makes a really, really good point. You know when people are partners they must really love each other. Married people? Hard to tell sometimes.

Bad Cat!

about 13 years ago

I myself admit staying in a bad marriage far longer than I would have stayed in a bad relationship, just to avoid the giant pain in the ass that divorce is.
To stay with someone without any obligations or commitments, that is love.

Danny G

about 13 years ago

I've known plenty of people who have stayed in relationships without getting married for a very, very long time that have shown very few common signs of love or "commitment".  It's ridiculous to assume that all people in simple partnerships (often referred to as "shacking up") must always love each other.  I'll probably get some flack for this, but visit any local trailer park and you'll see plenty of examples.

EKL

about 13 years ago

Danny,
I agree actually, so no flack from me. Without going too far out on a tangent from the original post I would posit that as being part of the problem. We don't have a distinction between "shackin' up" for convenience and a committed partnership. That is why I think the registration of a "domestic partnership" is a step in the right direction, but I acknowledge it doesn't have any teeth or major difference in Duluth's current offering. To define the difference, however will be very tricky however, if not unpalatable.

Danny G

about 13 years ago

EKL...That was the brightest and most coherent statement I have seen on this topic yet from either side of the issue.

magus

about 13 years ago

1. This domestic partnership registration thing really doesn't give anybody anything. I'm not sure what it's supposed to accomplish. Although, I remember back in the '90s when Minneapolis set up the registrations we joked that is was just a way to make a list of queers so they could get back to us later when they were ready to stomp on us.

2. I agree with EKL that marriage is often used as a way to try to control the outcome of the relationship. It doesn't work that way. As a partner in a 24 year relationship I know everyday that I choose to be here. And marriage? Not for me, dude.

3. Nate: Yes. This really has nothing to do with giving same sex couples or unmarried straight couples any kind of rights at all. In my opinion it's all for show.

arrogant_jaded_prick

about 13 years ago

No matter if you like holes or poles, why would you "register" with the government?  Its none of their damn business what two consenting adults do in their own bedroom.

If you want to go the equality route (which I find laudable), stop giving special rights to anyone (i.e. tax breaks to married heterosexual couples).  Treat everyone as the individuals that they are.

Leave a Comment

Only registered members can post a comment , Login / Register Here

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!
Read previous post:
Farmers Market At UMD: Wednesday 6/24

Farmers Market at UMD EVERY WEDNESDAY 2:00-4:30 UMD Kirby Plaza Bus Hub LOCAL Produce, Music and Artisans!

Close