FAQ FROM SUPPORTERS AND OPPONENTS OF UTAH AMENDMENT: From the Deseret Morning News

[I don't know who wrote these responses. --Eve]

...What impact, if any, will this amendment have on legal protections for unmarried couples?

OPPONENTS: Passage of Amendment 3 would create uncertainty for nontraditional Utah families. The amendment could strip from unmarried couples basic legal protections and deny them the ability to petition their lawmakers for those protections.The term "substantially equivalent" to a marriage could mean any individual legal protection that is similar to a protection afforded to a married couple would become threatened under this law.

That same wording would prevent lawmakers from even considering granting small bundles of protections, such as funeral and burial decisions, on the basis of any "domestic union" that's not a marriage.

Here's the effect on some specific legal protections: Cohabitant Abuse Act: Because it's unclear what "domestic union" means, it's possible that a court could interpret that definition to include roommates, which would prevent "someone who resides or has resided in the same residence" or any other unmarried cohabitant from seeking protection under this act.

Private contracts: Unmarried couples rely on wills, powers of attorney and other private contracts to create domestic unions. Since couples are using these contracts to create substantially similar legal benefits that a marriage affords, a court would be barred from enforcing these contracts.

Domestic partner benefits: Because there is no reference to the state of Utah in the amendment, it leaves open the possibility that private companies would be barred from giving the same benefits to domestic partners as they do to spouses.

Common law marriages: Common law marriage, in effect, is a way for a domestic union to be recognized as a marriage. Because the amendment clearly states that no other union can be given the same legal effect as a marriage, this amendment would therefore invalidate that statute.

SUPPORTERS: The amendment wouldn't impact any existing legal protections and would simply maintain the "status quo."

It also wouldn't prevent the Legislature from creating new benefits for people in relationships defined by dependence or residence. It would only prevent the recognition of relationships defined by their sexual basis.

The term "domestic union" will be interpreted to mean only relationships defined as sexually based, because of the context of the amendment.

Here's the effect on some specific legal protections: Cohabitant Abuse Act: The provision wouldn't be impacted because the six types of cohabitants against whom a protective order may be filed include "someone who resides or has resided in the same residence." Such roommates are not substantially equivalent to a married spouse.

Private contracts: Marriages are not considered private contracts, such as wills, powers of attorney and other private contracts. The state's current marriage law, enacted this year, says it doesn't apply to "any contract or other rights, benefits or duties that are enforceable independently of this section."

Domestic partner benefits: Because the amendment only applies to state action, it won't prevent private employers from providing "domestic partner" benefits, or prevent partners from visiting each other in the hospital.

Common law marriages: The law provides that a non-solemnized marriage can be granted by the state if a man and a woman meet certain requirements, such as holding themselves out as husband and wife. The amendment wouldn't impact this type of marriage because it involves a man and a woman.

more

posted by Eve at 4:08 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home