Supporters of a proposal to legalize domestic partnerships are taking aim at a competing bill that one strategist called a “political ploy masquerading as a compromise” to benefits for same-sex couples.
Republican Sen. Shawn Mitchell said he proposed Senate Bill 166 to solve some practical economic problems for adults living in the same household.
But Ted Trimpa, a strategist behind the effort to approve domestic partnerships, said Mitchell’s legislation does not provide same-sex couples with the same kind of protections that married couples have.
That, Mitchell said, is the point.
“They want to recreate marriage and call it civil unions and I want to solve, with this proposal, some practical problems not only for same-sex couples, but others living in long-term household situations,” he said.
Trimpa questioned the timing of Mitchell’s proposal. This November, proposals banning gay marriage and permitting domestic partnerships are expected to be on the ballot.
“This is the man who for years has been the father of anti-gay legislation and (to) then surprise-introduce this, one has to question for whose team is he playing,” Trimpa said.
Both sides acknowledge that if Mitchell’s bill is killed, the opposition will try to make it an issue in this fall’s debate. Opponents could argue that offering some economic benefits was not enough for those who demand state recognition equivalent to marriage, Mitchell said.
Elizabeth Bryant, an estate planning and probate attorney in Denver, said gay and lesbian couples have to pay lawyers $1,500 to $5,000 to get some of the same rights married couples get automatically.
Under Mitchell’s bill, the dissolution of partners’ relationships would be governed by the same law as business relationships, which is less effective than using divorce law’s more comprehensive set of rules, Bryant said.
And while partners would have the right to participate in decisions about their partners, their views would not take priority, as they do under the domestic partnerships proposal, she said.
If voters approve domestic partnerships in November, Trimpa said, it undermines Focus on the Family’s quest to prohibit the law from reflecting that it is OK to be gay.
“By running (domestic partnerships), we are forcing Focus on the Family to be honest. Is it about how they define marriage or is it about the fact that they don’t want any public acknowledgment or recognition of committed gay couples,” Trimpa said.
Peter Brandt, senior public policy director for Focus, said Trimpa’s remarks weren’t worth commenting on. But he said married couples should “absolutely” enjoy special rights not afforded to others.
“It’s not just incidental that marriage has been bestowed special privileges,” he said. “Marriage is a special institution.”
Focus supports Mitchell’s bill because it includes all adults without the option to marry. The organization, he said, opposes the domestic partnerships because legislation based on how two people “define their sexuality is not fair.”
Staff writer Chris Frates can be reached at 303-820-1633 or cfrates@denverpost.com.
