Learn More: Domestic Partnership Bills

Senate Bill 566 creates a definition of “domestic partnership” in state law and equates that relationship with marriage in Maryland’s health statute so as to give domestic partners the same medical decision-making benefits as married couples.

Senate Bill 597 creates a definition of “domestic partnership” in state law and equates that relationship with marriage in parts of Maryland’s tax statute so to exempt both current and former domestic partners from recordation and transfer taxes.

The Church opposes SB 566 and SB 597 for a number of reasons. They include:

1. The bills undermine marriage by equating in law the time-honored institution of marriage with unmarried relationships that can easily be created and dissolved.

2. The definition of “domestic partnership” established by the bills is seriously
problematic. The bills allow two unmarried persons – of the same sex, or of opposite sexes – to create domestic partnerships merely by showing evidence of a joint lease, joint car loan and an affidavit that the couple is in a “relationship of mutual interdependence.” The affidavit does not need to be filed with any agency, or even notarized.

3. The bills send a terrible message to young people about the value of committed marriages. SB 566 and SB 597 give a positive financial incentive to cohabitating heterosexual couples not to marry and assume the responsibilities of marriage.

4. The bills undermine the Church’s work in addressing the devastating consequences of the breakdown of the family structure by creating a state-sanctioned alternative to marriage.

5. The bills are poorly crafted, as they make no adequate provision for the dissolution of domestic partnerships or the medical decision-making rights status of former domestic partners.

Medical decisions should always be made at the discretion and will of the patient, or by whomever the patient legitimately appoints to do so in his/her stead. SB 566 is unnecessary because medical decision-making rights are already available to all couples. SB 369, which was passed in 2006, guarantees the free availability of advance directives, medical decision-making rights and hospital visitation privileges for all couples.

The bills are clear attempts to pave the way to granting full-blown marriage rights to couples in civil unions or domestic partnerships. SB 566 and SB 597, if they become law, would treat domestic partnerships exactly the same as marriages in parts of Maryland's heath and tax statutes. Marriage between one man and one woman has, since the beginning of civilization, been given privileged legal status because of its unique ability to create new life and future generations for society.

The California Supreme Court, in its recent ruling on marriage, demonstrated that domestic partnerships are not a “compromise” measure. Instead, they very clearly lay the groundwork for the dissolution of traditional marriage and cannot easily co-exist with marriage. The decision is further evidence that SB 566 and SB 597 deserve a veto.

Simply click this link to contact Gov. Martin O’Malley and ask him to veto SB 566 and SB 597.