Compromise for same-sex couples

For years, heterosexual couples have lived together under the title of “common law.” Their status as common law is taken into legal consideration in matters such as death and separation.

Homosexual couples who live together will continue to do so regardless of the definition of marriage. Since they want to legitimize their relationship, why doesn't the state of Iowa provide a “domestic partner” certificate to such couples? Employers, businesses, etc., could offer them the same benefits they offer married couples without changing the definition of marriage.

As a registered nurse, I am aware of the grave difficulties in hospital situations when partners are not legally acknowledged. Sometimes one or both parties are estranged from their families of origin and the uninjured partner may be the only person available or caring enough to provide information or make medical decisions on behalf of the other.

This solution continues to honor marriage and family as it has been known for eons while permitting those who choose otherwise to have a specified status. Many on both sides of the issue would see the wisdom of this type of compromise. It does not destroy the previously held definition and concept of marriage, nor does it disregard any individual.

Explaining marriage to a preschool child can be very challenging, especially when a child is at the stage where they talk about growing up to marry mommy or daddy. I believe keeping marriage and domestic partnership as two distinct definitions/concepts can add clarity to this issue.

Cynthia Malone

Marion