From the great state of Utah:
Salt Lake City is dumping "domestic partners" for "mutual commitment."
Restrictions imposed by the Utah State Legislature has led to name change for the city's domestic partnership registry, a mechanism by which employers voluntarily can extend health care and other benefits to their employees' domestic partners -- including gay couples, siblings, long-term roommates and parents -- if they reside in Salt Lake City.
More on why after the jump.
Some legislators argued that the term "domestic partnership," at least in spirit, violated Utah's constitutional Amendment No. 3, which bans same-sex marriage and substantially similar civil unions.
Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker said Tuesday he will recommend to the City Council that the name be changed to the mutual commitment registry.[...]
"This name change does not impact the essence of the registry," Becker said.
It's a good thing that Salt Lake City is recognizing relationships outside of marriage for the purposes of health care and other material benefits (not a great thing, since it's only for voluntary private participation, but a step in the right direction).
But I wonder about the perpetual need to spawn new names. Wasn't "civil union" supposed to be the non-"marriage" long-term commitment of not-just-heterosexual-couples? Then wasn't "domestic partnership" supposed to be the watered down version of "civil union"? And now apparently that's too close to gay marriage, so there's another name being thrown out there?
It has even someone like me wondering when this ride will stop and people will find some kind of agreement on what these words all mean.