Reciprocal Beneficiaries The Hawaiian Approach © August 29, 2006, Demian The Reciprocal Beneficiaries law (Act 383), enacted July 8, 1997, was an effort by Hawaii legislators to circumvent providing full, legal marriage for all citizens. It was a reaction to the then ongoing suit for legal marriage. [See: Baehr v. Anderson in Legal Marriage Court Cases — A Timeline. Legislative Reactions to Suits for Same-Sex Marriage] The legislators hoped Act 383 would persuade the court that Hawaii no longer discriminated against same-sex partners, thereby eliminating the need to order the State to offer legal marriage. Ironically, the Christian Coalition’s chief lawyer, Jay Sekelow, campaigned vigorously in support of this bill — desperate to find anything that would prevent same-sex couples from gaining access to legal marriage. The Reciprocal Beneficiaries law allows any two single adults — including same-sex partners, blood relatives or just friends — to have access to less than 60 spousal rights on the state level, and none on the federal level. The state itself appeared confused as to how many rights, at one time specifying “50-60” regulations in their Web site documents regarding this law. One of the most important benefits — workplace medical insurance — was eliminated by Hawaii’s attorney general, in 1997, who claimed that no private business was required to offer domestic partner benefits, thereby gutting a major part of the law. Also, a court limited the health insurance provisions to state employees. Because the Hawaii legislature refused to renew parts of the Reciprocal Beneficiaries law, the requirement for the Public Employees Health Fund to provide coverage for unmarried partners of state workers and retirees expired at the end of June 1999. This left about 60 partners of state workers without health insurance. As of October 1999 — two years after the law was enacted — only 435 reciprocal beneficiary relationships were on file with the Health Department. And not all couples were of the same-sex. Hawaii has a population of more than 1.1 million. As of May 17, 2001 — roughly four years after enactment — 578 reciprocal beneficiary relationships were registered. As of April 2003, the Department of Health still offers Hawaii residents to sign up, however, there are few benefits that remain of use. Three other states have registries that offer far more substantive benefits:       Vermont [Civil Unions: The Vermont Approach]       California [Domestic Partner Registration: The California Approach]       Connecticut [Civil Unions: The Connecticut Approach] Only one U.S. state offers full, legal marriage:       Massachusetts [Massachusetts Offers Marriage] Reciprocal Beneficiary (Act 383) Requirements for the Couple Are at least 18 Are not married or part of another reciprocal beneficiary relationship Are legally prohibited from marrying the other person under Chapter 572, HRS (the Hawaii marriage law) Have not consented to the reciprocal beneficiary relationship because of force, duress, or fraud Sign and file with the Department of Health a notarized declaration of the relationship Pay $8 registration fee (Another $8 to terminate the status) Some Areas Covered by Reciprocal Beneficiaries Worker’s compensation Public employees health fund [no longer applicable for private or public employees] Public employees retirement [no longer applicable for private or public employees] Health insurance [no longer applicable for private or public employees] Life insurance [no longer applicable for private or public employees] Inheritance without a will Wrongful death Hospital visitation (and health care decisions) Consent to postmortem exams Loan eligibility Property rights (including joint tenancy) Tort liability Protection under Hawaii domestic violence laws In contrast to the “Reciprocal” status, Hawaiian legal marriage gives access to more than 160 rights and responsibilities on the state level [What Rights Come with Legal Marriage? - Hawaii], as well as access to more than 1,138 federally regulated rights [ U.S. Federal Laws for the Legally Married]. To be effective and useful to same-sex couples, domestic partner laws need to contain far greater numbers of rights than Hawaii’s to even begin to come close to the rights conferred with legal marriage. Such laws need to be crafted strongly enough to withstand an adverse opinion from a state’s attorney general. And they need to be portable, able to be used in more than just one state. Ineffective Status The following overview statement, excerpted from a report from the Hawaii State Auditor, further shows how ineffective this domestic partner status is. According to this report, the fiscal impact to the State has been minimal-to-nonexistent. If more couples found the domestic partner status of practical use, than it is likely that more couples would sign up. If they did, it would be reasonable to expect that, through legitimate usage the costs to the state would be higher, finally paying to same-sex couples what they now unjustifiably withhold. OVERVIEW: Study of the Fiscal Impact of Providing Certain Benefits to Reciprocal Beneficiaries Report No. 99-17, April 1999 The Auditor, State of Hawaii Summary Act 383, Session Laws of Hawaii 1997 (the reciprocal beneficiaries law) made available to people who cannot marry each other, some benefits that previously were available only to married couples. Many types of “couples” may declare a reciprocal beneficiary relationship. Examples are homosexual partners, or a widow and her son, or two brothers. Pursuant to a directive in Section 73 of Act 393, we studied the fiscal impact of providing reciprocal benefits under the provisions of the act related to workers’ compensation, the Hawaii Public Employees Health Fund, the Employees’ Retirement System of the State of Hawaii, and prepaid health insurance. We found that reciprocal beneficiaries make up a very small portion of the state’s population. The Department of Health reported 435 reciprocal beneficiary relationships on file as of October 1998. With the numbers so small, we were not surprised to find that the reciprocal beneficiary law has had little fiscal impact in the areas of areas of workers’ compensation, public employee health and retirement benefits, and prepaid health insurance. The limited fiscal impact is also due in part to the limited benefits granted by the law. Our findings include the impact on state government, county government, the private sector, and consumers in Hawaii. The reciprocal beneficiary law amended the workers’ compensation on law to include reciprocal beneficiary as possible recipients of an employee’s death benefits. But the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations was aware of no cases involving reciprocal beneficiary as the payment recipient. The reciprocal beneficiary law also amended the law governing the Hawaii Public Employees Health Fund to establish a reciprocal beneficiary family coverage health benefits plan for public employees and retirees. But the state and county governments contributed less than $56,000 during FY 1997-98 as their share of reciprocal beneficiary family coverage premiums under the health fund. The actual additional premium cost of the coverage to the State and counties may have been only about $12,000 in that year (compared with government’s total contribution of more than $262 million as its share of health insurance costs for non-reciprocal beneficiary employees). We did find that special costs were incurred by some public employees who took advantage of the new reciprocal beneficiaries coverage. In addition, the reciprocal beneficiary law amended the law governing the Employees’ Retirement System of the State of Hawaii to include reciprocal beneficiaries as eligible recipients of benefit payments upon an employees’ death. However, officials of the retirement system informed us that a reciprocal beneficiary has been named as a death benefit incipient in only one case. The reciprocal beneficiaries law did not amend the prepaid health care law but did amend the state Insurance Code in ways that could affect organizations providing prepaid health care coverage. However, the state attorney general has concluded that applicable provisions apply only to insurance companies and not to employers, health maintenance organizations, or mutual benefit societies. Privately run health care organizations see little impact from the reciprocal beneficiary law. We also concluded that the law’s fiscal impact could change if more people become reciprocal beneficiary or if the law is amended (or interpreted by a court) to require broader coverage. Finally, we noted that Section 2 of the law — which requires the Hawaii Public Employees Health Fund to establish a reciprocal beneficiary family coverage plan for any employee who is a reciprocal beneficiary and elects such a plan — will be repealed on June 30, 1999 unless the requirement is extended through legislation. Recommendations and Response We made no recommendations. The Hawaii Public Employees Health Fund commented that lack of available reciprocal beneficiary information resulted in low enrollment in the health fund’s reciprocal beneficiary health plans. The fund believes that if the Legislature extends the law and modifications are made to collective bargaining agreements, more employees and retirees will enroll their reciprocal beneficiaries. Marion M. Higa, Hawaii State Auditor Office of the Auditor, 465 South King St., #500, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 808-587-0800; fax 808-587-0830 Not a Model for Family Recognition in U.S. This domestic partnership status does not work as a model for America, because implementing an equivalent legal status to marriage requires duplicating 150-to-350 laws in each state, and more than 1,138 laws on the federal level. [See U.S. Federal Laws for the Legally Married.] The whole idea is completely impractical. Further, domestic partnerships are usually not recognized outside of the issuing state. Because of the lack of portability, they create a patchwork legal status as a couple moves or vacations. Registrations do not have any legal weight in the Federal sphere, and, to date, only California and New Jersey officially recognizes this kind of status from other states. However, there is ambiguity in the California code, so it may not recognize it.       [See California: Registration]       [See New Jersey: Domestic Partnership Act] While such contracts are an attempt to create equal treatment, they only reinforce a separate and totally unequal status, one we consider to be a manifestation of apartheid. [See Marrying Apartheid: The Failure of Domestic Partnership Status] Also, please see our article: What Rights Come with Legal Marriage? - Hawaii Differences Between Domestic Partner Registration and Legal Marriage Registration Simple, notarized form registration No ceremony Mailed to the Office of Vital Records (handles business affairs) Conveys some rights Not a true next-of-kin Must cohabit Must share finances Ended by mailing a termination form Legal Marriage License required No ceremony required License officiated by clergy, court, or justice of the peace Conveys hundreds of rights A true next-of-kin Can live apart Not required to share finances Divorce laws apply Federal rights NOT Covered by Registration Immigration Rights — Ability for a non-U.S. spouse to become a full citizen. Social Security — Ability to collect benefits upon death of a spouse. Federal Taxes — No joint filing. Pay taxes on job benefits. More than 1,138 laws that are triggered by legal marriage [See U.S. Federal Laws for the Legally Married] © 2003, Demian For a vast survey, please see our: Legal Marriage Report: Global Status of Legal Marriage Return to: Domestic Partnership Benefits Governments that offer Legal Marriage Netherlands Belgium Canada Massachusetts (U.S. state) Spain South Africa The Sweet Corn Shop    Products that affirm self-esteem and social equality.    A smart variety of Bumper Stickers and Buttons    for political impact, plus Mugs and Teddy Bears.    Purchases help support Partners’ efforts.