I agree. If there is a need for the legal provisions of "domestic partnership," on top of what current contract law already provides, then whether the couple or group is engaging in some kind of sexual activity should be irrelevant.
As a practical point, I question whether this legal provision is necessary, unless it forcibly (so to speak) tidies up the current stew of contract, power-of-attorney, estates-and-trusts, real estate, and other relevant law.
Well, I was thinking that if one of the persons in the ‘civil union’ was employed full time and had ‘partner’ benefits, like health insurance, etc., and the other worked part time or possibly did not work (older sister, mother, etc)then those legal benefits should be allowed and one shouldn’t have to be gay to access those rights.
If it were just inheritance or estates and trusts, a will could take care of that. I just think that if Gays get all the legal rights and privileges of a ‘spousal relationship’ in a civil union, then others should have the right to draw up civil unions for the same advantages.
The a civil union should not be necessarily based on sexual preference or lack there of.