The state of Vermont has joined a number of European countries in fashioning a system for gay couples which attempts to duplicate marriage. Vermont's system is called civil unions, in France it's PACS, it's registered partnerships in Scandinavia. What most of these systems have in common is that (a) they clearly establish that the relationship is an intimate/sexual one; (b) they, more or less, duplicate marriage by making each partner liable for the welfare of the other partner; and; (c) these systems are all basically not recognized outside of the state or Country which created the statutes. Based on the information we have, Vermont's civil union law has the most severe dissolution requirement in that the couples are required to engage in a formal divorce style proceeding in court in order to dissolve the civil union.
The advantages of a Relationship LLC (R) over the above mentioned systems are that: (a) the parties in a Relationship LLC are NOT declaring a sexual relationship; (b) the parties in a Relationship LLC can decide how much and what resources they wish to share WITHOUT making themselves totally liable for each other's welfare; and (c) the Relationship LLC can be dissolved without a divorce-style proceeding in court.
By creating a civil union in Vermont, a domestic partnership in California or by making use of some of the other partnership statues in other countries, partners have already forfeited the opportunity to limit their liability for each other's welfare and to NOT publicly declare a sexual relationship. However, it is still possible for such parties to make use of LLC law to achieve recognition of their relationships worldwide and to engage in business with limited liability.
A couple in a civil union can be regarded as married, since this was in fact the intent of the law. As a result, a couple in a Civil Union LLC (tm) would be able to achieve the same benefits and advantages that married couples receive from Family LLCs.
"Since the same sex marriage issue emerged courts and commentators have considered the various incidents of marriage that recognition of same sex marriage might entail. As the Vermont supreme court said in Baker, "the marriage laws transform a private agreement into a source of significant public benefits and protections." However, marriage is more contractible than might first appear. ...
All of the above categories except numbers 1, 2, 12, 13 and 14 are generally comparable to contractual rights, even if not strictly controlled by contract under current law. As discussed above regarding covenant marriage, the spouses can broadly contract for divorce rights, including spousal support, property division and liquidated damages, and might even be able to affect custody by contract. They can, of course, sue to enforce these rights. They can also contract for many inheritance rights or obviate these rights by inter vivos gifts. Although they may not get an automatic name change from marriage, they can petition for change of name. Finally, in addition to these rights are others explicitly available by contract, including employee benefits such as group insurance." From "Calling A Truce In The Marriage Wars" F.H. Buckley & Larry E. Ribstein, Page 41 C. Unbundling Marriage
...
