Thursday, July 26, 2007

Inequities in Civil Unions/Domestic Partners Hurts Both Gay & Straight

Fascinating, isn't it, that because some states have gone the way of civil unions or the lesser domestic partnerships for same-sex couples rather than marriage, gays and straights alike are finding themselves getting the shaft.

Hurting the Gays
A week or so ago we reported how the partners of civil unioned (I hate the term, but use it to underscore how silly-sounding it is) employees of UPS in New Jersey were being denied health benefits. We headlined that story "Don't Blame UPS," because it was the NJ legislature that decided to forgo marriage for the lesser, more demeaning civil union for its same-sex, tax-paying citizens.

UPS claims the inequity is due to a worker's union contract, and that had the NJ legislature given same sex couples marriage, they would have been obligated to give those same-sex spouses the same benefits. UPS offers full benefits to the partners of legally married same-sex couples in Massachusetts, so it's difficult not to believe them when they say they're bound by the workers union contract.

Hurting the Straights
California resident Ron Garber, whose divorced wife moved in with her lady partner, and with whom she not only domestic partnered (sic), but also took her new partner's last name, sued that the alimony payments he was making his ex-wife should end.

Not so says the Orange County judge, who ruled that a registered partnership is merely cohabitation, not marriage, and that Garber must keep writing the checks.

Separate but Equal Didn't Work for Blacks, Nor Will it for Gays
These stories highlight the undeniable fact that despite the attempt by state supreme court judges and state legislators to bring equal rights to same sex couples, by instituting civil unions rather than marriage, they create an institution that they believe is separate but equal, yet remains controversially connected and unequivocally unequal.

No comments: