-i .,,g_.q_,-4....

 

rte:i-see-xxo:>na~:so.x-cars-x-ae<s~

ea.»-u<a¢.»aa~.qa

zbsuivvs

 

cA4recon-agtao-Ificnua-(gag:iblllifllffikltllvfitfsfi{_g“,";.-‘~‘V.~.’

  

news

Civil Union Study Gives lnsightlntoi-First”Year’s‘CoupIes

 

BY PAUL OLSEN

esearchers at the University of Vermont
RUVM) recently released results ofa
tudy of the differences and similarities
among three categories of couples: gay and les-
bian couples entered into civil union, commit-
ted gay and lesbian couples notjoined in civil
union, and married heterosexual couples.

UVM psychologists Dr. Esther D.
Rothblum and Dr. Sondra E. Solomon com-.
pared the three types of couples on a variety of
criteria including education, employment, reli-
gion, children, housework, and monogamy.

“Professor Sondra Solomon became
interested in doing this study because we were
at a Vermont university and thus ideally situat-
ed to conduct research on Vermont civil
unions," Rothblum said in an interview. “No
one had studied civil unions before. In fact,
when we began the study, civil unions had only
been legal for six months. We knew that the
results would interest policy makers, lesbians
and gay men, and the general public.”

In the study, Rothblum and Solomon
reviewed approximately 300 survey responses
from civil union couples, 200 from married het-
erosexual couples, and 200 from gay/lesbian
couples who have not entered into civil union.
Reponses came from 44 states. Regarding
race/ethnicity, 10 percent of the respondents
(and in fact, all civil union couples according to
the Vermont Dept of Health statistics) are peo-
ple of color.

"The married heterosexual couples
always included one person who was a sibling
ofa civil union couple and his/her spouse,”
Rothblum explained. “This makes the results
more conservative (i.e., better) because we are
beginning with two couples who are already
quite similar (that is, they are probably of the
same race and ethnicity, same social class back-
ground, same general age, etc.). Had we com-

pared civil union couples with other ‘newly-
weds’ in Vermont, for example, and found a lot
of demographic differences,” she continued, .
“this would be interpreted as a confound.
Similarly, the non-civil union couples come
from the friendship circle of civil union
couples.”

Under Vennont’s two-year-old civil
union law, gay and lesbian couples are entitled
to more than 300 state-provided benefits includ-
ing inheritance rights, family leave, adoption,
public assistance, state tax benefits, and marital
communication privileges in Vermont. For most
out-of-state couples, entering into civil union is
symbolic because, so far, no other state recog-
nizes them.

of couples stated they entered into civil union
for love, commitment ‘and legal reasons. More
than 50 percentjoined in civil union to make a
political statement, saying they wanted society
to know about lesbian and gay relationships.

Study results comparing lesbians in
civil unions, lesbians not in civil unions, and
married heterosexual women found differences
among the groups. Lesbians had one more year
of education than married heterosexual women;
married heterosexual women were more likely
to have children; and lesbians on average made
$15,000 more than married heterosexual
women in the paid workforce.

Married heterosexual women in the
study attended religious services more frequent-

- More than 50 percent of the
respondents joined in civil union to
make a political statement, saying
they wanted society to know about

lesbian and gay relationships.

According to Rothblum, the study is
significant because it is one of the first to look
at gay and lesbian couples in legal relation-
ships. “Because civil union certificates are pub-
lic information, we were able to contact all cou-
ples,” she said. “This means we can compare
couples who responded to those who did not,
and this means we can see how representative
our study was. In the past, researchers have
handed out questionnaires via friendship net- V
works or through gay events and ads in gay
papers, so they were never able to know how
representative their results were.”

The study found that over 90 percent

ly than lesbians; spent more time on house-
work; and their husbands earned significantly
more than lesbian partners. In contrast, lesbians
in relationships that were not legally recognized
in civil union were more likely to work full
time compared to lesbians in civil unions or
married heterosexual women, while married
heterosexual women were more likely to be
employed part time or work as unpaid home-
makers.

Differences were also found in com-
parisons of gay men in civil unions, gay men
not in civil unions, and married heterosexual '
men. ’

Gay men in the study were less likely
to have children than married heterosexual
men, while gay men in civil unions were more
likely to have children than gay men not in civil
unions. Regardless of sexual orientation or part-
nership situation, the men in the study did not
differ in income. .

Gay men in both types of couples
were more likely to identify with no religion
compared to married heterosexual men, and the
men in all three types of couples spent 6 to 8
hours per week on housework.

Seventy-nine percent of married het-
erosexual men felt non-monogamy was not
okay, compared with only 34 percent of gay
men not in civil unions and 50 percent of gay
men in civil unions. Over 82 percent of the 1
women in the study, regardless of sexual orien-
tation, said monogamy was important.

Dr. Rothblum declared that the results
of the study did not surprise her. “We guessed
that civil union couples would be like gay and
lesbian couples in many regards, and we also
speculated that civil union couples would be
like heterosexual married couples in terms of
legal issues like owning a house together,” she
said.

Rothblum hopes the project’s results
will be useful. “We have heard from policy
makers and individuals who are working for
civil union benefits in other states,” she said.
“Our results will allow them to have some data
to convince lawmakers and the general public.”

The Gill Foundation funded the study
for 400 civil union couples, 400 non-civil union
couples and 400 married heterosexual couples.
“All couples we could not include in this study
will be included in the dissertation of graduate
student Jelica Todosijevic, and she will be

focusing on how couples cope with stress,” said 

Rothblum. V

Paul Olsen also writesfor ln Newsweekly.

’ ifs‘ A‘ .»’'-z' 4‘ 4.’ F3’ o's':'5'o'u'5

Brits Consider Same-Gender
Couples’ Rights

 

BY NAT MICHAEL

ccording to reports in the
British newspaper the
Guardian (and elsewhere),

the Labour government is reviewing
proposals to grant legal rights to
queer couples and will release its
report in the summer of 2003.

“Civil Partnerships” will
give same-gender couples property
and- inheritance rights and recogni-
tion as next of kin. There are, howev-
er. no plans to extend these rights to
straight unmarried couples. A govern-
ment spokesperson claims that “the
Treasury fears about the cost of
extending rights to all unmarried
couples 

The exact extent ofthe
rights included in the report’s recom-
mendations have yet to be decided,
but may include: right to act as next
ofkin; right to legal ‘divorce’; right
to inherit when a partner dies without
a will: an exemption from inheritance
taxes: Survivor’s benefits under the
deceased partner"s pension plan: and
the right to sue for damages ifthe
partner is killed. I

ln Britain, the government

includes a “minister for social exclu-
sion and equalities” in whose portfo-
lio remedies to discrimination fall.
That minister, Barbara Roche, said
there was an extremely strong case
for allowing same sex couples the
chance to register their relation-
ships.” The major opposition
Conservative Party, which designates
a “shadow government” of party
members, welcomed the review and
in the person of Shadow I-lome
Secretary Oliver Letwin, indicated
Conservatives would support the
measure, as long as it did not try to
equate the new status directly with

’ marriage.

The Liberal Party also wel-
comed the move, characterizing it as
“long overdue,” and falling short
with the exclusion of unmarried het-
erosexual couples.

Gay rights activist Peter
Tatchell said, “Barbara Roche is
wrong to exclude unmarried hetero-
sexual couples. They also need legal
recognition and protection.”

Colin Hart of the Christian
Institute claims, “Ifthe special bene-
fits of marriage aregiven to those in
homosexual relationshps. then mar-
riage becomes devalued." His point

was disputed by others who suggest-
ed that marriage would be more
attractive if staying together unmar-
ried carried similar responsibilities.

London Mayor Ken
Livingstone is “delighted that the
government has recognized the gross
inequalities which face same sex cou-
ples and that it’s taking steps to recti-
fy this.” Last year Mayor Livingstone
introduced the London Partnership
Registry, the first of its kind in
Britain, through the Greater London
Authority. To date over 350 couples
have registered, even though the
Partnership Registry does not have
the same benefits as the Civil
Partnership being proposed.
According to a Greater London
Authority source, the city’s regula-
tion will have to be reviewed after
the national government’s proposal is
released. I

Best estimates are that it
will be about two years before the
government reaches a final decision

. on Civil Partnership. V

Nat Michael is on an extended stay in
London, where her partnership is

‘ Registered and whence she filed this

report.

Gay Liasons Go
Unrecognized

s of press time, Governor-
elect-apparent J im Douglas
had not yet responded to a

formal letter from gay and lesbian
community liaisons Keith Goslant
and Virginia Renfrew requesting offi-
cial recognition.

Goslant sent the letter in
early December, as Douglas was
appointing his administration’s cabi-
net members and advisors.

0lTMs Paul Olsen asked
Douglas in a pre-election interview
(September, 2002, p. 8) whether he
would “maintain a relationship with
Vermont’s gay and lesbian communi-
ty through an official liaison.”
Douglas said he “hadn’t thought
about that.” Further, Douglas said, “I
guess the question is broader about
liaisons to other communities or
organizations. I guess I don’t know
the answer to that right now.”

There has been no indica-
tion that Douglas would recognize
the gay, lesbian. bisexual, and trans-
gender community’s liaisons. given
the tenor ofhis answers during the
interview. Most of his answers sug-
gested that he hadn’t thought about
the issues raised or, when pushed.
that he would not treat gay and les-

bian Vermonters any differently from
other Vermonters.

Because no candidate
received 50 percent ofthe vote in the
general election, Douglas will
become the governor ifthe legisla-
ture elects him\in a secret ballot. The
vote is considered a foregone conclu-
sion because Democrat Doug Racine
conceded the election and honored
his own pledge to abide by the vot-
ers’ choice of the candidate with the
higher vote total. Ironically, the state
legislature is nearly evenly divided,
with 69 Democrats, four
Progressives, three independents, and
74 Republicans in the House, and l9
Democrats and ll Republicans in the
Senate.

If all of the Democrats and
just three of the Progressives and
Independents voted for Racine, the
candidate with a strong record of
support for the gay and lesbian com-
munity‘s legislative concerns could
still have become governor.

Meanwhile. Goslant and
Renfrew await the Governor-elect-
apparent’s response. V .