Out in the Mountains

 

4.

From All Ang|es:A Look at Domestic Partnerships

Hugh Coyle

(Note: This series intends to look at con-
troversial questions from a number of
various perspectives, sometimes se—‘
riously, sometimes not so seriously. Sev-
eral grains of salt are recommended be-
fore reading.)

All across the country, gay and lesbian
groups have been fighting for domestic
partnership status in everything from
adoption rights cases to insurance battles.
Here in Vermont, the issue even became
a central concern for voters in Burling-
ton’s recent mayoral election. Once
again, folks argue that it’s a matter of
treating people fairly, of making sure that
no one has any “special rights.”

Some rampant heterosexuals think that
domestic partnerships open up a whole
viper’s nest of special rights, and that
their very existence threatens the moral
fabric of society. (I’ve always wondered
if that fabric is made of natural or syn-
thetic fibers...) Cities that have such
things, they argue, openly condone ho-
mosexuality and promote illicit behavior
on the streets. After all, you saw what
happened when cities started to condone
heterosexuality; within years, there were
boy-girl pictures plastered all over the
place and young couples making out on
the grass in city parks. Teenage preg-
nancy skyrocketed, and everyone started
talking birth control and abortion.

Domestic partnerships would make life
even more confusing. Imagine all the ex-
tra boxes you’d have to wonder about on
your revised tax returns. Think of the dif-
ficulties just shopping for an anniversary

Patronlze
our
Aalvertieere

card for someone; I tried several stores
and couldn’t find one that had a card
with two men or two women on it. And
perhaps worst of all, think of the chaos at

' the local square dance when the caller

asks for a “ladies chain.”

You’re maybe thinking it couldn’t get
any worse than that, but it could — if we
didn’t have such things as domestic part-
nerships. Heterosexuals beware: your
jobs could be at stake!

Yes, it’s true! Just think about it: all
around the country, companies are
cutting back — laying people off, re-
ducing benefits, capping salaries. Im-
agine the redness of the cheeks on your
company’s accountant each time he or
she pays out an employee’s spousal ben-
efits claim. Insurance claims costs com-
panies thousands of dollars a year, and
it’s getting worse all the time.

Of course, this is the big reason lots of
companies say they don’t like domestic
partnerships — they cost too much mon-
ey. And they do! But think of what’s
next: once they convince you of that,
then it’s no time at all before they’re con-
vincing heterosexuals not to get married,
or to divorce the husbands or wives they
now have. After all, they’re costing the
company valuable dollars, too! And if
people don’t comply, then maybe the
company will have to consider laying
them off — and replacing them with gays
and lesbians! If those people can’t ask for
spousal benefits in the first place, they’re
a lesser financial burden on the company.

Seen from this angle, the absence of do-
mestic partnership clauses at the work-
place couldvlead to preferred treatment
for gays and lesbians. If business ad-
ministrations are really as money-hungry

‘as they sound when they squawk about

paying insurance benefits for domestic
partners, why not follow through on their

thriftiness and get rid of all those costly
married employees? Either that or treat
someone who arrives with husband or
wife in tow as having a “pre—existing
condition” which doesn’t fall within the
scope of the company plan.

Without domestic partnerships, busi-
nesses would be increasingly vulnerable
to “Hollywood” marriages as well...you
know, the ones where the gay man or les-
bian marries for the sake of image or
convenience. (I want to call this the
“Sommersby Complex,” wherein the
Richard Geres and Jodie Fosters of the
world come together, but outing’s not my
forte...) The plan goes like this: a lesbian
at a company marries a gay, man just to
get him included in her benefits pack-
ages, or vice versa. Though the two live
together, they hardly sleep together, and
the neighbors begin to wonder about that
“other” couple that comes by to visit all
the time. It could easily happen, and it
too would cost the company lots of mon-
ey — money that could be saved by ac-
knowledging domestic partners and re-
ducing the temptation for people to
initiate “mock marriages” for the spiteful
acquisition of benefits.

As for domestic partnerships being rec-
ognized by organizations like the church
— well, the church has always had trou-
ble adjusting to things like this. Back
when men and women couldn’t get mar-
ried inside the church itself (since it was
a legal, not a romantic, contract that often
joined a man and woman), gay and les-
bian couples were being united at the al-
tar, as Yale historian John Boswell has
pointed out in his research. He even
found that certain heterosexual marriage
ceremonies are in fact based on liturgy
which united gay and lesbian couples in
the Catholic church.

Then things changed, and didn’t that
spark a furor! Now, gays and lesbians are

TELEPHONE (802) 524-9595

Lynn Goyette, M.S.,M.A.

Feminist Counseling & Psychotherapy

CAROL L. THAYER, M.D.

FAMILY PRACTICE Lesbian & Gay Affirmative

Individuals - Couples - Groups

Burlington Montpelier

802-860-6360

OFFICE HOURS
BY APPOINTMENT

Fl. D. 2, BOX 1160
FAIRFAX, VERMONT 05454