Partner benefits build social pact

Monday, 7/14/97 Partner benefits build social pact BENEFITS:
Extending rights to domestic partners upholds university values

By Charles Outcalt Should the University of California system
continue to deny health, retirement and student family housing
benefits to the single segment of the University community? This
question will be addressed by the UC Regents at their July 17
meeting, when, for the first time ever, they will discuss the
question of benefits for the domestic partners of UC students,
faculty and staff. Currently, most domestic partners of UC
community members are not eligible for what are known as "hard"
benefits, such as the right to coverage under insurance plans,
pension payments and space in student family housing, although some
domestic partners do have access to a patchwork of "soft" benefits,
such as the ability to acquire a library card or participate in
some recreational programs. If the Regents decide to extend "hard"
benefits to domestic partners, they will have taken a giant step
toward honoring the University’s own policy, which prohibits
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and marital
status. In addition, they will have done a great deal to restore
the University’s competitiveness with those institutions which
already offer domestic-partner benefits – institutions to which the
UC regularly loses highly-qualified students, faculty and staff who
would rather be a part of a school that honors and supports their
relationships. Many arguments, all specious, have been put forward
to deny benefits to same-sex partners of members of the University
community. None of these supposed justifications for discrimination
stands up to reason. False Argument One: It would be too expensive
to offer domestic partner benefits. Study after study has shown
that the cost of providing domestic partner benefits is negligible
in relation to the providing institution’s overall budget. The
journal "What’s New in Benefits and Compensation" noted earlier
this year that a large majority of firms which offer domestic
partner benefits report less than 1 percent of eligible employees
have taken advantage of these benefits. A 1994 study produced by
Hewitt Associates, a nationally-recognized employee benefits
consulting firm, stated that the extension of domestic partner
benefits to employees "has not resulted in statistically
significantly differences in cost." While there would be some cost
to the UC system if it extended domestic partners benefits, it does
not appear that this cost will be consequential. False Argument
Two: No one in the UC community, except a handful of radical
activists, supports domestic partner benefits. UC student, faculty
and staff associations have all advocated for domestic partner
benefits. In 1991, the Academic Council of the UC system
recommended "the elimination of discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation in the provision of benefits within the
University of California." More recently, the University of
California Student Association has taken a stance in favor of
domestic partner benefits, as has the Council of UC staff
assemblies, a UC-wide staff organization. While lesbian, gay,
bisexual and transgender activists have been active in pressing for
an end to discrimination regarding this issue, they have long
enjoyed the invaluable support of their heterosexual colleagues and
allies. False Argument Three: No one else offers domestic partner
benefits, so the University of California should not take the risk
of being in the lead on a risky process. Six of the "comparison
eight" schools – those institutions with which the UC compares
itself in determining policy – already offer domestic partner
benefits, as do many large public universities in such seemingly
more conservative states such as Iowa, Minnesota and Maine. In
addition, hundreds of businesses, including such "mainstream" and
influential corporations as Disney and IBM, offer domestic partner
benefits. The UC is not in the lead on this issue; rather, it is
trailing embarrassingly behind other institutions, both public and
private. False Argument Four: Lesbian and gay people cannot be
married, so they should not be offered domestic partner benefits.
Even though same-sex marriages have never been legal anywhere in
the United States, state after state has passed legislation in the
last few years to ensure that gay and lesbian people will never
gain the freedom to marry. As legal recognition of gay and lesbian
relationships becomes an ever more distant goal, it becomes
correspondingly more important to find ways to ensure equality for
same-sex relationships through other means. While domestic partner
benefits fall far short of the rights extended automatically to
married couples, they would be enormously valuable to those members
of the UC community who cannot obtain student family housing,
health insurance or retirement benefits for their same-sex
partners. False Argument Five: It is fair to withhold domestic
partner benefits to gay and lesbian couples because some consider
same-sex relationships to be immoral and harmful to the family and
society as a whole. Membership in the UC community, or any other
community, should never require suspension of one’s personal moral,
ethical and religious beliefs. However, one of the responsibilities
of living in a pluralistic and diverse society is the obligation to
offer active support, rather than mere passive tolerance, for the
well being of all members of society. The extension of domestic
partner benefits to same-sex spouses would broaden the social
compact to include those who have been excluded from society for
far too long: gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender
individuals. There are no sustainable reasons to continue to deny
domestic partner benefits to the same-sex partners of UC students,
faculty and staff. On the contrary, the extension of these benefits
would strengthen the University immensely, by allowing it to regain
institutional competitiveness and adhere to its own
anti-discrimination policy. However the most compelling argument
for domestic partner benefits is the simplest and most human: the
families of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) members
of the University community would be strengthened immeasurably by
the financial, legal and social support inherent in domestic
partner benefits. If the Regents act to allow domestic partner
benefits within the UC system, then every same-sex partner
protected by health insurance, every same-sex family allowed to
live in student family housing and every long term same-sex partner
covered by retirement benefits will give witness to the improved
quality of human life of the entire LGBT community. Previous Daily
Bruin Story: Same-sex partners deserve equal rights