Bill secures equality for same-sex couples
By Daily Bruin Staff
Jan. 13, 2002 9:00 p.m.
 Barbara Ortutay Ortutay is a former news
editor and current editor in chief of tenpercent. E-mail her at
[email protected].
The right to:
“¢bull; obtain child custody and receive child support after a
divorce.
“¢bull; obtain health insurance for a spouse.
“¢bull; bereavement and family care leave.
“¢bull; visit one’s spouse in a hospital.
“¢bull; file joint income taxes.
“¢bull; inherit a spouse’s property.
These are just some of the civil rights and obligations awarded
to a man and a woman the minute they get married. A same-sex
couple, on the other hand, could be together for decades and still
be denied these rights.
The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that about 400,000 same-sex
couples live in California. Many of these couples are raising
children together and it is doubtful any of them would consider
themselves less of a family simply because they happen to be of the
same sex.
In the eye of 49 states and the federal government, however, two
women raising a child together do not deserve the same rights as a
man and woman doing the same.
 Illustration by JARRETT QUON/Daily Bruin In December
1999, Vermont became the first state in the country to recognize
civil unions between same-sex couples. By calling it a “civil
union” instead of a marriage, legislators have been able to
grant same-sex couples the same rights awarded to heterosexual
couples, without appearing to redefine the meaning of
“marriage.”
California may become the second state to honor civil unions if
lawmakers pass Assembly Bill 1338. Written by Assemblyman Paul
Koretz, the bill seeks to provide “equal legal
recognition” to same-sex couples in California; it is
essentially the same as Vermont’s union law.
The most common argument against same-sex unions is that by
giving gays and lesbians the right to marry, legislators allow for
the erosion of marriage. And, of course, if we allow those damn
homosexuals to marry today, people are going to start wedding their
cousins, siblings or farm animals.
Such arguments are nothing new. Similar contentions were used to
ban interracial marriage until 1967.
In March 2000, California voters passed Proposition 22, which
simply states, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is
valid or recognized in California.” Supporters of Prop. 22
hailed the measure for its simplicity ““ which may have
contributed to its victory ““ but it is exactly this
simplicity that has allowed civil rights advocates to get around
the wording and grant same-sex couples marriage-like benefits.
In all, 32 states have passed similar legislation, including the
federal “Defense of Marriage Act,” signed into law by
then-President Bill Clinton, barring federal benefits to same-sex
couples. Why Clinton of all people was so keen on defending
marriage remains a mystery.
AB 1338 is currently moving through the state legislature, and
is scheduled to be voted on by the Assembly Judiciary Committee
tomorrow.
Through AB 25, domestic partnerships are already legal in
California. Couples may register with the state to gain certain
legal, medical and unemployment benefits. AB 1338 would grant
further rights to same-sex couples ““ including inheritance
rights, custody protections, adoption, additional insurance
benefits, protection against marital status discrimination, claims
to wrongful death suits ““ and countless others.
There is no rational explanation for denying same-sex couples
the rights awarded to opposite-sex couples. Homosexuality was
removed from the American Psychiatric Association’s
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 1973.
There is absolutely no evidence that same-sex couples are incapable
of forming lasting, committed relationships or raising
well-adjusted children.
The only obstacles same-sex couples face is being treated like
second-class citizens and having basic civil rights denied on the
basis of their sexual orientation.
The road to equal rights has always been incremental. Though
states and the federal government continue to deny same-sex couples
the right to marry, individual cities, corporations and
universities have sought to remedy this discrimination by creating
their own domestic partnership programs.
The UC Board of Regents approved health benefits for UC
employees’ same-sex partners in 1997, despite strong
opposition from then-Governor Pete Wilson. This led a number of
professors, who would have otherwise gone to universities that
grant health care coverage to their partners, to stay within the UC
system.
At its meeting this Thursday, the regents’ finance
committee will discuss extending retirement benefits to domestic
partners and children of UC Retirement Plan members ““
benefits currently granted only to spouses.
Granting these benefits to same-sex couples is but a small step
in ensuring not only that the UC is able to compete with leading
universities in attracting and keeping top faculty, but also that
it treats all its employees equally.
