In The "Only Matter of Time" Department....
Sandi Scott-Moore is not married and not gay. She has a male boyfriend, a life-partner, an old man, whatever you want to call him. And so she is wondering whether she isn't being discriminated against by Washington state's new civil rights law that allows and requires same-sex couples to get the same "domestic partner" benefits as married couples. Should her and her main squeeze get the same deal from Washington as an unmarried same-sex couple would?
She has filed a claim with Washington's Human Rights Commission, a bureaucratic organization that gets the lucky job of tackling this issue first. Next up? Federal court, I imagine. Washington's highest court last month ruled that marriage in the state can only be a union between a man and a woman. Another big ruling could be on its way.
By Andrew Cohen |
August 24, 2006; 9:00 AM ET
Previous: After the Answer, More Questions Are Raised |
Next: Raise Your Hand and Repeat After Me
Posted by: Shag from Brookline | August 24, 2006 04:03 PM
No she shouldn't.
IT IS PERFECTLY FAIR TREATMENT. And I'll tell you why:
The reason is: Legally she is ALLOWED to get "MARRIED". Gay couples are NOT allowed to get "MARRIED". The "domestic partner" status is a substitute for marriage b/c gays aren't allowed to get married.
If in the future, gays are allowed to EITHER get MARRIED or get a DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP & STILL get benefits either way -- THEN & ONLY THEN -- would she have a case.
The following happened in VT. Before VT allowed gays to marry a company (sorry I don't remember which one) gave their employees that were gay the same benefits as those employees that were married. After VT started allowing gays to marry the co decided to rescind the benefits to gay couples starting on a certain date if those employees did not get married by that date but would re-institute them if they did get married in the future.
During the time period that unmarried gays were getting the benefits the co's unmarried heterosexual couples did NOT get the same benefits as them. The co said that since the heterosexual couples WERE ALLOWED to get married the domestic partner benefits were not justified b/c they were NOT being prevented from getting married.
SO, The reason the co gave for rescinding the domestic partner benefits to gays was the same reason that had been given before to the unmarried heterosexual couples: Since there were no legal reasons the couples could not get married then they weren't entitled to the co benefits.
I agree w/ the co's decision in that matter as I agree w/ the decision to deny this woman (& the like) domestic partnership status.
It's common sense folks but then again who knows what the courts will do since they aren't always known for their "common sense".
BTW, I'm a heterosexual in a committed relationship but am unmarried & hence my relationship is not recognized in employment nor by the state & I am not crying discrimination or unfairness.
Posted by: T.M. | August 30, 2006 05:28 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
" ... an old man ...."
Is he old in age or is he her "old man" close in age to her? I just turned 76 and do not consider myself an old man. If my wife refers to me as her "old man" that's, I think, a term of endearment, as if I referred to her as my " old lady" (although I don't refer to her as that). This lady apparently loves this guy, has a long term commitment with him, and wants fair treatment even though they are not married. This sounds somewhat like what gay couples want. It's call fairness.