We Can Be Fair - Even Get Used To It

Shacking up. Living in sin. Been there, man.

The old lady and I even bought a pad before we got hitched. Hey, it worked for us and we didn’t give a damn what you or The Man thought.

As it turns out, nobody cared.

It was the ‘90s and living on the edge had been pushed to the center. What had been a radical experiment in the ‘60s was now as shocking as a Beatles tune.

Thirty years from now, same-sex marriage or unions will be just as ordinary. And the idea that such couples should be barred from health care benefits will be as mindlessly dated as calling a wife “the old lady.”

But in the meantime, social pioneers will be ambushed as they carve out a path to progress.

During this election year, benefits for same-sex couples who work for the state will be a big issue. That was guaranteed on May 23, when the state Public Employees Benefits Board voted to allow gay and lesbian workers to add their partners to their health insurance plans. Gov. Gary Locke requested the change after initially objecting to the cost. Republicans in the state Legislature feel betrayed, saying Locke reneged after they left Olympia.

The governor is clearly pulling an end run around the Legislature and opponents have a right to be angry. But that still doesn’t make it a bad idea, and the governor should be applauded for having the courage to hand his opponents election-year ammo. In endorsing partner benefits, Locke said, “All of our employees should be able to come to work every day secure in the knowledge that they are being treated equally.”

Equal treatment. Fairness. When viewed that way, the issue is clear. But opponents like to cloud things by pointing to economics, “special rights” and the redefining of that sacred institution called marriage.

Let’s cut through this fog of complaints.

Gary Christenson, chairman of the Public Employees Benefits Board, has said that if about 1,000 employees sign up their partners, it will cost the retirement system about $3 million more per year. For the time being, state employees and retirees will pay for this through an estimated $2.43 hike in monthly premiums. The state Legislature may be asked to cover this in the future.

But a more conservative estimate may be in order. The city of Tucson, Ariz., has offered similar benefits since 1997 and only 21 out of 4,750 employees have signed up.

That’s because gay and lesbian workers are more likely to have partners who also work and already have benefits. They are also more likely to be childless, which makes them a bargain to employers. That’s one reason such buttoned-down businesses as Bank of America, Boeing and Safeco have liberalized benefits. (Another reason is that it deepens the talent pool.)

In objecting to the benefits, Rick Forcier, head of the state chapter of the Christian Coalition, said gay and lesbian workers “need to be helped; they don’t need to be subsidized.”

We’ll discover who really needs help later, but any benefits manager will tell you that it is childless couples who do the subsidizing when it comes to health insurance. Because such couples seldom use medical services, companies are able to discount the rates they charge for workers who have kids.

Gay and lesbian taxpayers are used to this equation. They help finance schools, parks, ball fields, libraries, swimming pools and other children-oriented government services. They pay for a lot more than they get in return.

Because unmarried heterosexual workers will not be eligible for partner benefits, opponents say the state is giving homosexual couples “special rights.”

The state could call this bluff by extending benefits to all couples who aren’t married. Fine with me. But opponents don’t really want that, because along with being expensive, it would be a tacit endorsement of “living in sin.”

More importantly, heterosexual couples do have an option not available to homosexual couples. They can get married. The state of Washington made sure gay and lesbian couples were barred from this “special right” by passing the Defense of Marriage Act in 1998.

It is this Catch-22 that is so unfair and brings to mind the old Jim Crow laws in the South, which indirectly barred African Americans from voting and other civil rights. By tying benefits to a marriage certificate, we’ve kept gay and lesbian workers separate and unequal.

And why can’t they get married? Because marriage is deemed a sacred institution designed for procreation. Never mind that we allow heterosexuals to marry even if they are infertile, sterile or don’t want children.

As for those who do have kids, the mounting toll of broken homes testifies to the trashing of marriage by heterosexuals. About one in two nuptials end in divorce. A sponsor of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia, loves marriage so much he’s tried it three times. And all the while, the social costs for the degradation of this institution have been quietly subsidized by those judged unsuitable for marriage, ineligible for health care benefits and, according to Christian conservatives, in need of our help.

Let’s face it: The purported high ground some heterosexuals preach from has long since become a sinkhole, making it indefensible to deny benefits based on sexual orientation or morality. Benefits are part of a compensation package. Paying a gay worker less than the person in the next cubicle is discrimination. It’s called equal pay for equal work. And like shacking up, it’s no longer a radical idea.