Thomas,

Here is the basic position of BiNet USA on the issue of marriage.

Please let me preface this by saying that marriage, per se, is not "one of our issues". However, our alliances with other organizations have caused us to examine our position, and this is what we have defined. It may not completely meet all of your questions, but that is because we simply have not addressed the issues from the viewpoint you present.

BiNet USA feels that marriage is a sexist and patriarchial institution that promotes inequality and ppression. We do not support marriage, per se, and do not feel that marriage should give anyone rights that others do not enjoy. We basically feel that marriage is a religious and social contract and should not be a legal and governmental issue.

However, we stand with our gay brothers and sisters who wish to marry their partners from this standpoint. BiNet USA does not support any system where one group or person has advantages or opportunities that any other group or person is restricted from participating in. In our current society where opposite gender people are allowed to marry if they wish to do so, BiNet USA supports the rights of same gender partners to marry under the same criteria.

I hope that this answers your questions. I've tried to represent the group's position as clearly as I can. We have not previously addressed a position on the rights of single people simply because no one has asked us. However, it does not seem to me to be a far stretch to say that we are against any discriminatory policy, including special privileges for married people. If your Board wishes to talk to us further about creating a mutually beneficial alliance, I'm sure we would be willing to develop an official position on these issues.

The following report was sent to us from attorney Rudy Serra, a Michigan member of AASP.

Michigan Supreme Court Justice Marilyn Kelly has been selected by The National Association of Human Rights Workers NAHRW) to receive the 1999 "Judicial Award" at the organization's national conference in Greensboro, North Carolina.

According to the NAHRW, "The Judicial Award is presented to a member of the judiciary who has written opinions in behalf of the bench to fight discrimination, hate crimes or injustices on behalf of individuals."

Justice Kelly was nominated by Detroit Human Rights Commissioner Rudy Serra, who cited Kelly's opinion in McReady v Hoffius as an example of Kelly's commitment to human rights. Kelly wrote that the Michigan Civil Rights Act was not in conflict with freedom of religion. When a Jackson land lord refused to rent to an unmarried couple on the grounds that they were "living in sin," Kelly said that he had discriminated based upon marital status. She held that religious business people must follow the same rules in the market-place as everyone else. A newly established extremist right-wing Republican majority on the court later vacated Kelly's decision.

Since that time she has remained a resounding voice in support of human rights. Kelly admonished the right-wing justices for ignoring the interests of innocent children when unmarried couples separate. She also condemned the conservatives for allowing businesses to shift the blame to unions in discrimination cases.

Kelly is also active as Co-Chair of The Open Justice Commission of The State Bar of Michigan.

Honorable Tina Podlodowski
Seattle City Council

Dear Councilwoman Podlodowski:

We are thrilled to hear about the Equal Benefits Bill you are sponsoring! We are writing to express our hope that the bill will use a non-sexist definition of domestic partner, to include unmarried opposite-sex couples as well as gay and lesbian ones.

We are the founders of the Alternatives to Marriage Project, a national organization for people who have chosen not to marry, are unable to marry, or are in the process of deciding whether marriage is right for them. As we're sure you know, eleven million people live with an unmarried (same or opposite sex) partner in the United States, including over 86,000 in the state of Washington. One third of all unmarried couples are parenting children.

The precedent for domestic partnership plans has already been set: the vast majority of states and municipalities offering these benefits have made them available to both same and opposite-sex couples. A domestic partnership plan for which only gays and lesbians are eligible would violate federal laws prohibiting sex discrimination, such as Title VII and the Equal Pay Act, and its constitutionality would also be in question. Moreover, cost is not an issue: on average, enrollment in non-sexist domestic partner plans goes up by only 1%. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the National Organization for Women, the American Association for Single People, and many chapters of the American Association of Retired Persons all recommend gender-neutral plans.

We see three main reasons to include opposite-sex couples in your legislation:

1. Domestic partnership benefits serve the important purpose of recognizing the diversity of ways in which people choose to structure their relationships and families. Opposite-sex unmarried couples make up a varied group, including heterosexual, bisexual, and transgendered people who choose not to get married for a wide range of political, religious, financial, and philosophical reasons. Many have chosen not to take advantage of the privilege that comes with legal marriage, instead choosing to join the fight for domestic partnerships and other ways to validate a broader diversity of families.

2. As you have said, equal pay for equal work is one of the primary theories underlying domestic partnership benefits. When couples meet the definition of domestic partners (based on factors such as the length of time they have lived together, financial and legal interdependence, the intention to remain together indefinitely, etc.) and perform equal work, it is illogical (if not illegal) to allow some to receive benefits as domestic partners while requiring others to become legally married, based on the sexes or sexual orientations of the individuals.

3. Even after same-sex marriage is legalized, many same-sex couples will choose not to have their relationships defined by the institution of marriage. It would be foolish and short-sighted to advocate for same-sex-only plans with the explanation that opposite-sex couples currently have the option of getting married. Hopefully the day is not far off when all couples will have the option of getting married. But when this happens some will resent being forced into marriage in order to be eligible for health insurance.

We strongly support your call for an expansion of rights to unmarried citizens through your Equal Benefits Bill. We urge you to make the bill truly equitable by including unmarried couples regardless of their genders. Please let us know if the members of the Alternatives to Marriage Project can be of help to you as you consider these issues.

Sincerely,
Marshall Miller and Dorian Solot
Founders

Alternatives to Marriage Project
P.O. Box 991010, Boston, MA 02199
phone/fax (781) 793-9911

------------

My partner and I are attempting to get benefits coverage for me from his employer which has same sex only domestic partner coverage.

We are looking for legal resources to help us pursue this issue....can you point us toward any such resources, or to any legal precedents.

(My employer, has gender neutral domestic partner benefits, but as a non-profit they are by far inferior to what would be available to us through his employment.)

Thank you,

As you know, I was gone most of last week and am just now catching up on the accumulated mail, including your Singles Rights Lobby newsletter.

The compiled lists of states and statutes are wonderful! That kind of factual information is surprisingly time-consuming to track down (as you no doubt already know) but so important to have easily accessibly for arguing our perspective on family diversity. It makes a clear case for the work we are doing.

Congrats!

I live in Canada and I haven't heard or found anything like your organization here. I am thinking of starting a Canadian version. Have you heard of a Canadian version or do you have any tips?

Sincerely,

We received the following e-mail message message on September 20, 1999:

At the annual convention of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association last week, Atlanta-based Cox Enterprises announced that they will offer DP benefits to same-sex and opposite-sex domestic partners as of 2000. The corporation has 55,000 employees in 172 broadcast, print, and online media outlets plus numerous auto auction companies and other divisions.

Thank you very much for speaking up on an important issue which has been widely ignored, the issue of nonmarital children's rights. We all have heard the stories of sad events like children left to die in garbage cans because of the ostracism their mothers felt they would face had they kept them, seen children of celebrities treated like dirt after their parent's death because they had the misfortune to be born to an unmarried mother, seen the statistics, But what is the human side?

Did you know that non-marital children, by some estimates as much as a third of the population, fare worse than any one race in their prospects for education, health, longevity and stability in later life? (That alone should give reason to pause and examine this issue.)

Especially in the United States, they suffer from a Catch-22-like labyrinth of intentional inheritance discrimination, and a lack of access to lawyers or justice, that really should be illegal. These inheritance laws, cunningly designed on their face to seem like they treat non-marital children equally, when examined are really laws designed to marginalize them, humiliate them and to provide economic incentive for dishonesty and probate fraud, and an economic incentive to separate them from their only relatives. My situation is a textbook case of these problems. (And that, I am sure was not my father's wish.)

This is not what a state should be encouraging, this is not their right, and this is what I've gone through, and it's not an uncommon story.

I'd be very interested in explaining what I mean by what I say in this letter, and I think if you have the time to listen, it will be an eye-opener. Even if you can't help me directly, (and you may want to, because a better test case could not exist.) it will be an education. This is an issue which is long-overdue for public attention, not only for the sake of who are by all accounts the most-marginalized group in America, but for the sake of the poorest of children elsewhere in the world, because indeed, the rest of the world looks to the United Sates for guidance.

August 22, 1999

Finally, a web site about singles that doesn’t "help" you become un-single. I sent the site address to six single friends and would have sent it to more only they didn’t have e-mail addresses.

I realized a couple of years ago that I belong to the world’s smallest minority group – a heterosexual single adult over 35 years old with no children. This realization has been a blessing as it’s given me strong empathy for those in other minority groups. Now, it’s wonderful to find that I have an organization looking out for my concerns.

Could you send me an application form via the postal service mail? I would also be glad to distribute any additional applications you care to send to my single friends who don’t have e-mail.

Thank you for your work on my behalf.

If all that pro-marriage activists want is for same-sex couples to get the same unfair advantages that married opposite-sex couples already enjoy in comparison to single persons or unmarried same-sex or opposite-sex couples, then those pro-marriage activists don't speak for me.

Those pro-marriage activists often say that domestic partnership is merely a compromise on the way to the privileges reserved for marriage. I say that domestic partnership is a permanently valuable alternative to marriage that provides society with the same benefits as marriage does and should enjoy whatever deserved privilege such benefits justify. Therefore, domestic partnership should be made available to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples--as well as making marriage available to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Discrimination against opposite-sex couples in domestic partnership is not justified by discrimination against same-sex couples in marriage.

At the same time, both institutions should be examined to see which privileges that they enjoy are justified and which ones are simply unfair to single, uncoupled people, no matter what their sexual orientations.

Meanwhile, if pro-marriage activists want to focus merely on a short-term improvement for themselves while ignoring the longer-term and broader issues of justice, they should at least admit it and not criticize others who speak in support of a broader vision.

Bill Kelley, Chicago

August 4, 1999

Dear Mr. Edwards:

Thank you for your letter regarding AB 26 and domestic partner registries.

I agree with you that we need to make state law on domestic partnership consistent with Oakland and other municipalities through a statewide domestic partner registry.

Currently, AB 26 is in the Senate Rules Committee where it can be passed, amended and passed, or defeated.  The resulting language of the bill may differ significantly from the current version.  I value your thoughts on making sure that the registry be gender-neutral and will fully consider them when the final version of this bill comes before me.

If you would like to stay apprised of my current legislation or comments on current issues, I encourage you to check out my web-site at http://www.sen.ca.gov/perata.

Thank you for taking the time to write.  If you have any questions about this issue or others, feel free to contact my office.

Sincerely,

"Beth,

I caught your comments on the list and believe that domestic partnership is not second-class marriage but rather a valid and important alternative family structure. Domestic partnership policies can include a wide variety of significant and tangible benefits parallel to those offered married couples, while allowing individuals to define their own families apart from the traditional, marriage context. If same-sex marriage becomes legal, it will not obviate the need for domestic partnership. As Tom Coleman noted, many same- and opposite-sex couples choose not to marry, and there are many partnerships of a familial yet non-romantic nature that can also benefit from such alternatives.

If you would like to read more on these topics, I have written a Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, which can be found online at http://www.ngltf.org/pubs/dp_pub.html. Kerry Lobel, Executive Director

of NGLTF, has also written a column on this subject; it can be found at http://www.ngltf.org/press/kerrymay99.html.

I hope you find this information useful.

Best,

Although this is your debate in your unique social and legal context, allow me to make some comments from Canada, a country where I believe more progress has been made for the LGBT community than in the USA.

In the late 1960's and early 1970's in Canada, the influence of the "sexual revolution" was in full swing. Private homosexual acts were decriminalized nation-wide, and divorce was made easier. In the 1970's, a series of high profile cases where "common law" husbands appeared to treat their "common law" wives unfairly resulted in law reform in some Canadian provinces, notably Ontario, our most populous province. This provided some legal rights such as alimony to enduring common law relationships, although such couples were not given all the same rights as married couples. Over the years, the recognition of "common law" relationships has infiltrated many statutes provincially and federally, although some provinces like Alberta continue to be a legal wasteland for straight common law couples.

This development reached a legal milestone in our Supreme Court in 1995. In the case of Miron v. Trudel, it was held that marriage was not an appropriate "marker" of distinction. An Ontario law which limited rights to married couples, and did not offer the same benefits to common law couples, violated our constitution's equal protection guarantee.

As a result of these developments, the debate over same sex couples' equality in Canada, unlike in the USA, has not centered on marriage. Marriage remains a hot button for many straight people, even in Canada - our Parliament just passed a resolution confirming existing law that limits marriage to opposite sex couples. We have been able to defuse some of the religious opposition to our movement here by noting that common law couples live without benefit of clergy, too. We have also been able to state honestly that our demands for equality have nothing to do with the institution of marriage.

Canadian legal challenges have focussed on eliminating discrimination against us as individuals, such as the ban on gays in the military, and on eliminating the distinctions between common law opposite sex couples and same sex couples. This line of cases culminated in this year's landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision in M v H. In this case, the Court ruled that the original Ontario family law which had opened the door to common law couples in 1978 violated our constitution's equal protection clause, because it did not also include same sex couples.

The struggle for recognition of common law couples' rights (and obligations) was spearheaded by women in the feminist movement concerned with the exploitation of straight women by straight men. They paved the way for us in Canada, and we are grateful to them. It is noteworthy that the original law was introduced by a conservative government, who sold it on the notion that a spouse should provide support so that women and children were not forced to look to social assistance following family breakdown. Make the deadbeat dads pay, not the taxpayers, was the slant. Interestingly, the law was worded in gender neutral language, not because women often are called on to support men, but because of the important equality principle this reflected, as well as its recognition of the evolving nature of modern families. This gender neutral language helped us a great deal later in arguing for same sex couples' rights in M v H.

It is no surprise to many of us that resistance to same sex couple recognition is greatest in places like Alberta, where there is also

resistance to legal recognition of opposite sex common law couples. I note in passing that there are no "registry" requirements in these "common law couples" laws. Social conservatives who are resistant to the rights of women and who condemn "living in sin" are unlikely to skip over those concerns and embrace legal rights for same sex couples.

Interestingly, conservative Canadian governments have now adopted the original feminist arguments in opposing our legal actions. They assert that these laws are needed to protect women from men, and that our couples lack structural gender power imbalance and therefore need no state intervention. Alberta conservatives are now promoting domestic partnership registries open to all as the solution to the demands of the LGBT community (being open to all, there are no "special rights"), and as a means of ensuring that they can build a constitutional fence around marriage to protect it from the Supreme Court.

I cannot say whether Foray was rightly decided. I also understand those who might feel that getting benefits for "our people" should be the focus. However, the view from here is that your religious right will always be more effective as long as you have to reach for the brass ring of marriage. Incrementalism has worked for us.

It is right that our movement should support equality and oppose irrelevant legal distinctions, such as marital status. In particular, the struggle for women's rights is our critical ally in our quest for an end to discrimination. Our Canadian experience would suggest that US LGBT organizations would be not only philosophically correct, but tactically wise, to support efforts to win legal recognition of rights for common law couples.

Best of luck to you in your quest for equality.

"Dear Mr. Coleman,

First, my sincere apologies for not getting back to you sooner on your request for HRC's policy on gender-neutral domestic partner benefits.

HRC supports domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples because marriage is not an option (yet) for those couples. Therefore, our focus is on equalizing the benefits between same-sex couples and couples whose marriages are legally recognized. We work closely with employers and employee groups on achieving that goal.

However, we recognize that the definition of family is changing (or has changed) for all Americans and the vast majority of entities with domestic partner benefits offer gender-neutral plans. So when the gender-neutral domestic partner program for employees of the government of the District of Columbia came under attack we worked hard to preserve it. Similarly, last year we supported both the Senate and the House versions of a bill that would provide domestic partner benefits to federal government employees. One bill included same-sex couples only, the other included heterosexual couples as well.

In summary, our goal is to achieve domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples and when gender-neutral plans are the preferred option of the entity, we support them. However, we do not oppose, and actively support, same-sex only domestic partner packages.

I hope this clarifies our position. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

The Equality Project (formerly known as the Wall Street Project) promotes and monitors corporate adherence to contemporary business standards on sexual orientation policy for gay and lesbian consumers, employees and investors.  It espouses a list of ethical guidelines on sexual orientation for companies worldwide. These guidelines are known as the Equality Principles.

One of the guidelines states:
"Spousal benefits will be offered to domestic partners of employees, regardless of sexual orientation, on an equal basis with those granted to married employees."

We asked whether this meant that a company must provide domestic partner benefits to all unmarried couples regardless of gender or sexual orientation.  The following is the response we received from the organization:

"Hi there. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. We're swamped with support but a bit understaffed. We do mean that all employees should have the same benefits. We believe that dp benefits should not go to just gay couples but to unmarried heterosexual couples as well.

"The following letter was sent on January 25, 1999 from Patricia Ireland to Hawaii Governor Ben Cayetano and key legislative leaders. She urges the Governor and Legislature to pass an inclusive, comprehensive, and GENDER-NEUTRAL domestic partnership law.

January 25, 1999
National Organization for Women
1000 16th Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Governor Ben Cayetano
Honolulu, Hawaii

Dear Governor Cayetano:

I am writing to encourage you to endorse passage of a comprehensive, gender-neutral domestic partnership act in Hawaii. I am sure you are aware that the National Organization for Women is committed to the rights of all women and believes that equal benefits should be granted to all domestic partnerships, regardless of sex or sexual orientation.

The passage of this act will pave the way for other states to introduce and enact similar legislation. States should no longer deny same-sex partners legal benefits equivalent to marriage or force opposite-sex partners to marry to legitimize their families. Simply put, states should be in the business of supporting families, not limiting them.

Through the passage of a gender-neutral, comprehensive domestic partnership act, families will no longer face an uncertain financial

future due to catastrophic illness or death; nor will the children of domestic partners be denied coverage for their health and welfare.

I hope that you will support the proposed legislation. I would be happy to discuss the many issues surrounding this legislation and the benefits that Hawaiians will derive from it. Please feel free to contact my assistant Donna Hazley at extension 767 to schedule a time for us to speak about this issue.

Yours for NOW,
Patricia Ireland
President"