Letters from AASP
An Interview
with
Thomas F. Coleman
Letters from the |
Domestic Partnership in Vermont The following letter was sent on December 22, 1999, to the Attorney General of Vermont in response to the decision of the state Supreme Court earlier this week in the case of Baker v. Vermont. Copies of the letter were also sent to the Governor and to all 180 members of the Vermont Legislature. The Legislature convenes on January 4, 2000. According to news reports, the Governor and various legislative leaders believe that the Legislature will pass some type of a comprehensive domestic partnership act before the legislative session ends in April. If so, Vermont will be the first state to enact a law that grants all of the benefits and obligations (under state law) normally associated with "marriage" to couples who register with the state as "domestic partners." It is not known whether the Legislature will
make domestic partnership a secular institution limited to same-sex couples or whether it
will allow all couples who meet the eligibility criteria -- same sex and heterosexual
couples alike -- to participate in the new system. December 22, 1999 Hon. William H. Sorrell Re: Comprehensive Domestic Partnership Act Dear Mr. Sorrell: Your office is probably reviewing legislative options in response to the decision of the Supreme Court earlier this week in Baker v. Vermont. I would like to share some information and materials with you that may be helpful in this regard. At page 39 of its opinion, the Supreme Court made the following reference:
The Comprehensive Domestic Partnership Act proposed to the Legislature by the Hawaii Commission was based upon my testimony to the Commission in October 1995, my prior consultations with the staff member assigned to the Commission by the Legislative Reference Bureau, as well as a written framework and draft legislation I provided to the Commission at the request of its Chairperson. I am sending you that framework and the model law proposed by the Commission when it issued its final report in December 1995. As you can see, the Commission recommended that all unmarried couples who meet various criteria (same-sex and opposite-sex couples alike) should be entitled to all of the benefits of marriage and family (and all of the obligations as well) under state law. The model law is relatively short because of the method it uses to accomplish this result. It provides that wherever the terms "marriage," "spouse," "family," "dependent," or "household" are used in statutes, codes, regulations, or other state laws, they shall include and also refer to "domestic partnerships." It also prohibits discrimination on the basis of "domestic partnership status." The model law proposed by the Hawaii Commission was introduced in the Legislature when it convened in January 1996. Before the bill was heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee, I was one of three experts called to testify at an informational briefing to the Senate in February 1996. The model law, with slight modifications, was passed by the full Senate that year. Unfortunately, because the gay and lesbian community in Hawaii did not lobby for the bill (they wanted full marriage and no substitutes) and because some religious leaders and many ultra-conservative groups lobbied against it (they did not want any reform whatsoever), the bill did not come up for a hearing in the House of Representatives. The Governor of Hawaii indicated that he would have signed a comprehensive domestic partnership law, but it never reached his desk. The next year, the legislature passed a "Reciprocal Beneficiaries Law" which the Governor reluctantly signed as it was the only option to give some rights and benefits to unmarried partners. However, that law has serious defects since it refused to acknowledge beneficiaries as "family members" and also failed to give them most of the benefits that "family" and "marriage" statutes confer. I am also sending you a few pages taken from a law review article which I wrote on the subject now in question in Vermont, namely, legislative options when a court indicates that marriage statutes may be unconstitutional. That article, which was published by Tulane University School of Law in 1996 (although the official date says 1995), predicted that a supreme court might very well use the concept of "all deliberate speed" and give a legislature a reasonable amount of time to cure such a constitutional defect rather than judicially mandating the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. There are many other aspects of that article which you, the Governor, and the Vermont Legislature might find useful should the Legislature decide to adopt a domestic partnership law rather than legalize same-sex marriage. One of the questions which probably will arise in Vermont is whether a comprehensive domestic partnership law should be limited to same-sex couples or whether unmarried opposite-sex couples who meet all of the other criteria should be included in the definition of "domestic partners" as well. While the exclusion of opposite-sex couples might subject such as law to constitutional challenges (e.g., sex discrimination or a violation of religious liberty protections, etc.), in the first instance that issue is a policy matter for the Legislature to consider. The State of Vermont has already decided this policy question in a slightly different context. For several years, Vermont has been giving benefits to the domestic partners of its state employees. That program includes same-sex and opposite-sex domestic partners. I believe that more than 60% of those who have signed up for this program are opposite-sex domestic partners. You may note that no state in the nation has adopted a domestic partner benefits plan which is limited to same-sex couples. At least two cities in Vermont extend domestic partner benefits to municipal workers. Burlington and Middlebury, consistent with the state’s plan, decided to include all domestic partners regardless of gender. The programs in these cities are consistent with the overwhelming majority of cities throughout the nation which have adopted domestic partner benefits plans. In the private sector, Ben & Jerry’s was one of the first companies in the nation to extend domestic partner benefits to employees. It’s program is also gender neutral and nondiscriminatory. While a considerable number of private employers in the nation have adopted discriminatory plans which exclude heterosexual domestic partners, the majority of private sector plans are gender neutral. There are many reasons why unmarried heterosexual couples would choose domestic partnership instead of marriage. Rather than reiterating those reasons here, I would refer you to an article published on our website which discusses this issue in some detail. That article, and other relevant information about domestic partnership may be found at: singlesrights.com/dp-laws.html. The state would have no policy reason to deny heterosexual couples the option of participating in a truly secular institution such as domestic partnership, rather than forcing them to participate in a marriage which, despite the term "civil," carries religious connotations. Heterosexual couples who register as domestic partners would be assuming all of the obligations of marriage under state law. Since you may not be familiar with AASP (formerly known as Spectrum Institute), I am taking the liberty of including some letters of reference which show our involvement with the issues of family diversity and domestic partnership over the years. They include letters from legislators, study commissions, business organizations, and nonprofit groups. A more complete set of such letters or excerpts may be found on our website at: www.singlesrights.com/comments.html. I have been working in the field of family diversity, domestic partnership, and marital status discrimination for more than 25 years. I taught the first class in the nation on "Rights of Domestic Partners" at the University of Southern California in 1985-1988. You may find a short biography of my legal and professional involvements on our website at: singlesrights.com/ed-bio.html. I hope this information will be useful to you, the Governor, the Legislature, and key staff people as you respond to the challenge you now face as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision. If I may be of any additional help in this regard, please feel free to contact me. If you believe it would be valuable, I would be willing to come to Vermont to meet with you or others in person or to testify at legislative hearings on this issue. What Vermont does this legislative session will have ramifications throughout the entire nation for many years. Any legislation which is adopted in Vermont could become a model for other states. On behalf of all of the domestic partners in Vermont as well as those throughout the nation – at least two thirds of whom are seniors and other heterosexual unmarried couples – I wish you well as you and other state officials deliberate over this historic legislation. Very truly yours, Thomas F. Coleman cc: Governor Howard Dean August 19, 1999 Jim Mangia Dear Jim, I read the article in Frontiers News Magazine in which you encouraged gays and lesbians to leave the Democratic Party and affiliate with the Reform Party. The article prompted me to wonder how all unmarried adults, regardless of sexual orientation, might benefit from the Reform Party. There are 80 million unmarried adults in the United States. Some have never married, some are divorced, and some are widowed. A few million of them are gay or lesbian. Most of them, of course, are heterosexuals. Unmarried adults constituted about 33% of all voters in the most recent national election. They favored Democratic candidates over Republicans by a wide margin. In fact, the "marital status" gap is even greater than the "gender gap" when it comes to voting trends. Unmarried adults now constitute more than 42% of the adult population in the United States. In most large cities, unmarried adults are the MAJORITY. Considering all of this, one would think that the Democratic Party would be courting unmarried voters. WRONG! In fact, the party is either ignoring them or insulting them. The national platform of the Democratic Party does not mention "marital status" discrimination as an issue, nor does it identify unmarried adults as a class worthy of attention. The same holds true for the Democratic National Committee. Even if California, the state party totally ignores unmarried adults even though there are more than 10 million unmarried folks in the Golden State. The national DNC even discriminates on the basis of marital status. It gives health and other benefits to same-sex domestic partners but will not give such benefits to heterosexual unmarried couples. Two years ago, the DNC was urged by a major donor to open up this new benefits program to all domestic partners regardless of gender. The party leadership flatly refused to do so. Apparently, the national party leadership favors "mandatory marriage" for heterosexual couples in order for them to get equal benefits compensation at work. Last year when he was running for Governor of California, Gray Davis said in writing that he opposed same-sex only limitations on domestic partner benefits and that he favored a gender-neutral approach. Assemblywoman Carole Migden (D-San Francisco) took the same position. But this year, Davis and Migden are pushing a domestic partner bill that excludes seniors and other opposite-sex unmarried couples. Again, the message is "if you can legally marry, you must marry in order to get legal benefits and protections." That position, of course, reeks with marital status discrimination. The Census Bureau reports that about 70% of domestic partners in the nation are heterosexual couples. It seems that Democratic Party leaders are refusing to respect the freedom of these couples to choose domestic partnership rather than marriage. These leaders are trying to turn domestic partnership into a "gay ghetto" social and legal institution. The American Association for Single People, and its legislative advocacy affiliate, Singles Rights Lobby, promote the well being and legal rights of ALL unmarried adults and ALL domestic partners regardless of gender. We have tried communicating our concerns to Democratic Party leaders in California and at the national headquarters. The response is avoidance, silence, or rejection of our requests for meetings or reform. Speaking of reform, we would like to know how the Reform Party feels about single adults and domestic partners. Why should unmarried voters consider joining the Reform Party? Will the Reform Party offer them more promise than the other political parties? For more information about AASP and our activities, visit our web site at www.singlesrights.com. Please feel free to share this letter with other leaders in your party. I look forward to your response. Best regards, August 10, 1999 Clint Reilly Clint, AASP believes in equal rights for unmarried adults and domestic partners. We believe that marital status discrimination is wrong. We support domestic partner benefits and legal protections, but only if they are gender neutral and apply to all unmarried partners regardless of gender or sexual orientation. Carole Migden has recently amended her domestic partner bill, AB 26, to apply only to same-sex couples, dumping seniors and other heterosexual unmarried couples. The seniors groups were prime witnesses for the dp bills for years in Sacramento and now they are getting the ax. We think this move by Migden, supposedly at the request of the governor's staff, is wrong. Last year, both Migden and Gray Davis filled out a survey for our organization. They both said that they opposed same-sex only dp laws and programs and that they supported a gender neutral approach. Now they are pushing the opposite view. What hypocrisy! Senator Murray (SB 75), Senator Hayden (SB 118), and Assemblyman Knox (AB 107) have refused to make their dp bills sexist. They will stay the course with gender neutral and inclusive bills. Where do you stand on the issue of domestic partnership: a. support dp laws and programs, but only for same-sex
couples I assume that you will not answer (c) because you give dp benefits to your own workers, but that is one of the choices. San Francisco has had gender neutral dp laws and programs for years. When two supervisors tried to limit them to same-sex couples only, Tom Ammiano said "no" and stopped this sexist approach in its tracks. Although it is currently a state issue, AB 26 does have a preemption clause in it so that it could have some ramifications on San Francisco. There is also a reciprocity clause in AB 26. Since AB 26 is limited to same-sex couples only, heterosexual couples from New York City, for example, who are registered there as domestic partners, would be considered strangers to each other when they visit San Francisco. A same-sex couples, on the other hand, who is registered in New York City, will carry their dp status with them and have all of the same rights as other domestic partners in California. What a welcoming gesture to heterosexual unmarried visitors from other states. I would appreciate hearing you views on this issue. Thomas F. Coleman August 9, 1999 Mr. Doug LaFollette Dear Mr. LaFollette: I read an article in the Star Tribune indicating that you and six other state employees have sued the state for discriminating against unmarried employees by giving them lower death benefits. Congratulations for taking such a bold step and for providing strong and visible leadership in the ongoing battle against marital status discrimination. The American Association for Single People is a new national membership organization advocating equal rights for single people and domestic partners, regardless of gender. We are the only national civil rights group that makes marital status discrimination a top priority. Please visit our web site at www.singlesrights.com. Once you see what we are doing, I hope that you and other unmarried adults in Wisconsin will join the organization. There are 80 million unmarried adults in the United States. But until now, no national organization has attempted to organize these individuals into a collective and unified voice. Seniors, gays, women, people with disabilities, racial and ethnic minorities and others have national membership groups. As a result, they have clout and their views are listened to by government officials and corporate executives. It is time for unmarried adults to follow this path. AASP hopes to do for single people and domestic partners what AARP did for seniors. Someday, unmarried consumers and unmarried voters and unmarried workers will have a place at the table when important decisions concerning their lives are being made by those in power. Again, thank you for speaking out against marital status discrimination. If we can be of any help, just let us know. Possibly we can help the media put your lawsuit in a national and historic context. Or maybe your lawyers would like to brainstorm with someone who has specialized in marital status discrimination for 25 years. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely yours, THOMAS F. COLEMAN May 5, 1999 The executive director of AASP sent a letter to the editor of the Detroit News. The letter replied to an editorial which favored the decision of the Michigan Supreme Court ordering a new hearing in a lawsuit involving marital status discrimination. Click here for the complete editorial rebuttal by AASP.
|
