Untitled Document
As soon as this October, Arizona may become the 15th
state to provide domestic-partner benefits to state employees. Such
benefits have become the logical extension of many employers’
anti-discrimination policies. “Domestic partnership” is a term
used in local government, by employers, and by the insurance industry to
denote two people whose lives are interconnected in such a way as to make
their affairs interdependent. Still, some common misconceptions remain.
The first misconception: Domestic
partners don’t have families to support. No
matter how one chooses to translate or manipulate the term
“marriage,” one thing is certain: The American family has
changed drastically throughout history. For example, consider those
eligible for domestic partner benefits through the state of Illinois: more
than 30,000 same-sex couples. They live throughout the state, have partners
who depend upon each other financially, and actively participate in the
Illinois economy. Twenty-two percent of same-sex couples in Illinois are
raising, on average, two children — the same as married couples.
However, same-sex couples with children in Illinois have fewer economic
resources to provide for their families than their married counterparts.
Although married and unmarried families may operate similarly, unmarried
partners and their families are not as financially secure.
The second misconception: Domestic partners and their families receive the same benefits as
married spouses and their families. Married
workers who receive family health-insurance benefits get double benefit:
untaxed coverage for their spouses and children. A worker with an unmarried
domestic partner is doubly penalized: Employers typically do not provide
coverage for domestic partners (only 22 percent of employers cover same-sex
partners, and 28 percent cover opposite-sex domestic partners). Even when
partners are covered, the partner’s coverage is taxed as income to
the employee. Because the Internal Revenue Code is subject to the Defense
of Marriage Act, the IRS must translate “spouse” to mean a
person of the opposite sex for all federal purposes. In short, when an
employer provides an employee the same health-insurance coverage for the
domestic partner or his or her dependents, the fair market value of that
coverage, including the employee’s pretax contributions, is
considered “imputed income.” As of December 2007, employees
with partner health benefits were paying, on average, $1,069 a year more in
taxes than married employees with the same coverage. Also, more retirees
are learning that there are a number of disparities in the health care and
pensions they and their loved ones get.
The third misconception: This
is strictly a “gay issue.” More
than 6 million unmarried couples are now living together. In 2000, 39
percent of opposite-sex unmarried couples had children younger than 18
years living in the home, as did 25 percent of same-sex couples. The
American family continues to rapidly transform beyond the traditional
model. There are political, economic, and philosophical reasons that many
people choose a domestic partnership over matrimony, yet some employers
exclude such coverage for heterosexual couples because they have a legal
right to marry. In response, coverage for opposite-sex couples is
increasing because of legal decisions considering such exclusions
discriminatory. Many seniors who are widowed, as well as people of all ages
with serious disabilities, do not marry for fear that marriage will cause
them to lose pension survivor benefits or government subsidies. Other
seniors are fearful that a new marriage will upset estate plans for their
adult children.
Critics arguing against fair compensation insist that
rule changes undermine the institution of marriage, burden the state with
added costs, mock the Legislature’s policymaking role, and tear down
the sociopolitical structure of our country. Those privy to the
practicalities of 21st-century public policies offer the following
rationale for offering domestic-partner benefits: (1) Social and economic
justice (equal pay for equal work): Health and retirement benefits should
be a major part of every employee’s compensation package. (2)
Employee recruitment and retention: Offering competitive and inclusive
benefits helps attract the most qualified candidates. (3) Costs are
negligible. For both private and public entities, the cost of providing
benefits has been a primary concern, but costs are far less than
anticipated. The actual number of people using these benefits has been
modest, and the fiscal risks associated with these individuals are no
greater than those of spouses.
The bottom line is that employees deserve compensation
based on merit and productivity, not on federally mandated features
irrelevant to job performance. Given that the title “domestic
partner” is the only option certain unmarried individuals are granted
at this time and because this country is still lagging behind others in how
we protect our families, we have an obligation to extend the same benefits
to these families that are by default extended to married couples’
families.
Ashley Krstulovich, research and publications
coordinator for the State University Annuitants Association, will discuss
domestic-partner benefits at 6 p.m. today (Thursday, April 24) at Brookens
Auditorium, on the University of Illinois at Springfield campus.
Illinois Times has provided readers with independent journalism for almost 50 years, from news and politics to arts and culture.
Your support will help cover the costs of editorial content published each week. Without local news organizations, we would be less informed about the issues that affect our community..
Click here to show your support for community journalism.