The Questions by Scott A. Safier chair Pittsburgh Partnership Project Education is an important component in the drive to acquire benefits for same-sex domestic partners. Like all issues that involve lesbian and gay rights, there are those whose bigotry is transparent. In a Jesse Helms-like manner, these people espouse a moralistic view that condemns differences and promotes intolerance. We expect these people. More dangerous are the people that seem to hold a reasonable position, yet don't recognize the homophobia or heterosexism in which their opinion is grounded. The concerns of these people exemplify the concerns of many politicians and employers with regards to domestic partnership issues. In this environment, the importance of an educational effort is magnified, but can also become more frustrating. People in the lesbian, gay and bisexual community that support the goal of equality for same-sex relationships view it as an issue of civil rights. The concern shown by lesbians and gay men for their life-partners is no different than the concern shown by married couples. The difference is that the sanctioning marriage relationship is sanctioned by the state. Business and industry support this inequity through programs that reward state- sanctioned marriage, such as employee benefits. As a matter of fairness, of equal pay for equal work, and of individual equality, the institutions of society should stop discriminating against gay and lesbian relationships. Yet, reasonable people have questions. What about the cost issues? How do we stop people from cheating? What is a homosexual relationship? Each of these reasonable questions belies a homophobic of heterosexist position. In this and an article next month, I will examine these questions, provide answers to them, and discuss what other issues they raise. The first question, "What about the costs?" has a second part, "Gay men get AIDS and isn't that expensive?" The question is easily answered. According to the National Institutes of Health, the average life-time cost for a person living with HIV disease is $75,000, as compared to one-time costs of $30,000 for heart disease or $250,000 for organ transplantations. Many insurance companies do not classify HIV disease as a catastrophic illness because its costs are considered marginal. For one employer in Pittsburgh, the estimated per employee cost for providing domestic partner benefits is about fifty cents. The cost of providing health care insurance to an employee's HIV-infected partner is not a valid reason to deny these benefits. Although easy to answer, the question is problematic for its focus on gay men and AIDS. Studies by the City of San Francisco, the University of Iowa, Lotus Corporation and others have each focused on the cost of HIV disease, as if this were the only cost issue. HIV is not treated as a disease that can effect anyone, but as the gay-plague. Another problem is that women are ignored from the question all together. Lesbians are a low-incidence group for HIV disease. Women's health care issues, such as breast cancer, are normally not addressed in reports that address the cost issue for domestic partnerships. And while these reports examine the rate of infection of HIV in gay men, the rate of pregnancy in the lesbian community is absent even though one of the largest cost items in employer-paid health care is maternal and neo-natal care. This first question demonstrates the type of heterosexist mindset many people naturally have when it comes to the issue of same-sex partnerships. In the next article, I will examine the issues surrounding other commonly asked questions. To be continued... Part II In the last article, I expressed my frustration at the heterosexism and homophobia that surrounds the issue of providing recognition to same-sex couples equivalent to those of opposite-sex couples. Many seemingly reasonable questions, like those about the cost of providing health care benefits, are grounded in attitudes that foster discrimination. Cost issues that focus on HIV diseases and gay men are demonstrably ill-founded, and ignore issues of women's health. Other seemingly reasonable questions are similarly flawed. Organization Total Total Total Employees Registered Same-Sex American Friends Service Committee 350 5 American Psychological Association 1500 10 5 Ben and Jerry's 300 15 1 Berkeley 1550 18 Lotus Development 3100 12 12 Montefiore Medical Center (New York) 4500 14 San Francisco 31000 594 594 Santa Cruz 650 3 West Hollywood 105 1 Village Voice 223 18 5 Returning to the question of cost, cost is also affected by enrollment. The table provides real-world data on the number of employees that use domestic partnership plans. The largest percentage increase caused by enrolling same-sex domestic partners occurred in San Francisco and was only 1.9%. This low enrollment is not surprising. Gays and lesbians make up a small portion of the population. Those in committed relationships, even smaller still. In many lesbian and gay families, both partners work. Each has his or her own benefits, such as health care, and does not need to use the partner's. Low-utilization does not however diminish the importance of these benefits. Job-satisfaction and peace- of-mind concerning the well-being of one's family both increase when these benefits are offered. The issue of utilization leads to the another common concern -- "Won't people lie to cheat the system and get benefits for a friend?" Behind the question is the homophobic insinuation that gays and lesbians are looking to defraud the system. Many employers do not require that a marriage license be produced before spousal benefits are granted. In fact, in a survey commissioned by the City of San Francisco, over 1% of the employees admitted to lying about being married in order to get benefits for their opposite-sex partner. Why is the issue of cheating raised when domestic partner benefits are discussed, and routinely ignored when it comes to providing benefits for married spouses? The data on the number of employees that take advantage of domestic partner benefits supports the position that lesbians and gay men treat domestic partnerships no-less serious than heterosexual couples treat marriage. The low percentage of people using benefits when they are offered suggests no wholesale fraud any larger than those falsely claiming to be in marriages. There are a couple reasons why employees do not falsely claim to be in same-sex relationships. Many men and women are loath to be stigmatized with a label of gay or lesbian to acquire benefits for a same-sex friend. Second, people that do receive domestic partner benefits suffer an additional federal and state tax burden. Because the state does not recognize same-sex partners as spouses, employees receiving benefits for their same- sex partner are taxed for the cost of the benefit. Any employee who did cheat by falsely claiming a partner would notice less money in their take home pay because of it. Another question routinely asked is "What is a domestic partnership?" The concept of two people of the same-sex entering into a lifelong partnership is foreign to our society. Many turn to the analogy of marriage, but marriage is defined by the state and the state still does not recognize same-sex partnerships. Pennsylvania does define common-law marriage, which is equivalent to domestic partnerships for opposite-sex couples. In our society, it is not unreasonable to ask the government to set a uniform definition for domestic partnerships for all couples. Without this definition, employer requirements vary wildly, from no requirements to requirements to demonstrate financial entanglements or cohabitation for several years. City governments such as Atlanta, New Orleans, Seattle and New York each have already established offices where couples can register their domestic partnerships. Yet, even with this type of governmental recognition, some employers still require more. For example, Columbia University and soon possibly New York University, both in New York City, have more stringent definitions of same-sex domestic partnerships than the City. In addition to the City requirements, these employers demand that partners share a mortgage or a bank loan, have joint credit cards, or some other financial entanglement. None of these are required for those in opposite-sex marriages. Each additional requirement imposed on same-sex domestic partnerships simply serves to remind gays and lesbians that they are not truely equal. These are examples of typical questions one encounters when working for equal recognition of same-sex relationships. Although seemingly reasonable, that reasonableness disguises an inherent heterosexism or homophobia. The way that employers or governments answer these questions dictates the number of hoops lesbian and gay male couples must jump through before their relationships are recognized as legitimate.