Interesting stories about Domestic Partnerships: THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS November 13, 1993, Saturday Mayor vetoes partner' insurance law NEW ORLEANS - Mayor Sidney Barthelemy this week vetoed a law that would have let gay city employees enroll their " domestic partners" in the city's health insurance plan. Mr. Barthelemy told the City Council that the city could not afford to add to its health care expenses. Officials said the city could have expected up to 2 percent of its workers, or about 80 employees, to enroll their partners in the health plan by 1995. =============================================================== The Seattle Times November 12, 1993, Friday GROUP HEALTH GIVES BENEFITS TO WORKERS' DOMESTIC PARTNERS After three years of hemming and hawing about providing medical coverage to unmarried domestic partners of staff members, Group Health Cooperative will do it, said Phil Nudelman, president and CEO. "Call it guilt or whatever, I don't think we've been very courageous about this," said Nudelman, who announced the change to the gathering of the health-care cooperative's board Wednesday. Although the board was "unanimously supportive" of the move, said Nudelman, he did not seek its formal approval. "I look at this as my delegation of authority to set benefits for employees." Nudelman said he realizes there may be some controversy about providing benefits to unmarried heterosexual and homosexual partners, including objections based on cost, morality and religious grounds. Still, "I feel it's time to move toward it and stop talking about it," Nudelman said. "I believe very strongly it's an equity issue. . . . Equity should not have to wait." Group Health joins a number of other companies and government bodies granting such benefits, including Microsoft, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Lotus Development, the city of Seattle and King County, said Jay Gusick, Group Health spokesman. The health-care cooperative estimates that about 5 percent of the staff will be eligible for the extended coverage, and probably two-thirds of them have opposite-sex partners, Gusick said. Estimates place the annual cost of that coverage at about $ 1 million, he said. Those eligible must have a long-term, committed relationship, share a residence, and be jointly responsible for the costs of basic food and shelter. "We're making this change because policies that exclude people from this benefit on the basis of sexual orientation or lifestyle contradict our commitment to diversity," Brenda Tolbert, vice president for human resources, told the Group Health newsletter. "Removing such barriers and prejudices also will help us attract and retain a high-quality, diverse work force." Group Health has more than 9,000 employees. ================================================================ November 11, 1993, Thursday THE DETROIT NEWS WHEN IT COMES TO LEGAL GAY UNIONS, IT'S LAWMAKERS WHO ARE UNREASONABLE The sleepy-eyed justice of the peace clearly wants to tell the couple at his front door to come back at a more reasonable hour. But their eagerness to be legally joined is so touching that he beckons them in from the night. Within moments, the justice of the peace and his wife have pulled together the sweet, makeshift wedding ceremony that's a staple of old Hollywood movies. Because Joyce is a stubborn romantic, I've watched more than my share of big-screen elopements. Yet I never expected we'd star in what felt like a Gay '90s remake of those classic scenes: The alarm clock rang so early that our canine companions, Jazz and Eddie, doggedly refused to get up. But we jumped into nice clothes and quickly drove to the town hall. We were intent on being first, on making a tiny bit of history. Four equally eager couples lined up behind us. The 10 of us were greeted by Takoma Park, Md., officials as if we were guests at a party they had forgotten they were throwing. Yes, this was the first day unmarried couples could legally register their domestic partnerships, but town officials clearly hadn't expected anyone to show up - at least not so soon. Quite a bit of good-natured bustling ensued as the officials found the application forms, double-checked the $ 25 fee, and determined that permanent certificates had not yet been printed. What about a notary? A frantic call went out. If you don't want to wait around for the notary, an apologetic official told us, just come back later. We'd all already waited years for legal recognition - 15 in the case of one male couple. No one budged. A short time later, Joyce and I signed a declaration "that we are in a familial relationship characterized by mutual caring and the sharing of a mutual domicile." As the notary's seal bit a permanent imprint into the document, my government-approved domestic partner and I felt an unexpected surge of pride and, yes, validation. Unlike a marriage license, our domestic partnership certificate really will be just a piece of paper: no tangible benefits. No legal responsibilities. Yet all 10 of us felt we'd taken a major step. "Politically, it's a really important step for the culture to be forced to reckon with us," says Marilee Lindemann, who registered with her partner of nine years. "Psychologically, it's extremely important for us to have certificates and rituals. The older I get, the more important that becomes to me," adds the 34-year-old English professor. After Berkeley, Calif., voted in 1984 to recognize domestic partners, a dozen cities followed suit. I wasn't surprised when Takoma Park, the most progressive suburb of Washington, D.C., joined the list. But Joyce's proposal that we sign up floored me. For all our eight years together, Joyce had been far more stubborn than romantic about domestic partnership registration. "No second-class citizenship for gay couples!" she'd vehemently declare. "Marriage or nothing. Our own commitment is what matters most anyway." Her attitude abruptly changed, she now tells me, after we began using a joint checking account. If having our creditors see us as a couple felt good, she reasoned, wouldn't having the recognition of our little town feel terrific? Takoma Park, after all, was offering everything it could. It cannot change the state marriage law. Many Americans believe a sexually active couple must be legally married to be "honest." Even the attorney trying to help lesbian Sharon Bottoms regain custody of her son is ensnared by that myth. "She can't make herself an honest woman and marry April Wade," he told a Virginia court this fall. But isn't it our lawmakers and judges who aren't being honest? They see gay couples truly wedded to a lifetime together yet refuse to recognize our right to marry. By slamming the door in our faces, they tell us this isn't a reasonable time. As the hour changes, we'll knock again on justice's door. Domestic partnership is not enough for a first-class relationship. Honest.