Judy Morrissey is a heterosexual woman who chose to write a Research Paper on Domestic Partnership Insurance for gay employees.
In the United States today, one to twelve percent of the population is homosexual (Gilbert, 17). In recent years, gay men, lesbians and bisexuals have been fighting long and hard to get the same rights and benefits as their heterosexual counterparts. Now, in the 1990's, employers and health care providers are being made to listen to their cries for equality. Should employers offer health benefits for domestic partners of gay employees? This question is forcing society to think about, and possibly change, what their definition of couple/family truly means.
As would be expected, most employers offer health benefits to their heterosexual employees and their families. Some companies cover the total cost of this benefit, others cover the bulk of the cost while the employee contributes a small amount each week out of their salary. In some instances, this can account for 25% of the employee's total wages (Partners-Domestic). Employers are using the excuse of high expenses as their main reason behind not offering these same benefits to their homosexual employees. They think it will cost them more in health care contributions for homosexual employees than it does for heterosexual ones. Their main concern? AIDS. In reality, many current domestic partner plans relate that: "Less than one percent of the workforce participates, AIDS health care benefit costs come to only about one-tenth those of a premature baby, gay men do not always get AIDS, and AIDS is not exclusive to gay men" (Partners-Domestic).
A major obstacle for gay employees is that their employers have to confront their employee's homosexuality; something many employers are afraid of, or refuse to do. Using the law as their scapegoat by saying they are not doing anything illegal, some employers are practicing a form of discrimination. They do not realize that they are not being fair to all their employees. According to the Partners Task Force for Gay and Lesbian Couples, the major advantages to providing homosexuals with health benefits for the partners are:
There are also some drawbacks, but these should not stop employers from making them available:
Between September 1987 and October 1995, 380 employers, colleges, law firms, governments and unions began offering domestic partner benefits. Some of the most prominent ones offering medical benefits include: Cambridge MA, New York NY, Apple Computer Inc., Boston Children's Hospital, Lotus Development Corporation, Levi Strauss and Company, Microsoft, NYNEX, Sun Microsystems, Walt Disney Co., MIT, Brown University, and Stanford University (Companies). Many others offer benefits such as family leave policies, sick leave, parenting leave, relocation policies, and child care. Stanford University has one of the best domestic partners policies. Unmarried domestic partners, of both homosexual and heterosexual students, are allowed to have student housing, use of their athletic facilities and it's health clinic (Partners-Factoids).
The Home Economics Association defines a family as "Two or more persons who share resources, share responsibilities for decisions, share values and goals, and have commitments to one another over a period of time. The family is that climate that one comes home to; and it is that network of sharing and commitment that most accurately describes the family unit, regardless of blood, legalities, adoption or marriage" (Partners-Factoid). If a homosexual couple compares to this definition of a family, who are we as society, or the government, to deny them the same rights, recognition and benefits as a heterosexual couple who also falls into the same family definition?
In a survey done in 1988 and 1989 by the Partners Task Force for Gay and Lesbian Couples, it was found that 14% of homosexual women and 21% of homosexual men were Catholic. An interesting fact considering that most of the negative press directed towards homosexuality comes from the Catholic church and religious extremists. If even only a few of these gay Catholics have not made their sexual preference known to their fellow church-goers, chances are at least one person who speaks out against homosexuality may be unaware they are friends or aquaintances with someone leading a life they deem "immoral". In the same survey, it shows that only 4% of women and 6% of men have employer provided benefits for their partners and that 58% of women and 40% of men have encountered discrimination as a couple when it came to employment benefits. 75% of women and 82% of men responded that they and their partners live together and 32% of women and 36% of men show that they jointly own the residence they live in. Many of these people surveyed also raise children together, have each other as executor's of their wills, have given each other the power of attorney and wear a "wedding" ring to show their commitment to their partner (Partner-National). All of these actions are what we would expect of a heterosexual couple or family. A homosexual couple should be given the same respect and recognition as a heterosexual one - who they share their bed with should not be an issue.
As mentioned earlier, one of the biggest concerns employers have is the possibility of exhorbitant costs in covering homosexual employees and partners who are HIV positive or have AIDS. The University of Iowa Task Force did a study to find out how much HIV-related expenses would cost them if benefits were offered to its employees, faculty, and staff. Using an estimation of 8,000 employees that would be eligible for the program and a high-range participation of 152 of the University's faculty and staff, they determined the total cost would be $328,016. The total cost of health claims of *all* employees in 1990 was $18,971,309. The HIV-incurred costs would only be .8% to 1.7% of those costs. These figures show that employers should not be overly concerned about outrageous medical bills for their homosexual employees. In fact, preganancy claims are the highest costs that get charged to employers (University).
Law firms that have started to cover partners of homosexual employers have found the costs a lot less than they had anticipated. Milbank, Tweed estimated their costs to be $137,000 for the year when in fact they turned out to be less than $10,000 (Barge, 34). Other law firms claimed their numbers to be similar. The reason that these costs are so low is that many employees don't take advantage of the benefit, either out of fear of homophobia or because their partners already have coverage at their own places of employment. Some employers who have tried to implement a benefits plan for domestic partners are finding that their insurance carriers refuse to offer the service. Fortunatley, because these insurers are realizing that the costs between homosexuals and heterosexual domestic partners are not vastly different, they are becoming less severe in their denial of benefits for homosexuals. A partner at Wachtell, Lipton, Marc Wolinsky says, "Within the next two years, not offering health benefits to gay and lesbian employees will become the exception rather than the rule" (Barge, 35).
Below is a graph taken from a forum written by Ed Mickens called "Workline" (32), in The Advocate, a magazine written specifically for homosexuals. It shows the rise in the number of employers who offer domestic partner benefits:
INSERT GRAPH HERE!!!!
The quest for equality has brought many homosexuals to the point of bringing employers to court. What appeared to be the first Federal lawsuit of this type is a homosexual woman who brought suit against AT&T for not paying her the same benefits in the loss of her life partner as they would have for a woman who loses her husband. She and her partner had been together for a very long time, commiting themselves to one another in a ceremony in 1977. Because the law does not recognize a homosexual couple as it would a husband and wife, AT&T felt they had no reason to issue her any surviving partner benefits. The suit is pending (Lewin, n.pag).
Two employees of the Univeristy of Alaska challenged the school because when they requested to have their domestic partners covered under their health insurance, the president rejected them. They felt they were discriminated against because the University's policies state that employees cannot be denied based on marital status or sex. But, because Alaska does not recognize same-sex marriages, their complaint was dismissed. The two complainants then took the school to court. After a review of the case by the court, they reversed the University president's decision. Because their health plan stated there would be no discrimination on marital status, the University should have covered the domestic partner of the two employees (Superior).
In summary, society as a whole needs to re-evaluate its preconceived notion of what a family is. Homosexual couples living together as a family should be allowed the same rights, privileges and benefits as any other American citizen. Employers could lose out on a productive employee if they do not offer domestic partner benefits and insurance companies could lose a lot of money if they do not supply companies with these benefits. The homosexual community is not asking for a lot, they're just asking for the good health of the people they love most.
Barge, Jeff. "More Firms Offer Benefits for Gay Couples" ABA Journel, June 1995. pp34,35
Gilbert, Evelyn. "Carriers Responding to Gay Market's Demands" National Underwriter. Property & Casualty/Risk & Benefits Management. 6 Feb, 1995. p 17
Lewin, Tamar. "Suit Over Death Benefits Asks, What Is a Family?" New York Times 21 Sep. 1995,
Mickens, Ed. "What Good Are Partner Benefits?"
Partners Task Force for Gay and Lesbian Couples. "Domestic Partnership Benefits" 1995. Internet URL: http://www.eskimo.com/~demian/d-p.html. December 1995.
Partners Task Force for Gay and Lesbian Couples. "Factoids on Domestic Partnership Benefits" 1995. Internet URL: http://www.eskimo.com/~demian/d-p-fac.html. Dec 1995.
Partners Task Force for Gay and Lesbian Couples. "Partners National Survey of Lesbian and Gay Couples" 1995. Unternet URL: http://www.eskimo.com/~demian/survey.html. Dec 1995.
"Companies, Municipalities and Universities with Domestic Partnership Plans". Internet URL: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/dtw/www/companies.html.
"In the Superior Court For the State of Alaska Fourth Judicial District". Internet URL: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/scotts/domestic-partners/Tumeo_v_U_Alaska.txt
"University of Iowa Domestic Partner Coverage". Internet URL: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/scotts/domestic-partners/U-Iowa-costs.html.