News Gay Rights. Challenged?
posted by on February 23 at 16:37 PM
An AP story in today’s P-I caused state Senator Ed Murray (D-43, Seattle) to call a press conference this afternoon.
The story, Senator Murray believed, made it look as if the landmark bill he passed as a state representative last year in Olympia—known as the gay rights bill—had taken a blow.
Here’s the deal: In one of those double-reverse-backflip moves (trying to “oh yeah?” the gays it seems), a woman filed a complaint with the state Human Rights Commission (HRC), the first complaint filed using Murray’s bill, arguing that her boyfriend was being discriminated against on the basis of his sexual orientation because he wasn’t getting domestic-partner benefits from her employer.
The HRC ruled against her, saying federal law governs private employer health benefits—and since federal law doesn’t include protections for gender identity and sexual orientation, her claim didn’t fly.
That ruling seems a bit off point to me, however.
Apparently, Senator Murray thought so, too.
Here’s his statement:
I want to assure Washington’s gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) community that today’s ruling has no effect whatsoever on the progress we achieved last year with our anti-discrimination legislation. The Human Rights Commission has simply and correctly affirmed the scope of the law. The civil rights bill we passed last year applied to hiring and firing only – just as the underlying anti-discrimination law applies to hiring and firing only for all protected categories. HB 2661 was designed to help hard-working individuals who were being refused housing, denied job opportunities and turned down for credit because of their sexual orientation. We never addressed the issue of health benefits for unmarried couples in the bill.
Senator Murray says his new bill to create domestic partnerships is intended to start the process of addressing health benefits. (This session’s DP bill does not grant partners access to each others’ health plans, but does start checking off the list of other benefits like hospital visitation rights.)
However, the HRC ruling does reintroduce a question that many have asked since the DP bill was announced at the beginning of the session: Why aren’t straight unmarried couples included in the bill?
Murray’s answer: This session he’s focusing on the gays. At last month’s senate hearing on the DP bill, Senator Murray addressed the het issue, saying the issue of domestic partnerships for gays had been on the radar screen for years, but this was the first time we were hearing about unmarried het rights. The theory being, it seemed, that opponents of the bill were being sneaky.
Maybe. Or maybe sneaky staight couples should be eligible for domestic partnerships too.
Let me first state that I'm entirely supportive of full rights for gays, and that being a straight male I recognize how good I have it in our patriarchal society so I prioritize equal rights for gays before correcting other imbalances.
However, I'd love it if domestic partnership rights that are equivalent to what you get when married were available to everyone. I've been with my partner for over 6 years now. We bought a house together over 3 years ago.
Our relationship has lasted longer than a lot of marriages (celebrity AND otherwise) yet we're unable to access the benefits that we deserve only because we haven't bought into the marriage thing. Thankfully we're both gainfully employed, but it definitely gets under my skin that we're at a disadvantage because we haven't said our vows...
Yeah, because they, you know, choose not to partake of the rights and responsibilities of marriage that are already available to them. Such a burden. Why won't those gays share all their big rights with the poor downtrodden straight couples who choose not to marry? Mean gays.
Sneaky? Why do you discriminate against us straights who just want to live together in sin like you?
Sheesh, good thing I can always move to BC and be recognized as commmon-law married, like the EU does ...
Next thing you know you'll be insisting we straights have to get preggers when we marry ...
I guess what Murray actually means that he's focusing on the gays and on straight seniors.
Sneaky? Why do you discriminate against us straights who just want to live together in sin like you?
Yeah, I think they've got a point, in that straight unmarried people don't have access to the rights that gay unmarried folks do now. Of course, the solution to this is legalizing actual gay marriage, in my mind, not extending DPs to straights as well.
Unmarried het couples are eligible for domestic partnership benifits. It's called "marriage". If they let us get married we wouldn't need domestic partnership benifits.
Let me clarify. It's not that I'm pro-marriage in that I think the term marriage relates to something religious, which I am not. I think in the government's eyes everyone should be civil unionized domestic partners. Any two people of consenting age. Let your church decide whether or not they want to recognize it or not.
Monday is Equality Day in Olympia and I highly encourage everyone, hets included, to join us as we let our legislators know that we want equality and now!
http://www.equalrightswashington.org/
Every time I read DP, I think double penetration.
@7 Thanks for the clarification, monkey. The solution is to allow marriage for homosexuals AND expand the definition and rights of domestic partnerships, just like they've done in France.
@10 actually i think the solution is to not give anyone "special rights" for being paired off. everyone should have equal access to healthcare and benefits. and everyone should be able to decide who they want to make decisions for them if they are in need. let religious organizations determine who they want to marry or not.
@10 actually i think the solution is to not give anyone "special rights" for being paired off. everyone should have equal access to healthcare and benefits. and everyone should be able to decide who they want to make decisions for them if they are in need. let religious organizations determine who they want to marry or not.
there is something to be said for marriage, tho. it's a committment to be in a partnership, and that means, in very real terms "what's mine is yours, what's yours is mine" and you make it all legally binding and stuff. it encourages "being there for the long haul" and thinking in terms of "us" not "me." it's can be a very good thing, you know. (and i'm in favor of gays having access to it).
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).