IT’S
ONE
THING
to
have
the
freedom
to
marry.
It’s
another
to
be
forced
to
marry.
In
his
editorial
last
week,
“Taking
the
blame
for
messing
up
marriage,”
Chris
Crain
argued
that
domestic
partner
benefits
should
be
limited
to
same-sex
couples,
and
then
yanked
away
when
those
couples
are
granted
the
right
to
marry.
To
the
contrary,
the
approach
he
suggests
is
not
a
way
to
strengthen
the
institution
of
marriage,
nor
does
it
help
the
very
real
families,
gay
and
straight,
that
exist
today.
A
fair-minded
approach
to
these
issues
is
based
on
fundamental
respect
for
personal
choices.
While
same-sex
couples
should
be
able
to
choose
whether
to
legally
marry,
marriage
should
never
be
the
only
way
of
ensuring
basic
rights
and
protections.
Even
after
same-sex
couples
can
get
married
in
every
state
in
the
union,
families
will
continue
to
come
in
many
shapes
and
sizes,
both
married
and
unmarried.
Domestic
partner
benefits
are
one
way
in
which
employers
recognize
this
growing
diversity
of
their
workforce.
Arguing
that
DP
benefits
are
merely
“interim
measures”
that
can
“be
dissolved”
once
marriage
is
available
perpetuates
the
same
system
of
exclusion
that
the
LGBT
community
has
long
condemned.
LET’S
IMAGINE
IT’S
2014,
a
decade
into
the
future.
A
lesbian
couple,
Jean
and
Susan,
have
been
together
for
25
years
and
raised
three
kids
together.
They
never
got
around
to
getting
married,
though.
Maybe
Jean
didn’t
want
to
get
a
marriage
license
because
years
ago
she’d
been
in
a
bad
marriage
to
a
man,
and
never
wanted
to
be
anyone’s
wife
again.
Or
maybe
Susan
believes
strongly
that
the
state
shouldn’t
be
in
the
marriage
business.
After
25
years
together,
Jean
is
in
a
serious
car
accident
and
in
intensive
care.
If
the
hospital
barred
Susan
from
her
side
because
they
weren’t
married,
would
gay
people
say,
“Serves
them
right
—
if
they
want
the
benefits
of
marriage,
they
should
have
gotten
married”?
Of
course
not.
We’d
say
Jean
and
Susan’s
lives
show
they
are
family,
whether
they
have
a
marriage
license,
and
hospital
visitation
privileges
need
not
be
based
on
marital
status.
And
that’s
the
point.
If
marriage
isn’t
an
adequate
litmus
test
for
“family”
when
it
comes
to
hospital
visitation,
what
makes
us
think
it’s
adequate
in
the
realm
of
employment
benefits
or
anywhere
else?
Marriage
is
one
way
to
recognize
who
is
family,
but
when
it’s
upheld
as
the
only
way,
real
families
are
endangered.
LUCKILY,
SAVVY
EMPLOYERS
understand
the
value
of
offering
domestic
partner
benefits
policies,
and
making
them
inclusive
of
both
same-sex
and
different-sex
couples.
There
are
now
well
over
7,300
employers
around
the
country
offering
DP
benefits.
Of
these,
a
whopping
92
percent
make
their
benefits
available
to
both
same-sex
and
different-sex
couples.
This
vast
majority
don’t
stipulate
that,
“If
you
can
marry,
you
must
marry”
to
qualify
for
health
benefits,
whether
you’re
heterosexual
or
LGBT.
These
facts
stand
in
serious
opposition
to
Crain’s
suggestion
that
different-sex
couples
were
included
in
these
policies
merely
because
“well-meaning
progressives”
and
“left-leaning”
gay
activists
were
trying
to
be
nice.
The
earliest
and
best
argument
in
favor
of
domestic
partner
benefits
is
to
provide
equal
pay
for
equal
work,
recognizing
the
increasing
family
diversity
within
the
workplace.
As
the
fight
for
marriage
continues
to
gain
ground,
let’s
not
follow
the
same
tactics
of
anti-gay
forces
and
begin
denying
couples
rights
and
benefits
they
already
have.
It’s
not
an
employer’s
role
to
deny
equal
pay
for
equal
work
to
an
employee
who
still
cannot
or
chooses
not
to
marry
for
personal,
political,
philosophical
or
financial
reasons.
Forcing
people
to
marry
because
they
need
health
care
does
not
strengthen
the
institution
of
marriage.
